699,178 posts

Only white knights, women and feminists objectify women.

Reddit View
April 13, 2013
145 upvotes

Dear Feminists and Women,

How are you? It's me, redpillschool. Just checking up on things. Oh myself? I'm not doing so well. Another person just tried to shame me for enjoying my sexuality. I know, it's pretty bad that we live in a society that encourages this. According to you, only stupid women have sex with me. I wonder if you'd say that to their face? I mean, she was just enjoying her sexuality. Something you feminists appear to be in favor for. Why are you being discriminating?

I wanted to talk to you about objectification of women really quickly. It's upsetting because I love women and would hate to see anybody treat one like less than a person. But it seems feminists are doing a great job of this as of late.

Let's address the word object. Objects have no agency. They cannot act for themselves. They can only be acted upon. I pick up a coffee mug and put it in the dishwasher. It is an object and cannot put itself in the dishwasher.

Let's talk about agency, the opposite of being an object. This is important. I have agency. Tomorrow I can decide whether to go swimming, or read a book. It's my choice. I have an active role in my future. Nobody can tell me what I can and cannot do. I am an agent.

Feminists used to be pretty upset at the idea that anybody would objectify women. This was the concept that women have no agency, and instead do only what other people act upon them. If I want a woman in the kitchen cleaning my coffee mug, I put her there and she does it.

Well gosh that sounds terrible.

Feminism agrees! Women aren't objects. They should never be treated as such.

So feminism, I have to ask. Why do you keep acting like women are objects and not agents?

Feminists keep telling me I'm disgusting, that I'm wrong and evil.. because I trick women into sleeping with me.

But feminists- you were the one who told me women are people and make grown up decisions for themselves! Are you saying that women are incapable of saying no?

I just don't get it. I'm trying to understand. Why would you deny women agency?

I have never had sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex with me. I respected their wishes because they are people. They're people with personalities and agency.

But you criticise them saying they are objects- that they have no agency! That they are tricked and manipulated, but have no active role in deciding who to have sex with.

How could that possibly be? If I am handsome and they are attracted, is that a trick? Or do you think I lie and say I'm a doctor? Would that be enough to "trick" somebody into sex? What if I told you I was a millionaire and a doctor, and I help children? Are you "tricked" into sex with me yet?

You're skeptical. You don't think I'm a doctor and millionaire. I'm betting you just decided reading this letter that you don't think you'd have sex with me. But.. if you made that decision.. as an adult person with agency...

...why would you deny other women the right to make the same decision?

Do you think most women are incapable of critical thought? Do you truly believe that if I lie about being a doctor that somehow absolves a woman of her right to choose, and her responsibility to verify? I wouldn't lie about being a doctor, it doesn't even make sense! Women wouldn't have sex with me because I'm rich- they're just not that shallow. I don't understand why you'd assume women are so simple that we can just use some magic cheat code on women and get them in the sack! They're people!

Feminists, I don't get why you objectify women. It just seems wrong. It's the 21st century, and I feel like you're behind the times. An adult woman can make decisions for herself, we don't need some big bad woman-group telling the little woman she can't make decisions. That objectification seems like something we should push against. We should start a group that represents the interest of women.

Because feminism, you objectify women, and they're people. So stop.

Love,

Red Pill School


Post Information
Title Only white knights, women and feminists objectify women.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 145
Comments 160
Date 13 April 2013 01:40 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/3943
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1c9ngz/only_white_knights_women_and_feminists_objectify/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
white knightthe red pillfeministfeminism
Comments

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yes, I have been called all sorts of names for daring to discuss hookup culture from a heterosexual male perspective.

Meanwhile, HBO's "Girls" is a smash hit.

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sidebar this shit.

[–]thecajunone12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's so true it hurts.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I totally understand what you're saying. I've been saying this for a while. I'm fond of phrasing it, "Emotions do not decide reality."

Women in our society get to feel at things and men give them what they want because men want to fuck them. When she spends so much time and energy spitting emotional diarrhea at you, "But, I feel! And I feel! And I feel! I feel this, and this! I feel!" She gets super pissed when you have to say, "Well, sorry, but reality disagrees."

This is rejection, essentially. Women don't often have to handle rejection. They're the ones doing the rejecting from their teens onward. They get what they want via the vague idea of promised sex.

Women basically want emotional validation even for something as simple as, say, choice of what movie they want to watch. So when they suggest that you watch a movie, and you ask what they'd like to watch, they say, "Oh, anything is fine." Anything is not fine. They have the movie they want in their head. We've all been there, right? They want you to suggest the movie they already want so that they can have their feeling of wanting that movie validated. And if you keep suggesting things that they reject, they get pissed at you for not guessing their feels correctly.

This is how women communicate with one another, too. When they complain their problems to us, our instinct is to offer them solutions, because men are proactive, big-picture problem solvers. But really, they just want us to go "Oh, totally, I feel too! We both feel the same!" So when they talk to each other, it's a sort of self-centered, "Emote with me! Emote with me!"

Sorry, I'm babbling.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]karma1337a20 points21 points  (86 children) | Copy

I'm a feminist, and I can actually reply to you if you want. I can't tell if this is a rant, or an actual letter. Would you like me to?

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber10 points11 points  (16 children) | Copy

I would love to hear a reply. I was recently demonized by a bunch of self-proclaimed feminists for having no-strings sex with a cheating and lying woman while explicitly telling her I'm not entering a committed relationship with her.

Their argument? "She was a poor girl, she didn't know what she was doing, you are leading her on." Not one of them acknowledges the fact that this girl has free will to make a decision.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy

[removed]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's an entire group of people here wanting to see a counter argument to this post. I will be watching this debate with extreme curiosity.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 12 points13 points  (65 children) | Copy

If you'd like.

[–]karma1337a38 points39 points  (64 children) | Copy

Okay, here goes:

Dear Feminists and Women,

How are you? It's me, redpillschool. Just checking up on things.

Hi.

Oh myself? I'm not doing so well. Another person just tried to shame me for enjoying my sexuality. I know, it's pretty bad that we live in a society that encourages this. According to you, only stupid women have sex with me. I wonder if you'd say that to their face? I mean, she was just enjoying her sexuality. Something you feminists appear to be in favor for. Why are you being discriminating?

Wait... what? So the entire feminist movement examined your sexual habits and decided that only unintelligent women sleep with you... sure...

Plus, there's like a lot of different views on sex within the feminist movement. There's sex-positive feminism, which imo seems to be one of the most well known. Sex-positive feminism are the people behind stuff like SlutWalk. and then there's also radical feminism, which isn't exactly sex-negative, but examines how sex and the behaviors surrounding sex have been used to reinforce patriarchy. And even then, it's not like the movement is monolithic. And these are just two feminist fields, there are many more. (That is by no means a complete list. Here is Wiki's, but I'm a little iffy on the accuracy of it.)

So, if you could give me more details about what happened here, exactly, I could give you a more detailed answer about how whatever exchange you had does or doesn't fit into a feminist paradigm

I wanted to talk to you about objectification of women really quickly. It's upsetting because I love women and would hate to see anybody treat one like less than a person. But it seems feminists are doing a great job of this as of late.

Uh-huh... The movement, that's led by women, that fought to give women a voice in their government and continues to fight for our personhood and medical rights is degrading women, according to you, a contributor to a forum which promotes "alpha" behavior on the assumption that women have a biological attraction to it. You better have a rock-star reason lined up.

