333,782 posts
333,782 posts
1206 upvotes
by girlwriteswhat on /r/TheRedPill
29 May 2015 02:47 PM UTC
| Title | I am Karen Straughan [girlwriteswhat]; Ask Me Anything. |
|---|---|
| Author | girlwriteswhat |
| Upvotes | 1206 |
| Comments | 444 |
| Date | 29 May 2015 02:47 PM UTC (4 years ago) |
| Subreddit | TheRedPill |
| Link | https://theredarchive.com/post/33061 |
| Original Link | https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/37q4rh/i_am_karen_straughan_girlwriteswhat_ask_me/ |
© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.
Hello Karen. Good to have you here.
I'd like to know what your opinions are re: Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz
Schumer has admitted to what can be construed as rape, Dunham has owned up to doing things I'd rather not speak of to her little sister, while Sulkowicz has been proven to have lied about sexual assault and destroyed the reputation of Nungesser in the process.
Despite the information however, most feminists still support these individuals and blindly look past their faults, instead treating them as champions for the cause. My question is why, despite the evidence, do you think this is so? I can understand wanting to push forward their cause, but surely they could do it with people who's reputations aren't so publicly questionable?
http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html
Also this: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/12/0956797610385953.abstract
All three women became feminist celebrities before the iffy shit was made public. Sulkowicz in particular was rocketed to fame based solely on the narrative rather than talent or achievement. (Say what you will about "Girls" or Schumer's comedy, at least they put out a product.)
By the time all the icky details came out, in all three cases, feminists had invested a huge amount in terms of emotional attachment and PR effort. They're not just going to turn around and say, "woops! We were wrong..." They're going to double down and wait for the entire thing to blow over.
They're banking on the understanding that people will forget Nungesser before they forget "mattress girl". That people will forget one guy whose reputation was ruined before they forget that iconic image of a rape victim lugging her mattress all over campus.
They don't realize that the public is becoming increasingly jaded about this stuff, and that every time they defend it, they're taking a tire iron to their own credibility.
I hope they keep it up.
The ironic thing is that it is usually yourself, not your enemies, that lead to your downfall. Enemies make you sharper, stronger ... weakness comes from within.
This applies to social groups and civilizations just as much as individuals. Feminism increasingly taking up indefensible positions that blatantly violate their core principles around feminism is about equality is a perfect example.
I forget the name of this effect, but it happened with the whole Mike Brown/Eric Garner situation. Why wasn't Garner the icon of police abuse of blacks, instead of the obviously-assaulted-a-cop Brown?
The idea is, people will be much more fervent in the support of "questionable" victims, because it shows their commitment to the cause. In other words, anyone can support a victim who's obviously a victim (Garner), but you have to be a True Believer to support a sketchy victim (Brown.)
So, True Believers support unsupportable victims to signal group membership.
I actually wonder if the race baiters (like Sharpton) intentionally choose these ambiguous cases (Trayvon Martin, Brown, etc) because you can't have a race war when only one side is pissed off.
I doubt there would be much white indignation if the black community was screaming racism about Eric Garner, Walter Scott or that poor kid with the airsoft rifle who was shot before the cops were even all the way out of the car.
But look at the rhetoric around racism: it's collective. It's not just "this white cop", it's all of white society that's collectively to blame. When you try to cast blame over all whites for perpetuating a racist culture in a Martin or Brown case, whites don't like that. They get pissed. It gets the animosity stirred up on both sides of the racial divide much more effectively than if the shooting was 100% unjustifiable. And it stirs up white resentment of blacks.
It's like these particular people (activist leaders) are invested in racism, and they (maybe subconsciously) go out of their way to perpetuate the conditions that keep them in paychecks and justify their existence.
If racism ended, they'd be out of a job. The last three generations are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in history. Where's the money and status in that, for your average Sharpton?
It's funny you mention that. I put Sharpton in the same category of people as feminists like Jessica Valenti. They're peddlers of outrage, parasites of a sort. Your point, about it can't be a war if only one side is upset, is a fantastic one. If they rallied behind Eric Garner, there would be no conflict -- most of us would be in agreement. Al Sharpton would become irrelevant.
On another note, there are a ridiculous number of parallels between Feminism and Multiculturalism. One group (whites/men) has historically oppressed another group (women/minorities), to the point where we need preferences, quotas, and legal favoritism to compensate. Like women, minorities are more than happy to opportunistically play into the rhetoric if it means they get free giveaways.
I see this happen a lot: guys "redpill up" on sex, and get in the habit of questioning the mainstream narrative. They apply those reasoning skills in other areas, and realize that "racism" is a similar bullshit victim narrative to Feminism, also peddled for profit.
Yup. You start questioning one of the holy cows of PC thought for whatever reason and once you start to notice that very similar lines of reasoning are applied to other situations, you start questioning them as well.
Old reply, but I thought I'd offer my perspective. They don't choose those cases, but those cases are definitely the cases that are promoted.
The cases that go viral are the cases which are ambiguous. Everyone agrees that clear-cut cases are abhorrent, so nobody feels the need to argue. Nobody shares those cases to win arguments with their friends, nobody has arguments in comment sections about those cases, and most importantly nobody gets annoyed at the people sharing these stories for race baiting.
When they're posted to Reddit, everyone nods at each other, goes "Yep, that's awful" and that's it. The story disappears.
When it's an ambiguous case, it gains momentum because more people argue over it. Arguments create momentum. It's the same reason AVFM got popular - people shared it because they disagreed with it. It was inflammatory and that created arguments.
In the race baiting case I don't think it's deliberate, I think it's organic, but I think it's the same mechanism.
Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are smart women that know how to bait the MRA/Feminist cunts into creating a shitstorm. They want to create controversy ahead of any major releases by means of baiting the mindless sheep. Some MRA idiots on TRP have once again gone on a whinging spree and made Amy Schumer the top post. Needless to say, on looking her up I found that she has a major release lined up. Well done, we all know about her now.
Sulkowicz just reeks of BPD or some other Cluster B personality disorder.
Most feminists do, I would hazard to guess.
If she got diagnosed she would just blame it on her "traumatic rape experience"...the one where she literally texted the guy to "fuck her up the butt"
Which is hilarious since her dad is a big shot NYC shrink.
I think they just know how to play people.
Youd be surprised how many psychologists hace fucked up kids.
And are fucked up themselves. Guess why many of them are interested in psychology/psychiatry in the first place
Reminds me of a conversation I overheard while a was a waiter (over a decade ago).
"People who study psychology tend to be screwed up. Either they are from the start, or they aren't, but have to analyze someone when they apply what they learned, and usually end up with analyzing themselves. The result is that if they haven't been screwed up before, now they are."
Not any more, having met many.
It's my understanding most shrinks hate dealing with BPDs because between all the lying and sudden confrontational attitudes, they can't do anything to help them.
Amy Schumer was already pretty mainstream. She's a wildly outspoken feminist, and as long as the fury stays here and doesn't turn into a Mad Max level of cultral frame-breaking, then I don't see a problem with it being the top post. It's pretty big because never before has a famous feminist been in a position like this. It is a new thing development.
Only by the PC nutjobs, i.e., sex with a drunk (woman) is by definition rape.
If someone you're having sex with is so drunk they keep passing out and you keep having to wake them up, that's a little much.
Common complaints against TRP include but are not limited to the following:
What are your thoughts on this? Are any or all of these complaints valid? Why or why not?
Of course TRP is sexist. Pretty much everything and everyone is sexist. You know, if sexism means acknowledging that men and women are different.
No, it's not misogynistic. Some of the rhetoric here is very angry, and very generalized. A lot of that is from a sense of betrayal--I was taught women are wonderful and believed it, and then the shit hit the fan. There's a point, though, if the journey isn't suppressed through punishment and shaming, where these men tend to realize it's the false paradigm they're angry with, not women. That they hate being lied to, not the people they were lied to about. The degree of the anger seems to be correlated with the degree of hurt, and the degree of hurt to the impact of the betrayal once it's realized, and the impact of the betrayal to how deeply they'd bought into the myth that women are more than human (or at least more human than men). If these men didn't love women in the first place, they wouldn't be able to be hurt by their failure to live up to the unrealistic expectations society has encouraged them to have. At some point, I think, RP men arrive at an understanding that women piss and shit and fart and do shitty things and aren't perfect, just like men, and that's okay. It's the ubiquity, immensity and the extremity of the lie that women ARE wonderful that makes the pill hard to swallow and generates all this angry, bitter rhetoric. Men need to be allowed the space to vent and work through that, and for some, spaces like TRP are going to be more useful than a men's rights space.
If it's full of virgin neckbeards, it's full of virgin neckbeards being encouraged to hit the gym, groom their beards, get presentable and maybe get laid.
This one always makes me wonder. Though I suppose it's part and parcel of Dworkin's "there's a difference between a seducer and a rapist. The seducer typically buys a bottle of wine." But when you look at male on female violence, a lot of it is rooted in a sense of male powerlessness. Men who have confidence and mastery over themselves and their situations don't need to resort to violence to get what they want from women (whether it's sex or cooperation or respect or whatever), and they're less wanting of these things in general because they're more fulfilled in themselves, more self-sufficient. A rapist is a very damaged man (usually damaged by women) or a man who really really really wants sex but can't convince a woman to willingly lie down with him. TRP isn't any of those things. It's about teaching men how to convince women they want to lie down with them, and about convincing men that sex with women isn't some lofty, pristine goal that must be achieved at any cost. A lot of feminists seem to think that teaching a man what makes women's panties wet is some crime against all womankind. They want it to remain a mystery, so only men with "natural game" can crack the enigma. A man who has to learn how to attract women is a fraud pulling one over on those women, etc. And I suppose if you consider that rape, then yes, TRP is full of rapists. But I personally don't.
What I've always hated about this notion, often used to shame or silence redpills and MRA's alike, is that it's not only untrue, completely hypocritical(the women would basically dismiss MRA's as "neckbeards" would be the first to protest against the notion that all feminists are just fat ugly dykes), circular reasoning("neckbeards are unattractive to women, therefore they are of lower value; Neckbeards are of lower value, therefore unattractive to women; because they are of lower value and unattractive to women, treating them like shit is justified) and because it's often used to justify a lot of the hatred, disdain and misandry thrown at men(as well as dismiss their experiences, views and arguments), but also because the name is often used in absolute disregard for many of the very social issues that still plague western culture.
Fact is, a guy that hits the gym his entire life, who grooms himself daily and presents himself in a decent manner could most certainly be subject to the same circumstances, and subject to the unrealistic expectations, gender roles, vilification and misandry. Hitting the gym, grooming and manners don't make the difference. If it was that easy of a solution, there wouldn't even be a problem in the first place. If those virgins could just magically make women appear, ready to treat them fairly and honestly, simply by lifting weights, then every man would be hitting the gym every day.
And, honestly, even if the movement was full of "neckbeards" and virgins, that really doesn't justify or validate any of the inequalities that exist in western culture, or that those men might be subjected to either. Could you ever imagine anyone else telling fat women that their rights don't matter because they are fat women? Or disregarding anything a woman says because she was a virgin?
When women disregard men, or any kind of men's rights arguments, because they are just "virgin losers complaining", they are not just showing how little regard they actually have for men in general but they are also blatantly flaunting their own power and privilege to their faces, bullying men on factors that are only relevant because women say so and shaming men on qualities and expectations that they themselves would never have to be subjected to because they are women. The women who call men neckbeards, or shame them for not having any luck with women, do so from a position of absolute privilege. They can hold whatever views they want, and don't really need to be all that fit or well groomed, and they will always have suitors available to them. They are judging men for social expectations they are exempt from themselves.
People like to talk about 'toxic masculinity', but when it comes time to shame men they use insults that are a direct attack on a man's masculinity.
"You're probably gay", "you're just some loser virgin", "you're being such a pussy", "you're weak", etc.
It's funny; if masculinity is so toxic, insults such as these should be seen as compliments.
Another interesting aspect of the hypocrisy re the neckbeard guy who can't get laid...
Have you guys seen David Futrelle? Or "Angry Aussie"? Or any number of other hipster douchebag male feminists who are fat, have neckbeards, wear fedoras, have difficulty getting laid, etc?
A lot of the men I've met in my travels through the MRM are awkward or otherwise don't remind women of Matthew McConaughey. But a lot of them are quite presentable. Confident, attractive, fit, and definitely not virgins. When my bf reintroduced me to the movement, when we were first dating, he was also dating two other women--a burlesque performer and a nursing student slash model. A lot of these guys have lots of options re sex with women. They just don't see a lot of options regarding stable relationships with solid, reasonable women.
As far as fat women, or unattractive women, I can certainly imagine people dismissing what they say based on that. Not dismissing their rights, but dismissing their complaints. Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who said feminism was a way for ugly women to gain access to the mainstream? Last I checked, he still had a job.
Truth be told, there probably is some truth to the idea that low SMV leads to a desire for the politicization of one's personal issues. I'm sure there are some MRAs who are in this mainly because they can't get laid and are simply not willing or able to do what it takes to get laid. I'm sure the same is true for some feminists. But they aren't the majority in either case, in my opinion.
Personally, I think that within feminism, there are women who are out to settle some score with men. (It isn't that I don't think there are men who are around with the same mindset as much as they aren't openly political about it.) It isn't a matter of attractiveness as much as they have some axe to grind, and feminism had the most convenient sharpener.
They 80/20 rule is at play here, the people that are actively participating in the dialogue do not represent the majority.
So while the cry of Radfem or Neckbeard is true, they don't represent the whole. The majority of us live in the murky greys of the world. The luxury of seeing an issue in black and white terms just isn't available to us, we're way to busy for that.
There was an article I read called 'GenX is tired of your Bullshit' and it was directed at the boomers, as all of these social fights that are going on are still their narrative.
GenX and to a greater extend the millienials, just never had access to power and influence outside of the Boomers social issues.
The main entry point into power and prestige are their issues (feminism, environmental, economic, etc), activism is one of the few ways younger people have gained power.
Power corrupts, we know that as a species, we've paided for that knowledge is blood, sweat, and tears of both genders. Its why the best systems, in the here and now, factor those checks and balances into themselves.
College tryrants are all over the place, in Canada we had the whole human rights tribunal fisaco with MacLeans, these are all similar access points to real power that is otherwise cut off.
So for most of us, its just fucking confusing as all fuck. We know some of it is "truish" and the time it takes to dig away all the crap is exhausting.
So we don't push at it too much, people keep fucking because thats what most of us, most of the time, enjoying doing.
Vocal minorities pushing political correct shame agenda's need to get out of the dialogue. The system needs to be built that just plain out igornes them.
If I could figure out a system that allowed the 80% to make the decisions and exclude the 10% at each end(without being a giant douche), I'd be king of this world baby!
Now see, you can't use Mathew McConohay as an example. Mathew McConohay is a fairy tale... The only way you know him is the character he portrays in movies. There are no Unicorns and there are no Mathew McConohays.
TheRedPill/comments/365ii4/no_one_cares_about_low_value_males/
Basically if you are currently a low value male, you should kill yourself. Seriously, society wants you to shut the fuck up about relationships and sex entirely and just kill yourself.
Also all of the criticism against TRP can be viewed as a massive shit test. That's why I no longer engage anyone (especially the children on Reddit) in a debate about whether or not TRP is "wrong", which doesn't even make sense.
In a shit test of this sort, you lose by engaging, you win by ignoring it and continuing to have an awesome life with your awesome self.
So ironic, when popular culture tries so hard to convince us how sexy old women can be and only very bad men are not attracted to huge obeasts.
Where are all the movies about shy and socially awkward, but otherwise pretty average guys, being special snowflakes and deserving love and endless mind-blowing sex because of their innate value as human beings? <I kid, I know that will never happen>
There is one I can think of, it's called "She's out of my league" starring Jay Baruchel
I thought to myself, hey cool, maybe that might be a good movie to watch, when you wrote that.
Just read the plot synopsis on wikipedia ...
Threw up in my mouth a little. Why? I'll explain at the end.
It's just glorifying a cock carousel riding woman with a past of dating "macho bad boys" (air force pilot, aka AF) settling with a beta bucks provider "nice guy" afterward when she's ready to "settle down".
This is a movie that came out 5 years ago targeting to ME... Men in my generation... in an attempt to get us to settle down and marry CC riding sluts, in an effort to convince US that we were "winning in the end".
Why wouldn't this happen? Seems like a way to make billions playing off the average beta's emotions.
Superbad?
Well they don't exactly want you to kill yourself because then you can't pay taxes.
I had somebody on an unrelated sub a couple of days ago go through my post history and use my occasional posts to TRP to supposedly "out" me as a neckbeard rapist-virgin terper, and trigger a downvote cascade on one of my posts. Nope, I used no TRP references or jargon in my post. She really went digging for it.
I tell you guys, this sub is hated out in the tumblr-dominated SJW rest of reddit.
Yah...I'm starting to get a little concerned with the level of hate towards TRP when its so easy to verify what the TRP is talking about isn't anything like that.
They are getting really upset that their attempt to label all 'manosphere' (god I hate that name, sounds so web 2.0-ish) as hate groups isn't really taking hold.
They are used to just steamrolling anything and now they had a few defeats, gamersgate seems to have been a pretty big one, and are pushing hard.
Take a look over in asktrp I'm the difference between ask feminism, top comment is a great summary of the two.
Funny considering a woman who dons make up, has had plastic surgery etc. isn't considered a fraud, pulling one over men, but a woman empowered. I guess it all goes back to society's unrealistic portrayal of women, but the cognitive dissonance is significant to say the least.
I recall an article by someone trying to make "rape by deception" a thing, and he took great pains to explain how make-up and breast implants and the like were "just different". Heh.
Indeed, the entire dating culture is based on at least some level of deception. As the famous Chris Rock once said, when you meet somebody for the first time, you're only meeting their "representative". Nobody is completely honest about who they truly are up front. I could say "I'm in the medical field", and woman fucks me because she assumes I'm a doctor, when really I'm only an ass-wiping orderly for incontinent senior citizens.
This happened all the time when I was in the Air Force. I'd tell girls I was in the AF, and literally every single one of them asks "so what plane do you fly?" In reality, I "flew" a workstation looking at satellite imagery all day.
The problem with "rape by deception" is that two people in a dispute are rarely, if ever, going to come to an agreement on what "deception" is. One person's "trickle truth" is another person's "full disclosure". For example, a woman says "I have a kid (trickle truth)....with downs and cerebral palsy" (full disclosure).
Which is why these dream field utopian laws that these feminists whip up in their heads is complete lunacy.
Women are indeed curious. I've met an Air Force mechanic. His job was just as important as those flying the planes, and just as important as yours analyzing satellite imagery. It's weird how they can't see that your job was still important because they are so fixated on you being a pilot, which they find attractive. It's like for a woman attractiveness overrides logical thinking.
Unfortunately, it's not a joke, but a real threat. Sweden and Israel already have "rape by deception" laws in place.
The whole concept is really interesting to me - that it's considered shameful for a guy to artificially inflate his value as a mate, but completely acceptable for a woman to do the same. You say it has to do with society's unrealistic portrayel of women, and maybe you're right, but my gut feeling is that there also has to be some evo psych reason for this.
The most obvious explanation I can think of is that women are predisposed to hate it because they think they're getting bona fide alpha sperm but they're really getting a beta in disguise. Because bearing a man's child represents a truly massive resource investment on the part of a woman, she can't afford to get tricked like this.
However, for a guy (in the state of nature, before financial divorce rape), dumping his cum into a random chick and impregnating her is no great resource investment. So if she pretties herself up, it doesn't really matter if he's getting fooled or not - he's still spreading his genes around. Any thoughts on this?
Women want men to be without artifice - so that the power of women to chose is not diluted.
Women are invested in keeping the process of attraction mysterious. They will keep the process hidden from themselves and others, in order to maximise the power of their whimsy.
Men, and in particular TRP and PUA men, want the power to chose themselves.
Women who are not self aware enough to understand their own process of attraction can have their whimsy manipulated.
Fundamentally, the conflict is over who has the power to chose their sexual partners, and its a zero-sum game.
For example, there is a technique I use called the "Loudest Monkey" technique. Basically, when you are with women, you do something that makes you the loudest person in the room. Women are irresistibly drawn to this on an animal level. 80% of the time, it works every time. And yet, when I tell women about this technique, not a single one will admit that it might work.
