Original Thread: Why TBP is Intellectually Dishonest and Primarily Irrelevant

TBP Reply Thread

I looked at their reply thread as I expected... quite pathetic. Most of them played the proxy coin, i.e. 'Oh, we're only a satirical subreddit! We are not ideologues!' (e.g. One of the Best Rated Comment: “Repeat: TheBluePill is not an ideology. It is a subreddit dedicated to making fun of you morons”). In regards to this, I wonder why they are so clearly invested in other subreddits to the point where they are more active that actual subscribers of said subreddits. I wonder, if they are truly unideological, why they made so many threads about Donald Trump? I wonder why they don’t recognize obvious sexism that occurs to men and just brush it off as bad data (or hell, if someone actually does, you just downvote the fuck out of it with no argument).

A few others made some responses, most of which weren't even actual arguments, but I'm going to respond to some here. Since it is now abundantly clear that the great bulk of them are a bunch of idiotic trolls who have nothing of any actual argumentation value to input. The few that did at least TRY to attempt to formulate an argument would argue the same bullshit feminists have been arguing for decades – e.g. if you read in the dialogue below, you'll see that one actually tried arguing a variation of the wage-gap argument, something that has been thoroughly debunked for quite some time now.

"You know he's got faith in himself when he describes it as a "quasi-counterargument"."

No moron, I called it a quasi-counterargument, because an actual counterargument implies there WAS an actual argument to reply to.

"/Sinister_Hand already nailed the response to this. Thanks for posting this rotten apple lying on the ground! ... Sinister_Hand: Complains that we're irrelevant because we only pick the low hanging fruit. Proceeds to lay out a vast field of potatoes to harvest."

Again, conjecture without making any points, no surprise here.

"It's a pretty common manbaby canard so, yeah, I'm sure it's been addressed countless times. My take is you're making an extremely loaded argument and your assumption that divorce rates are a reasonable Relationship Satisfaction Index or whatever the fuck you're using them as a proxy for is somewhere between questionable and utterly hilarious and/or contemptuous"

Again, yet another non-argument. The point of the matter is we're trying to save men from making a play that completely immobilizes them. Once a man commits and signs a marriage document, he is absolutely and completely at his wife's will and desires; his best bet in this situation is to either hire a hitman or flee to Russia – two options that are highly risky and something that could have been avoided simply by avoiding marriage.

Obviously, such solutions are very unrealistic and incredibly risky simply for a man to protect one’s own rightful possessions, that is why it is simply imperative that men avoid marriage at all costs today.

"Second verse, same as the first: loaded arguments based on all sorts of assumptions like the initiator of the divorce being "at fault" for the divorce."

Assertion, assertion, assertion. Guess what? NOT AN ARGUMENT.

"I think your misogyny is showing, Mr. "there are two kinds of women: sluts and lying sluts"" "Wow, is this were the telephone game that started with that OkCupid clickbait article ended up?"

Not an argument.

"Oh I haven't heard this one before can anyone clue me in on some detail it's probably going to be as good as the bit where feminism/women gets blamed for being ineligable for the draft."

No, it, more or less, has to do that women are the primary recipients of entitlement spending and government resources, while men are the involuntary benefactors of such.

"So, what's supposed to be argument here? That women being "only 20 percent of STEM" currently is some kind of obvious proof that women can't lift STEM? It's not like we murdered the existing workforce when they started pushing trying to get women. It was 12% in the 70's, if you look at college majors/newgrads the gap closes to ~40% women/60% men. So, yeah, it looks like it's working to me."

Going to college no longer has anywhere near the same value it did back in the 90s and early 2000s, let alone the 60s and 70s. College attendance is inflated and overpopulated, and most women are majoring in the most worthless of degrees, which was the overarching point that you completely missed [somehow].

"hahaha "you're all just financial/emotional vampires that are right about some things that will not be named just confess!" I don't think I can logic my way out of this one if only I had a dick to do my thinking for me. Hey, wait a minute, Dick, what do you think?"

Yet another non-argument.

"Source: Angry male monthly. And what about the implications? (I'm never getting that scene from It's Alway Sunny out of my head, ever, am I?)"

It’s called male scarcity and female hypergamy in conjunction with each other acting in a free and open environment.

"Wait when the fuck did we start advocating monogamy I missed that meeting?"

I think it's something like, 'NAWALT, most women just want a nice man who treats them right', but maybe I'm wrong. Just look at your own sub-reddit's past history, or are you too incompetent to do that?