Let's address the word object. Objects have no agency. They cannot act for themselves. They can only be acted upon. I pick up a coffee mug and put it in the dishwasher. It is an object and cannot put itself in the dishwasher.

Okay

Let's talk about agency, the opposite of being an object. This is important. I have agency. Tomorrow I can decide whether to go swimming, or read a book. It's my choice. I have an active role in my future. Nobody can tell me what I can and cannot do. I am an agent.

Mm hmm...

Feminists used to be pretty upset at the idea that anybody would objectify women. This was the concept that women have no agency, and instead do only what other people act upon them. If I want a woman in the kitchen cleaning my coffee mug, I put her there and she does it.

Well gosh that sounds terrible.

Actually, while this is, of course, awful, objectification is a lot more complicated then that. I'll come back to this.

Feminism agrees! Women aren't objects. They should never be treated as such.

Feminism is extraordinarily broad. While, generally speaking, feminists are opposed to the objectification of anyone, men or women, there are feminists who believe the right of women to engage in inherently objectifying acts trumps the inherent negativity of the objectification. I take sort of a middle ground here.

So feminism, I have to ask. Why do you keep acting like women are objects and not agents?

Feminists keep telling me I'm disgusting, that I'm wrong and evil.. because I trick women into sleeping with me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe dishonesty is a trait that is looked down upon by society in general. If you are in fact manipulating women, the fact that your particular brand of dishonesty mimics the sort of violence seen in patriarchy of past and perpetuates it today would indeed be seen as wrong

But feminists- you were the one who told me women are people and make grown up decisions for themselves! Are you saying that women are incapable of saying no?

I just don't get it. I'm trying to understand. Why would you deny women agency?

... I know you guys hate this term, but this may possibly be the most privilage-blind thing I've read on reddit. The key word here is socialization. Women are socialized to respond with "kindness," i.e. putting their own needs behind those of others, while at the same time teaching men to put their needs ahead of others. This is not biological, this is social. Women inherently have agency, but society robs some of us of some of it through poor socialization.

I have never had sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex with me. I respected their wishes because they are people. They're people with personalities and agency.

...

But you criticise them saying they are objects- that they have no agency! That they are tricked and manipulated, but have no active role in deciding who to have sex with.

THIS IS NOT WHAT OBJECTIFICATION IS. THIS IS IN YOUR OWN MIND WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO WOMEN...

fuck... I'm gonna come back later this is pissing me off so bad. To be continued.

Edit: Alright, back. Let's talk about objectification.

Objectification is something that happens irrelevant to the response it receives. If, for instance, you see the value of women only in their potential to please you sexually or emotionally, then you've objectified women. The woman at the bar who seemed to masculine to be attractive, the woman she was with who shared a drink with you but left early, the coworker who got annoyed when you got flirtatious, and the women you bring home. If you're entire approach to them is:

FEMALE CHECKLIST      Attractive? Y/N     Uncorrupted by feminism? Y/N     Girlfriend material? Y/N     ONS material Y/N      TOTAL SCORE: ___ 

That's objectification. Even if the end result is you treating the women you meet very differently.

Interestingly, if women are treated as a resource, then men become adversaries. This is where the idea of "patriarchy hurts men, too" comes from.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy

Thank you for the contribution, I look forward to seeing more from you.

With regards to Sex-Positive feminism (slut-walks, etc.) I have no problem with that in theory. In practice, what we see women saying is "If an 18-year-old college WOMAN wants to sleep around and get life experience meeting older, well read, interesting guys, that's her right!" And I agree with that 100%.

But then a disconnect occurs when they look at the men. "A successful 30-year-old guy sleeping with an undergraduate GIRL? He is using her for sex, he is a creepy sociopath and this should be considered rape!"

This is the issue - the sex-positive culture only seeks to protect women, and some proponents of it still actively attack and villainize men.

And I agree with RedPillSchool, when someone refuses to hold this same woman accountable for her actions because they do not approve of the man (the recipient of those actions) that is objectification. They are judging the woman based on the man, as if the man is in complete control of her, as an object.

[–]karma1337a7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy

I've only heard the 18/30 double standard as you'be described brought up by men. While I imagine it's happened, I can't recall a time when a female feminist brought it up as such.

Now, when a 30 year old specifically manipulates a much younger woman, or intentionally targets much younger women, that's when feminists tend to get upset, particularly in the context of a society that likes to fetishize young women as "easy prey." But, most feminist work goes towards getting everyone to recognize the agency of women (including towards young women themselves, who may not be aware of their own power or agency thanks to rape culture.)

[–]RedSunBlue6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy

I've only heard the 18/30 double standard as you'be described brought up by men. While I imagine it's happened, I can't recall a time when a female feminist brought it up as such.

You must not spend much time in the Reddit fempire, or around women in general.

[–]karma1337a2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Could you show me an example within the fempire?

[–]RedSunBlue2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Poke around /r/AskWomen, /r/TwoXChromosomes, or any of the SRS reddits for a related thread and you'll find it.

[–]karma1337a2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

I frequent /r/twoX and haven't seen that. I may have seen the same thread and interpreted it differently, that's why I'm asking you for a specific example.

[–]RedSunBlue4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Okay, here's one.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy

Wait... what? So the entire feminist movement examined your sexual habits and decided that only unintelligent women sleep with you... sure...

NAWALT + 1 (NAFALT)

Plus, there's like a lot of different views on sex within the feminist movement.

NAWALT + 2

Uh-huh... The movement, that's led by women, that fought to give women a voice in their government and continues to fight for our personhood and medical rights is degrading women, according to you, a contributor to a forum which promotes "alpha" behavior on the assumption that women have a biological attraction to it. You better have a rock-star reason lined up.

Nothing to refute what was said. Wasted text.

Feminism is extraordinarily broad. While, generally speaking, feminists are opposed to the objectification of anyone, men or women, there are feminists who believe the right of women to engage in inherently objectifying acts trumps the inherent negativity of the objectification. I take sort of a middle ground here.

NAWALT + 3

Feminism is intentionally obscure.

FTFY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe dishonesty is a trait that is looked down upon by society in general. If you are in fact manipulating women, the fact that your particular brand of dishonesty mimics the sort of violence seen in patriarchy of past and perpetuates it today would indeed be seen as wrong

Every single act a human being takes could be observed as manipulation.

  • Make your girlfriend breakfast in bed, manipulation.
  • Tell your girlfriend she looks fat, manipulation.
  • Tell her she is pretty, manipulation.
  • Tell her it's OK to take it slow, manipulation.
  • White knighting is a form of manipulation.
  • Shaming is a form of manipulation.
  • Everything is manipulation.
  • You get the idea.

Manipulation is assumed to have happened in a pickup situation, because as OP stated, women have no agency to verify facts, or make decisions about their sexual partners according to these detractors.

I know you guys hate this term, but this may possibly be the most privilage-blind thing I've read on reddit. The key word here is socialization. Women are socialized to respond with "kindness," i.e. putting their own needs behind those of others, while at the same time teaching men to put their needs ahead of others. This is not biological, this is social. Women inherently have agency, but society robs some of us of some of it through poor socialization.

Women are socialized to extract any and all resources out of men as they possibly can. It's men that are socially conditioned to live a life that directly contradicts their own biological reproductive strategies in order to place themselves in a situation that is more easily exploited by women. There is absolutely no sense of self-sacrifice or acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions in modern women. These are the realms of men.