Absolutely amazing. Lolllll
This is a variation of the "podium effect". Put 50 clones in a room, and the one speaking to the group at the podium will be considered the most attractive. It comes down to who holds the attention of the group (for whatever reason).
Women are attention whores.
Yep. Men don't do so much choosing, at least 10,000 years ago on the savannah. Back then, a woman was pretty much like any other. If a guy could get some, he got it, and that was pretty much all the 'choosing' he did.
10,000 years ago on the savannah, there would be a dozen or a few dozen women in your tribe. That was your "dating" pool.
You still had to convince one to lie down with you.
ah they dont do that for men, they do it all for themselves! .
I've conversed with a few people on the left that view the human mind as a blank slate at birth. They straight up denied sexual dimorphism. From this, it follows that all gender roles are arbitrary and oppressive because it forces people to adopt lifestyles and behaviors that are determined by irrelevant physical characteristics instead of their own free will.
These few people I've talked to laughed at the suggestion that men and women are different.
By the way, these were moderates, not even your SJW tumblr stereotype.
Even if we were blank slates with only physical characteristics different, we'd see sex differences in outcomes. Men are stronger and have differences in stamina, women have babies and lactate, etc.
Taking that further, how to you separate physical differences from other types, when you consider differences in hormones? There's a physical characteristic with direct psychological link.
You'd see a lot more bros majoring in sociology if you could become physically stronger simply by hearing a lecture on "elective gender roles".
I've been seeing that as well. It's crazy that people actually believe that nonsense.
Willfull ignorance, not the sort of people I would bother talking to. There are loads of papers about differences between the sexes - real physiological, neurological and behavioural differences. But the people you are talking about don't want to know.
I went to a liberal arts college, and every sociology or "social justice" class (which are required for all students) teaches this shit as being a fact. I always found it strange that none of the professors championing this blank slate theory were scientists.
Yep. It's the default point of view. In the modern western world, it's akin to religious canon. You simply do not question it.
If you do?
Enjoy that hellfire coming your way.
Those are the sorts of people I like to troll into saying both "Gender is a social construct" and "Being gay isn't a choice".
I've always loved that inconsistency:
"Gender is a social contract except when someone is gay."
...well someone has to be more equal than others.
Could you please further explain that? I thought about it and I guess most people will tell you, that you have to differ between biological gender and conditioned gender. Being gay doesn't mean you feel attracted to people identifying themselves as males, but being attracted to the physical characteristics of a biological male. Think about it, not every homosexual guy acts feminine and likes male character traits. Also vice versa. "All they have in common" is their craving for cocks.
So both "Gender is a social construct" and "Being gay isn't a choice" are not contradicting each other or am i making a logical mistake?
In Psychology, we have a word for those who believe in "Tabula Rasa," the blank slate:
childless.
The way to debunk this is ask them to Google
Top 10 Unethical Psychological Experiments
See what No.1 is. They tried to turn a boy into a girl from birth.
In a very general sense, the human mind has a blank slate at birth. But that's not a good argument.
The human mind and body are extremely regulated by the sex hormones and as soon as they kick, sexual dimorphism takes over for the rest of the life of all individuals.
That is, unless the sex glands are removed, and even then, some of the changes are permanent.
Even the hamster that felt 'oppressed' was created by the sex hormones.
You pretty much summed up why all of the main arguments against TRP are just straw mans. The accusation that TRP is full of rapists always baffled me the most because the consensus seems to be that rape is a beta mating strategy, because your SMV is so low that you have to resort to physical force to reproduce. I've never once seen any Red Piller advocating initiating force against women.
Quite the opposite actually. I mean, we pretty much go by the mantra "If she isn't throwing herself at you then forget it. Don't pursue women."
the RP response to a LMR is to disengage completely until she re-initiates
I've seen it a few times in the comments, quickly followed by a dozen downvotes and calling that individual a dumbass that should leave TRP. Also there was a mod sticky one time that warned any individual advocating violence against women would be banned immediately.
Resorting to physical force shows an extreme loss of frame and social naivety. This is an authoritarian tyrant that rules with fear.
The alpha male is the exact opposite. Strong frame (strong emotional control), and socially intelligent. He inspires those around him to give him what he wants, and they are happy to do so. This is a benevolent king that rules with love.
BPers don't understand this distinction. They believe that all forms of manipulation are inherently evil. They lump together the benevolent king with the authoritarian tyrant because of their arbitrary, narrow-minded moralizing.
Indeed. To renounce all forms of manipulation you'd have to renounce all forms of social contact period.
The harsh truth is, every single interaction you have with another human has a manipulative side to it without exception. The game never sleeps, never stops. It even continues on after you're dead, and there isn't a damn thing you can or should do about it.
And this is coming from someone with a black and white sense of morality. The trick is to see where it all ends up without becoming a hardcore utilitarian or moral relativist because of it. To understand the evil so that we may avoid dealing with it and its negative consequences as much as possible rather than just doing things that'll ultimately screw us over down the road like try to politicize our problems.
Thing is everyone should have been told about all of this in the beginning, it would have saved most people and society a whole lot of trouble. Sadly, keeping the masses and the AFC's ignorant of game is how rulers rule. Feminism and all forms of tyranny would never fly if the AFC's knew and accepted the truth about human interaction instead of buying into those nice pretty lies the tyrants and feminists cram down their throats with their propaganda (which they also know nothing about, otherwise commercials and the like wouldn't get them to stupidly buy things on credit or have a huge impact on their behavior in general).
Right. Social interaction is itself, manipulation. If you think manipulation is wrong, then you believe social interaction is wrong. If you currently interact with human beings, including arguing with me about this, you are a hypocrite or don't really believe what you're saying.
I guarantee you every one of these people who says manipulation is wrong has googled things like, "how do I write a good resume", "interview tips", "how do I deal with difficult people", "how do car salesmen trick you" etc. All that stuff is game/manipulation.
It's also irresponsible to ignore the game. People who believe playing the game is shallow and wrong have relationships in their life that they care about, family and friends, unless they are completely alone. By ignoring the game, you are purposefully lessening your power to protect and lift up these people. You are bringing down your friends and family with you. You are purposely ignoring knowledge that will help make your friends and family happier, or even ensure their survival in extreme situations.
"Just be yourself!"
When they say "just be yourself" they should add "without apologies, and fully owning up to your own flaws which you and everyone else has without exception. You're you, you cannot be anything more or less if you want to be happy." If you have a flaw you don't like in yourself or others (laziness, being physically weak, being malignantly manipulative, being ugly, ect) then get to work on it sooner rather than later. Take responsibility for your actions and the hand you were dealt in this life, the sooner you do, the sooner you can be truly happy.
Nobody's perfect, but you can still be the "best" you you can be. It's never "too late" for you to change. It'll take time, effort, and you'll probably get more than your fair share of cuts, bruises, and you'll almost certainly weep a few tears (even if you're a man), but you can do it. We can ALL do it, those that claim otherwise are lying, trying to drag you down with them because they don't want to accept the truth and hate that you both have and are happy while they wallow in the misery they have brought down upon themselves.
There is no easy or "right" path in this, life and times are hard, and you must fight in one form or another for what's truly worthwhile. It's a harsh message people like those here are trying to deliver, but we knew that going in. We knew we'd catch more flak than we really should even from those who claim to ally with us, for telling the truth should be rewarded yet it is punished in the modern world as it has always been throughout history.
Your reward for trying to make the world a "better" place is likely going to be a bullet in the brain (and that's if you're lucky, figures like Jesus weren't so you shouldn't expect to be either). Yet you must persist anyway. The greatest tragedy is the life spent needlessly. To make a "pointless" sacrifice of it and not show at least one other person the path before or in your death. Lives are the ultimate currency, if you don't spend yours wisely, how can you expect others to? How can you even expect to do the same if you think others ought expend theirs for your own vision if you're one of the few "good" people remaining alive?
The true prophet is usually hated as he (or she) utters the words of truth. And they take the hit like a champion and continue anyway, because a better world is worth fighting for, worth even dying for. Overcome yourself, your flaws, and you'll make a difference. Doesn't even matter if it's a small one.
For those who love others, the game is how you make others happy so you cannot ever ignore it for even a second. Funny thing though, in making others happy you've almost certainly made yourself happy. Some would call that "selfish", I would call that amazing. To make someone other than yourself happy without sacrificing your life and instead living it to the fullest with joy in your heart... Isn't that the ideal? What we wish everyone else would or could do? I know that's my wish, and fuck anyone who tells me I'm wrong about that.
This doesn't mean rape is fundementally inferior, but you're definitely right.
I love this. One of my biggest Red Pill learnings has been "watch what women do, not what they say". That simple idea would have saved so many self-designated "nice guys" a world of hurt. No, women don't like "jerks", they like strong confident accomplished men. Those guys get lots of tail. They don't have time to put every woman on a pedestal.
Haha! Exactly! And then many women settle for BB precisely because the Alpha with high SMV will not lower himself to one knee so that the woman will figuratively and literally tower over him. He ''ain't got no time fo that'' so to speak.
I think "watch what women do, not what they say" is definitely the first and most important step to unplugging for most guys. It opens the door to the sometimes-painful realization that a woman's sexual strategy is often deceptive by nature, even if she doesn't realize it herself.
Thank you for your well thought out response. I'm glad to see you agree with the premise of TRP.
We understand the hate, but everyone else doesn't. If you were lied to your whole life so women can get a meal ticket after fucking guys hotter than you, wouldn't you be a bit bitter at the world? It's called the anger phase. Most people here are newcomers. If you look at the veterans of this sub, including myself, you'll find that we believe the opposite of what society accuses us of. We don't hate women, we understand them. It goes against the grain and people don't like that, especially when we bring actual science into it, that's when everyone goes nuclear. People can talk all the shit they want, after discovering TRP, I've been in an upward spiral. I don't have to convince or manipulate women into anything, they more than willingly convince themselves. That's what happens when you're buff and fun.
I agree with everything you just said except the point that it would (absolutely) not be miogynistic: Here I see some analogies to the feminist movement actually; since TRP has no gatekeepers (for good) naturally people who hate women as a group for personal reasons (as you explained, not necessarily a reason to hate or ignore them), can easily alighn themselves with a lot of what is being said in this environment. Of course it is not right to use this group of people (who really think all women are evil) to dismiss the whole Forum as being misogynistic or intellectually wrong, which is what is obviously done by the feminist public. This is the one big problem I have with TRP and partly with (other) fractions in the MRM; their dynamics remind me a lot of radical feminist groups which are full of people who are irrationally hatefull often because of very negative personal experiences they might have had with the opposite gender. Or enjoy seing themselves in a victim role. It is important to understand those people and address the problems that led to their issues. Neither dismissing them as a hate group nor ignoring that there are actually problems within their narrative and reality really meets this standard. The actual tone in some of the discussions here makes me worry that TRP will sooner or later degenerate to some part of an equally unpleasant and antiintellectual mirror image of modern feminism. So I think it is our duty to oppose those peoples opinions and help them getting a less emotional and more rational version of the truth, being less bitter and more constructive.
Does it occur to anyone else that all of these exceptions to TRP are ad hominem? I mean, nobody wants to discuss the theory proper, only insult the virility of users?
My jaw is on the floor : you say out LOUD these things which almost no one ever does, willingly or unwillingly. Men owe you a debt of gratitude and loyalty for your support. It fills me with a very positive vibe to remember that a woman has done so much for men.
From an evo-psych standpoint, this makes perfect sense. When she's after the good genes, she doesn't want anyone to be able to 'fake' the effects (confidence, preselection, etc.) of those good genes.
Brilliantly worded.
I'm interested in Karen's response, but something I posted the other day that you may be interested is this quote:
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” -Thomas Sowell
IMO that sums up perfectly the #1 reason TRP is seen as anti-women. It's largely the same reason MRAs and anti-feminists are seen as being a bunch of "misogynists". People are just so accustomed to women's preferential treatment that anything that threatens that status quo is viewed in a negative light.
I did a write-up in PPD about the "Halo Effect" and it's relationship to AWALT and pedestalization. For those reading who are unaware, Halo Effect is a cognitive bias in which people, in general, will automatically assign good, noble, wholesome traits to things we find physically/visually appealing. In other words, a beautiful woman could be Satan's wife, but knowing nothing about her but her looks, we will assume she is a good, wholesome person.
As this applies to women, they grow up from when they were little girls with literally everybody being nice to her, giving her preferential treatment, dismissing her shortcomings, and excusing her failures. She's been going through her whole life donning this Halo, no matter if she's cheating on her BF, scheming on other girls behind her back, or failing Algebra class.
TRP rips the Halo off, and women hate that. They feel naked without their Halo.
Neoteny. It's important. The cuter someone is, the nicer we assume they are. For women, that cuteness is also associated with attractiveness to the opposite sex. So everyone thinks cute women are automatically nice, and men also find them sexually appealing.
Women are definitely more physically neotenous. Shorter heights, flatter foreheads, more soft childlike features, no facial hair, less hair loss, etc.
However, it's always seemed to me that men are more mentally neotenous. If you consider being innately interested in things a neotenous trait (and even feminists recognize how women tend to have this trait in childhood, but lose it in adolescence), men definitely have women beat there.
I also think there's a very big difference between "cuteness" and "sexually appealing". I definitely like both, but certain traits tend to be one or the other, and a surprising number of men tend to concur with me on this. It actually wasn't until sometime late in puberty (late teens) that I started to see "cuteness" as something that was separate from "sexy".
Akin to the assertion you hear around here that women will make rules for the men they find unattractive and excuses for the men they do.
That last paragraph was fuckin money
Thomas Sowell is the man; nice quote.
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958
A very enlightening paper.
Interestingly, Amy Yeung, the author of that article, has a Woman's Studies minor. That she published a paper like this is rather uncharacteristic.
She also recently hosted a feminist event on how to deal with those dastardly MRAs. I was quite disappointed, given her conclusions in this paper.
What was decided at this anti-MRA event?
Any inside info?
I agree with this. Women have been and pumped up with so much false compliments, entitlement, and specialsnowflakery for so long (even before the self-esteem movement, which has undoubtedly made it worse) that even civil disagreement and/or constructive criticism results in a toddleresque tantrum of epic proportions.
I think even if the environment was completely neutral, women would generally trend toward seeing disagreement and criticism as an attack. At least more than men do.
That is, you don't need to train women into special snowflakery--you have to train them out of it.
You're probably correct. It seems that the heart of the issue is that humans, as their baser nature, tend to be controlling and selfish- the only difference being the nuances in how the resulting behavior manifests itself between the sexes if said nature isn't controlled.
What has happened is males, generally, are taught not to indulge these instincts, whereas females' potential to behave poorly either go unacknowledged or actually encouraged.
Basically it's the same as how people view/treat large dogs as compared to small ones. Rottweilers are automatically perceived as dangerous merely for being larger, and held, often, to an unreasonable expectation of discipline regardless of circumstances, while pomeranians typically aren't disciplined at all, yet they can bark incessantly, bite everyone for no reason at all, maybe even maim or kill a baby, and every says it's ok, that they're not a problem, and don't need discipline...essentially because they're small, fluffy, and cute.
Just look at the default position over at r/askfeminism if your premise disagrees with their ideals, it's not considered a genuine question at all and won't be answered.
How goes that joke?
Feminism is like Facebook - you're only able to hit the "like it"-button.
I find it funny that feminists could use this quote to "prove" the patriarchy.
Women absolutely LOVE the Patriarchy; they either just don't know it or don't want to admit it to anyone. Every stable and successful civilization throughout history has been patriarchal.
In terms of raw strength,
Patriarchy>Anarchy>Matriarchy
In other words, the only thing that keeps savage, anarchal hoards at the city gates is a strong patriarchy defending it's women, children, and territory. Remove the patriarchy tomorrow, and all of the strong, masculine defense that goes with it, return society to "survival of the fittest", and women will quickly become reacquainted with what "rape" and "abuse" really is.
Attilla the Hun nor Alexander the Great, in their expeditions in conquering Europe and the Far East, didn't come across a Matriarchal society and say "whoops, nothing to see here, boys, let's just move along."
The few "matriarchies" out there (which are not matriarchies in the sense of a reversal of gender roles, but which grant women superior status and do not reward men for their disposability) are generally poor, have no technology that they weren't gifted by their neighbors, have nothing anyone thinks is worth stealing (including their land), and still compel men into disposable roles.
Can you or anyone else give me some current or historical examples? I'd like to read about this myself.
The Mosuo is the big one. On the border between China and Tibet, I believe.
You just know you have a quote gem there. All the more power to ya. Keep posting it. Honestly you deserve 100 times the karma you got from that quote. That thing is fucking genius and exposes so much in so little time!
Genius explains complex ideas in simple terms, thereby granting those previously unempowered the insight to propagate genius themselves.
When I want to become a better woman I don’t read articles about how I should stop wearing deodorant and become intoxicated by my own potential filth because it’s ‘empowering’. I read as much as I can, refine my own individual interests, or I research the healthiest foods within my budget or the most effective ways to utilize machines at the gym if I am crunched for time. Before going on a message board to tell the world how much gender inequality is a sociopolitical vice that ought to immediately be changed, I try to evaluate the origin of these disparities before assuming it’s a product of moral malpractice or a miscarriage of justice. In other words, if women are underrepresented in an area not because of oppression, but because it is a field that they statistically do not autonomously seek (e.g., heavy machinery, construction, politics), to presume that inequality is immoral or ought to be changed is false.
TRP encourages growth for both men and women; it doesn't say that a woman who is morbidly obese, tirelessly promiscuous, or habitually aggressive in behavior is inherently bad and unalterably so. Instead, it provides a means to become the best possible version of yourself. It encourages growth and discipline rather than stagnation and settling. Rather than accepting mediocrity, it aspires to achieve greatness. Rather than blaming someone's lack of attraction towards you on them, on society, or on any other institution, it casts a reflective gaze on the subject to more introspectively craft the best possible individual out of the materials you have.
“You can’t change the cards you are dealt, just how you play the hand.” ― Randy Pausch
It reminds you that what you have can always be bettered, and that what other people think of you is always, in the end, is always something tangential. How people perceive you means nothing when you are achieving excellence and exude confidence; how people perceive you means everything when you're unsure of who you are when you're confused about what you want or who you are. It teaches that you can use your appearance, skills, and interests in ways that can appeal to more people, but by no means enforces it. It provides a community to make the most out of yourself upon acknowledging that value is cultivated, not given.
“If a man hasn't what's necessary to make a woman love him, it's his fault, not hers.” ― W. Somerset Maugham
High social value for a male is almost in every case earned; emotional fortitude, physical strength, and powerful characteristics are a result of discipline, not fortune. As such, if the discipline is missing, there likely aren’t women around to fawn over the lack of results that came from what wasn’t done. This does not insinuate that women are entitled to successful men, nor that they are better in any particular way, but that what is admired about a man is his discipline. As such, if a woman lacks attraction, it’s not her fault in the sense that he is control of his own wellbeing and if it is neglected that is more of a consequence of his action than of hers.
It’s a community that encourages development for both parties. Of course, if you are not used to working for what makes you valuable, it might at first glance seem to be derogatory.
These complaints are way too common coming from MRAs, including people who regularly post and comment at r/mensrights. There's a clear effort from MRAs to distance themselves from TRP, as if they were the good guys, and TRP was nothing but poison.
Which is ironically the ultimate white knight tactic.
That's so utterly true it hurts, that last bit is always assumed to be said even if you never say it or even mean to say it. That's why the "nice guy" is "creepy" to pretty girls and feminists, and Beta AFC's to the people here. Men who say that to single women really are begging for sex, they just don't realize it. If ya want that sexy girl, the last thing you do is beg for it. Nothing dries up a pussy quite like the smell of desperation.
The smarter ones among them will attempt to use TRP as a foil to show that they are the moderates. They're uniters, not dividers.
This is a problem with The Right in general. The problem is sometimes labelled as: No Enemies on The Left and No Friends On The Right.
Because the Left somehow (ridiculously) gained a monopoly on morality, people wish to appease them (and the majority), and seek to distance themselves from further to the right than themselves.
http://blog.jim.com/politics/no-enemies-to-the-left-no-friends-to-the-right-4/
Hey Karen, thanks for your work.