Hell, I remember a few months ago one of TBP members were saying that MGTOW are generally correct about somethings, but then you guys completely shamed him into subservience, because he's too much of a pussy to stand by or defend his views that disagree with the status quo. He told us the reason he even browses TBP to give him hope and mental stability with his own marriage, lol. If I recall properly, I am quite sure it was /Omega2 (the creator of this follow-up thread).

Unfortunately, I do not have a link to this thread as I am pretty sure it got deleted, but is it not ironic that you label us as an ‘echo chamber’, but whenever someone brings up the most blatantly obvious and demonstrable truths that MGTOW presents that you just shame and ridicule the life out of said person without even recognizing that there may be more to it?

"The word you wanted there was "inherent" not "implicit" :)"

I don't see how the usage of 'implicitly contradicts 'inherently'. I meant to write implicit for a reason, because even in our arguably unnatural environments of advanced, modern civilization where sex/gender is seen as 'fluid' and a 'social construct' — gender roles will always have an implicit effect on how we view each other sub-consciously (thus, implicitly), regardless of how strong of a notion of egalitarianism you push.

"Nope. See your problem here is you're trying to argue against the definition of the word. Mysogyny means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women," whether or not you feel those opinions are valid is orthogonal here. Even if we take at face value the concept that contempt against women (#yesallwomen) is valid, it's still, by definition, mysogyny. You belive it, embrace it bro! Come out of the closet, you'll feel a lot better (at least it worked for me)!"

I am a proud misogynist, but maybe you should read what I said in that quoted lined itself:

AND THERE IS VALID REASON (not the "MISOGYNY" they constantly bitch and cry about) behind it?

Even if said reasons are misogynistic, does it really matter if said reasons are true or significant?

"I don't know how to break it to you but EvoPsych and EvoBio are the 21st century versions of Phrenology and Eugenics, they're crackpot pseudosciences that pull "scientific" explanations for bigoted garbage out of their asses and are about as respectable as Homeopathy or maybe Accupuncture."

Oh, please go tell Richard Dawkins that in addition with any Professor in Biology, I'm sure they'll love to hear what bullshit you have to say. Eugenics is proper in theory too (if Mendel's experiments with artificial selection demonstrated anything) – the real concern with Eugenics are the ethical concerns, not the Biological realities of it.

Richard Dawkins’s endorsement of Evolutionary Psychology

Here's a favorite of mine:

The most obvious answer is male-male competition: our male ancestors competed with each other for females, and bigger bodies made for more successful competitors. That size difference can be useful in both direct physical competition (as in mule deer!) or simply in dominance, like establishing territories, or even in showing you have “better genes”. (In fact, mate choice based on size may still operate in humans if females prefer bigger or taller males as opposed to smaller ones like me.) And if males competed for females, that reflects a difference between the sexes in reproductive strategy—that is, in behavior. Finally, if the physical result of this behavioral difference remains in our species, why would the behavioral difference itself not remain as well, with males competing for female attention? Various psychological and sociological studies in fact show this to be the case in modern humans.

OH NO, was that too RedPilly for your fragile selves? I guess you better go back to your safe spaces and talk about how reality and science triggered you too hard.

I’ll be honest, I did expect a lot of incredible imbecility out of this thread – I did not expect TBP to actually deny one of the most fundamental and most heavily demonstrated pieces of Biology.

"even if they did (the rate has been going down- the myth that it did was heavily bolstered by a massive amount of divorces as divorce became more acceptable) i fail to see how that's a negative. getting a divorce is infinitely better than staying in an unhappy or abusive relationship"

Okay, finally, something that ADDRESSES something I said. Here's why it's bullshit, while the divorce rate has gone down (really it's only plateaued actually, because it hasn't been adjusted for separations that are in the process of divorce. The even greater reason why this is bullshit is because it doesn't account for the fact that the overall MARRIAGE rate has decreased significantly so, which inherently leads to a lower divorce rate.

Demograhpic Model

As you can clearly tell, this statistic is very misleading at best. The divorce rate has not gone down as a result of the non-existence or lesser existence in recent times of hypergamy, gynocentrism, female solipsism etc – it has only occurred at expense of a lower marriage rate overall.

Even if said person was correct, is it really rational to play Russian Roulette if the chamber has one bullet instead of two?

"first off, the statistic is actually closer to 70% and maybe if you want women to stop divorcing their partners, men should stop being shitbags. women are often a lot less satisfied in marriage than men, often due to unequal workloads at home. also, wee nitpick, you mean "70% of divorces are initiated by women", not "70% of women initiate divorces.""