[–]karma1337a-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy

WTF is NAWALT? Do I even want to know?

Edit: Ohhh... Well, what do you want me to do? Distill the feminist movement into a bite-sized drop for you to hate? It's a huge, complex movement with a lot of internal debate.

Well two can play this game

Every single act a human being takes could be construed as manipulation

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

Women are socialized to extract any and all resources

PRIVILAGE BLINDNESS

biological reproductive strategies

BIOTRUTHS +1

See, that probably wasn't super elucidating. Try responding with full sentences?

[–]RedSunBlue17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

WTF is NAWALT? Do I even want to know?

"Not All Women Are Like That", or NAWALT, is a common counter-argument for any attempt to generalize female behavior and is often accompanied by a anecdotal example. Example:

"Women are attracted to men who are taller than they are."

"Nuh uh! Not all women are like that! My friend is dating a guy who's way shorter than her."

"Women are attracted to the 'dark triad' personality traits."

"NAWALT; I just want a guy who's sweet and kind and doesn't play any head games with me."

Most of the theories here are probabilistic in nature, not deterministic. Unfortunately, many of our detractors don't seem to get that. They believe that simply stating NAWALT is enough to invalidate any attempt to define common female behavior patterns.

This is also known as the "special snowflake" argument.

A common rebuttal to the NAWALT argument is:

Enough are.

As in, "Not all women are like that, but enough are to make this a useful generalization."

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'll give you more than a one word answer when you provide an argument with even a shred of substance.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 33 points34 points  (39 children) | Copy

Thanks for contributing and at least attempting to have a decent discussion instead of hurling accusations and names. I will try to address your points thus far..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe dishonesty is a trait that is looked down upon by society in general. If you are in fact manipulating women, the fact that your particular brand of dishonesty mimics the sort of violence seen in patriarchy of past and perpetuates it today would indeed be seen as wrong.

First, let's do away with the term "violence," because you and I both know that word is there to try to get an emotional leg up on the opposition without doing any real leg-work. Let's have an intellectual conversation and call it what it is: Not violence.

Secondly, let's talk about the nature of attraction. If a man tells a lie and transforms himself from someone who isn't attractive to someone who is, can we really blame him for doing so? The question needs to be asked, why does he feel it necessary to lie to find love, if women are so attracted to the truth?

Thirdly, let's presuppose that men who are manipulative, by your standard, are inherently evil (which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument), and society as a whole thinks that they are bad. The question still remains, who are you to tell women they are not allowed to interact with them? Who are you to say that evil men are somehow in control of a woman's choice to interact with them? It's similar to saying that you think drugs are bad... would you then take a woman's hand and hold it down so she cannot do heroin? Would you physically restrain a woman trying to snort some coke? Or would you say it's her right to make bad decisions? We're talking about personal autonomy here, and it's not men trying to physically restrain women from making choices...

I know you guys hate this term, but this may possibly be the most privilage-blind thing I've read on reddit. The key word here is socialization. Women are socialized to respond with "kindness," i.e. putting their own needs behind those of others, while at the same time teaching men to put their needs ahead of others.

Men who die in war are socialized to put their needs first? Men who sign up for the selective service are putting their needs first? Men who pay alimony and child support are putting their needs first? There are 3,500 men here who put their wives/girlfriends needs first and learned the hard way that women won't respect them because of that. (not in spite of).

Women are neither socially conditioned to put their needs last, nor required to do so. Show me an instance where war meant women sacrificed themselves to save men, and we'll talk.

This is not biological, this is social. Women inherently have agency, but society robs some of us of some of it through poor socialization.

The only current movement I see trying to remove agency from women is feminism. Take a peek at the agency this feminist group expects from women..

THIS IS NOT WHAT OBJECTIFICATION IS. THIS IS IN YOUR OWN MIND WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO WOMEN...

And here we reach a problem. The feminist's definition of "sexual objectification" is viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities.

Problem is that this position is meaningless. I mean literally, it has no meaning. There is no way to define sexual attraction without somehow dancing around this particular definition. It's a non falsifiable definition! Who's to say my sexual attraction to a woman should be based on complex personality? Unless of course, I'm a man whose complex personality doesn't matter, and instead I'm expected to comply with feminists' view of attraction only! Furthermore, who can ever state what I find attractive? Only I decide what I find attractive, and you will never know what variables contribute to that. Be it tits, ass, or their sense of humor, that's for me to know and not for you to presuppose unless you are being an incredibly prejudice person. In my experience, that describes a typical feminist. Assuming they understand me when they never even ask.

The only group consistently denying women the right to choice is feminists, per my letter above.

Edit to include your addition:

Objectification is something that happens irrelevant to the response it receives. If, for instance, you see the value of women only in their potential to please you sexually or emotionally, then you've objectified women. The woman at the bar who seemed to masculine to be attractive, the woman she was with who shared a drink with you but left early, the coworker who got annoyed when you got flirtatious, and the women you bring home. If you're entire approach to them is:

FEMALE CHECKLIST

Attractive? Y/N Uncorrupted by feminism? Y/N Girlfriend material? Y/N ONS material Y/N

TOTAL SCORE: ___ That's objectification. Even if the end result is you treating the women you meet very differently.

Interestingly, if women are treated as a resource, then men become adversaries. This is where the idea of "patriarchy hurts men, too" comes from.

First I want to address attraction, because it seems like your understanding of how attraction works is a bit broken.

Understanding the nature of attraction is key to understanding why feminism's definition of objectification is completely nonsensical, and unfalsifiable.

Defining the qualities that enable attraction is something that we spend a lot of time considering on this subreddit. Though it's understood each person's personal tastes can vary, there are some pretty common trends.

A problem that arises is when feminism attempts to simultaneously enable women's sexual liberation (We can have sex with whomever we please, we answer to nobody, slut walk, etc), while shaming men for their sexual liberation. (You men are objectifying women by finding them attractive for reasons we do not approve of!)

If a woman takes part in a one night stand and never talks to him again, tell me exactly what her use for that man was. If sexual gratification was your answer: You just saw feminism's endorsed sexual objectification.

But don't worry, I'm going to do away with the term objectification in feminists' broken dictionary so we don't have to worry about this inconsistency.

The problem with defining objectification as somebody's subjective view of somebody else is that you never really know what their view is. There's a difference between my understanding of who somebody is, and what value they provide to me.

For instance, the waiter at the restaurant tonight has a family, hobbies, preferences, a whole life behind him. But his value to me is his ability to take my order and deliver me food. Have I now objectified him for utilizing his value to me? Of course not. I do not deny his agency, I understand his potential value to me- - and I understand my potential value to him. I'm going to pay for his services. That's why he's doing it!

Women date men for similar reasons men date women. It feels good. I won't get into the gender specific reasons, but this is a good place to start. Relationships feel good. They feel right. They feel like you belong, like you have somebody special. Of course both men and women see this value in potential mate.

Let's say I flirt with a woman at a bar. She seems into me. She asks what I do for a living. I tell her I'm between jobs, and living in my mother's basement. Much to my surprise, her interest vanishes immediately and she walks away. What just happened here? Was I objectified?

The question is, what happened here? She eliminated me as a potential mate because my ability to provide her value as a mate was calculatedly low.