With your knowledge of the manosphere and men's lives, how are you raising your sons?
My sons are red pill in the sense that they see what's going on. My oldest came by it naturally (natural MGTOW). He managed to go through his entire school career without being bullied or hassled by anyone, I think because he gave off a vibe that he just didn't care about anyone else's opinion of him.
My youngest is a little more interested in a robust social life, fitting in and the rest, but he's still quite aware of how things actually work. Sometimes I have to explain it, sometimes I don't. Because he values being liked, he's more likely than his brother to end up on the wrong side of a bully. I remember when he came home late one day in grade 3, and announced, all excited, that he had detention. "I got into a brawl!" A friend was being bullied by a group of older boys, and he jumped in and started swinging. We had to fill out an incident report together, "what did you do wrong, why was it wrong, what will you differently in the future, etc?" I told him the answers he needed to give, then told him I was proud of him for defending his friend and that if he ever got detention over something like that again, he wouldn't be in trouble with me.
Mostly, I'm about "figure out what's important to you, and then figure out a way to do it on your own." Helicopter parenting is not my thing.
I also managed to raise kids who are not materialistic at all. None of them have ever wanted designer clothes or anything like that. On the other hand, they do like some high ticket items--my son spent his first earned $1000 on a Cintiq drawing tablet, and the next several hundred on a video card he wanted. The older two (son and daughter) work and live with us but pay rent, and are saving for post-secondary.
I suppose I've tried to instil in them the idea of valuing what's actually important, rather than flashy consumerism or getting a boyfriend/girlfriend, and being willing to do what's necessary to have a stable life.
You sound like an awesome mom! Thanks for contributing what sounds like two well-adjusted males into the world.
Assuming he wants those for digital art, I'd say they are very good purchases. They are definitely worth the price, and digital art (don't know if he paints or maybe is into 3D, maybe graphic design?) in general is a very good creative outlet.
I can confirm this, even if he doesn't use it a lot, assuming he is into 3D and Digital Painting he will come around to it and start using it a lot, I used mine at the begining not that much but then I got more into drawing (always had a talent for it) and 3D such as sculpting in zbrush, it came right off the shelf
It's always shocked me how bad his penmanship is, how shitty he generally is when he's working on paper, but the moment he's on that tablet he's pro-level as far as what he can produce.
My daughter also has a tablet that he bought her for her birthday, but it doesn't have a built-in display. I have no idea how she uses that thing, but she manages somehow to be able to lift the stylus and know exactly where to put it back down...
I did exactly the same thing, because I was starting a career in design. Step two is teach him how to write it off as a business expense.
You sound like a hell of a mom.
I'm turned on by this. I'm nineteen and you make me want to get married -- uh oh.
Jokes aside, could you describe your SO to us, and your relationship dynamic with him?
He's large, hairy, barrel-chested. His head is gigantic, so you don't necessarily realize how big he is until he's standing next to you. His neckbeard is wild and woolly and glorious.
His eyes are like Jesus when he's happy, and like Damien from The Omen when he's annoyed. Very soft spoken, even when he's mad (which scares people sometimes). Almost never raises his voice. "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
He's sexually very dominant, so we get along very well in that regard. Very affectionate, too, which is nice. He goes over the top with teasing and ribbing in a way that makes me laugh all the time. We'll smack talk each other in front of the cashier at the store, which usually ends in me saying, "no jury in the world would convict me, you know," and him looking at the cashier and saying, "you see how abusive she is? It ain't right..." and the cashier'll just stand there kind of bemused watching it.
We both contribute what we can to the household finances. When we first moved in together, I was covering 100% because he was finishing his degree. For a while, it was about 50/50, and now he's in a really good job and it's probably the first time in my life I haven't had to squeeze every single dime out of a paycheck. I'm working less outside the house than before, but I have income from multiple sources so I'm still contributing, but less of a share.
I take care of the budget, the bills, etc, pretty much all the housework, most of the yardwork, all the renovations and maintenance, and all the cooking. He works. A lot. When he's not working, he's usually teaching himself to code, or doing other things that will help him advance at work. On the surface, it might look like a traditional relationship, and in some ways it is.
When we have a problem with each other, we're very direct. He'll come right out and criticize me, or I will him, and it doesn't tend to lead to arguments--just productive discussions. Sometimes the result of the productive discussion is that things are just going to stay as they are, and we'll have to get used to it. I'm never going to keep a spotless house. He's never going to take out the trash unless asked, probably repeatedly. That kind of thing. What makes it work so well is that neither of us takes an accusatory tone, so you don't get the defensiveness that tends to go along with these kinds of conflicts.
He used to get an urge to white knight me when, say, he'd notice people talking shit about me in SRS or something, but I managed to convince him that it would be counterproductive.
It's just generally a very easy partnership. We enjoy each other's company to the point where sometimes we have to force ourselves to maintain connections with other people. It has it's not great moments, for sure, but we're so well suited for each other in certain ways that the annoyances aren't very annoying.
If your youngest is going to go in with fists swinging, may I suggest he attend some martial arts classes.
I recommend Systema, a Russian martial art from a similar tradition as Tai Chi, but substantially more practical.
It has a strong following in Canada, and there may be a school in your area.
http://russianmartialart.com/
I have written an article about my own experiences learning Systema https://medium.com/@aPackOfVVankers/from-russia-with-love-cd45310216f0
Welcome, Karen. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I suspect you're going to have a lot of typing ahead of you!
Since getting involved in the Men's Rights Movement, have you felt as though men's interests are gaining ground, or that men's rights is going to be a fruitful cause?
I ask, not because I believe men shouldn't have rights (I'm certainly a supporter), but because sometimes it seems like the equality and egalitarianism that men wish for (such as destroying gender roles) aren't exactly realistic- that is men need to act like men to attract women.
What are your thoughts on this?
I do think that men's interests are gaining ground. There are plenty of mainstream articles that point to a growing awareness of the problem, and when I talk to random people about what I do (whether I say I'm an anti-feminist or a men's issues advocate) I tend to get a lot of, "yeah, you're right! I always thought that was messed up."
The main obstacle to going fully mainstream (particularly with the issues of boys, since male children still command some small degree of compassion from the wider culture), is feminism (political feminism, and casual gynocentrism).
We often get accused of derailing, but I've never been involved in a conversation about the harms of infant male circumcision without multiple people barging in and saying that it's not comparable to FGM and that making a fuss about it is minimalizing or trivializing ACTUAL genital mutilation blah blah blah.
You talk about male victims of DV, and you'll get lots of people jumping in to inform everyone that while men are a tiny minority of victims, it's women who are the majority of victims, and blah blah blah.
When Obama unveiled "My Brother's Keeper" (I think that's what it was called), an initiative to assist minority boys achieve in school and stay out of gangs, there were women's groups demanding to know why the initiative excluded minority girls, despite a multitude of initiatives already in existence prioritizing all girls' achievement and success.
Destroying gender roles is, IMO, unrealistic. Particularly because feminism has managed to convince most of society that they're trying to destroy gender roles by exploiting gender roles. We're just not rational about this, and I don't expect we can convince society to become rational about it. It would require a constant, conscious effort on the part of all members of society to make it work, and that isn't feasible.
This is why, as much as I'd love to talk about how excluding fathers from families hurts men (men are human), it's more effective to emphasize how it hurts children (men are useful).
It's not all about men needing to act like men to attract women. It's the sad reality that the very concept of equal compassion for men is teflon-coated. You can literally convince someone that men deserve compassion as human beings every bit as much as women do, and fifteen seconds later, the idea just kind of slid off of their brains and you're starting from scratch.
Which is why women are very important in the MRM. It's women who can get sympathy--as mothers or daughters or sisters who are themselves hurt by the harm done to the men in their lives. No one's going to give two shits if my oldest never finds a woman worth his time and effort. But they'll care if my daughter finds herself at age 30, unmarried and wanting a child, and simply unable to find a man who can help provide a stable home.
If men's interests are gaining ground, it's because ignoring their interests is having a negative impact on women and children. Well, there's also that anger thing. Paul Elam has repeatedly said, "if society won't hear men's pain, it will hear their anger." So there's that, too.
All in all, though, I can't even realistically hope for actual equality before the law. There will always be informal biases that play into things like the sentencing gap. But statutory equality before the law--that might be achievable. There's some hope that "men" or "male" (and "straight", and "cis" and maybe even "white") might one day become a legally recognized category under human rights legislation.
TL;DR: IMO, there's room for improvement and it will happen, but we're never going to have real equality.
The other day there was an article posted in r/psychology about male suicide. The author of the article was trying to find the cause of the male vs female suicide rate discrepancy.
The comments were full of people saying, "well, women actually attempt suicide more than men". I don't think they were trying to downplay the fact that more men actually kill themselves, but they were willing to basically ignore the main point of the article to paint women as the main victims.
People who brought up the fact that women attempting suicide wasn't the point of the article were also upvoted, but people thought the sub was being brigaded because those comments received upvotes.
Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
One of the most interesting things about that particular stat is that it's, as far as I can tell, a woozle. You can go from paper to paper to paper and find it cited, but linking to papers that have no raw data--just citations to other articles that cite still other articles that also don't have raw data but are citing other articles without raw data.
The closest thing to raw data I've been able to find is a survey of people reporting suicidal thoughts, attempts and self-harm behaviors combined. In those surveys, women outnumber men about 5 to 4.
But included in these surveys are people who've thought about killing themselves but never attempted it, and people who engage in cutting and other self-harm. And the discrepancy isn't that big. And it's only asking people who aren't dead (that is, it doesn't include successful suicide attempts--only failed ones).
Which do you suspect this is - cultural or innate?
Definitely innate. It exists across such a broad spread of species that it can't be anything but innate.
The only species that treat females as AS disposable as males are traditional monogamous social species--wolves, marmosets, etc. In those species, only the dominant female is allowed to mate/reproduce, and all other females are reproductively useless in and of themselves--their value is the same as the value of subordinate males, as helpers.
So when you have two packs of wolves going at each other, you'll see the females of the losing pack sometimes get slaughtered along with the males. Why not? Those females aren't wombs--they're just potential problems. And they'll risk their subordinate females in the hunt or in skirmishes, for the same reason.
But in species where all females generally reproduce, the females are protected. Both males and females will team up to protect females, but no one protects males (dominant or subordinate).
I found your choice of example very interesting because wolves have litters with multiple progeny so less females are needed to propagate the species. This maybe part of the reason for female disposability in wolfpacks and/or marmosets.
Or maybe multiple progeny is a result of the disposability of subordinate females?
So many of these things are kind of chicken and egg reinforcing cycles.
About the only thing I CAN be sure of is that humans were bipedal before we grew our big brains. But IMO, bipedalism, a switch to more hunter and less gatherer (big game in particular), having one's hands free, gendered division of labor, and the necessity of two invested parents once our bipedalism caused the obstetric crisis, are responsible for what we have become. All of those things kind of happened simultaneously, and caused biological changes and changes in our social organization.
Innate. 50 men 2000 women. Next generation is safe. 50 women 2000 men. Next generation is not happening.
So if one starts out with 2000 men and 2000 women one could stand to lose 1950 men and wouldn't care all that much.
A strategy game with that theme might be a good idea, would hammer the point about "equality between sexes" home pretty hard when it becomes abundantly clear that the best strategy is protecting your own women and slaughtering your opponents women.
You're actually missing the true optimal strategy... One that's been used throughout history: it's to leave them alive but rape/capture them.
Brutal stuff... But in pure game theory you won't beat it
Depends on whether you want their genes in your gene pool. The sons could at some point remember their fathers and kill your whole tribe while it is sleeping.
Generally wouldn't/didn't happen, since they'd be conflicted about the fact they owe their existence to that act.
Also, most people identify with the culture they're raised into. There's a kind of primitive nationalism to it. They're proud to be a member of the dominant nation, rather than ashamed of its means of domination.
Without advanced medicine women face something like a 50% chance of dying from their first pregnancy in addition to 9 months of varying incapacitation. Some theories say our enhanced sexual dimorphism especially with regard to putting women first and making men disposable is how we beat out the other hominid races.
Definitely, there was a "crisis of obstetrics" that occurred when we became bipedal and our pelvises changed. Mothers are more at risk, and babies ended up being born prematurely compared to other mammals simply in order to fit through the different pelvises.
I would speculate that father-investment (a more cooperative mating strategy/egalitarian monogamy) was already a trend when that happened.
There are dead branches of bipedalism on the hominid tree. Though I don't think this was a cause of our sexual dimorphism--baboons, gorillas and other harem species are more dimorphic than we are.
And in fact, we're less dimorphic than them in a lot of interesting ways. Human males are more cooperative with each other than males of almost any other species, really. The phenomenon of guys trying to get other guys laid just isn't a thing in chimpanzee society.
In other words, we're very unusual, in a lot of different ways. But yes, we do put women first.
I think this playlists:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45A5E21ECA5FA850
Explain a lot about how strangely bizarre we human are in comparison witch other animals.
We are neither Tournament nor Pair Bonding specie. We are in the middle.
How did the idea that women were second-class citizens ever get started?...
I meant only with regard to in-group biases and the psychology that values women way more than men.
Edit: Also you are correct to single out other bipedal hominids. I was thinking of this graph. Something happened and our population exploded killing off several similar species.
Really? Do you have a cite? AFAIK, typical man (at ideal weight - we're talking life on the savannah) is a good 50% larger than the typical woman. I think that most mammals have the female at about 85-95% of male size/mass. Maybe we mean something different by 'dimorphic'.
The last 50 men say fuck it and go MGTOW love to se the faces of the chicks
Innate, in all sexes. Unless that fact can be brought to light in the public consciousness so they;ll have reason to review their decisions, people simply and easily be more comfortable with situations favoring feminine.
That's pretty much the same reaction Milo's Sexodus articles saw. I also have experienced similar when I talk to people in real life about men's issues and game/self-improvement. Most people who aren't radicalized tend to have a misconception about what we're really for here, and once they have a human explain it to them face to face they finally get it.
It's almost comical seeing the change in their face as they realize it's not about a bunch of faceless neckbeards out to rail about feminism and hate on women or bang on drums because they can never get laid. It's all about rounding out the rough edges and making men aware of the fact they can say no to women who are toxic. Stuff like that.
deleted What is this?
I would love to see something in the future, some process by which gender is essentially hidden from judges and juries. Don't think it will happen, but if it did, I suspect sentences for men would go down slightly, and for women up slightly.
By slightly, you mean about 30% each way, as men are give about 2/3 more severe sentencing than women for the same crime.
Thanks for the work you do, it is much appreciated. Any plans for future topics or activities you care to share?
I'll almost certainly be in Houston for the next International Conference on Men's Issues at the end of October, where I'll be participating in a panel discussion on why women should give a shit about this stuff. Also in the works is a conference in Bermuda of all places, where there's been a men's rights/issues group for the last 15 or 20 years, though I can't provide more details as yet.
As far as topics go, I'm working with a friend/colleague on a response to the firing of the guy who dared to claim, on camera, that he thought FHRITP is funny. I mean, he didn't yell FHRITP into the reporter's mic--he just explained to her why he thought it was funny. And then lost his very lucrative job after his name was revealed to the public.
Would you say that the FHRITP fiasco touches upon gender rights? I don't think he should have been fired, but I feel like it points to a societal problem that transcends gender rights.
I think it's just the reaction of a poorly managed company.
Well, a recent clip surfaced where a woman ran up to a male reporter's mic and yelled "Fuck me right in the pussy!" and the women anchors in studio laughed their butts off.
Honestly, I don't think anyone should lose their job over finding that kind of thing funny.
It was my understanding that was certified fake https://youtu.be/BCqXqtERHQM
I'm sure a lot of them are fake. But some of them are now apparently genuine, taking off on the fakes (as I'm sure the prankster intended).
Monkey see, monkey do...
Honestly... It's just the newest generation's version of getting in the reporter's shot to be on TV and shouting 'Hi Mom' or holding up a sign with such in the background.
The SJW media shame machine. "Anything that annoys anyone is a terrible thing and you should be fired for doing it".
Like that woman that started that "donglegate" BS on Twitter and got some guys fired ended up getting fired herself for all the drama she caused.
I only wish the people causing all the trouble actually faced consequences like that more often.
It's really "Anything that annoys anyone in a protected class is a terrible thing and you should be fired for doing it." SJW-ism is the most rigid prejudice I've ever seen: if you are white or male, you are an oppressor from the day you're born, and your feelings can never count. I call that fake tolerance.
Are their tickets available for the event in Houston? I live in Texas and would love to attend to hear you speak.
They're available through A Voice for Men.
Happened in my area! he was fired ! unreal
Hi
What do you think needs to change (law / contract wise) so that marriage makes sense for RP men?
Right now, marriage isn't a contract between two parties. It's a legally binding blank piece of paper, the terms of which will be decided by a third party (the court/state) upon dissolution.
I would marry my current bf if that was not the case. I mean, I know I won't fuck him over, but when I dissolved my marriage with my ex the court wouldn't let me treat him as fairly as I would have liked. I wanted to formally waive child support, but no judge would sign off on that. All I can do is refuse to take measures to collect it, and try my damnedest to stay off welfare or anything similar, since they'll collect it for me whether I want it or not.
Marriage needs to be an agreement between two people, yes, enforceable by an authority, but the terms of which are spelled out and agreed on by both parties to the contract. Prenups kind of do that--stipulate the rights and entitlements and responsibilities of both parties, and who's entitled to what if things go Pete Tong, depending on who's at fault, etc.
But right now, all marriages are 'boilerplate', and all boilerplate marriage contracts are subject to executive fiat. Prenups can be thrown out on the whim of judges, and essentially most marriages are to the state.
And like a judge ruled here in Canada 100 years ago when denying a man a settlement over a broken engagement--you're not entitled to anything, because men aren't expected to advance or gain economically through marriage. Women are.
If more women were like you the world would be a much better place.
Karen,
One of the first videos about male issues I ever watched was ‘Feminism and the Disposable Male’, so it’s really cool to see you doing an AMA for those of us on the dark side of the manosphere. :-)
I have a few questions for you:
I plan on answering this question, but it might take a while, so please be patient.
Thanks for taking the time to do this, I really enjoy reading your well-thought out answers! Take your time :)
Karen, friendly reminder to answer these, as I am also eager to see what you have to say. :)
Hi Karen, would still be interested in an answer to /u/LeGrandDiableBlanc 's questions here. In particular no. 1 If you have the chance!
Okay, I finally answered. Sorry to take so long, I actually ended up forgetting to return and respond. So again, thanks for the reminder.
Holy shit, thanks for the bump!
1) Hard to say. If they get worse, they'll get much worse. If they get better, they'll get marginally better. I know that sounds pessimistic, but it's just how I see things.
Every time conditions have gotten better for women, we have a small contingent of women declaring that things are worse for women than ever. I watched an interview with Gloria Steinem from 2010 or something, and she was asked if women in the west were still oppressed. She said, no joke, "they're more oppressed than ever". And her reasons? "They feel like they have to have it all, they struggle to manage career and family, etc." In other words, women are more oppressed than they were before feminism BY the outcomes of feminism, and in order to deal with this oppression, we need more feminism. And the interviewer just nodded.
We humans are programmed for certain baseline behaviors. "If it bleeds it leads" is part of that. We've never had a less violent society--even including all the wars of the 20th century, we were less likely to die by violence than in the previous centuries. Rape is down, domestic violence is down, all these things are down.
And what are we doing? Maintaining a baseline level of threat awareness by redefining rape and domestic violence to include huge swaths of behaviors that weren't included before. When we run out of actual things that threaten women, we think up other dangers women are subject to, or upgrade things no one in previous generations would have considered to be dangerous (like yelling or using sexist language).
And for the most part, society goes along with it.
If we're going to see a massive correction, the correction will be due to a huge collapse that forces us to put things in perspective, and to respect the roles of men to protect and provide.
2) decoupling childrearing from the voluntary investment of fathers is a huge mistake, IMO. You look at other primates, you don't see much fatherhood, and you also don't see a whole lot of male/male cooperation. Where m/m cooperation does exist (like in chimpanzees), it's less stable, and almost always involves related males (that is, the females leave at maturity and attach to other groups, while the males in the group are all brothers and cousins and uncles and stuff).