Oh, grammar and semantics! Sorry, I don't have time to proof read all of my reddit posts that I type on five-minute bus rides on my laggy smartphone (let alone spend all day snooping through other people's sub-reddits, but that's not my problem), maybe I should ask one of the underemployed female English majors to help me with that.

Let’s start with the household disparity. I’m going to run off some general estimates:

Washing Dishes/Loading Dishwasher: 5-10 Minutes (Maximum, 6-7 days a week) = 70 Minutes MAX per week Cleaning Bathroom: 20-30 Minutes (Maximum, once a week) Doing Laundry: 20 Minutes (Maximum, Once a week) Vacuuming: Varying, 20-40 Minutes depending on Square feet of premises (Once a week)

So, under VERY LIBERAL estimates, you are looking at roughly 2.5 hours of low-intensity, simplistic labor work to be done around the house? Does this even remotely makeup for the income disparity most couples have? I’m assuming a near unanimous NO to that. This doesn’t even account for the fact that actual major electrical and mechanical that require some level of aptitude and skill are all done by the man, if not mostly paid for by the man. Let’s not forget that men almost always must do the higher-intensity labor work like taking out the trash.

Also, it's not men's fault that women are incapable of being happy and are never being satisfied. Women are intrinsically opportunistic and hate being told they have to settle for something (very similar to how children get upset when they don't get everything exactly as they want it).

In regards to the divorce initiation frequency, it fluctuates between 70 and 80 percent of the time (unfortunately, the CDC privately archived their data set, so I cannot provide you a direct link). No intelligent man is going to want to get divorced, because that effectively ensures he's going to lose a ton of money. Regardless of which, 70 percent is still an abundant majority and plurality, so it hardly weakens my point (as it is hardly a strong suit for “your side of the argument” to argue in favor for). Women divorce far more than men do primarily because women are far more likely to benefit from divorce, and it's almost always at the man's expense.

"i mean, like, it's linked to the fact that men tend to earn more than women as a group, and women are also the partners who tend to make career sacrifices for their partners. so what you need is feminism, friendo"

Or maybe, instead of being a parasitical and hedonistic cockroach claiming to take the moral high-ground by "sacrificing your career" (when in reality, you're simply too lazy and incompetent to generate a high enough income, and you simply want a free ride), you should make your own money and stop feeling entitled to a man's money simply because you had some affiliation with him. The fact that you are legally obligated to pay some bitch who you're not even affiliated with anymore is preposterous.

When you get fired from a job? Do you expect your ex-employer to continue paying you an income after all the i's are dotted and everything is settled?

"idk, when are you going to address that, in the majority of cases where men actually ask for custody, they're more likely to get it than their wives? or that women tend to be relegated to the caregiving parent, which is one of the most important factors when it comes to custody decisions? (hey another thing feminism helps you fucks with)"

Um, amptoons is your source? Not a single active feminist has done one thing in regards to reforming divorce court or child custody cases, but nice try. Only recently, where women have started to be held accountable in extremely small proportions (relative to men) to pay alimony have feminists actually started to bat an eye at alimony reform. Homosexual men are the only men feminism has implicitly helped, and that was more or less by accident too.

"are you talking about that okcupid study? that was actually flawed for a lot of reasons. first, if you look at the male data, it shows men are less likely to consider women that aren't rated as attractive for partners than women are. second, it ignores the fact that when you rate someone, you're not just rating their photos- you're rating their profile. and if you rate a guy high on okc, he tends to take it as a comeon, because he gets a little notification. when i was on there before i met my partner, i ended up rating a lot of guys less attractively than just their physical photos showed, because their profiles had a lot of things i wasn't interested in and i didn't want them to see my like and message me when we were going for different things in relationships."

I'll let Colttaine do the work for me on this one. He's thoroughly debunked this: Gender Attraction Differential

"source on the inflated acceptance rates? as for the scholarships, only 5% of all scholarships have any gender restrictions at all, and of those, 1/5 are for men. so that brings us down to 4%, which doesn't even touch the fact that a hell of a lot of those are restricted to certain majors, not all of which are STEM."

Sure, let's look at the world's greatest institution for science and engineering. Surely the greatest technical institution would only consider merit and demonstrated aptitude, no?

MIT Accepted Student Data Set 2013-2014

Let's see: Male Acceptance Rate: ~6.0% Female Acceptance Rate: ~13.2 %

Oh, and even then, women still fail to makeup even 50 percent of their respective student population (LMFAO).

So, even per your own data, 80 percent of gender-oriented scholarships are dedicated towards women. How exactly does this help your argument? Also, in regards to applying for STEM scholarships, often being a woman gives you an advantage in winning the scholarship.