Has she denied my value to other people and other endeavors? No! Of course not! I am still important to my mom (I would hope!). She decided that I didn't meet her criteria as a potential mate.

Is that objectification? Of course not. Because if we cannot reject potential partners based on criteria.. then you have a moral responsibility to have sex with literally every living creature on earth.

According to your definition of sexual objectification- every time you don't have sex with somebody you're not attracted to, you 've objectified them.

That's absurd of course.

When I determine the potential mating value of a woman, I determine what traits are attractive to me. Not you, not feminism, not anybody but me. When I select a mate, it will be based on only reasons that I find attractive, and it will be specifically based on her value to me as a mate.

The only objectification happening here is when feminists such as yourself, tell me I'm wrong for taking action (having agency) to mate with somebody I find attractive (reasons you do not like).

I have not denied her ability to be president some day. I have not denied her hopes, dreams, wishes, and hobbies. I have only evaluated what potential she poses to me as a potential mate. And if she tells me she doesn't want to date me, she has done the exact same thing.

Of course it's easy for women to assume men objectify women but not vice versa, since women are visually appealing to men, but men are attractive to women for status and provisioning. (Looks would come third).

Having a checklist for a potential mate- well, heck, I don't even have one. But check out OKCupid some time, because you'll see it's female profiles that have the "Must be 6' tall, athletic, please no losers thx" checklist at the bottom.

But you know what- I defend their right to do so. Because nobody should tell them who to mate with and for what reasons. They're free to do what they want. It's only feminism telling them their checklists are evil and objectifying. Again, feminism is the only one objectifying women. Not men.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber23 points24 points  (12 children) | Copy

This is an important point here. Objectification is NOT treating someone as a recipient of your sexual desire. It is about dehumanizing them and making them incapable of their own fate in your mind.

When you sell your daughter's hand in marriage to the local butcher in exchange for a few cows, that is objectification.

When you tell a guy he is responsible for the choices of the girls he is with, that is objectification.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just to put it in your inbox, she and I have both updated our posts with edits.

[–]INTJurassic17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

To anyone capable of functioning with logic, you have absolutely crushed your opponent.

In other words, you've lost.

[–]Are_You_A_Real_Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

This post is beautiful.

It brought a twinkle to the eyes of this jaded soul.

[–]FAwhy11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's only feminism telling them their checklists are evil and objectifying. Again, feminism is the only one objectifying women. Not men.

I rarely hear feminism actually tell women that their checklists are bad though. I instead hear that women should get to have choice in who they want to date, and are free to choose based on whatever criteria they like. "Gurl power!!! Your not 6ft tall, Fuck off loser..." Feminism is just sexist against men and this is why I have no respect for it as a movement that claims to be about equality.

RedPillSchool for PRESIDENT - this was one of the greatest replies i've ever read.

[–]karma1337a5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Explain to me the problem with those posters, exactly? Also, original comment edited to expand on objectification.

[–]RandomCoolName5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy

I mean to say this impartially. Most of your argument revolves around the fact that women objectify men as well. Your main argument is that it is each person's business what they do, but that doesn't change anything regarding the point that objectifying is morally wrong in general. Feminism, despite its name, is supposed to fight for equality of the genders, not "girlpower" (though in the current day it is used as a tool by many females for self interest, since it's established and can be taboo to argue against once certain terms have been used).

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy

I mean to say this impartially. Most of your argument revolves around the fact that women objectify men as well.

No my argument does not revolve around that, it uses women as a counterexample to show the inherent absurdity of the original argument.

Your main argument is that it is each person's business what they do, but that doesn't change anything regarding the point that objectifying is morally wrong in general.

No, my argument was that objectification, as feminists define it, is a misnomer and has no falsifiable definition.

Feminism, despite its name, is supposed to fight for equality of the genders, not "girlpower" (though in the current day it is used as a tool by many females for self interest, since it's established and can be taboo to argue against once certain terms have been used).

Feminism isn't "supposed" to do anything.

[–]RandomCoolName0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

Feminism isn't "supposed" to do anything.

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

There is also another wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

And belive it or not, they are not the same thing! You can't judge feminism in general based on what certain feminists do. It would be like judging the Norwegian nation based on what Breivik did. Feminism is a broad term, and unless you're arguing against a flavour of feminism that supports Slut Walks, that argument isn't valid. It's a logical fallacy.

as feminists define it, is a misnomer and has no falsifiable definition.

Which, concretely, definition. By which, concretely, feminist. How can a definition that is conceptual be falsifiable? The definition itself is the only thing a concept entails, it cannot be wrong. If I give a objectifying as "making something the grammatical object of a sentence" and I use it with that meaning, you can argue that I'm using the word in the wrong way, or you can understand what is being said beyond the definition, what is being meant and argue against how I make something the grammatical object in a sentence.

An online dictionary gave me this definition.

Degrade to the status of a mere object.

By that definition, objectifying anyone is completely wrong, pretty much regardless of circumstances.

The argument you gave was that women objectify men as well (they go after a man based on their careers, not looking at him as a person but instead as an object to be attained). You argued that to say that women were wrong in doing so was to remove their agency. I agree that it's each person's business what they do, and that you shouldn't remove their agency. I do, however, not agree because of this that objectifying is something correct to do, you never discussed objectifying further than saying women do it to.

Now if a certain someone used the name of feminist and said you were using women and tricking them into sleeping with them, because you are the man and she is the woman, then she is the one that is sexist. She might be wrong, and she is likely using an easy way out in order to gain leverage in a certain situation or in her life in general, I don't know I wasn't there, I'm speculating. But you cannot say that because that asshat of a person is wrong, feminism in general is flawed, and you really haven't touched on the subject of objectifying.

It is your right and liberty to objectify women as much as you want, just like it's in their right to objectify them as much as they want to. It is not in your right to repress anybody, nor should it be in their right to repress them. This is what at its core feminism is supposed to argue for, which to me is not an ideology in itself, it's a view on a specific issue.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Slutwalk is a movement aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. Specifically rebelling against the officer who said "women should avoid dressing like sluts."

And belive it or not, they are not the same thing! You can't judge feminism in general based on what certain feminists do. It would be like judging the Norwegian nation based on what Breivik did. Feminism is a broad term, and unless you're arguing against a flavour of feminism that supports Slut Walks, that argument isn't valid. It's a logical fallacy.

It's true, based on what you just said here, not one single feminist could ever be held to the fire because no one feminist represents true feminism. No true scotsman! Whoops, that's a logical fallacy!

Which, concretely, definition. By which, concretely, feminist. How can a definition that is conceptual be falsifiable?

It's simple. Let's say I tell you that all women perform an action X. You ask, what's the defintion of X? I tell you, why, it's what all women do! It's indefensible because of it's circular reasoning. All men objectify because men are attracted to women. Therefore men objectify women!

An online dictionary gave me this definition.

Degrade to the status of a mere object.

By that definition, objectifying anyone is completely wrong, pretty much regardless of circumstances.

Indeed, I explained in great detail what that means. Removing or ignoring agency. Shaming based on agency. That is a falsifiable definition. (and therefore can be argued) You should read my letter. The OP..

The argument you gave was that women objectify men as well (they go after a man based on their careers, not looking at him as a person but instead as an object to be attained).

Nope, I didn't!

Based on my original definition of objectification, I argued that feminists are objectifying women.