It's been suggested by some researchers that these two phenomena played a major role in us becoming what we are--big brained, neotenous, sentient, intensely social animals capable of building civilizations, etc. And we've taken a meat hammer to one (voluntary invested fatherhood), and are assaulting the other by discouraging men and boys from operating within male-only environments that they may well need to reinforce cooperative behaviors. Boys seem to need this form of socialization so deeply, that when they can't get that from adult men at home or at school, they will seek it from their same-age peers and even turn to gangs.
We have no idea what the long term effects are going to be.
3) respect yourself, and enforce your boundaries. Also, don't spend a lot of money on her.
4) if you mean this subreddit, I don't know it well enough to say.
Going off of stories such as the Amy Schumer story where feminists are trying to convince each other that she was raped even though by facts she raped him, and off of the increasing number of emotional logic-less responses we are seeing everywhere, how long do you think it will be before someone (read: a significant number of people in positions of power) stands up and says no more? Do you think it will be a slow subtle movement, or a large scale push back?
If it's going to happen, it will happen like a crescendo. Like that transition in Beethoven's 9th, where it goes from quiet and the tension builds over a few bars, and then BAM! It will accelerate slowly, but exponentially.
Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to ever go back to base line.
I'm sure you recall the Satanic daycare scandals of the 80s? I watched these stories play out on the news as a teenager, and I was flabbergasted, much the same way I'm currently flabbergasted regarding the rape culture narrative. Eventually, the world kind of woke up and realized it had been in the throes of a mass hysteria, but at the same time, society never went back to that state it was in before the scandals. Prior to the scandals (and others, like the Catholic alter boy thing), no one would bat an eyelash at a middle aged man ruffling a young kid's hair and saying hello on the sidewalk. But now, we have men taking pictures of their own kids at the mall being approached by security because someone thought they were predators.
There will be a large scale correction, IMO, but it won't put us back where we were. Because I believe female nature or gynocentrism (or whatever you want to call it) is not a pendulum but an engine, we'll be revisiting this moment over and over. There will be a correction, then things will start to creep back, then another correction and then again things will creep back.
If that first part isn't a reference to one of the best movies of all time, I don't know what is. Voilá, a Valued Versed Visionary.
For those of us who really really really do fucking love that movie (you'll even read it in Hugo's voice, watch...):
Alliteration... how are you as sexy as you are badass?
Do you think that there is a way to slow down this engine or even steer it in a different (better) direction?
If so, how would we go about that?
Hi, Karen. Nice to see ya here.
From your comments, I get the impression you've received a fair amount of static from the R/MR crowd over doing this at all.
How much of that was there? Did it make you hesitate at all? Has there been support as well?
How much of the recent wave of attention that the MRM has directing towards TRP do you think is a reaction to the /r/TheRedPill surpassing /r/MensRights in readership?
Where do you see the interaction between the two going in the future?
As much as some members of /r/MR dislike you guys, I've never been shy about my opinion of TRP when the topic comes up. I usually get a little bit of flak--"I am disappoint"--but it doesn't bother me much. I've had the odd person kind of hint that they'd unsubscribe or whatever, which I'm willing to accept.
On the other hand, there is some overlap between /r/MR and TRP, and there are people involved in MR that have no opinion one way or the other.
I uploaded a video of my comments that got stickied here, along with some commentary, and the "like bar" looks healthy, even though a lot of the comments were very negative. One commenter expressed a wish that I'd learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV's suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn't going to call him a bad person for it).
I can't really guess how much of the attention the MRM is directing at TRP is due to your growth. There seems to be a certain admiration for the competence of some red pillers here and on YouTube as far as message delivery, and I think most terpers (is that the right term?) would be surprised at how a lot of the animosity is generated by readers rather than leaders, if you will. I know AVFM is interested in a cautious approach toward including PUA perspectives on the website. That doesn't surprise me, given Paul is a libertarian and he's been willing to publish articles by communists.
I don't think they're going for an assimilation or co-opting of other groups (the way feminists have done with LGBT and other interest groups). It's more about providing a wider range of masculine perspectives. They're in a difficult position in trying to do so--they took a lot of heat over the MGTOW marriage thing. They have right wingers like Bernard Chapin calling them a bunch of lefties, and they have progressives accusing them of promoting traditionalism, and they have MGTOW accusing them of advocating a return to the yoke for men and allowing women too big a role, and they have other MRAs advising them that they'll never attract young men into the fold if there are no women under the umbrella.
Seems like no matter what they do, they're going to get a bunch of people telling them they're fucking it all up.
As far as what the interaction will be, I can't say. Personally, I'd be happy with a ceasefire. Criticism of ideas is all well and good, but there is that tribalistic component that comes into play, and I'd like to see more of a "live and let live, and let's promote this or that article if it's worthwhile without getting worried about accusations that we're panderers or collaborators because we agreed with Heartiste on this one issue," kind of thing.
I don't think the "manosphere" can all be united under one umbrella, but there's enough overlap that if they set aside some of that tribalism they could achieve more on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I hope will happen.
I had begun to sense that.
Still, those readers, not what other people think of them, are my primary responsibility here. Everywhere else, and throughout the rest of their lives, people have been vastly more concerned about these men than for them. My self-chosen task is to be more concerned for them than about them. They wouldn't accept me as any sort of leader if they didn't see me doing that.
So, yes, they're angry young men. But I will only act to rein in that anger when it is hurting them, not just other people's delicate feelings. I don't expect them to be able to perfectly fathom the nuances of how our culture feels about men and how to respond. If they were superhuman enough to already know how to run between the raindrops like that, they wouldn't be here in the first place.
It's symptomatic, I think, of a much deeper malaise in our culture, when even the "men's rights activists" have a problem with men being angry in a cordoned-off space that they created for being angry in. If we cannot get self-identified MRAs to sympathetic to young men's frustration, how can we possibly hope to persuade society as a whole to have sympathy for men?
Thanks for this answer, Karen.
A couple of points:
I personally don't like any labels. I don't identify as a TRP-kin, I am who I am and I take what knowledge I need from here.
If someone wants to call me a redpiller or a terper or a misogynist... whatever.
What should and probably will happen is that TRP will adopt the term "terper" as a mark of pride, much how the term "yankee" was originally used by the British as a pejorative originally and was then coopted by the yanks.
And shitlord by the anti-SJW's
r/fatpeoplehate has done a wonderful job of coopting that phrase.
Own the label and make it a badge of honor. I use the term "Merpers" (MRP-ers or Married Red Pillers) all the time and there is plenty of precedence for turning the enemies name for you.
--
If you as a group want your own voice, you reach out (done) and go public. And in that moment, if you don't give them a catchy name for yourself, you won't ever be interesting enough to generate dialogue amonst that (passive) public.
From the camera's perspective, you guys are basically hardcore MRA's. You seem to need a legitimate front, and please don't let it be "The Manosphere" because that shit is geeky as fuck, sorry.
But be it "Redpillers" or whatever, this movement and its leadership should start establishing and popularizing one poignant term.
Thank you for reading my two cents, I hope you'll think about this.
Obligatory "trp yay!" here.
I use TRPer. It's not bad short hand.
TRP can be terper if MRM can be mermaids
Hi Karen,
would you say there is a difference in the way you are attracted to men and in the way your more "mainstream" girlfriends are attracted to men?
Or do you think attraction is much more fundamental and not influenced by ones views on feminism/patriarchy or other socio-political ideologies?
Thanks and love your talks!
There's a difference, but it's in terms of degree, not criteria.
That is, I'm not that feminine, but that means I need a very masculine foil to bounce my identity off of in order to feel female. And I like feeling female. The guy I'm with is gigantic and hairy and demanding and when he flirts with me he's much more hard core than when he's flirting with other women. My biggest problem in relationships with men as been this kind of process by osmosis of me becoming the dominant partner, which I'm not interested in if I'm with a guy. I'm not happy if I can order a guy around, or make him dance to my tune.
When I'm with women, it's the exact opposite--I want to be the nominal head of the relationship, even if she's topping from the bottom. Of course, being topped from the bottom requires more mind-reading, so it's a lot of work and I've always preferred something more straightforward.
Just about every bisexual woman I know is submissive with men, but less so with other women. It's almost as if there were two distinct psychosocial "endpoints" built into human mating, and bisexuals get both sets of behavioural code.
In BDSM they're called "switches". (I only really know anything about the terminology from my time in the erotica community)
But yeah, I seem to have some strong masculine impulses and instincts, particularly in my responses to crises or threats. But at the same time, I do like feeling like the man I'm with wears bigger pants than I do.
Is there any woman that doesn't share that opinion (barring the outliers)?
Hey Karen,
Given your pretty deep understanding for the way things work, and more importantly the distinction between the way boys work/learn and the way girls work/learn, do you think any of us should bother using the current education system (atleast pre-highschool) for our sons? Or do you think homeschooling is the ultimate way to go, via either ourselves or perhaps a RPW that we know or are married to.
What about daughters, the school system seems to favor them a bit, but does it really do them any good either?
I'd never have chosen to homeschool myself, though I can concede it might be the best solution for some. I chose to put my kids in public school because... well, I guess in some ways because school sucks, but suffering builds character.
On the other hand, once they were home, they had a LOT of unstructured time. It's a travesty how micromanaged kids are these days. They also had a lot of unsupervised time once they were school age, and I declined to intervene in their arguments with each other unless absolutely necessary, because I knew how regimented conflict resolution was at school. Any difficulty one child had with another, there was an adult mediator there telling them what to say and do, rather than letting them figure it out for themselves.
And I spent a lot of time letting them know what was propaganda and what wasn't--and they started coming home with a lot of it, even as early as grade 2.
As much as the school system sucks, it's a primer for the rest of society--you have to learn when to keep your mouth shut, how to recognize when someone is bullshitting you, when to go along with the bullshit versus calling it out, etc. School is boring and soulkilling, but so is half the shit I do every day, and most of the rest of us. The majority of kids aren't going to graduate from high school and enter their exciting fulfilling dream jobs--they'll be doing a lot of crappy, repetitive shit and having to smile and agree while they do it.
I suppose it's a matter of compensating at home for what the school system is doing--providing some balance. I remember as a kid loving my freedom to ride my bike, catch frogs, roam, climb trees, play neighborhood-wide games of hide and seek until the streetlights came on. I appreciated the freedom because I was cooped up in school a lot of the time. And my parents were very good about not regimenting my time, other than a few key responsibilities, outside of school. Kids need to learn how to manage on their own sometimes, without supervision or a schedule, they need to explore how to negotiate their relationship with the world, need to fall down, need to fuck up sometimes.
If you want to homeschool so you can embrace this idea that kids learn best (barring anything life-threatening or catastrophic) from natural consequences, that they need room to explore and space to fuck up and learn to solve their own problems... well, that's cool. But I get the idea sometimes that a lot of homeschoolers want to insulate their kids from the world, rather than immersing them in it while providing an accepting space and explaining why some of that world is bullshit.
This. I need to work on this. I've always get into unnecessary headache-inducing arguements explaining my red pill perspective on things.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Remember that most people won't agree with you, and that most people have conversation to confirm their biases and assumption not to explore new ideas. So on the whole it is best to not talk overly about TRP ideas with people that won't agree. Avoid the headache, unless it is someone you can see you are congruent with i say don't bother. The best way to influence people is not with argument it is by example.
Really? I find most guys are receptive to red pill truths and think feminism goes way too far. Like guys should be able to tell if their kids are really theirs. They shouldn't get fucked over in the courts just for having a cock. If a girl's had loads of sex partners she isn't LTR/wife material.
It depends on how you frame it and word it. Red pill truths usually get thousands of upvotes in the default subs if worded smartly.
So on principal you do not have anything against homeschooling?
It have pros and cons, and you must remember and adjust for them. Yes?
I don't have anything against homeschooling in principle, as long as it's not coming from a place of protecting or insulating a kid from the wider world. You still have to prepare your kids for the adult world and encourage them to be independent.
I'd speculate that with homeschooling you need to find some other way for kids to learn social dynamics. Perhaps with TRP you can provide this but really they need to fuckup to learn it for themselves.
That's pretty much the main problem with it. You can control everything your kid learns, but a huge part of being a human is existing in large groups of other humans. And the kid will always look at regular school kids as a bigger 'them' group, which may have some effect on their view of the world.
Oh man, so much this. My kids were born two years apart (my daughter is the older). They both started training in Tae Kwon Do the same day (actually a couple weeks before their dojang officially opened). With few exceptions, they went to the exact same classes, they both learned sparing at the same time, promoted together, etc.
So when they got really pissed at each other, we let them fight it out, competitive sparing rules (no faces, no groins). We only intervened if one of them broke a rule or one gave up and the other didn't stop.
As a result, they almost never had to come to us to intervene or settle their arguments. Minor shit would get handled as the minor shit it was because they knew if it escalated, they were probably going to end up bruised and neither of them wanted that to decide who got the last french fry.
Karen,
Lately your channel has mostly been short plugs for HBB. I sincerely miss the videos of just you addressing issues, with your own unique and valuable perspective, and personally I find HBB to be too many voices all at once, not all of which are as insightful as you.
Understanding that you have a lot on your plate, do you plan to get back to a regular series of solo videos at some point, and do you have an idea of when that might be?
Thanks for all you do!
I'm hoping to be back on a schedule soon. A video every two weeks is what I'm aiming for.
I've done three fairly lengthy videos in the last 6 weeks, so hopefully "when" is essentially now (that is, hopefully I'm back on track). I totally get that it might seem like less than it is, given how many promos I upload for HBR (at least 3 a week), but I look at that as useful in the long run. I have the largest channel of all the HBs, and it's about bums on seats at the end of the day.
The other HBs do a lot of good work (the operative word being "work"). I'm what my mom always called "brilliant but lazy". So lazy, my bf says my totem animal is the sloth. I'm not actually lazy, but I've always had a hard time forcing things. Kind of an "I'm very busy on a cellular level" thing--what I do isn't just about doing, but about working things out in my head, yada yada. And part of that talent means I can't organize a trip to the toilet if there's more than one person involved. It's hard to explain.
But yes, I think I'm back in my groove and will be uploading new content every other week or so.
Aaaaaaaand STOLEN.
I really like the high level of discourse on this sub. It's a plagiarists dream.
Agreed! The HBB is a neat show, but they've got way too many people on that it just turns into a hot mess at times.
Hello Karen!
First of all, thanks for dropping by. I want to ask you, do you believe society itself would change for the better (for a sustainable period of time) if the majority of men took on a redpill perspective? Or do you view this movements philosophy as just a (temporary) reaction to the current state of gender relations?
I don't think it's temporary, nor do I think it's permanent.
That is, I think there will always be a red pill perspective. It will gorw and swell and effect things a bit, and then things will become livable to most people and it will wane (but not disappear), and then things will creep back and we'll see a resurgence.
Either that or society goes into the shitter, everything collapses, women start appreciating men again, and it all starts from the very beginning.
Thank you for all your hard work uncovering the facts and presenting them so clearly. I think I can speak for everybody here when I say we all appreciate it very much, as well as your taking the time to drop in.
What do you think men can do on a local level to turn the tide of militant feminism on the rise in the West? The Red Pill view is to "enjoy the decline" and take full advantage of it; do you see that as a help or a hindrance?
I see the "enjoy the decline" thing as helpful as long as it's visible. That is, as long as people become aware of it, and the reasons for it.
If you guys were just some ragtag group of hillbillies in the mountains, away from everyone, you wouldn't have any impact at all. If you rebelled without disseminating a message, you'd be a hindrance. But doing what you're doing, you're helping, even if you're just presenting a Malcolm X for MRAs to juxtapose against MLK.
Thank you for the response!
Hey Karen,
I was wondering what your biggest criticism of TRP is? I doubt I'm alone in thinking that this community has flaws, and you seem to have a knack for making observations with an open mind and little bias.
Also as a side note, I really appreciate the work that you do. I have to imagine it's challenging for you. Just know that future generations of boys will likely have benefited from your contributions.
My biggest criticism is the vulgarity of the angry rhetoric that pops up here. And honestly, I don't have a problem with it--it's more a "what will other people think?" kind of thing. And I know it's something that is sort of a necessary venting process for a lot of guys, so I don't know that there's anything to be done about it.
But that's probably the one thing that turns other people off.
Controlling language will be the death of the red pill. The only faster death is giving a fuck what others think of this place.
While I understand your point, my response to this is always: why should women or feminists be able to define how we as men talk about male issues? Have you ever been in a male locker room? The way men talk amongst themselves is usually very raw and vulgar. It's how we communicate, how we connect. TRP is basically male locker room talk, and that's as it should be. We shouldn't have to tone it down for women. They can choose to go (e.g. RedPillWomen).
I really don't think men should be telling women how to be women, and neither should women be defining how men should be men.
Given that Hilary Clinton is running in 2016, would you vote for a woman president?
I would vote for a woman president (or prime minister, rather) if I agreed with her policies and thought she had the mettle needed to do the job. Given my interest in gender issues, and women's higher tendency toward own-group preference, I might subject a female candidate to more scrutiny than a male one on issues of sex/feminism, but all in all, I wouldn't NOT vote for a woman because of her sex, any more than I'd vote for a woman because of her sex.
The thing about American government is that the head of the Executive branch is also the head of the military. So the actual question people are asking about this is
Would you put a woman in charge of the military?
She just answered, and quite well.
Rand Paul. Watch some of his recent videos. One of most impressive politicians I've seen in years. He speaks even better than obama did 9 years ago.
I think Rand has a very good shot at winning - much better than his old man did. The problem with his old man was that he bluntly told the truth 100% of the time with no filter, and if there's anything this sub proves, it's that most people despise hearing the truth and will do whatever they can to suppress it. Rand is more of a politician - he plays the game, he disguises the libertarian beliefs to appeal to the neo-conservative Fox News type Republicans, who were his dad's enemies.
Fortunately, unlike his Dad, Rand would have the luxury of Fox News backing him. Despite that, the left-wing media is really going to kick into full force putting the spin on his positions. For example, they will focus on the fact that he claims to be against gay marriage while ignoring the fact that he doesn't think the federal government should be involved in marriage period, and should be left up to the states. So his opinion on gay marriage is effectively irrelevant if he's running for President. So watch out for that nonsense.
Hillary Clinton is a joke and a woman, and Bernie Sanders won't win because he's not a Democrat. At best he will be a spoiler for whoever the Democratic nominee is. People are sick of Obama, and are sick of having a Democratic president. Americans are sick of neo-conservative Republicans, and I can't see any Democratic nominee being strong enough to beat Rand. They'll be much more willing to elect a libertarian Republican like him who sincerely wants to undo a lot of the damage that has been done to this country over the last century. He's a chip off the old block, afterall.
It's a classic example of:
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde
Oscar wilde is a genius. Thank you for the quote. First time I hear it.
I read a spiel in politics today that was showing how Fox News is refusing to even acknowledge Paul is running. He's kept off the "leaderboard" tallies even though he has a higher percentage than the others in the primary. (who were shown)
Rand is being completely ignored by fox, even removed from their polls. Google it. He isn't a mainstream, warhawk corporatist so he has no chance of winning the republican nomination. Sorry.
There is no way that the establishment will let Rand Paul get anywhere near the White House except in a public tour.
Hillary Clinton will win, I would bet on it. I hope Rand loses. Not because Rand would make a bad president, but because this country is going downhill with or without him and if it continues on its downward trajectory with him then everybody will scream from the rooftops that free markets don't work and we need to nationalize more industries.
They already do that. Rand being President isn't going to change that.
You might be right, but I guess I'm worried that it will be the last straw
If Sanders wins, we'll get that anyway.
Bernie is running for the Democratic nomination. So if on the ballot, he'd be listed as a Democrat
I really want a Rand/Bernie presidential race. I'm more toward the Bernie side of things, but if I have to have one of the republicans in the White House, I'd pick Rand.
Me too. Those two would actually make it an election, rather than a aristocratic mud-slinging match.
Did you see the article about Fox News completely ignoring him?
I'm going to vote for him.
He speaks better than the people writing for Obama's teleprompter did at any time.