Most of my female engineering classmates that I know are on some sort of scholarship to attend and just to give you reference, my school isn't the type that gives scholarships out on merit (it's a top ten engineering school). These girls weren't exactly the cream of the crop either.

"that statistic is a bit overblown- it leaves out fields where women are more likely to be represented, such as healthcare. there's actually been a lot of study done on women in STEM! i hate to be that guy, but there are actually a hell of a lot of studies linked in the wikipedia page that indicate that discrimination is a significant factor."

Sorry, I really don't have time for the bullshit, professional victimhood excuses women make for being too incompetent to do their jobs. I've worked at several engineering internships, and many of my bosses were assholes – I still did what was expected of me; it's called work for a reason. Also, while women make up most nurses, men make up most doctors, which is a significantly more valuable and scarce service provided relative to nursing.

"coughcoughsource? and not the statistic that shows that women tend to marry men who make more, because, you know, as a group men tend to make more, especially at the same level of education.

good question! have you managed to actually find that data on the study? because, like, all the links i've found in articles are dead. and all of the articles say that the study was self-reported and also controlled for things like happiness in the relationship, which opens it up hugely for bias. they didn't even ask for number of orgasms, which is a mess. what does it mean to orgasm "often" during sex? "sometimes"? because that's going to mean something different for me (who generally orgasms at least once every time) than it would for a woman who's only had one orgasm in her life before. oh, and one more thing- they retracted the interpretation that richer men make women orgasm more.00064-6/abstract) whoops."

This is such bullshit. The clear majority of women, especially married ones (or to-be married ones), have no intentions of working full time and do not want to either.

Atlantic Article

Take family work. When you combine paid work, housework, and childcare, today's married parents both put in about 55 hours, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center. It's true that married mothers do more of the housework and childcare, but in most households this doesn't amount to an onerous burden for them. That's because most married mothers do not work full-time (43 percent work full-time) and do not wish to work full-time (just 23 percent wish to work full-time, a fact rarely mentioned in media accounts of work and family life).

Forbes Article

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.

LMFAO.

Oh sweetheart, I'm sure that's why women literally orgasm more when copulating with wealthy men as opposed to non-wealthy men.

Oh, let's see what Forbes again has to say.

4 out of the top 10 traits desirable:

  • A Good Financial Prospect

  • Good Health (Implicit, he needs to be able to provide for me and my offspring for the long-haul)

  • Ambition and Industriousness (I think this is quite self-explanatory in its direct relation with the ability to acquire resources)

  • Education and Intelligence (Intelligence implies the ability to do more difficult and better compensating jobs, which turns to more resources for the woman)

  • Dependable Character (You're a utility work horse and you better be able to solve whatever issues the wife has)

Bloomberg?

The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered, husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up.

Your supposed debunk link is dead.

"because evopsych is heavily based on the interpreter's emotions. as is, we have you asking these questions as absolute facts, most of which completely lack any proof. it's not "my feeeeeeemale feels say you're wrong!" as much as it is, you know, the facts. that you could google."

Please schedule a formal debate with Richard Dawkins and David Buss. Clearly you know more about their supposedly pseudo-scientific disciplines than they do! Let's see what actual scientists in the field of Biology say about your mostly emotionally-fueled conjectures about Evolutionary Psychology and Biology.

“because the majority of studies show that men are more likely to cheat than women?”

Whether this is even true anymore is heavily debated upon, newer data strongly suggests that the infidelity rates are really on the margins in terms of differentiation.

However, I’m going to demonstrate, while supposing your claim is true, why it’s irrelevant.

Women are far more sexually selective than men are. Just to account for extremities and outliers (because I know you incompetent fucks LOVE to dwell on them), the only scenario that this doesn’t hold as strongly is when a women is ovulating or moving against the gradient in terms of her Biological Clock – I can safely assume that these are not the majority of conscious experience women have. When women find a mate that they’re willing to start committed relationship with, that said potential mate has likely gone through very heavy selective testing and processing (e.g. shit-testing) before the woman has decided that she wants to form a relationship with said man. This man in this scenario had to demonstrate and provide evidence that he is a man of high sexual value before he could get the woman’s approval in this scenario. As you would expect, a man of high-value is going to be found attractive by other women as well (should I even, and since men are not as sexually selective as women are – men in relationships have a higher likelihood of cheating.

So, what’s the back side to this? Men on average have a significantly harder time initiating mutual sexual attractive with women as a whole – let alone the chances of initiating a relationship with a woman.