Based on the terribly ill defined version of objectification I stated:

Let's say I flirt with a woman at a bar. She seems into me. She asks what I do for a living. I tell her I'm between jobs, and living in my mother's basement. Much to my surprise, her interest vanishes immediately and she walks away. What just happened here? Was I objectified? .. Has she denied my value to other people and other endeavors? No! Of course not!

...female profiles that have the "Must be 6' tall, athletic, please no losers thx" checklist at the bottom. But you know what- I defend their right to do so. Because nobody should tell them who to mate with and for what reasons. They're free to do what they want. It's only feminism telling them their checklists are evil and objectifying.

Clearly my argument was that feminist's definition of objectification is a misnomer because it's cyclical. I used women as an example of why their definition is nonsensical. My original definition of objectification which has a falsifiable definition was shown that neither women nor men are "objectifying" as a standard course of action, instead feminism is making a big stink about it.

To which you argue "no true feminist."

This is a common argument technique by feminists, moving the goal posts. How can I possibly make a point when you're busy ensuring no point can stick because true feminism .. can never be defined! "You can't judge feminism in general based on what certain feminists do." Therefore feminism is above reproach.

It is your right and liberty to objectify women as much as you want, just like it's in their right to objectify them as much as they want to. It is not in your right to repress anybody, nor should it be in their right to repress them. This is what at its core feminism is supposed to argue for, which to me is not an ideology in itself, it's a view on a specific issue.

Ignoring the logical argument that I just made that feminist's definition of objectification is nonsensical, classic moving of goalposts.

[–]RandomCoolName6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy

Let me start this section by declaring that I do not call myself a feminist, but I see basic flaws in your reasoning.

Slutwalk is a movement aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. Specifically rebelling against the officer who said "women should avoid dressing like sluts."

If you are judging a group, you should judge them by what makes them a group. Judge the feminists at SlutWalk for what they do, not the feminists that aren't at SlutWalk by what the ones at SlutWalk do.

I'm not saying no true feminist would go to SlutWalk, I'm saying some do, some don't. Judge them accordingly.

What you are doing is called the fallacy of composition: "assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole." I'm not denying that the part of the feminist movement that does the SlutWalk is not feminist, but you can't claim that something true about them is true about all feminists.

Hypothetical Frenchman me is sitting in Paris and sees a US citizen littering. He concludes that all US citizens are littering assholes. This is the fallacy of composition, what your reasoning is.

Let's say I tell you that all women perform an action X. You ask, what's the defintion of X? I tell you, why, it's what all women do!

Read that again, you didn't give a circular argument, you defined a term "X" that means "what all women do".

Based on the conventional usage of the term "sexual objectification", what you described women as doing is what would be called objectification (Being attracted based on superficial things, not seeing the person behind the superficial things etc.)

Your argument basically enticed that women are objectified if their freedom to do as they please is removed. This is not the goal of feminism (for women not to do so), but instead it argues that sexually objectifying people is morally wrong, not that we should remove the right of people to do so, like it would seem you are implying. It would not be an argument that you tricked her into sleeping with you and that the woman is right, that is just sexism where the woman cannot make mistakes and the man can, this would not promote equality of gender. Instead their point of view would be that it's morally wrong, both for you and for the woman you're having sex with, to sexually objectify each other. Not to legally remove the right for you to do so to each other, see the movement withing anarchism and feminism called "anarcho-feminism" (which to me makes little sense, as the feminist part should be implied with the anarchist part, but whatever).

And again, I want to emphasize that I am not a feminist myself, but that your reasoning is flawed.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

If you are judging a group, you should judge them by what makes them a group. Judge the feminists at SlutWalk for what they do, not the feminists that aren't at SlutWalk by what the ones at SlutWalk do.

Would you say, then, that feminists disagree with slutwalk?

What you are doing is called the fallacy of composition: "assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole."

We can keep doing this all day. What you're doing is fallacy of no true scottsman. If nobody can define feminism, it remains above reproach.

Read that again, you didn't give a circular argument, you defined a term "X" that means "what all women do".

It's a tautology, which is a form of circular argument. It's like using the word in the definition. What's misogyny? Actions, thoughts, or words conveyed from a misogynist.

Your argument basically enticed that women are objectified if their freedom to do as they please is removed.

Or if they are shamed for having agency.

This is not the goal of feminism

Do you speak for feminsm? It seems to me you cannot speak for feminism, as you are not a feminist.

From your post:

I do not call myself a feminist

If you can come back to me and show me a certifiable way to define feminism and find a way to speak on it's behalf, I will accept your argument. The very mechanism by which you argue I cannot criticize feminism is the same mechanism that disallows you from defending it.

Instead their point of view would be that it's morally wrong, both for you and for the woman you're having sex with, to sexually objectify each other.

If the definition of sexual objectification was something that could be defined in a falsifiable way... (meaning, there is a way to prove I was not objectifying somebody) I would be open to listening. But there is not. Not based on feminism's definition.

Not to legally remove the right for you to do so to each other

If feminism stopped at gaining rights for women, they'd have stopped long ago. You see, women already have equal rights of men. Now they spend time spinning their tires and insulting people like me for having sex with multiple women. Feminism should be over if it were merely about rights.

Maybe nobody told you, but it's been hijacked by what we call the "third wave" and they're pretty damn nitpicky. Check out this link:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/i%20need%20feminism%20because

They oppose an ill defined objectification while actively campaigning against the agency of women. It doesn't matter if they fight for the legal right to do so, because their internal point is irreconcilable. It's inherently inconsistent. It cannot hold up under it's own weight.

[–]Bobsutan-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Slutwalks were protests against free speech. In what bizzaro world does that make sense in a free and open society?

[–]Bobsutan1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

More to the point, when men objectify women it tends to be as sex objects, whereas when women objectify men they tend to as success objects.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

How did it become a moral dilemma? Wasn't that the stance of religion for so long, telling people what is morally correct? Why were they wrong and why are feminist morals right?

[–]RandomCoolName1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I wasn't implying that feminists were right, merely arguing against what OP put forward. Everyone has a right to an opinion, not to enforce it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Such a defensive nature in general in this sub. I was trying to open a discussing about it, not accusing you of anything.

It is why I find it facinating how they want slut-shaming to disappear yet still tell us how men should express their sexuality. And the concept that attraction is a social construct. Holy shit don't get me started on that, what utter nonsense.

[–]RandomCoolName-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Oh, I see, my bad.

I have to say though, attraction is definitely something we pick up from our surroundings. I mean, everyone has different things they find more or less attractive.

[–]TankorSmash0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'd give you reddit gold. I think you've covered everything I have to say when it comes to this sort of debate. It's a shame the feminist didn't reply to this.

Either way, thanks for the read, the both of you.

[–]soapjackal4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Good try, thanks for keeping away from ad hominem.

Redpillschool countered what you said fairly well, but I have two questions 1. How can I see any woman in a sexual light without falling under your definition of objectification if my unconcious judges women before I can? 2. Where can I find the pillars of feminism (the general assumptions all sub fields use)?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have edited my response.

[–]ysef951 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

a very interesting viewpoint which was pretty well explained for the most part i think both redpill theory and what you have said about people being individuals are true to an extent and its up to everyone to decide how they will approach life to best maximise their utility with the information they have. Id like to see more posts like this talking about alternative viewpoints.