FTFY.
Or Carly Fiorina - for that matter.
Several of my colleagues worked under her at HP. They were not impressed.
Who?
Former CEO of HP who nearly ran the company into the ground when they bought Compaq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina#Forced_resignation_from_HP
Well, she sounds like a shoo-in... :P
I was never a Carly Fiorina HP fan, but to say she nearly ran the company into the ground because of Compaq is one's opinion -- a dubious one at that. People need to stop repeating it as though it were fact. M&A success is notoriously difficult to gauge.
What are your thoughts on the infighting amongst the different factions within the manosphere? (i.e. MR, TRP, MGTOW, etc)
edit: she already answered this in her recent video and basically thinks the divisiveness is dumb
My take on it is that being a member of the PUA, MRM, and MGTOW communities inherently makes one "red pill" to begin with, so MRAs being butthurt over your defense of us is ironic as IMO they're already one of us, whether they agree with us or not. Case in point, Paul Elam of AVFM has been using the red pill terminology for years now, same as the more notable MGTOWs such as Sandman and Barbarrrossaaa.
In essence, anyone who rejects the status quo and/or sees the flaws in the system in how it treats men has taken the red pill in one form or another. This can result in those who want to fix the system (eg MRAs) and those who want to wash their hands of it (eg MGTOWs), and then there are those who wish to operate within said system and use it to their benefit (eg. PUAs capitalizing on hookup culture).
The community of /r/theredpill is effectively an amalgam of all the different facets of those who've taken the red pill, so to speak.
The problem with the MRM largely lies in wanting mainstream attention. In order to gain that, at least in a politically useful way, one has to make one's message palatable to a large and diverse audience. You need to water it down.
Used to be, on r/mr, that 99% of the concern trolls were actually feminists. Now, they're mostly supporters, who want to be palatable to the mainstream.
They want to be able to convince the populace to take the red pill in small, painless doses, because they know most won't swallow that massive football of a tablet in one go. It's almost like they've forgotten that when they took the red pill, it was more often than not in suppository form, administered with a sledgehammer. They didn't have the option of swallowing or not swallowing--they had that fucker rammed home against their protests.
But yeah, the message will be watered down the more the manosphere wants mainstream traction. Because it will have to be.
I wanted to highlight this observation. It explains a lot.
It will be interesting to see if TRP ever becomes susceptible to the same, or if the current "take it or leave it" attitude of TRP makes it immune.
TRP isn't a democracy. Nor is there much of a general interest in earning mainstream attention. We haven't done anything for the MSM attention we've received so far. We've simply done our own thing, while lurkers snipe material for their click bait articles or rage porn among their social circles.
Come to think of it, that's probably the best way to gain MSM attention anyway. Just as you do your own thing, and women will either get with it or get the fuck out, TRP will continue to do its own thing. Lurkers, media, concern trolls, anyone... get with it, or get the fuck out. Don't wanna leave? Our mods are good, the ban hammer is always soaked with the brain fragments of fools.
I hope to god not, but /u/redpillschool and the other mods have done a good job of keeping that at bay. As long as we're a locker room male-only uncensored community we'll stay strong. I fucking love having a community of dudes I can talk about this shit with.
I actively avoid the media and the news now because of the way the world has been going, so it's good to have an outlet.
Not that I agree with making a message palatable, in fact I disagree with it because otherwise the message is weakened and the strength of the male-based community is lost.
But I think a great book that gives a palatable dose of the red pill is The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida. It's a bit new age-y, Elliott Hulse draws from it a lot, but for your average person it contains a lot of red pill truths.
It talks about how current relationships and cultural messages want to deny the obvious fact that men and women are different and get different things out of a relationship. The guy needs to be dominant and the leader otherwise the female will gain no happiness from the relationship.
There are different red pills.
i) seeing society for what it is (gynocentric) ii) seeing women for what they are
Quite a chunk of the MRM sees i) but refuses to see ii) and base their solution on "men and women are equal/ the same" which is utterly blue.
Quite a chunk of the PUA community knows neither i) nor ii) and are just using a strategy guide pressing buttons hoping for a correct response
The result can be seen both in r/mensrights and r/seduction. Both are deeply political correct and pro feminism. To modify a saying. A community not explicitly red will inevitably become blue.
Neither community used to be. They changed because of the vitriol lobbed their way and wanted to be accepted by the mainstream. TRP rejects that and has stayed the raw "locker room" much the same way #gamergate has rejected the infiltration of SJWs and feminism.
"TRP is the hero the manosphere deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So SJW's will attack us with all the shaming language they can muster. Because we can take it. Because we're not their hero. We're a silent guardian, a watchful protector. The black knight." --Me, just now. Because why not.
That was my point. Thus the paraphrased O'Sullivan's Law: Any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time.
I don't see that. They changed because reddit as a whole (and its management) is in a position to kick a sub out if it becomes too un-PC. But new forums aren't that expensive to create any more, and TRP has the emergency mailing list in case exactly that happens. And of course the guts to simply stay the course and dare them. Which means Reddit's management is in the same position as the wife of a RP man. They can leave, but they can't beat us.
Didn't seddit and the seduction community as a whole do it mostly for commercial reasons? Which seems weird to me. The whole beach body poster thing recently showed that controversy can explode a company's sales. No such thing as bad press.
I think the MRA upset over the redpill is mostly just a defense strategy. One of the most effective attacks against them is to group them in with us. How many times have they been listed right along side TRP as a hate group? MRA's have to distance themselves from TRP in order for their emotional appeals to be taken somewhat seriously.
You're right. The sad thing is that nobody take mens' emotional appeals seriously anyways.
They also like to group TRP with coontown etc. It all amounts to ad hominem. Call it out as such and ignore any further "debate".
Then raise your arms in victory, because you've ultimately won the argument.
There's always a clash between the subjective and the objective. Subjectively, you and I are red pillers and believe that the red pill is the way to go. Objectively, both TRP and MRM are necessary for men. There's always a tension there when deciding the right thing to do or the right thoughts to have on the other camp.
Careful there. "Do you believe in equality? If so then you're a feminist."
I've had that, both personally and in discussions in newspaper forums, it is easy to take apart however. First you ask them to define 'equality', do they mean equal rights, equal opportunities according to merit, equal outcomes, equal as in 'men and women are actually the same, and masculinity and femininitiy are cultural constructs'?
Equal rights? Yep, me too, therefore I'm anti-feminist, because feminists oppose this. Cite examples.
Equal opportunities by merit? Yes, and therefore I'm anti-feminist, because feminist favour quotas...
Equal outcome? No that is discrimination, and therefore I'm anti-feminist, because feminist demonstrably do favour equal outcomes.
Equalism as in men and women are intrinsically the same? No, and then cite lots of papers about brain development, early differences in behaviour, yada yada.
Right, that wasn't my point. Dismantling the idea of equality of outcome and using that to distance yourself from feminism is certainly easy. My point was: saying that people are in agreement with "The Red Pill" as an ideological movement whether they identify wih it or not is a very dangerous thing to do. That is the same tactic feminists use to co-opt things, and it's intellectually dishonest and makes the arguer and the red pill in general look stupid and militant. Which is what bsutansalt was doing when he said
"MRAs being butthurt over your [OPs, Karen's] defense of us is ironic as IMO they're already one of us, whether they agree with us or not."
If they don't want to identify as red pill that's their prerogative, not his. Red Pill is a forum where people discuss and write. There is no "if it walks like one, quacks like one" argument for people who use a forum. Many red pill forum posters don't even describe themselves as "Red Pillers" and identifying with this forum as a whole is fairly silly because there are genuine criticisms to be made of it, despite how useful I and many others find it.
But yes, hat is one great way to argue against the "Do you believe in equality" trick. And equal legal rights is all I believe in, and not for any kind of moral reason. Not for an appeal to the "idea" of equality.
Right, I see what you mean now. It is one thing to say that someone actually agrees with some of our ideas (and possibly strongly disagrees with others), quite another to say they are 'one of us' whether they like it or not.
Hi Karen, thanks for joining us.
I'm sure you're all too familiar with the problems plaguing MRA's and their ineffectual strategy. While TRP isn't an advocacy sub, what do you feel men could do to right things out in society? Do you believe there is anything men can do, or does it first necessitate shaping female (and BluePill male) sentiment?
Definitely women need to be convinced that it's in their interest to stop shitting on men. It's no shock that often the first women to wake up and say "WTF?" are women with sons who've been hurt by the status quo--sometimes a status quo that these women fought to bring about.
For a while, I really railed against framing things that way. You know, framing it such that "depriving fathers of access to their kids harms the kids" or "depriving men of an education means women can't find partners they want". Basically, the strategies that seem to work best are the ones that come right out and say, "society, you're treating your appliances poorly, and they're going to stop functioning the way you want."
But that's kind of the only way to really get and keep people's attention.
As such, PUA and MGTOW apply a lot of pressure on the status quo. Neither is really giving women what they want/need when they want/need it. They're either refusing to play, or "cheating" (read, playing fair rather than giving women a headstart).
Blue pill males will either wake up or they won't. It's like a devoutly religious person who believes in prayer over medicine. If his kid dies, he'll either completely reject god, or he'll be even more invested in god. So essentially, when a blue pill male gets burned, he will either wake up (and wake up hard), or more likely, he'll force himself into an even more profound coma.
Good thing for us is we only really need about 10% of the population to be behind us in order to start shifting the Overton window.
Do you foresee a shift even further entrenching the status quo? Something akin to the Japanese herbivore culture, where men become even more effeminized and are willing to simply exist without female interaction. Possibly with the addition of ending up heavily subsidizing single motherhood.
If that occurs, it will be a self-regulating thing.
When it comes to natural selection, it's not about survival of the fittest, but survival of copies of genes.
Nikola Tesla was brilliant and gave so much to humanity, but he didn't pass on his genes. Neither will the herbivores. Or the hardcore MGTOWs.
The future belongs to the children of the people who had children.
Well, yes, but we are not speaking about herbivore 'genes', nor herbivore 'families'. We are talking about herbivore culture. Culture doesn't depend on genetic lineage to spread. By far the most of men could be susceptible to this culture if the current trend of men-kicking continues. I'm not so sure about this being self regulating. Not on a small scale at least. Perhaps in a 'collaps of society' kind of way.
Not the way MGTOW will go. More likely a strong push for surrogates, single fatherhood and high investment in artificial wombs.
The philosophy behind MGTOW is different to the herbivore just give up on yourself mentality. The whole save money for yourself part of MGTOW - at some point they will spend that money on themselves.
Not while the feminine imperative rules the government. Expect to be taxed heavily to save the poor wimminz.
Exactly. unless you're willing to abandon your country and citizenship that's an utterly bullshit argument. MGTOWs sometimes conveniently forget that their freedom to do as they wish is restricted by their governments.
THAT'S the 10% rule I was looking for. Thank you! I couldn't remember what it's called.
For those who aren't familiar, the short short version is that you only need about 10% of society to embrace a new/radical idea for it to become mainstream and adopted by the majority.
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/580/what-is-the-overton-window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
That is quite interesting. I wasn't aware of this.
I suppose the result will depend on the degree to which "blue pill-ism" is taught vs. inherited. If it's mostly taught, the sons of women who practice AF/BB will be BP because they'll get it from their BB "fathers". If it's mostly inherited, they will be RP because they'll get it from their genetic fathers.
I like that. This is a very strong argument.
Yep, many guys, I dare say most guys, here came after getting their hearts broken.
Pretty much an exact copy of my question, so feel free to ignore mine and post any answer here.
Yo, Karen. Welcome.
With your recent post I've seen comments in this sub about how guys had a light bulb appear above your head after reading your work.
My questions are:
1) Why do you do what you do? What makes you want to write articles and make videos about this topic? 2) Why do you think you have a seemingly rare stance on the matter?
I want to write and talk about the topic because I find it very interesting, and because it affects everyone close to me in one way or another.
If you look at evolution and natural selection, everything we are is the product of who had sex and who didn't. Feeling thirsty when we need water is only a thing because individuals who felt that drank water and were able to reproduce and pass on the trait.
We're a sexually reproductive species, so nearly everything we're programmed to do is down to sex. And men and women are different. They have different levels of caloric investment in offspring, and different strategies that will depend on a variety of surrounding cultural and environmental stimuli.
In other words, life is sex, and sex is men and women, and that's interesting.
As for your second question, I'm not sure. I know I have a slightly masculinized brain (finger lengths and so on), and I'm bisexual, and hyperlexic and sort of kind of aspie in some ways. I was never a typical girl, even when very young. I played with legos as a kid, and my parents got me a $120 lego set for Christmas in 1977 (that's a billion in adjusted dollars). I never belonged to a clique. I just kind of did my own thing. I have very few close relationships I value, and the rest of the world is just kind of there.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not normal?
How is it that in this same AMA you have said women are innately feminine...while also being a woman, and not innately feminine?
Well, the outliers don't disprove the general trend.
A woman has to be more emotionally stable than 85% of women to be as emotionally stable as the average man. A man has to be more sensitive than 85% of men to be as sensitive as the average woman.
What's going on at the ends of the bell curve don't change what's happening in the middle.
And I do have some feminine tendencies. But there are other things very common to women that I have no patience for.
Does AWALT apply to girlwriteswhat or is she a unicorn?
Her bf here. She's not a unicorn. She's like most women except more talkative and lazier at picking up around the house. But good company. She's more self aware so she can filter a lot of stuff but all the same drives are still there, if that makes sense.
In a recent thread on theredpill a poster listed some ideas what MRAs could learn from GamerGate and why MRAs are continuing to use the wrong tactics
r/TheRedPill/comments/37avbg/what_mras_could_and_should_learn_from_gamergate/
MRAs are using emotional arguments with the idea in mind that the sexes should be equal "MRAs are saying to politicians, feminists, etc: "What you're doing is hurting us, and we want you to stop," and to the public at large they're saying "We do care what you think of men, it's wrong and it's hurting us."" As a MRA put it in the thread.
To which OP replied
Do you agree? Are MRAs using the wrong tactics and are the refusing to learn from their mistakes/ losses?
IMO the only way MRAs will achieve their goals is when enough women join their ranks. When men complain about the status quo disadvantaging other men they're seen as whiners, but when women complain about the same things they're listened to because of the group bias mentioned above and because of their political might.
It may also help to couch the arguments as women's concern for their boys rather than adult men because then they can corner politicians with "think of the children". Yes we're stealing political tactics from the traditional left, but if the tactics work then who cares. Besides, as I've stated before, we are the new liberals.
Followed the link saw the question about /pol/. GamerGate was started by 4chan /v/ and /pol/. With /v/ bringing the gaming tactics, strategies and the endurance and /pol/ handing out the real world political advice and the digging.
/pol/itical incorrect is a mixture of crazy theories and red pills on everything. Not just women. Everyone has to decide for himself what is true and what is not.
As for new liberals, no I don't think so. Just take a look at roosh and his rebranding. Shows that quite a large part of the manosphere is tradcon.
All I'm saying is when the left has become institutionalized (which is has in many respects), then the right becomes liberal in comparison. Liberal has traditionally been equated with leftist, but that's no longer the case across the board.
Now, I may be wrong here, but I see a whole clusterfuck regarding the word 'liberal'. By the literal sense of the word it means nothing more than 'in support of freedom'. But this has a completely different meaning when you look at it through a right wing or left wing lens:
In the right wing interpretation it means 'free from unnecessary state legislation'. Free to do as you will with minimal obstruction. This is the kind of liberal we as TRP tend to side by.
In the left wing interpretation it means 'free from repressive socioeconomic circumstance'. Free to go to university even when you come from a poor background. Freedom in having state support when you don't earn enough to support yourself. The freedom to not be judged by your ethnicity. But also the feminist approach: freedom from the oppression of men.
The consequences of each view almost completely oppose eachother. In the right wing case you'd see lower taxations because you want to bother people as little as possible with it. While in the left wing case you'd see high taxes in order to support all the people who live less favourite situations. And that's just one example.
All this renders the word 'liberal' completely useless in my opinion.
None of those are freedom. Those are gilded cages. In other words trading liberty for security.
There is some truth to that. But you go and convince those people of that. If there is such a thing as left liberalism, the things I listed are at the heart of it.
I think this stems from a notion that being constricted by lack of financial means or a feeling of being oppressed creates a belief of being not free. Thus, the political movement which tries to fight off these disadvantages is considered a fight for freedom in their eyes.
Liberal in the dictionary definition perhaps but not with the political connotations.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Should have probably clarified that earlier.
Have you had anyone actually tried to follow through with a threat at you? Physically that is. I know they have harassed you electronically.
No, and in reality, none of the threats I've received have been remotely credible. I don't bother to conceal my contact info, so anyone could call me and say all kinds of fucked up shit. But no, the only stuff people have done that have actually upset me was the fake DMCA claims that almost toasted my channel, and all it took was the threat of a lawsuit and a reminder that filing a false DMCA is actually perjury to get them to back off.
I'm not worried at all.
I appreciate the reply and the work that you do. it is important.
Welcome Karen, and thank you for the AMA.
I understand that you've had many speaking engagements at educational institutions and the like. What kinds of biases (if any) have you encountered/detected when receiving an invitation to speak?
For examples, have you ever been pressured to modify the content of your talk to make it more palatable to the anticipated audience?
Lastly, when you do give speaking engagements, is there typically a clear majority in the sex of your audience?
I've never been asked to tone things down. In fact, when I spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I suggested about 5 different titles for my talk, and they picked the most controversial one.
When I do speak for an audience, whether it's a men's issues audience or a more broad political audience, it's mostly men in the audience. One thing I've noticed too is that in cases where the audience isn't red pill or interested in gender issues, it's the men who kind of perk up and get all curious and enthusiastic and ask lots of good questions, and the women who get all annoyed.
.... God forbid, they're waking up
Hi Karen! Tnx for doing this AMA! My question to you:
You appear to support the MRA in their efforts while also recognising that the ball is now mainly in the women's court for changing the current problems in society. Unfortunately the men aren't very succesful in their pursuits; people are not willing to listen to us. Undoubtedly this is also partly where your succes stems from. In your view, how can we, the men facing these injustices- better make our voices heard? What can we do to really stand a fighting chance in all of this?
Thanks in advance!
As horrible as it is, I think the negative effects on women and children of neglecting and marginalizing men are what will get people's attention.
In that sense, MGTOW and PUA form a vise, squeezing from both sides. People don't like PUAs because they "take advantage of women without giving women what they want". People don't like MGTOW because they "ignore women without giving women what they want." Best thing you can do there is make sure people know why these groups of men are doing what they're doing--the system is rigged, so some opt not to play, and others have decided to play the system and "cheat" women out of sex without giving them what sex has historically gotten for them.
You essentially let people know these guys aren't going away--they're only going to increase in number until the system is repaired.
Children are also coming out of the woodwork now as teens and adults, speaking out against family courts that unjustly deprived them of fathers. The internet has no gatekeepers, so it's very easy now for a 16 year old to do that. Best thing you can do is share those testimonials far and wide.
If I had my druthers, there would be men filing sexual misconduct complaints against women willy nilly in universities, too, but I doubt that's going to happen. 43% of college aged men have been sexually assaulted according to the criteria that are applied to women victims.
Things won't change until the impact on women and children is felt, and properly attributed.
Thanks for the thought out response! On a side note, you appear to not be aware of the bot that removes any comment in TRP below a certain word count. Just a heads up, some of your shortest comments are not visible.
Since you just linked there, I'd be very interested to read your take on my response to your 'attraction can be negotiated thread' (also not visible, links and quoted text don't count). Not before you've worked your way through all these comments of course. Thanks again!
Hi Karen.
Since most people live inside political/search bubbles and do not seek to challenge their own views what do you feel are things that "TRP" (I'll leave you to interpret what exactly that is) often overlooks or fails to notice?
Hey Karen.
I thought I would just say, I think you're an intellectual power house, who hits people herder than a freight train, with logic and rational opinions.
So thanks I guess. For fighting the good fight.
:)
Hello!
I know this question may have been asked dozens of times, but whatever.
As someone who doesn't live in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia or any other country where men's rights is a big issue, how can I help? I'm from Hong Kong, and it seems like there's not much that I can do.
Thanks!