These are the fundamental grounds of sexually dimorphic selective proclivities and hypergamy. See the video I referenced from Colttaine for more information.

"okay, so, like, ignoring the evopsych "it is how it is so therefore that's how it's always going to work" nonsense, let's go back to some of your previous questions. about how hard it is to be a man, who earns more and is seen as less capable of taking care of children. that is because of those same gender roles that you're defending. you can't be all "abloobloobloo why do women get custody" in the same post as "abloobloobloo we all know women are just naturally there to take care of babies!" these roles are shitty for everyone. not just women. you spent half your post railing against them. come off it, bro"

Strawman at its finest. Let me cover my bases first, I did not implement the definition of gender roles – you believe society did; I believe nature did.

Additionally, I did not say women are better at taking care of children. I believe they're better at nursing and caring for INFANTS and toddlers, past that age, a child has much more to benefit from by being with their father (especially a son). This also overlooks for the fact that there are several cases where even the CHILDREN themselves ask to be with their father but are placed under custody of their mothers, because the court system is so Gynocentric.

I've stated it before, but I am NOT an egalitarian. I believe the notion that everyone is equal in capability and ability, especially when stratifying by gender/sex is imbecilic. The problem with feminism is it expects men to retain to their default gender roles (if men don’t, then the aggregate sum of funding necessary for all of the entitlement programs women and feminists vote for vanish completely), while women get the power without the responsibility of being a man. The only thing feminism has done to help men is that it is a clear and distinct socio-political manifestation of true female nature in an open and uncontrolled environment.

"Since women (and men) are far more likely to have bad experiences with physical abuse issues from MEN, and women and their children are even likely to be killed by MEN, why don't such equivalent spaces about men exist? I mean, where is beatingmen /cutemalecorpses /rapingmen ? Why do subs like /feminisms actually focus on FEMINIST issues, and not sit around bitching about how evil men are?"

I'm sure you're right, that's why only over 40 percent of men are victims of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships.

"Why do subs like /feminisms actually focus on FEMINIST issues, and not sit around bitching about how evil men are? If your 'safe spaces' are indeed about coping with the terrible injustices you face, and a space to talk about 'true' female nature where's the flipside where women do the same to men?"

Have you not seen tumblr feminist blogs? Also, I thought this was made ABUNDANTLY clear years ago, but MGTOW is not a political activist group. We do not have any explicit political partisan associations, and we generally see both political ends as Gynocentric, just in different manifestations. MGTOW != MRA. The MRM has accomplished nothing in its decades of existence, and I doubt it ever will in a Gynocentric society.

I’m even willing to say the MRM and MGTOW aren’t even allies at this point considering they’ve been doxing us as much as many feminists have.

Barbarossa on the MRM

"..the fuck? Where's the discussion about male nature asshole? Where did the ability to prioritize issues go you imbeciles? Apparently women taking selfies and being loud are more important problems to talk about then ISIS (most of whom are MEN) and, basically every serious criminal ever. Where's the talk about that, huh?? God they don't even try to hide the bias in that one. It's either "women nature", "human nature", or..."female nature." No mention of male nature."

Quite a few MGTOW scholars have discussed male nature, I'd reckon the most significant topic is the male's Biological propensity for a male-mother need. If I recall correctly, TFM has an entire guide dedicated to male behavior.

In regards to ISIS, that’s because strongly patriarchal nations understand the primary purpose of women, i.e. they are a reproductive resource. You only need a single man to fertilize a dozen women in a given time period; a single woman can only get impregnated by a single man and reproduce at about a ~1.33 reproduction rate per year. Women would probably fuck up the execution on an attack anyways, which would inhibit ISIS from accomplishing its goals.

Due to the lack of any really insightful arguments or points made (mostly just the same debunked bullshit you hear by feminists and Gynocrats), this is going to be my last reply to them. I regret wasting the last 15 minutes of my life responding to the most indolent and facile ‘arguments’ at best or to completely vapid and infantile statements at worst – but if it even saves only one man from the chains of Gynocentrism or the hallucinogenic delusions of the Blue Pill, I will be happy.

I'm going to end with my most major point. You simply cannot debunk the rationale behind going MGTOW – it's impossible. It will never be rational to put yourself in a legally binding contract that entitles an existing entity that is not you to over half of whatever you own and earn (and other things that result from the said relationship) merely at said entity’s own will. The only rational way is to walk away and not get married and to not have LTRs with women – the legal risk is far too high and there are effectively no benefits whatsoever, especially utilitarian ones.

MGTOW For Life

Jay