[–]FAwhy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Objectification is something that happens irrelevant to the response it receives. If, for instance, you see the value of women only in their potential to please you sexually or emotionally, then you've objectified women. The woman at the bar who seemed to masculine to be attractive, the woman she was with who shared a drink with you but left early, the coworker who got annoyed when you got flirtatious, and the women you bring home. If you're entire approach to them is:

FEMALE CHECKLIST

Attractive? Y/N Uncorrupted by feminism? Y/N Girlfriend material? Y/N ONS material Y/N  TOTAL SCORE: ___ 

That's objectification. Even if the end result is you treating the women you meet very differently.

Interestingly, if women are treated as a resource, then men become adversaries. This is where the idea of "patriarchy hurts men, too" comes from.

So when women do this its fine? Also what about the women who choose to be sexually objectified for money or attention?

[–]Sword113 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Objectification is something that happens irrelevant to the response it receives. If, for instance, you see the value of men only in their potential to please you materially or emotionally, then you've objectified men. The man at the bar who seemed too bald to be attractive, the man he was with who shared a drink with you but left early, the coworker who got annoyed when you got flirtatious, and the men you bring home.

MALE CHECKLIST

Attractive? Y/N Make over 100K? Y/N Boyfriend material? Y/N Gullibility (will he buy me stuff) Y/N

TOTAL SCORE: ___

That's objectification.

Amazing, change a few key words and the gender and almost a perfect fit.

[–]p3ndulum0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I wrote a lot of stuff in response to this entire discussion, but just before I was ready to submit it, I came up with this:

"Bees are attracted to flowers for a reason."

Who knows if flowers actually like being pollinated by bees? Who could say whether or not bees actually enjoy making honey? But there's clearly a point to the whole business that is bigger than any individual (or group of) flower or bee; they both have their roles to play in the system as a whole.

The bees don't try to pretend that they are flowers, and the flowers don't try to pretend that they are bees. And neither the flowers or the bees are particularly worried about who is attracted to what or why, because it doesn't really matter.

And if either, the flowers or the bees, stopped participating in the flower/bee "game", eventually the whole system would fall apart. But not just that system, every other system that is connected to it.

My original point about feminism was going to be about how it is really no different than racism. Racists can justify their racism until they are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it's still about hatred, misunderstanding and a lack of awareness. Like bees and flowers, all races are here for a reason and all have their roles to play.

The same holds true for feminism.

There is no real end game for feminism. In fact, I would challenge any feminist to try to paint a picture for me about what this world would look like once they are "successful" at accomplishing whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. Because it's not at all about trying to get something done, but instead it's about being a way.

Like a racist white man feels the world should be a certain way - free of blacks/Hispanics/whatever, or to have preferential treatment or control over other races, etc. - a feminist goes about her business the same way; shaming men just simply for who they are - how they were born - just to get more of what they (women) want.

Like a flower shaming a bee for trying to pollinate it.

And I'm not saying that men should be free to "pollinate" women at will. Obviously we share a level of consciousness that is far more complex than that of bees and flowers. I'm just saying that above being able to vote, and getting degrees, and who does the laundry or the dishes, or who stays home with the kids, there is a much bigger plan at work here. And I won't claim to know what that is, but what I do know is that there have been certain consistencies throughout all of human history:

Men and women have had sex with each other, babies are born, and then people die.

Why? I don't know. That would be like asking a bee why it pollinates flowers. It just knows what it needs to do in order to make its honey.

So stop hating men for being attracted to women, for whatever their reasons are. They are supposed to be attracted to women. They are supposed to have sex with women. That is their purpose.

All of this other stuff - the degrees and the job titles and the being able to vote - that's nothing in respect to the bigger picture. That's just all a game that people play while they wait to die.

Equality is an illusion. There is no one correct way to treat all people. And men and women are fundamentally different, so it's foolish to fight towards treating them the same.

It would be like fighting to treat flowers and bees the same.

Flowers just need to accept that they are flowers and do what flowers are supposed to do. The same goes for bees.

And, if a flower or a bee wants to participate in extracurricular activities outside of pollination and making honey, good for them. But at the end of the day, they are still flowers and bees.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

(I'm assuming you're a heterosexual woman, I couldn't find any explicit identifiers in your posts, and if you are, I respect that you're arguing logically without resorting to name calling or attacks as most feminists, men and women included, do)     In most feminist thought processes, only men are capable of things like sexism and objectification. Valerie Solanas wrote that men were not even human, were nothing but walking rape machines. How is this not sexism or objectification? (Yes, Solanas was an extremist, I admit) 

Men look at a woman initially as a body they they do or do not want to have sex with. This is biological, it's evolutionary, there's nothing can be done about it. If it evolved naturally, is it morally wrong? Part of the redpill philosophy is acknowledging that morals don't really exist, they are a social construct, an ideal. They are beautiful ideas, and I personally try to live up to good moral standards, but they simply aren't real, they were reasoned out of biological processes (does the mind really control the body, or does the body do what it will, and the mind reasons why? Don't discount this). People are animals plain and simple, and we do what all animals do: eat, sleep, shit, attempt to ensure the survival of our species by selecting healthy mates of good breeding stock, etc.

  Don't get me wrong, a woman's body is not all that matters to a man, and it's not like we don't care about her character, feelings, hopes, goals, dreams, interests, etc. (in fact, if those are good, they keep men around after the initial attraction), but it's the initial attractor. But, we can't exactly see your golden shining soul across a crowded room, sweetheart. We see your beautiful hair, your clear pretty eyes, your healthy body that can give birth to and nourish children.    Do women look across a crowded room and see a man's character, interests, aspirations, feelings, hopes dreams, etc? Probably not. A woman "sees" (men are visually based when it comes to attraction, women are attracted to things other than straight up looks, so see isn't the best term here) the man's status through his carriage and social proof, she sees the crowd around him, and his conduct. Those are external things. She may look at his dress and trappings, and see his wealth. Those are external things that have nothing to do with the person inside, obviously. She may notice how he's tall, handsome, well-built, and naturally dominant, he would be a good "sperm donor", as it were. These certainly don't have much to do with the man underneath.    Keep in mind that these processes run largely below conscious reasoning, and that you, as a woman are indeed an animal like I (a man) am, so you do in fact do these things. Do you notice much about the other men in the room who don't exhibit these attractive traits, like social proof and ability to provide, save for things about them that would disqualify them as a potential mate? Probably not. Hate to break it to you, but you've objectified a man as an ATM for status, security, or sperm. Just because looks don't favor as heavy into the equation for women as they do men doesn't mean it's not objectification. Just because it's done by a woman and not by a man, doesn't mean it's not objectification. Don't get me wrong, of course you care about the man he is underneath, but that's what keeps you around, not what initially drew you to him.   Just another man's perspective on "objectification". Women can't decide what men find attractive and make it so, just as a fat guy who lives in his mom's basement and works at Mickey D's, can't decide that what he is is attractive to women and make it so. 

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If, for instance, you see the value of women only in their potential to please you sexually or emotionally, then you've objectified women.

If that is the case then I objectify everyone/everything.

[–]TheIslander8292 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Please reply.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

OP delivers? PATRIARCHY.

[–]rulezero8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I like your definition of objectification. Too often, ideologies from the tradition of critical studies have a very hard time providing clear definitions to their concepts.