I'm not familiar with the situation in Hong Kong, though I'd guess there are going to be issues there. Wherever you are in the world, there are going to be problems particular to men.
That's a tough one, for me, as networking and organizing are probably my biggest weaknesses. You might put out a call on /r/MensRights or here on TRP to see if there are any other likeminded people in your area, then arrange a meet-up.
Men's Rights Edmonton started as one guy with a website. Might have been a year after starting his site, he happened to hear that I lived in Edmonton, so messaged me asking if we could meet for lunch, and from there we just kind of grew. Poster campaigns helped, and one of them even got us on national news media, which resulted in more exposure and more people contacting us, some of them who are actively involved in other, single-issue groups, such as child support and custody reform, or parental alienation, or libertarian (small government) politics, etc. Publicity stunts such as our founder running for city council on the "Patriarchy Party" ticket also got us some exposure.
We're still a small group, but we have a fairly large number of contacts in other groups now, and we sometimes coordinate our efforts. But the first step to getting things off the ground seems to be connecting with a few other people who are willing to put in some time and energy.
Unfortunately, meetups are strongly discouraged here because of the risk of doxxing :(
Thanks!
Under no circumstances in your journey should you admit knowledge or association to this sub.
Do what these people did in the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzICEroe-U
I never knew about this...and it's really old...but thanks for the link.
I'm not sure on your past (or current status) but what do you look for in a guy?
Has being involved with everything you do affected your outlook on potential partners?
Sexual dominance is big. Outside the bedroom, I like a partnership with shifting leadership, even if it's more often him than me. That is, if I'm the one with competence in something, I'm not going to accept someone with less competence calling all the shots. In areas where we're equal or he has more competence, I'm happy to hand the reins to him, and I want him to be willing to pick them up.
I like to feel necessary, and to feel my partner is necessary, in the sense that we make each other's lives better. A sense of humor is important--and not a gentle one.
My current guy says things to me that, if removed from context (facial expression and tone) people would call abuse. But it just makes me laugh. I say things back that would probably also be considered abuse (I threaten to stab him in his sleep quite regularly), but it's all playful.
And he has to have a sense of humor about himself, too. I recall one time when he was sick, he was really playing it up and milking it. He says to me, "Karen, if I don't make it, if I don't live through the night... promise me you'll erect a monument in my honor..."
I said, "oh, yeah, of course. And I'll give SUCH a eulogy. 'I don't know where he is today, what realm he's entered, or whether he's really in a better place than this earthly plane of suffering and strife, but there is one thing I do know. At least he's not whining...'"
He laughed so hard.
Real partnership (a shared vision), playfulness, affection, lust, solidness, being able to depend on each other, supporting each other's goals, acceptance of each other's flaws, all of that. And being able to talk honestly and frankly when there's a conflict--that's a big one.
Karen, you're adored for all you do. We need you.
Would you mind talking about the Penny Arcade PAX 'no boothbabe' policy for a bit? I feel that it has been misconstrued, that it's a recent development caused by and in line with sex negative SJW pushes. I think that would make perfect sense to assume based on our current culture, but it is inaccurate because the culture and reasons for the ban made, what, 6 years ago?
Gamers have had to always fight against the same stereotypes we're urrently fighting against, the loser neckbeard virgin slobbering-over-exposed-skin man children. We've been fighting against it because it has been inaccurate for at least a full generation. Nonetheless, two facts are unavoidable: Sex sells, and sexual arousal increases anxiety in crowds. Marketing folks still considered many of us to fit the stereotype, so the level of shameless pandering overshadowed the actual products. Gamers wanted conventions where people came together for the games, not for tits under the pretense of games. We felt insulted that every company that did this thought we'll give money because tits, making everyone who thought us that stereotype right. As for kids, yeah, some will parent properly and go or not based on what's best for the kid, by their own standards. But I dont recall ever hearing a 'think of the children!' cry in regards to the PAX ban.
Penny Arcade's booth babe ban didn't have anything to do with a sex negative agenda. It was a market decision saying that there was a need for a convention where it's the games and gamers that matter, for the adults who found themselves offended at the pandering, or find the environment less welcoming. The market wanted a con that felt a gathering of friends in a favorite basement, not a business meeting at a strip club.
I worry that the views I've heard expressed about the booth babe ban don't accurate represent the ban, it's purpose, or it's history. You may want to give it a deeper look and I'd be happy to try and help.
First of all, I'd like to say thank you for being a voice for those of us who cannot speak up.
My question is a personal one- I'm 21 and at a crossroads in life. I won't ask you for the answer of what to do, but what I'd like to know is for someone who has done and achieved so much, where were you in life at 21? And is there any advice you would offer yourself, or that you could offer me about- well, growing up I guess.
Where was I at 21? I was working as a first cook in a 5 star hotel, having worked my way up from the bottom. I'd just met the man I would end up marrying. I was a little less than a year away from becoming pregnant with my first son.
After I had my first kid at 23, I taught myself how to sew, how to upholster, restore and refinish furniture, how to do home repair and renovation. I was staying home with the kids, so I figured I had to cut costs wherever possible. I'd been writing fiction since age 15, and picked that up again, and got serious about it when we got our first computer (second hand) in 1995, but it was over 10 years before I landed a contract with a publisher.
So yeah, at age 21 I was ready to get serious, get married, have kids, make a home and family, and work my ass off.
A lot of people who have kids at that age (before 25) say they'd tell their younger selves not to do it. But I wouldn't. I'm glad I had my kids when I did, even though I was young. I'm glad I married the man who fathered them, even though the marriage ended after 15 years.
I think maybe what I'm getting at is that there's very little out there right now kind of pushing kids to get serious about their lives. I was 18 when I moved out of my parents' house (even though my parents were and are awesome). That's kind of odd these days, for a kid to move out just because they want to stretch their wings, or make their own nest. My own kids are like that--my oldest boy is almost 21, and his sister is 19, and they're happy living here and working and contributing to the household and saving money. I'd have been going stir crazy, but that was me and they're not me.
I have no doubt that if I gave them the boot they'd be able to make their way. If they lost me tomorrow, they'd be able to look after themselves and their little brother. And maybe that's what a lot of kids need these days--just to be booted out of the nest and left to meet the challenges of adulthood.
Growing up used to be a date on a calendar and a set of expectations. You turned 13 as a Jewish kid, and all of a sudden you're a man, not a boy. You got passed through the crotch of a tree in some forest, and you were considered an adult. You passed some milestone, and that was it, now you're expected to take care of yourself, and you'd better get on with it.
That doesn't happen these days. My bf's aunt and uncle are throwing some huge expensive catered party for his cousin because she got her bachelor's degree, but she's still living at home, and she's probably going to go for a masters after this, and still live at home. Her mom still talks to her like she's 12.
I guess growing up is being able to take care of yourself without leaning on other people unless absolutely necessary? It's leaving the nest and landing where you land and making the most of it.
There's a couple of key reasons for this. First is cost. When you were 18 I'm sure it was more feasible to go out and get a job that eeks out a livable wage. But if you look at the cost of a 1 BR apartment, car payment, car insurance, and monthly food and utilities then compare it to the monthly salary a job a kid right out of high that pays, in most areas it's feasible today.
The second is technology. Remember how TVs (both technology and programing wise) used to suck in 1995, and if you had internet you would get disconnected every time someone wanted to make a call? Now you can educate yourself for free, build a community of friends and associates in your underwear, get a million Steam games for $10, and literally spend every waking moment of your life watching YouTube if you chose to do so. And you can do it all on a phone (except for the Steam games, I was projecting a bit).
Do you force your kids to pay rent or did they volunteer?
I think it came up in conversation, sort of a "hint hint," that they felt was fair. They sometimes throw in a bit more, depending on where we're at financially. My son essentially handed me his bank card when I was Christmas shopping and said to go to town with it--he wanted lots of presents for everyone, and money was still really tight at that point.
What do your kids think about your videos and your online fame?
Well, you've reinforced a hard truth I'd been trying to avoid for a long time- that the best thing for me to do is go out on my own and become my own person. To create myself from the foundation up- something I can be proud of. I'm not sure to what level it's feasible in today's market, but where there's a will (and a basic understanding of finances) there's a way, right? Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Karen, much appreciated.
Do you honestly believe that society's view of male disposability can be changed?
Men's right's groups recognized this problem; a lack of empathy toward men and the problems they face. Their solution to this problem seems to try to elicit empathy from society. As /u/redpillschool said in a post a while ago, they've simply doubled down on their faulty world view. I don't think emotional appeals will solve anything for men, but that seems to be the path the MRM is taking.
What is it that kick started youe channel and made you want to do what you do? Like, what was the thing that pushed you past your tipping point and made you want to express all of your controversial views to the world?
Big fan of your work, by the way.
I got interested in this stuff when I stumbled across the Spearhead years ago. I spent a lot of time discussing and learning initially, but then had to drop it all when I moved provinces and ended up working over 50 hours a week.
When I met the man I'm with now (we've been together for about 5 years), he introduced me to the MR subreddit. A lot of what attracted me to him was how he talked about his daughter, whom he has no rights or access to (she's not biologically his). That was probably what got me very involved--involved enough to dive right in, start a blog, etc. It struck me as a travesty that the only two people who gave a shit in the entire situation was my bf and his daughter, and they were the only two people who had no legal say in anything.
I started my channel mainly because I was sick of being accused of being a man. For whatever reason, the channel took off in a way the blog didn't, and it all just snowballed. And frankly, all you really need is to get a message every week from someone saying, "it was you that made me change my mind about suicide," or "it was you that made me stop hating women," or "it was you that made me cry for the first time in 20 years," to make you feel a responsibility to continue.
If you're interested, I did write about my bf's situation on AVFM: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/at-christmas/
What happened to Spearhead? Is your BF forced to pay CS for the girl?
Welcome to the sub. Please take a seat and administer the provided refreshments at your leisure.
What say you of the scientific assertions of this sub, such as women's hypergamous and solipsistic nature? If you aren't convinced, how does this affect your view of us as a community? Is there any particular assertion with which you take issue?
Well, it's just past 1 PM and I'm already halfway through a bottle of wine..
As far as assertions of the scientific nature, re female hypergamy and solipsism, I don't take issue with them. Even if I didn't believe them, I wouldn't necessarily find them offensive. I tend to find such things more interesting than offensive, and I'll try to figure out why people believe them, rather than condemn people for believing them. The only time I'll really take someone to task for believing such things is if they're in a position of influence and they believe them despite ample evidence right in front of them to the contrary (such as Mary Koss's contention that sexual aggression is a male on female thing).
As such, I don't take issue with any assertion made about women in TRP. I just examine the assertion, try to figure out if there's anything to it, and go from there.
Hypergamy is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and there's plenty of evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that it's not some "dire flaw" in female nature, but a result of the higher biological risk/caloric investment in offspring on the part of women. There's no moral judgment that can be applied to the reality that women risk and invest more, physically, in producing offspring and keeping them fed for the first bit, so there's no moral judgment that should be applied to the idea that women might have evolved to prefer mates who can compensate for, or maximize, that investment--either practically or genetically. Hypergamy makes sense, and there's plenty of evidence for it.
Solipsism is a little more complicated, but it's again just a product of the conditions women evolved in. I've witnessed myself the whole "women are like monkeys--they don't let go of one branch until the other branch is in their hand". Women evolved to seek stability, and a lot of that stability was provided by men. It's likely why girls reach menarche earlier if they have no father in their home--if you have no man in your home, the best strategy is to sexually mature as quickly as possible and attach yourself to a man as a stabilizing influence. Likewise, the tendency for some women to end relationships and want to cut all ties, even if there are children involved. Much of the female experience during our past might have involved an invading tribe killing or enslaving all the men, and the women being taken as wives or concubines. The woman who could not transition to her new situation was not as likely to survive and keep her offspring alive.
It's just how things were. And what we are is a product of how things were.
If there were some evidence that refuted these assertions, I'd take a deeper look at them, but for now, with the evidence I have, they make sense. And they don't make me feel offended or anything. I don't think any of these assertions, even if they're 100% correct, mean that women are flawed, or bad people. How they are (like how men are) might not be the best fit for modernity and the completely different reality of what our lives are like now, but there's a reason why.
One only needs to look at surveys of women being asked their spouse's relative income to see the evidence of this.
Of course the mainstream will often say that this is evidence of the 'pay gap' which has consistently been shown to be a myth, with extremely poorly defined parameters.
Hi, Karen!
I don't have a question. I just want to thank you with every fiber of my being for all that you have done -- and continue to do for us.
It is sad that only women's voices will be listened to, but I've accepted that that is the reality of the matter. I'm just grateful that there are strong female voices willing to speak up.
What is your information diet like? What subreddits (or elsewhere on the internet) do you read for new insights in how to explain men's nature to women and women's nature to men? (could include hate-reading)
Reddit's big. I'm also on several mailing lists that include people like Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, a bunch of lawyers, activists and people in media, and they send links through quite often. Random people send me things they think are interesting. One guy sends me an email every Friday full of links to interesting stuff (thanks again to him, BTW). I have a fairly large list of subscriptions on Youtube, so I watch/listen to videos while I wash dishes or cook or fold clothes.
Most of the evo-psych stuff I stumble across on reddit: papers on own-group preference, or global sex differences in personality, etc.
I've had a lot of authors send me their books--Tim Goldich, Peter Lloyd, Steve Moxon, etc. I was just gifted a book by the female coauthor of "Man (Dis)connected" (Coulombe and Zimbardo). I've gotten into some long discussions with academics over email, as well.
So it's mostly just a mish-mash of stuff. I tend to read media articles, blogs and academic papers more than books, because books tend to have an overarching thesis while I'm more interested in bread crumbs.
And of course, my first introduction to all this, which is largely responsible for my interest, was the Spearhead circa 2010.
I have a hard time reading feminist stuff, just because I can't make it through a paragraph before wanting to argue with it. Just like once I started writing fiction, I couldn't enjoy reading it because my internal editor won't shut off. You train yourself to see the flaws, and they stand out to the point where you just can't keep reading.
Thank you very much for all the videos you have made. When I was arrested and jailed after being falsely accused of a domestic by my ex, who I called the cops on after she attacked me in my own house, it was fairly cataclysmic in my social circle. I lost tons of friends who refused to believe me, I was receiving death threats from genuinely intimidating dudes regularly, and I never wanted to go outside or do anything outside of work. Your videos kept me company. You made me feel less alone. You reminded me that there are people who care, powerless as they may be. Your message and the "manosphere" in general gave me an understanding of the bigger picture of intergender social dynamics to help me be at peace with what happened, and to move on with my life with new found awareness. Thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart.
You're welcome. And thanks for sharing--it's stories like yours that keep me motivated. I get accused a lot of spreading hate, or giving men excuses to hate women, but more often than not, the messages I get are like yours. Finding hope in understanding, and being able to let go of the anger.
Hi Karen,
I love your videos-they really offer a pick me up for men who are constantly bombarded as assholes or sperm donors.
My question for you is this- what do you think the best thing I can do as a father to my beautiful son to shield him from so much of the hate and unfairness men face in today's society? How do I explain to him the way gender roles are set up today so unfairly against men?
Just be honest. Even about how things are unfair. I've never tried to shield my kids against that--explaining to them how things actually work is arming them against disappointment.
One of the most interesting things is that since the 1970s, when the "boys and girls should be treated the same" thing started, suicide rates for young men have increased. Feminists have claimed this is because boys and girls are taught they're different, and boys aren't nurtured and protected as much as girls are. They're taught their feelings don't count, so they have no "emotional intelligence", and then are susceptible to suicide.
I disagree. I think teaching your boys that people are going to care about their feelings as much as they do the feelings of women and girls is setting them up for a major shock. As children, yes, they're allowed to cry and express themselves in those ways, but then they hit adolescence and all of that changes very suddenly.
And it's not just "traditional norms". Feminists do it nonstop. An adult man talking about how something hurts or upsets him is going to get called a piss-baby, whiny man-baby or misogynist clinging to his male privilege, blah blah blah, by those same feminists who claim treating boys differently is morally wrong.
So prepare your son. Emotional coddling doesn't help any child, but for boys it can only lead to a very rude, painful awakening when they stop qualifying as "children". Don't conceal the harshness of things from him. He won't thank you for it later.
A lot of the arguments MRS/TRP folk make about men's rights and against feminism (as we know it today) tend to be based on veracity of evolutionary psychology - which, to me is pure science and can't be argued against. However, the liberal section of the intelligentsia argue that while all that may be true, we need to override our biological impulses and collectively strive for true equality between genders. After all, overriding our biological impulses has what gotten our species so far, they say. What do you think about this argument?
Our species hasn't come this far by transcending or overriding biological impulses, but by channeling them in a pro-social direction through a system of social and legal incentives and disincentives.
If we removed every artificial prop for women that is forcibly extracted from men and taxpayers (child care subsidies, welfare, WIC, after school programs, food stamps, medicaid, maternity leave, women-only scholarships, child support and alimony), most women would default to a traditional role because it's her best option if she wants children. Most men would still be willing to fill in the empty spots on women's spreadsheets. Social dynamics would change dramatically--women would begin to enforce a system that socially condemns promiscuity again, to protect their rights over the man they're codependent on, etc. They'd see women in the workplace as cutting into their bottom line as wives the way many of them did in the 60s and 70s. We'd see job ads again that announce "single men need not apply", because married men are simply more productive and stable because they have to be.
The idea that we've somehow "changed" our nature is silly. What's changed is the environment and the incentives and disincentives in it.
So you're saying that the State has become the father figure (beta bucks) and displaced men. Are you a libertarian?Pleasesayyes.
Soft core libertarian, yes.
Hi Karen,
So I shared your response to the question "Why do Men hate Women" from purplepilldebate on my Facebook. I honestly thought that piece was very well written and a display of mature self awareness on the plight of men from a woman's perspective. I also considered it to be politically correct enough to have an open debate, but I was only met with angry attacks, rebuttals founded on an array of logical fallacies, and accused of "pushing a rhetoric that undermines and distracts from more important and valid issues".
My main question is, what is an effective way to communicate to women/feminists/bluepillers about the egregious disenfranchisement of men and the corresponding relegation of masculinity?
edit: Here is Karen's response to the question "Why do Men hate Women?" question for those who may have missed it - https://archive.is/RRo4O
You just have to realize that most of those responses are from a small percentage of the population (anywhere from 15-30%) who WILL NOT be convinced. There will be more moderate people watching that discussion who don't want to court the ire of those people, and are just filing everything away quietly.
The more vitriolic and hostile the opposition is, the more they expose themselves as bigots. If you point out the fallacies calmly but firmly, they end up looking like lunatics. You can lose the battle and still, maybe, win the war.
That is, when you argue with feminists, you're not arguing with feminists--you're presenting a different perspective to the silent majority.
So you're saying persevere and maintain conviction, sounds good. I especially like that last bit, thanks for the inspiration.
Looks like I missed out on this AMA. Anyway, I have no questions for you, Karen, just a hearty thank you for all of your work and youtube videos. You have a way of explaining things that cut right to the core of an issue in a way most people have never considered before. Thank you!
You're welcome. :)
Hi Karen... huge fan of your work, and I hope I'm not too late to the party... since this is a Red Pill AMA, I'd like to get your input on a more Red Pill themed question...
How do you think the widening social acceptance of overt female promiscuity has affected the Sexual (or Marriage) Marketplace?
Price of sex is way down, price of marriage is way up.
Most women aren't panicking about this because they have government supports/subsidies, alimony and child support, as well as employment equity. They might WANT marriage, but they don't need it the way they used to.
Porn also drives the price of sex down. Women can't demand commitment in return for sex because a man who can get sex can get it from that other girl just as easily as (maybe more easily than) he can from her. And men aren't as willing to provide commitment in return for sex. Even men who can't get sex with real women have porn, and while it might not be great, from a cost/benefit analysis it isn't that bad, either.
The main problem arising from this state of affairs is not necessarily the effect on men and women that the sexes are drifting apart, but that children are being increasingly raised without the benefit of two parents--particularly that they are being raised without fathers, and with little to no compensatory influence from adult men in their early years, or positive adult male role models in media and pop culture. The child of a single mother might go the first 13 years of his/her life before having a solid, decent, responsible man in his/her daily experience (middle school math teacher, for instance).
Children are at highest risk of abuse when living with their biological mother and a non-related adult male (the boyfriend). I believe this might be the case because these mothers enable or turn a blind eye to such abuse--they feel they have to in order to maintain a relationship with a man who is not their children's father, who can leave at any time, and who is already putting up with some other guy's kids.
Without a steady, reliable, accepting role model among adult men, boys tend to seek them out from same age peers (they become more vulnerable to gang activity, etc). Without a father in the home, girls reach menarche earlier and are more likely to become teen parents and have children outside of solid relationships.
Many women somehow feel as if they can do it on their own just as well as they can with an invested male partner, because society provides them with the tangibles (money, assistance with care/supervision, etc). I'm sure there are cases where going it alone is the "least worst" option. But this breakdown in the relationship between the sexes has serious repercussions for future generations.
And.........what about the perceived ENCOURAGEMENT and CELEBRATION of female promiscuity/sexuality by the feminist movement? This is a real thing as far as I can tell.
What do you think about slut shaming? Also what would you think if a guy refused to marry you because of your past promiscuous behavior?
Slut shaming is mostly a female relational aggression thing, a form of intrasexual competition designed to drag higher status women down, or keep lower status women down.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychology-bitchiness-women-use-slut-shaming-defense-tactic-263531
Roy Baumeister coauthored a very interesting paper demonstrating that it's a predominantly female behavior, but he contended that it's a group strategy on the part of women to keep the market price of female sexuality inflated. He may be talking about a slightly different phenomenon, though There's the bitchy "OMG, what a slut!" that some women do to each other often for no reason other than "that girl's prettier than me", and sometimes perpetrated by sluts themselves. This type seems to be more targeted--"I feel threatened by that woman, so my girlfriends and I are going to talk about what a slut she is, even if we have no idea whether she's even had sex."
Then there's actual general social disapproval of promiscuity, which would be, in my mind, more of a female sexual cartel. Like yelling "SCAB!!" at strike-breakers. It's this general social disapproval that gives the above "bitchy slut shaming" a lot of its power. It's also led to all kinds of movements (anti-pornography, increasing the age of consent, maintaining legal bans on prostitution, etc) where women have been active politically through history.
The level of disapproval of promiscuity has been shown to be correlated to the perceptions of individuals as to the financial dependency of women on men. That makes perfect sense--if you're supporting a wife and her kids, you want to know they're your kids and not the milkman's, and when women are financially dependent on their men, they're more protective of the fidelity of their husbands.
I don't really place a moral judgment on slut shaming. It's an interesting phenomenon that I've never been on the receiving end of, for whatever reason. I was promiscuous and never bothered to hide it, but I never cheated on anyone I was with, and I never messed with anyone who was attached.
As far as what I'd think if a guy refused to marry me? I'd be disappointed, for sure. But there are rational reasons to consider promiscuous women an unsafe bet--they're more likely to cheat, more likely to go from one short term relationship to another, often have unstable personalities, etc. I'd hope that a guy could look at my entire character and not simply that one aspect of it. But if he couldn't, we wouldn't be a good fit together.
A common trope expressed in TRP is "sexual strategy is amoral." That is, facts about human behavior--specifically female behavior--have no moral bearing.
For example, we say that "dread game," a form of light emotional manipulation used to keep your wife/girlfriend attracted to you, generally works. Some people consider it to be immoral, while others disagree. The fact that it works for a considerable proportion of women is amoral.
With that distinction established, do you believe that there is anything immoral about TRP?
Hey Karen! While I love your videos, I'm not very keen on your history.
Why did you start making these videos?
How did you get involved in the MRM?
Karen, thanks for taking the time to answer our many questions.
You've probably been through quite a few manosphere-related debates both in-person and online. Who are the people from "the other side" that you respect the most, and why?
For example, I sensed that you have some respect for Naomi Wolf for standing up to other feminists regarding the rape accusations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, despite your somewhat contentious debate with her.
I can admire someone's position on an issue outside of their other views on other things.
One of the hilarious things that happened the other day was I left a comment on a Young Turks video about a viral clip of a Russian woman (a server in a bar) defending herself from a man who was sexually assaulting her.
I defended her actions.
Several people replied with "you're still a hateful idiot" types of comments.
I respect Wolf's stance on this one issue, but I can't respect many of her other views.
Hey Karen,
I don't really have a question. Just wanted to thank you for bringing awareness to mens issues.
Some of your videos, especially the one about disposable males has shaped my world view.
Wish you all the best in the future.
Thanks.
Hello Karen. Thank you for all your work.
In your opinion, what's the best way for a regular person to spread the message (the ideas, concepts, etc that you discuss) to others?
Also, what's the best way for fans to support you?
Broach the topic in such a way as to refer to a specific issue.
That is, baby steps. I often talk about DV initially, not necessarily because I expect people to feel bad for male victims, but in the sense that there are male victims and female perpetrators, and we've been fooled into thinking it's all men's fault--that DV is a "man thing" when it's not. And that children will learn violence is the solution no matter if it's dad hitting mom or mom hitting dad.
So yeah, you just kind of bring up one thing, try to frame it in such a way that the damage to children in particular is highlighted. "Did you know that girls who have no regular access to their fathers hit menarche earlier, and are more likely to be sexually abused and become teen parents? And their brothers are more likely to drop out of school or be involved in gangs and crime?"
You have to take a single issue where the bias is clear and obvious, and then frame it in such a way that you can demonstrate how treating men unfairly doesn't ONLY hurt those men, but children and wider society.
As far as supporting me, like, subscribe, share, all that. Consider donating or becoming a patron. Send me articles and links you find interesting. All that stuff.
Hello Karen.
Any chances that you will start once again putting video with you monologues? I really enjoy them.
Just wanted to say thank you for expressing the viewpoints you do. It's impressive and refreshing to hear the voice of a woman who knows what's really going on in this world and can provide a voice against the gibberish "modern feminism" is filling people's head with.
Hello Karen, I don't have any questions for you as of now, but would like to personally thank you for coming here and doing this, it is much appreciated.
No question, just wanted to say thanks.
Hey Karen. I just wanted to say thank you for all that you've done. I remember watching your shows before I had even heard of reddit and I was actually blown away and emotionally moved that there was a woman who seemed to understand the male perspective and cared.
In your opinion what would you suggest be done to make marriage a more enticing and worthwhile endeavor for men to partake in?
Turn it into an actual contract, like an employment or publishing contract. Right now, it's a legally binding blank piece of paper whose terms will be decided by the state upon dissolution.
That's a great answer. I feel that women wouldn't go for that though. I believe that it might take the romance out of the equation much like how presenting a prenup is so frowned up by so many women. How would you propose getting the populace to accept signing an actual contract that bound them to terms in a marriage? Also do you feel that saving marriage would be a good thing or a bad thing?
I've seen what I consider to be the most important question in about five different forms here - namely this:
Will the MRM adapt to the fact that arguing in good faith with feminists isn't working? Will we be seeing more of, "feminism-as-a-shit-test" type thinking or will we continue to see attempts to argue in good faith, despite every shred of evidence indicating it doesn't work, and it only causes the MRM to lose respect in the eyes of everyone?
[permanently deleted]
Do you agree that women having franchise (the vote) contributes to the issues we have in society today?
Do you believe franchise can be taken from women while maintaining continuity of the current state?
1) of course I do. Any change will cause other changes. Men having universal franchise also contributes to the issues we have in society.
2) I don't think there's any way to take the vote from women without a major upheaval leading up--so think "The Walking Dead" or "World War Z". If the vote was taken from women, I don't think continuity of governance would be an issue (that is, I don't think it would bring about catastrophic changes), but I don't think you'd ever get enough people on board to do it.
I was sort of thinking in a more secessionist sense than in a catastrophic sense.
There's no precedent under the United States Constitution for depriving a category of people of franchise after having granted it to them. Franchise for women having been made constitutional, it's unlikely that any attempt to rescind it would survive the judiciary.
My point is that breaking continuity of governance must be our stated plan.
Given that it's impossible to constitutionally deprive women of franchise now that they have it, and that women having it is a significant part of the problem, all men's activism (at least in the USA) must implicitly be secessionist or revolutionary.
Have you participated on the CC in your life and if you did, do you have regret?
CC?
Edit: Never mind, just got it.
Yes, sort of. I was quite promiscuous whenever I wasn't in a relationship. Mainly with guy friends who I liked and appreciated and could trust. My current relationship began as a fling, too--he's quite a bit younger than me, and we went into it thinking it would just be casual sex.
I don't regret the experience, probably because most of the time it emerged out of genuine fondness and affection. I've had (consensual) sexual experiences I didn't enjoy much, for sure, and that I might not do again if I could have a do-over, but I can't say I regret those either.
As far as the negative effects of promiscuity on women, I don't have any problems with fidelity, forming long term bonds, etc. And the only relationship I've ever been the one to end, it was a year before I started dating again--I know most women have a "back burner" guy ready when they break up with someone, but that's never been me. When I'm with someone, other men are pretty much off my radar.
In a way, doesn't TRP turn you off because of their stance on promiscuous women? Through and through, TRP members say that promiscuous girls are broken, are not relationship material, and that women always look for better partners (hypergamy), which you seem to fully reject.
I don't fully reject it. I've seen it too often to reject it. I've seen my friends do it, and seen men who are friends deal with it.
I don't personally feel I'm broken, but I can't say that this isn't the case for a large cohort or even a majority of other women.
I mean look. Some women cheat. Sometimes when there's no valid reason to (that is, they have a good, devoted man at home who is focussed on their happiness). I don't and never have. Some women cheat when they're feeling "dissatisfied" with their relationship. I don't, and essentially dealt with about 5 years of being very unhappy, and another full year after breaking the relationship, before I even started dating again.
I've never cheated. I've never tried to horn in on some other woman's relationship. And I was never into riding an "alpha cock carousel" either. Most of the men I had casual sex with were just ordinary, average guys I liked as friends who I thought could handle something more without getting all weird about it.
Hooking up with a guy I barely knew was pretty rare, and those are, almost without exception, the times I might choose not to do over again if given the chance. Usually, there was a bond of affection there prior. Most of the time, I wasn't looking for a partner, or even a lay.
From what I've seen of women, I can't say that TRP is wrong about these things. Perhaps they're not as blanket as TRP claims, but as far as general trends, as I said, I see it happening, even among women I like as friends.
I don't fully reject it. I just don't think it's me. Maybe that's self-delusion, but there's nothing in my history that would reasonably indicate that.
There's a feeling a woman gets in her gut when she's flirting with someone and she means it. When it's either consciously or subconsciously "a possibility". When I'm with someone, I just don't get that feeling. I've had so much opportunity to cheat (and honestly, I doubt doing so and getting caught would break my current relationship because he's in the negative integers as far as jealousy goes), but it's never even occurred to me. Other men are just off my radar, sexually.
But that isn't the way it is for most women. It's just not.
Thanks for being here Karen,
Do you think Hillary Clinton will win the election? If she does, what would that mean for both men and women?
I hope she doesn't, but I fear she will. For men and women, it would mean more divisiveness and zero effort to repair relations between the sexes.
Hi Karen, couple of questions for you
1) Do you see law becoming less gender biased anywhere in near future? 2) Will LGBT community play a role in driving this by creating situations where same genders are on both sides of argument?
That's my hope.
Generally it's been the case that legal changes occur after women get burned. In Florida, for instance, most of the push to reform lifetime alimony laws was spurred by the fact that the "mancession" led to a lot of divorces where the man was entitled to lifetime alimony from their breadwinner ex wives. Of course, Florida NOW convinced the governor to veto the bill in the final stage because it would hurt more women than it would help, but it was the result of treating women the way we've always treated men that finally convinced that state to look at the issue.
Hey Karen, I've read some of your posts and your work. You take a stance that is sadly very controversial these days. I have a couple questions for you:
Why is the reaction to this place so full of vitriol and hate? There's a lot of talk about trying to shut TRP down, in addition to the usual insults. Why are people so concerned about us, when other much worse forums exist?
Do you think that it is possible for society to change course, or will men eventually succumb to the onslaught/go their own way?
1) Because you say things about women that aren't 100% sunshine and lollipops.
2) It's possible. Probable? Maybe not.
Hi Karen, love your work. British guy here. Few questions, would like to know what you think about;
Esther Vilar's book The Manipulated Man?
How do you feel about the use of "Game" within a relationship?
Why is everyone in western culture so insistent we accept everyone for who they are and is that a feminist idea?
Why do you think feminists are so obsessed with rape?
Big love.
I don't have a question, but I wish I did.
Oh well. I'm a fan. Good luck and all that.
It's easy to tell men marriage makes no sense to don't get married, but what about men who want children eventually? Things I've considered are screening potential mates really hard, marry a foreigner from a magical land where women still value men, and build wealth then pay for surrogacy. What are your thoughts?
What are some ideas or theories propagated on this subreddit that you disagree with?
Since entering the manosphere and becoming a public figure, what in your opinion has been our biggest triumph and biggest failure/setback for men's issues?
Karen
Good morning and thanks for doing this AMA.
I recently wrote an article about tactics on trp and why I think MRA tactics are doomed to fail as long as they rely on any sort of "emotional based argument" in which they try and get society to care about male suffering.
The crux of my main argument was
So how can we get MRA groups to understand that emotionally based arguments will always fail, and that if they want to get rid of things like the Kangaroo rape courts on campus, they are going to have to do it via the legal system?
No question from me, I'd just like to say I sincerely appreciate everything you've done.
Damn...missed this...of course. Just want to say, your.just.great.
Karen, what is your point of view on so-called True Love? Do you believe in it, or at least want to?
Do you have thoughts you'd like to share about the red pill concept that women can never, by their very natural design, love men in the loyal, self-sacrificing way that men's egos normally want to be loved? That a woman's love is always a little mercenary, and always conditional on whether she thinks she can do better: is there anywhere to trade up to at the moment for her?
We often discuss this here, not without a certain bitter manly tear, under the name of female hypergamy.
Karen, what do you think of feminist movements outside of the Western world? Do you view them just as negatively as the modern Tumblrina SJW feminists, or do you view them more positively? What do you think of groups like the Gulabi Gang, for instance?
Their focus seems to be entirely on women and girls. How can society be improved when you're only trying to fix things for half of the population?
The rhetoric around this group includes the "epidemic" of rape in India. Judges and investigators see things otherwise--there's significant evidence that about half of rape reports in India derive from consensual sex between unmarried persons, but which fall under statutory definitions of rape that are being questioned within the system as to their moral basis in a changing social landscape. Does a woman who willingly has sex with a man have the right to charge him with rape to compel marriage if and when she becomes pregnant? If she has the moral and legal right to consent to sex outside of marriage, does she have the right to withdraw that consent when she decides marriage is what she wants?
While I'm certain that, among females, low-caste women are the most vulnerable to actual rape (and the most likely to be ignored as victims), there are HUGE problems with the legislation that's come down over the last 20 years.
Dowry abuse is a thing. So is abuse of the laws designed to prevent and punish dowry abuse. Rape is a thing. So are false accusations, particularly given the loopholes in law and due process.
And one of the most horrible things is that entire families can be criminally implicated in dowry abuse cases, including minor children, and you sometimes see entire extended families sitting in jail awaiting trial based solely on an allegation.
Places like India need movements. What they don't need is feminism.
This is a serious question:
Do you think that society has a real risk of breaking down from misunderstandings between the genders on any given level and do you think that MGTOW as a group could withdraw from the 'game' enough to expedite this breakdown in societal cohesion, especially regarding the breakdown of the marriage paradigm, leading to an instability for children and hence, a lack of positive environments for creating a healthy citizenry in general? (Sorry for the run-on sentence).
I ask this because, out of all the stuff I read on here on any topic, this is the idea that fascinates me the most. But, either this seems like willful delusion, trying to make things fit our narrative so it gives us more passive power in our worldview, or it really does seem like things could be going in that direction.
I mean, the silent movement of the manosphere and especially of the MGTOW branch is actually pretty large, by my estimation, and as more men join the sphere, it actually could cause an avalanche in the wider society, but maybe I'm giving it too much credit.
Hi, Karen!
In my past, 95% of the work issues I had were with women. I can say I suffered mobbing and harassment by women in work environment in three different places. I have the conviction that women in the workplace can be as (or even more) violent than men, but it is a lot harder to detect violence from women to men because it is more psychological and because women can manipulate men (fellow colleagues, supervisors, managers) more easily than men.
However, there are nearly no reports, research or guidelines on women being violent to men in the workplace. When I googled the terms "violent women in the workplace" ALL links were to articles concerning violence against women, and NONE were of women being violent against men.
Could you please tackle this issue in your videos or in seminars/conferences?
I've found that in the workplace, there tend to be way more women who are just plain rude than men (they're not the majority, i'm not saying that at all). I've met plenty of men who are dickheads at work, making offensive jokes/comments about other employees, getting riled up over small things etc, but rarely have I met a man who is rude and hostile all the time. Especially to women, in fact i've never seen a man be constantly rude or aggressive towards women in the workplace. Yet some women in the workplace act like this all the time, especially to men.
Hello Karen, just wanted to say "what's up?" and commend you for doing this despite trp's reputation. I've been following you a long time, and even remember your activity in lesser known subs like r/srssucks. Do you remember the infamous Bonobo debate there? I was heavily involved in getting that debate started, I was known as ssjames there. Good times.
On TRP I read that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the guys. What's your take on this, is it accurate.. how can it be proven?
Greetings Oracle!
Your main topic is feminism in society but I have not heard you speak about the effect of feminism on marriages.
What do you see as the primary differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0?
Do you agree (with most Red Pill and Married Red Pill guys) that feminism has imbalanced the marriage contract by disempowering men and empowering women to the degree that marriage is no longer a viable option for a man with Red Pill awareness?
What do you see as the solution to this power imbalance? On Married Red Pill we advocate the liberal use of Dread, Outcome Independence, Internalizing that YOU are the prize, not her, and by continually reminding beat down men that women may control access to sex, men ultimately control commitment.
What do you advise women on what to do about this power imbalance in marriage 2.0?
What legal and social policies can be undertaken to make marriage an attractive option for men again?
Should they be undertaken?
Thank You!
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/37drbg/on_men_women_and_rtheredpill/crng7df
In a video posted here around a week or so ago, you mentioned that from the earliest moments in life baby boys are met with an attitude that is starkly different than what a baby girl would receive. You mentioned from your own experience the pain you felt when tending to your own son from such a vulnerable and utterly helpless state and how it's heartbreaking to hear a child in need of love only to receive an aggressively imposed idea of what a man should be. That man being someone who is disposable compared to a girl who is nurtured immediately and whose self-worth is inherently recognized rather than cultivated or earned. Hopefully this is a satisfactory and accurate exegesis.
When I was listening to this video, it was eight in the morning after having driven my boyfriend to a job interview in an adjacent city and as I was in the parking lot with an hour or more of expected solitude, I wrote this in my notes as a response to what I listened to in your video. I was wondering if you had any interest, criticisms, or any general feedback to my response(s). If you find that you have no interest in my first question, I posed a more open second question I’d still love to hear a response to!
(1) The discussion of how we choose to raise boys (I don’t have my own experience as a mother and am 21) immediately reminded me of the difference between Plato and Aristotle when understanding the role of tragedy or good art in society. I mention this not to be abstruse or obscure, but to point to the different philosophical methods used to discuss the place of tragedy and art and how these two comparisons could be analogized to how we raise and treat men.
PLATO | In Book X of the Republic Plato argues that the tragic poets ought to be exiled from society because of the diminished epistemological status he writes that art, or mimesis, has from the ideological, or eidetic, truth. As such, the unparalleled and exalted status that tragic poets such as Sophocles, Euripides, and others had in society ought to be not only dethroned but exiled from society because Plato argued that their work constitutes nothing more than work that operates three times removed from the highest ideological truth. To Plato, art is merely mimetic; it is nothing more than a representation of something and three times removed from the truth. That is, there is a hierarchy of importance (representation of the chair (art) > the spatiotemporally located chair (object) > the idea of the chair (the idea or essence). To him, the idea of the chair, or what is eidetic, is what is most truthful because it appeals to rationality more than art, or what is mimetic, because it appeals to the ‘lesser areas of the soul’ of emotion (spirit) and desires (appetite).
This critique by Plato was inspired by the power that tragic poets had; however, his critique was not borne out of tyrannical means to obtain power of his own, but to discuss the societal ramifications of their prowess. The yearly festival of Dionysus held in the spring of every year is a good example of the intensity of the importance of tragedy and art in that time. All members, even most prisoners, were released temporarily alongside every member of Athens to congregate and watch plays. This was the means by which truth was obtained; as such, this was particularly problematic to Plato given that not only were adults receptive to these sources, but this was the means by which the youths of Athens were educated. By looking at the proper ordering of the soul, he wrote that art and tragedies appealed to emotion and desire more than rationality that is, with regard to his tripartite ordering of the soul, at the helm. Thus, to have tragic poets maintain their elevated status of educating the youth and society at large would create an unjust society because it appeals to the lesser parts of the soul; it does not appeal to rationality and consequently cannot properly formulate what is ‘just’. This is particularly important, as I mentioned before, because this is the final chapter of his famed Republic which is composed of Socratic dialogues discussing what justice is. In sum, Plato argues due to the nature of the ordering of the soul, art, because is mimetic or three times removed from the truth, that is borne out of tragic poets ought to be removed from society because they will, upon appealing to emotion and desire rather than rationality, yield an uneducated pool of youths and inevitable unjust society. Art, here, does not have a beneficial purpose - it argues to cast away a group of people because of the argued consequences of tragedy.
ARISTOTLE | This is contrasted with Aristotle whose Aesthetics spoke in response to what Plato portrayed as an inherently negative presence and consequence of tragic poets. Rather than addressing how tragic poets appeal to lesser forms of the soul, he writes that tragic poets serve a positive role in society because of the way it, among other things, facilitates the catharsis of fear and pity such that universal human anxieties can be coped with rather than subjugated as animalistic, lesser feelings. By examining the progression of a tragedy, he speaks of the integral moments that lead to this particular experience of catharsis which he argues is a better way to cleanse, purify, or purge universal anxieties we have that are portrayed before us (e.g., death, doing something harmful to yourself or others despite your best intentions). Marrying your mother and killing you father seems, on its face value, to be tragic because of how it defies societal norms and involves ending another person’s life. But why is this story successful? Why does this narrative lead to catharsis? Through the particular scenario, we are able to find what is universal. Through the specific experience of one character (Oedipus), we become entrenched in a disconnected way that summons the experience of catharsis. This isn't because the story is inherently tragic, it's because through a dramatic portrayal of someone acting a certain way despite themselves, we relate to that scenario. In our own experience, it allows us to reflect on the way in which we have acted despite our best interests, how despite our actions we fell into a consequence we intended to avoid. Catharsis allows a coping mechanism from the inevitable and universal truths that we all face: not particular phobias or anxieties (e.g., spiders, public speaking, etc.) but of death, how we can be gone in a matter of seconds, etc. Instead of ignoring the anxieties we have, art/tragedy provide a sophisticated means to allow us to cope with the idea that at any moment everything we are, everyone we love, and everything we value can be almost instantaneously gone. It allows us to cope with the fact that no matter how hard you try to avoid a particular end, you might end there. Or no matter how much you aspire to achieve a particular end, you might end up falling short.
What, then, is the point of mentioning any of this? One position argues that we should prevent a certain person from existing in society because they produce a product (tragedies/art) whose consequences are epistemologically deficient (appeal to emotion and desire rather than rationality). Conversely, the other argues that it should be acknowledged as something that is beneficial because, by way of catharsis, it allows us to cope with the universal anxieties we all face and cannot outrun. This, then, goes back to your point about the way we raise men. There are palpable consequences of ignoring a problem, and there are transparent benefits of acknowledging the humanity of a man and learning to cope with problems we all face not because of our gender, but because of our humanity. This is not to argue that men cannot aspire to be more stoic, it means that whenever they inevitably fall prey to a universal human emotion we all experience, they ought not be considered less valuable. This is also not to argue that men ought to be more emotional, it is to distinguish between controllable anxieties and uncontrollable anxieties. I think TRP does a great job at educating and inspiring men and women to find both the difference between those two and the importance of knowing the difference between them.
(2) This is a broader, much simpler question: what story or analogy do you have on the backburner that you’ve been wanting to share but haven’t found the right opportunity to present? It could be anything, serious or facetious, just curious if you have a thought that is completely new to many of us who greatly respect you and your work.
Thank you in advance and best regards.
Big fan. I engage feminists in debate and often get completely ignored or outright denied without much of an argument from the other side; are there any techniques or advice you might have for better ways to get the message through to close-minded people?
When you debate a feminist, you're not trying to convince them. You're trying to convince everyone else who's observing.
So keep your cool, stay logical and civil, present rational arguments, point out fallacies and bigotry, and don't worry too much if you appear to have "lost". If you lose because you were dogpiled, other people will start thinking about that behavior and wondering where the hostility comes from.
Since I just have the video link ready. Any comment on alleged cuckold symbolism in the teen show Bella and the Bulldogs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAQwq9bHD8
No idea. I'd have to do some research on that before venturing an opinion. :/
It's not "alleged". The creator of the show put it there explicitly. If you search his previous work on IMDB, you'll see it's very clear - not a secret code.
Video summary: A guy who (according to the video) writes interracial cuckold fetish porn made a Nickelodeon show with a black football player, a white female love interest, and a weaker white male character. The video narrates a few 4chan comments about this. It further dives into numerology, exploring whether the choice of numbers on the uniform have biblical meaning. It also explores whether the placement of the characters' hands in a show poster or the portion of a cheerleader's uniform covered by her hair has any special hidden meaning.
tl;dr: All rather silly and irrelevant, and I feel dumber for having watched the video.
only dumb people feel dumb after getting new information. Even if the information they have gotten is dumb.
Leaves the question: Would you let your child watch that show?
Sheesh, it's just a saying, relax...
I hope this question does not cross any boundaries.
Do you have a background in academia? And in what field?
Nope. Dropped out of university twice, both times in the first semester. I always hated school.
[permanently deleted]
It was boring and repetitive and mostly about conforming and regurgitating.
Hey Karen. I helped create the sub Purple Pill Debate a while ago, so I'm definitely interested in gender dynamics, and your videos seem to definitely be a staple of the male's side of things, so it's cool to see you doing an AMA. I'm late to the party, but I have a couple questions for you, to answer if you can:
1) Why do you think the topic of gender is so contentious? It's a topic that twists the concepts of free speech on campuses (pulling fire alarms to silence, etc) and cause all kinds of issues. Why does any discussion turn so personal and hateful?
2) What can be done to "tone down" that anger? I personally think that these topics hit a gridlock unless each side can come to the table in earnest, but that doesn't typically happen; people would rather preach or denounce than try and test and refine their own ideas. How can that be changed?
Morning,
Thanks for being here. With the increasing amount of economic, social, and political support that women receive to act as a surrogate supporter for themselves and their children we see a decrease in the need for exclusive long-term relationships. As the frequency of exclusive long term relationships enervates in favor of our current "hookup culture", our sexual society will delineate from producing families and two-parent households for children to be raised in--which will lead to greater occurrences of non-exclusive relationships in future generations and instigate the proliferation of polyamory. What do you see as the end game in the last days of the age of the nuclear family unit? Will men and women eventually dispose of pursuing families altogether and instigate purely sexual/physically-intimate relationships? How do you see these choices affect how the next generation of children will be raised and how they will use their parents as an example to form their own ideas of intimacy and monogamy?
Karen
Your video on the disposable male is very well done. Do you think men would be better served by avoiding the politically active MRM/MRA arenas and simply withdraw from society like the MGTOWs?
How would you suggest that RPW/female MRAs go about combating the everyday misandry that has seeped into regular society, particularly since the social expectation within female circles is to never criticize, always agree (even if you don't), praise, "uplift", and "support"?
Many TRP members take a hostile stance to anyone claiming any allegiance to Feminism- flatly rejecting them at the word.
I think this only hardens attitudes and leaves the problems and excesses of modern Feminism unaddressed. I advocate dating mild feminists, and through intimacy, Socratically guiding her to see the bad parts of modern Feminism, this can change individual attitudes without strife and spread more sane beliefs between Feminists in a bottom-up approach to social change.
This idea was not strongly embraced by much of the TRP community- what is your opinion for what the individual man can do to change the hearts and minds of light feminists without rancor?
Hi Karen! I really appreciate all that you do. I've listened to several of your talks, and in one of them you mention in the UK using quotas in STEM departments on college campuses to increase the number of women in them. You said basically that what happened was that many women would change majors, and some departments had to close down due to low numbers.
I've searched and searched for that information, but I couldn't find a resource for that. Do you have a link handy?
Would you be okay if I used text word for word from your comments in a YouTube video and monetized it, giving you credit both in the video and video description and linking to you?
I go to a notorious feminist promoting uni downtown in Canadas biggest city...but if it weren't for the internet I would be clueless about feminsm, MRA, RP etc.
I'm in a science program where we have almost no exposure to that BS, and I find most colleagues are either neutral or RP minded towards the issue.
I notice young men who go into the more useless degrees end up being male and/or white guilt having shells of a man with the machismo levels of Rick Moranis.
Whether this is the cause of brainwashing or a sad reproductive strategy, the point is there is a large segment of mostly male and quite intelligent/capable future professionals (think men is science/engineering and business too), and the feminist propaganda does a way better job of pushing the would-be neutral men/woman towards feminism versus the MRA 'propaganda' pushing would-be neutral men/woman towards anti-feminism.
How do you/we aim to change that?
Thanks and as Don Cherry would say you are a 'great Canadian kid'!
Hi, Karen. Nice to see you.
I noticed that you commented on this Deepika Bhardwaj's Men - The Forgotten Gender video. Do you think that marriage rates in India would decline too seeing the gender biased divorce laws ? What do you think should be the reforms in the existing laws so that marriage is seen as a mutually beneficial contract by both men and women in India?
Hi Karen, thank you for doing this, I will be coming back to this thread every hour or so while at work to see your answers to these important questions.
My question - I have been reading a lot about the "mattress girl" case, and I can honestly say that I am appalled that this girl has been given so much attention by feminist, and people in society in general who I can only assume have not read anything about it, and just assume that what she is doing is noble rather than just a power play. What can men do to ensure that something like this does not happen to them? An event like this could easily do irreparable damage to a mans reputation.
If someone has already posted a similar question, feel free to ignore this one.
Karen, I love your work. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are truly a wonderful person for making a stand.
What made you first decide to start making videos about the subject? How has it affected your personal life?
Hi Karen,
What factors do you predict will have the greatest influence on causing a shift in a positive direction for men? Realistically, do you think Japanese herbivore men are likely going to be the broad future direction of the West as well?
I am an Edmonton resident as well, what are your thoughts on the recent change in political climate (and slowly shifting Canadian political climate) and it's likely influences on the future of men in our part of the world? (marriage laws etc.)
Hi Karen, what are some good online resources for learning about evolutionary psychology? Like scholarly journals or professional association websites or even good blogs? Though I'm no expert it's a topic I find interesting. Thanks!
Not Karen, but a standard textbook, and a very good one, is David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: The new science of the mind. He has chapters there about both male and female long-term and short-term mating strategies, which is good background for TRP. You can buy on Amazon, and some editions are available as pdfs online if you do a search. Also his Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, which is a mult-author work edited by Buss, whereas the first is entirely written by him.
Can you further explore the subject about why men and women don't seem to be getting married and staying married theses days? And then do video blogs about it? (I have already been through all of your videos)
Hey Karen, no question but just wanted to show my support.
Also I just read that you live in Edmonton and was surprised since I also live in Edmonton.
I want to say thanks as well for being vocal and addressing issues that effect men. Maybe I'll see you around, I usually work security at bars on whyte.
What's your thoughts on boys in school in the states today and going forward?
Hello, Karen.
You were, and still are very vocal about Gamergate. Speaking in the field of gaming development, there's this general notion in the industry that portraying historically accurate games for women may hurt potential sales. To illustrate that, I'll give you a real example: I'm developing a game based on the 5th century. Women in war were the real exception, and the consensus is that you didn't call them to arms, unless as a last resort, which makes perfect sense. But the question I get asked by women by FAR is: "Are there any warrior women?".
With this in mind, I'm under pressure to make some concept that portrays women as warriors. Most games make men and women in the same field of physical strength, where in real life even a REAL strong woman would be weaker than a slightly strong man. But this is videogames, and reality can be stretched, okay. More recently, Hatred got a lot of backlash for depicting women being killed, when it's pretty obvious the game is not about that, alone.
My question to you is: how can we change the status quo in games to go back to the time where gender issues were secondary/tertiary to good concept and developing?
EDIT: I know this is TRP, and the question should go more about TRP. But I believe TRP concepts are very present in this media, in a way where BP concepts in the industry are rewarded for portraying genders as equal or more positively in women, for example.
Hi Karen, enjoy your videos.
What would you say is the breakdown in the female reaction to your views in real life (i.e. not in Youtube comments)? I.e. how many are vitriolic, how many are neutral, and how many are enthusiastically interested? To what extent do you think your gender influences this (i.e. "only Nixon could go to China", except gender rather than international politics)?
I ask this, because I get the sense that the internet echo chamber (and, in particular, my little corner thereof) is far more polarized and vitriolic than real life, along with other biases inherent to the medium of the Internet. I also think that given the prevailing culture, it's going to be really hard for any kind of men's rights movement to get started without the support of women: men can be dismissed for whining, but women can't be dismissed for caring.
In an Intro to Sociology class this last semester, the professor taught us some pretty shady things when it came to domestic issues. She only presented statistics where women could be portrayed as victims, and never as perpetrators. All in all, it reinforced everything I have thought about feminism leading up to this, especially when the crowning point came: "It is called feminism, not egalitarianism, because that would detract from the real issues."
Where I had been favoring going into a Sociology undergrad, I am now not so sure. I am still quite passionate about Men's Rights, but I don't know if this is the right way to take to express that. Do you think it would be worthwhile to continue with a Sociology major in order to better understand the issues I am passionate about from a Sociological perspective?
Not a question, just a comment. Your insightful piece on Anders Breivik moved me to tears, it was beautifully done and a surprisingly human persective, bravo.
Hey Karen,
Fellow Canadian here. With a federal election upcoming, do you think any of the major parties (or major players in federal politics) are more pro mens rights than others?
Hi Karen,
I've been watching your youtube videos for a few years now, before I even reached TRP. You recently made a video titles (I think) On men, women, and TRP Anyway, you made a statement that you were going to continue to do what you do because you are a genuine voice, not only for TRP concerns, but MRA, PUA, and others that fall in these common area.
You had stated something along the lines of you get credibility and are fighting for men, in a general sense because you feel there is a need. I agree completely, you back it up with a plethora of knowledge and real world examples, quips, scenarios that make you very valid.
My question is this, what do you think it would take for a man to fill that role and get a spotlight like you. What would it take for men and women to take one guy or multiple guys to be listened to and essentially saying the same things you are on a regional scale, national scale?
Every movement has had "their own kind" as a representative, like MLK spoke from a perspective of a black man for the black man and was given validity even by those who didn't want to necessarily.
Do you see a day where males can have that representation by an actual man? Do you think that's possible and how far away do you see it in the future?
Why don't you take advantage of the free blogging platform on linkedin? We need a counterweight to all the whiny feminists over there.
Hi Karen, as a black male i feel the african-american community has been particularly affected by gynocentricism and deteriorating inter-gender relations. I find black women to be MORE masculine, more domineering, and more socially abrasive than than their non-black counterparts. What advice would you give a black male, dealing with a community of black females who have all but reduced the male to a sperm donor.
I love your work, and very much appreciate your time today.
Are you planning on writing a book on anti-feminism or men's rights anytime in the near future? Would you consider self-publishing?
If going the traditional route of finding a publisher isn't feasible due to the nature of your book, you have such a strong following from the manosphere, that a kickstarter to get your book published is practically a no brainer. I see how fast you and the HBB can get funds just to get you guys to conferences and to setup your legal funds. I imagine the response by the mansopshere to a GWW book would be overwhelming.
And besides some more income, there's nothing like the words "published author" in front of your name to lend you an extra air of credibility and get you booked as a guest speaker on news programs. Being a published author can be kind of a snowballing effect to more guest appearances and speaking events.
tl;dr Write a freaking book, Karen!
Hi! First I'd like to thank you for your work and your videos. I'd also like to tell you that your video on the disposable male was my first contact with the idea that maybe feminism wasn't at all about the so called equality. And since realizing it I've also come to notice that male spaces are actively being destroyed by feminism. They want in on everything, be it action movies or videogames that have teenage boys as a target audience, they don't care. They want them to be their way, portraying women as they'd like, even though it is not meant or marketed to them. Funny thing is: they don't want equality on this front. Romantic comedies or books continue to be "their" thing. I don't see they pushing so that men are completely dumb on those movies or things like make up are also marketed to the male audience. The way I think they see it everything for men must be universal and everything for women must be just that.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Hello Karen.
My personal stance on equality between the sexes is... quite different I guess. I'm not so sure how to phrase it.
IF I could fire every woman tomorrow, and hire only men, I would. I believe we should be centered around family and that the patriarch is the central figure in that.
A few women being good at business and a few men being good at raising children does not negate the rule. If there are indeed exceptions to the rule, then they will float to the surface like oil does in water. That's what I believe.
I believe in equal opportunity yes. But I don't believe in changing the entire system to accommodate the wishes of every single person wanting the system to powder their chapped ass.
I wanted to get your take on my personal stance. Am I too hardlined? I guess I'm not really sure of myself. What is your take on "equality" between the sexes?
Does your past experiences affect in any way how you view feminism and women in general?
I really enjoy your content.
Hi Karen,
Where is the line drawn on how much of TRP you buy into. For example I've seen you refer to hypergamy, solipsism, evo psych, and a lot of other TRP concepts. What TRP material are you aware of that you reject?
I don't have as pin-point questions as most people here do, but I'd like to ask, what advice do you have for a teenager growing up, and on into adulthood? I'm 15, currently a freshman in high school. I've been browsing the red pill for about two months, knowing about it for three, or four months. I started delving deep into everything here those two months ago, once I had a breakup with my first girlfriend. I've learned lots, been able to apply some things to experiences I have had in real life. It's been great. Seen how much I need to learn from my grandpa as he is my father figure in life. I just would like to know anything you have to say for someone my age.
Karen, I love all your videos, and would like to ask you when, at what age, did it occur to you that feminism failed and that men were getting the short end of many sticks? Was it the infamous "feminist shaming tactics" you've described in your videos; the hypocrisy? What made you say no to feminism?
I just want to thank you for speaking up for those who are chastised or ignored when they speak up for themselves. You are truly a gracious and amazing person.
Hi Karen, i enjoy the work you and the honey badgers do. Do you think that western feminism has the capacity to move forward or has it been hijacked by to many pointless things like "mansspreading"? do you think sexual strategies like the red pill will become more common?
Don't you ever think that the concept of equal rights for males, or nullifying female privilege, is inherently impossible?
I'm sure you know that women are literally universally advantaged in life. That is to say, that if a woman and a man are equal in some ability, the greater social sympathy for the woman will give her the extra edge.
This social sympathy most likely has a very deep origin in our evolutionary history. Females, by definition, invest much more energy into reproduction. So it makes sense that a thinking, feeling, organism would evolve to desire and sympathize with women, and view them as non threatening.
If you imagine a hypothetical scenario where males and females are totally equivalent apart from their reproductive capacity, the following will happen: human males with the genes that make them desire females will have a lot more sex, and have a lot more offspring, which will in turn desire females. Human females with the genes that make them desire males will have a lot more sex, and have the same number of offspring as females with no particular desire for males. Thus, humanity evolves to prefer females, even in this hypothetically equal situation.
We've seen situations where undesirable groups (blacks, racial minorities in general) have campaigned for equal rights for the last 2 centuries, and still haven't even come close to obtaining equality. Legal advantages exist, and people are less consciously racist, but the "unconscious" preference for whites is probably just as strong today as it was 100 years ago.
I don't see any reason why male rights advocation would lead to anything different.