I remember from my Existentialism course that the process of objectification (of people) is that when someone has an identity pushed upon them by outside forces. It can be hard to know what this entails. There is also a lot of muddy waters around the concept of "othering" too, and it is also an integral part of feminist ideology.

I much prefer the definition from wikipedia:

­> This term is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors are present:

Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;

Denial of autonomy, Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;

Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;

Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;

Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;

denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

According to this definition, men are more objectified than women!

The only one I find weird is "instrumentality", because it seems that whatever is bad about being treated as a means to an end is subsumed under the other criteria. It is contradictory autonomy, ownership, and subjectivity requirements: if someone wants to participate in a shallow, pleasurable sexual relationship with someone else, why not? The definition of sexual objectification from wikipedia:

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience.[1][2]

You can see how it contradicts regular objectification. Namely, if you own your body and your agency and want a sexual relationship with no regard for personality, why not?

Logically, porn and hook-ups are not objectification. I find that the only things that fall under sexual objectifcation is sexual slavery, or rape (and not feminist -defined rape, but real rape where physical force is used).

[–]RedHonest20 points21 points  (13 children) | Copy

Yep. If you support giving women power, you give them the power even to do things that don't accord with your ideology.

This contradiction is at the heart of feminism, and has real world consequences. To take it to an extreme, in Toledo During the three weeks before Jashua Perz shot her to death, Kaitlin Gerber kept up a relationship with him that included exchanging 1,700 text messages and phone calls, staying together overnight, and wearing an engagement ring while also telling a friend she feared for her life, according to a Toledo Police investigation report provided to The Blade.

Boyfriend shot her, poor girl. But she was continuing to see him. I wouldn't be so callous, but I've seen this before: Women going back, repeatedly, to abusive boyfriends. Eventually you stop caring, because you can't do anything about it. She has free will, rights, it's wrong what happens to her, but it's wrong to stop her.

I knew a woman like this at my first job when I was 19. It was my first red pill moment, but I wasn't ready to be awakened yet.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy

She has free will, rights, it's wrong what happens to her, but it's wrong to stop her.

Nails it. This is why I can't stand the white knight advertisements in that other thread...

http://i.imgur.com/V43G6bD.jpg

Who are you to control what she does? If you ever stepped in and told me what to do, I'd punch you in the face.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy

no, i agree with the ad. a girl drunk enough to fuck a guy who looks and dresses like that should be in no bed but a hospital bed

[–]rulezero12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Men are to be condemned if they have sex with a horny, drunk girl (most of the time, the girl is drunk and horny and literally jumps on the guy to fuck)... masculine hyperresponsibility: it's a thing.

I remember reading from Esther Villar's book "The Manipulated Man" that men are expected to sacrifice themselves to women, and that men who live only for themselves and what makes them happy are vilified.

[–]Planned_Serendipity2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Someone in /r/mensrights came up with some excellent counters to those posters.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

These are hilarious. Thanks.

Do you have a link to the thread?

[–]Mild1113 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

link broken now

[–]Planned_Serendipity2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Here you go, there are some other good ones in the comments as well.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ca9ag/feminist_chivalry_is_best_chivalry/

[–]chowder1380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They keep fucking going back. And then try complain about men in general.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]IntrovertSuccess6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why is it ok? Cause you we're obviously some kind of alpha for her.

It's not the case that individual actions are evaluated on their own merits.

Rather it is:

Whatever alpha does = Good, cool, exciting etc. Whatever beta does = objectifying, bad, creepy, needy etc.

[–]phattsao15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

The feminism seen on reddit is by far the most hypocritical, random, and generally schizophrenic "ideology" in the history of humanity

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thank you for putting this into words. I was having trouble putting my finger on WHY it bugged me so much when people start telling me I'm using these girls.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (6 children) | Copy

I can't wait to come back to this in 6 hours and see some hardcore brigading. Or maybe I'll come back and watch the SRSers circlejerk about how we hate women.

Either way, love the message, and the logic in the post will make the incoming feminazi campaign much more entertaining.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy

Prediction: Feminists miss point entirely, reframe argument, "what about rapists? They objectify too!" Entire discussion diverted, no real debate had on the merits of the article. Feminist'd!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy

I wonder what it's like when feminists debate other feminists.

[–]Gobbledig00k18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lol, they dont debate eachother. They single out the one they disagree with and they harrass them and kill their pets. See: Erin Pizzey

[–]SpawnQuixote6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

/r/shitredditsays

It becomes a circle jerk of epic proportions. A vast cavernous echo chamber of entitlement and victimization. Also, lots of baby talk disguised as being "ironic".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Have you ever seen two pissed off gorillas piss in each others faces?...

me neither... but I bet it's kind of like that ~

[–]RedHonest1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I can't wait to come back to this in 6 hours and see some hardcore brigading.

Doubt it. This is a logic post. Most of the likely suspects for this sort of post aren't even going to be able to make it to the end of it. And there isn't anything to provoke indignation.

[–]imgonnagetthisdone3 points4 points  (20 children) | Copy

While I agree with the red pill in general, I think you're a bit off base. Let me make sure I'm clear on what you're saying: if someone is tricked into making a wrong decision, it means that they lack agency? That seems to me a poor definition of agency. An agent with inaccurate information is still an agent.

I think, rather than an agency/objectification issue, this is more of a responsibility/maturity issue. Some feminists try to absolve women of all responsibility for their sexual conduct, placing all responsibility for negative consequences on the men. It's not that a woman can't ever be tricked into sex under false pretenses - rather, it's that feminists use this excuse way too often to defend what are simply bad decisions.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 16 points17 points  (16 children) | Copy

What do you call a guy who invests his life savings in a stock based on a tip he heard from somebody off the street?

Irresponsible. Because at the end of the day, his money is his responsibility.

Sure the guy off the street might have had bad intentions, and he was manipulative. But at any moment it is your responsibility to make decisions well, and deal with the consequences if you don't. Nobody's paying this guy back when he loses his money- it doesn't matter if he was lied to.

[–]imgonnagetthisdone5 points6 points  (15 children) | Copy

Aye, that's exactly my point. I simply think the concept of taking responsibility is a better frame than "agency/objectification" for what you're trying to say.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy

Yeah I think you misunderstood my letter. It is feminists who are implying women lack agency when pickup artists seduce.

[–]imgonnagetthisdone3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy

No, I understand. I simply don't think that feminists are implying that women lack agency when they say that men trick them - rather, I think they frame it so that PUAs sound like sociopaths and perfect liars so that women make their decision (as an agent) based on incomplete information. It is possible to be tricked into something and maintain your agency.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy

I simply don't think that feminists are implying that women lack agency when they say that men trick them

They think exactly this.

They said as much when I posted the FR the other day about the cheating girl I'm currently banging.

Even though I'm not lying to her, I'm gaming her. And she is melting in my hands. This is completely her decision, she has all the information she needs. Yet I am still called a horrible violent sociopath because I am not stopping her from exerting free will, as that free will goes against the feminine imperative.

Now bear in mind, not a single feminist has mentioned the fact that she is a cheater and decided to leave her other boyfriend. They only rationalize that she cannot do wrong (as an object) and therefore any negative behaviour she exhibits is because of me controlling her.

My story: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1c531l/i_wouldnt_lie_if_we_were_in_a_relationship_my/

Their reaction: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1c5b38/trper_leads_poor_girl_on_takes_her_virginity/

This girl is a lying manipulating cheater. I'm gaming her for sex while explicitly refusing her a relationship because I do not trust her.

And yet I am seen as at fault here, because I am not an object, I am a man with free will.

[–]imgonnagetthisdone4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy

While I can see your point, I think the most telling part of that is the title of the reaction post: "TRPer leads poor girl on". You say you were perfectly honest with her, but they have twisted the situation to make you appear to be a liar (leading her on) which, in their minds, allows her to maintain her agency.

Once again, they focus on the PUA being a sociopath rather than the girl having no self-determination. It's all about framing the argument.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy

I think you have a good point, however I think it is telling that they do not allow a situation where the woman is at fault.

I think this viewpoint is brought on by the hamster. The girl cannot be at fault because she is an object. So who is at fault? Must be the guy!

Yes, they do reframe the argument and twist the facts. But I think they do this because they need to blame the only thing in the equation they view with responsibility - the man.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

My point in my letter here was that there is an implicit recognition in the feminist frame that women must be objects. I think imgonnagetthisdone is arguing that they don't say it explicitly. But it's implicit if you follow their logic to the end.

[–]DEVi4TION2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

To confirm, yeah that's whats going on here. This convo is saying the same thing but somehow its an argument lol... its semantics. Tricking/lying to someone is indeed your responsibility and the blame is mostly on you. You know what is happening, they don't, therefore they are "powerless" to the unseen situation. however, that's not what was happening in theubercuber's example. The feminist's here are twisting stories to play the blame game(allowing the "victim" to keep her agency)

Of course they can't see they are objectifying the women. In fact, they are even objectifying me by claiming I DON'T feel emotions for the women I "manipulate". I feel deep emotions for most all of them, and I do my best to ensure that they have a good time. Right now I'm gaming this sweet girl from work. Its a love triangle and another guy is saying im the badguy and he wants to date her.. but she keeps coming back to me. With me she is free, she's herself, wild, uncensored, she has fun. With him its serious talk about relationships and shaming about me. She's bent up about me. But she knows exactly what the situation is, I won't "date" her. She knows who I am as a person. I've never lied. It's her decision what to do. She's not an object, and I treat her more like a person than the other guy does.

So yeah, I agree. With all 3 of you.

[–]IntrovertSuccess2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Only naturals, alphas, leaders what ever you want to call the guys at the top of the pile are allowed to get away with it.

And they do so because they know those guys aren't going to talk about it (even if anonymously online doesn't count).

So in their mind you must have pretended to be an alpha, cause a real one would keep quiet.

Not attacking you btw, just explaining the reaction you are getting.

Do you think a famous rapper / athlete / politician would be told that he tricks women? No.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Rappers and athletes and politicians get tons of flack from feminists for dating tons of girls, and young/dumb ones at that.

Also 'keeping quiet' is bullshit. Other than on-the-spot last minute resistance, and not going overboard for fear of slut shaming, a girl doesn't put a lot of thought into that. "Oh, this guy is an alpha because he won't tell anyone I fucked him" said no girl ever.

If 'keeping quiet' was a way to attract girls, all the neckbeards that have no life and live at home with their parents and have no friends would be way more attractive.

For a real life example, before I started paying attention to red pill, I just noticed assholes vs nice guys. Not 'mean' guys, but cocky loud rude selfish assholes. Whenever I encountered one in my social circle, they ALWAYS had a girlfriend. And they would also ALWAYS brag about sex out loud whether or not the girlfriend was there. The girlfriend might act pissy but it sure as hell didn't stop her from fucking him again.

[–]IntrovertSuccess1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly.

Women don't mind being objectified... as long as it's done by natural alphas.

What they fear / hate is being tricked ( or "objectified") by betas who pretend they are alphas.

It means they accidentally let beta-seed near their eggs.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Some feminists try to absolve women of all responsibility for their sexual conduct, placing all responsibility for negative consequences on the men.

Do you not see how that is objectification? People, including women, can't have responsibility without agency.

it's that feminists use this excuse way too often to defend what are simply bad decisions.

So you agree that this objectification of women (by denying any responsibility on the woman's part) is being presented by feminists.

Sounds like we're all on the same page then.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Oh mind you, I don't think somebody who was tricked lacked agency- I'm saying that feminists argue that tricking somebody eliminates their agency.

[–]IntrovertSuccess1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It undermines their agency. They only want the alphas to objectify them. Not beta-boys.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Objectification is simply the act of looking at another person through the lens of your own needs. It's normal.

Think about when you go to a restaurant. When choosing a restaurant to eat at, do you perform extensive background checks on all of its staff? Do you delve deep into their essential humanity, learning about each employee's trials and travails, their wants and fears, and go to the restaurant intent on forming lasting relationships with each and every single one of them?

No. You check their Yelp review to see how well they cook and serve.

We objectify each other all the time - it's a normal human process.

In their great crusade against men, feminists are making the same intentional error of logic they always do: singling out one case where objectification gives offense to their agenda and saying men are to blame.

[–]IntrovertSuccess9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Alphas are allowed to objectify all they want (then it's confidence).

If a Beta tries to objectify then he is being creepy. If he fakes being an alpha then he tricked a woman as well. Twice as bad!

Logic doesn't come into it. It's all about human hierarchies. Might makes right. (Not my personal value, just an observation).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

God, I literally had this discussion with the friend I posted about yesterday. He's such a white knight, holy geez.

[–]nastybastid1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ehh I guess it depends what the tricks you're using are? In my head I'm thinking Barney Stinson type tricks and I don't really see the problem with that, however I do want to ask for your opinion on this scenario;

So say you're out on the town some night, trying to pull some ladies to sleep with. You trick (your words, not mine) an attractive young woman into coming home with you. You start making out and things are heating up fast, you make it into the bedroom and she lifts her dress up, bending over to reveal her ass to you, you proceed to have anal sex with her. You finish and lie on the bed beside her and this is when you realize the penis she has tucked away, with a few drinks in you, in the dark and because of how quickly things progressed you hadn't notice but you just fucked a trans-woman, how do you feel?

[–]Von_Epic2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is going to make some cog-dis headaches.

[–]AtlasAnimated2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

I thought the Feminist line of argumentation stated that women were objectified in media and entertainment, and therefore men objectify them. I don't think they believe that women have no agency, and the attacks against you being sexual as objectifying a woman are obviously idiotic.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

I agree with your first statement - women say the media objectifies them.

But in practice, they still objectify themselves. Why else would they hate PUAs and not the girls that can be so easily seduced by game?

[–]IntrovertSuccess4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Because they don't like to be tricked into banging betas.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

They have this same response to 'natural' alphas, not just learned PUAs. That's why college football stars are starting to get all these rape charges.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just wanted to say say I dig your poignancy there. That's one short, concise nugget of information/opinion that I agree with. Even if I didn't, well put.

[–]The_DukeDevlin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Damn right, white knights objectify women so much it's silly, rather than just acknowelding that men and women both have a right for free sexual expression, they think women are held up to some standard. They're really a big part of the problem, imo, because they don't view women as people.

[–]chowder1380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The thought process of feminists (I have stopped calling them "radical" feminist because I realized I have never met a normal one) is truly disgusting sometimes.

[–]IAMADOUCHEBAG0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I would love to see redpillschool hold a debate against all the feminists in r/changemyview.

It would be interesting to read anyway.

[–]LinkFixerBot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Set it up.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter