TheRedArchive needs help
With 700,000+ posts and 16,000,000+ comments archived, and new Red Pill content being added every week, keeping TheRedArchive alive and discoverable to everyone is starting to become very costly. As a 20-year-old student who just moved out and is living independently for the first time, keeping TheRedArchive alive is beginning to cost me much more than I thought.

Therefore, if you appreciate the website, have gained a lot of knowledge and insight from it, and want to show your appreciation, you can do so by donating any amount that you want via the options below. The money will be used on the expensive monthly host bill and any future maintenance of the website.
Thank you, and I wish you all a successful 2021 and a good luck with achieving your goals and dreams!

Best, /u/dream-hunter

Last night I attended a screening of "The Red Pill" by Cassie Jaye.

Reddit View
December 3, 2016

Last night I had the opportunity to attend the Toronto screening of Cassie Jaye's "The Red Pill: A Feminist's Journey into the Men's Right's Movement." Because I've seen many posts on TRP which discuss the concept of the film, but have yet to see a review, I thought I'd share with the community my findings.

First off, I want to make it clear that I am not an MRA. My first exposure to gender politics was in university, where I minored in Women's Studies. I mention this because I found myself identifying with Jaye's "awakening" throughout the film; her perspective of women as an oppressed class slowly eroding under the weight of the evidence. This was similar to my own experience, which made the film personally relatable. If you have any interest in my personal RP awakening, you can find this in my post history.

Regardless - on to the review.

If you haven't seen the trailer, or read any of the posts discussing the content over the past year, the film documents a successful feminist filmmaker's exploration of the MRM. Jaye starts the film by highlighting her past work, her most recent film prior being focused upon marriage equality. As part of her research into "rape culture" (which was originally intended to be her next topic) she chances upon the highly controversial website "A Voice for Men", written by none-other than GLO's favourite, Paul Elam.

As Jaye delves further into Elam's writings, she becomes fascinated by the dissonance between the media portrayals of MRMs as "rape apologists", "woman-haters", and "misogynists" vs what they are actually saying, and decides she'd like to interview Elam and several other prominent MRM speakers. These include names like Dr. Warren Farrell, who penned "The Myth of Male Power" in the 70s and was an outspoken figure in men's issues long before TRP. She also meets with The Honey Badgers, a group of female MRA's; as well as Elaine Pizzey, who opened the first domestic violence shelter in 1971 and who was one of the first to acknowledge publicly that domestic violence can be perpetrated by both men and women equally.

As she collects insight from the MRA side of the discussion, she also consults leading feminist figureheads on their views of the mens movement. Participants included the Executive Director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, Katherine Spillar; and Dr. Michael Kimmel, American sociologist and gender studies "expert." She even interviews Big Red, the infamous loud mouth who is immortalized on YouTube for disrupting an MRA event at U of T and then proceeding to scream and demean the participants.

Without highlighting every single point that Jaye makes in the film, she does an excellent job of exploring traditional gender roles and their impact on normative behaviours (particularly compelling was the comparison of men as "success objects" to the feminist script of women as "sex objects"). Jaye also delves into the statistics surrounding so-called "male privilege", pointing out that 98% of military deaths are men; 94% of workplace fatalities are men; 75% of suicides are men; 90% of the homeless are men; and that 1 in 4 men will be victims of intimate partner violence (compared to 1 in 3 women). She covers the significant drop in male enrollment in post-secondary education; sexual violence against men and boys; and the epidemic of autism diagnoses and Ritalin prescription to "control" boys' behaviour as they grow.

She also explores father's rights and the damage of wrongful paternity. Jaye touches on examples of willing Dads forced to see their children adopted, or others who fought justly for 14 years in custody battles, only to lose their children forever. She highlights cases where men were forced to pay child support for children that DNA proved were not theirs; and others where entire families were destroyed by paternity fraud.

Throughout, Jaye records video diaries where her perspectives gradually shift. At one point, she attempts to revisit her feminist leanings by involving herself in women's events - but this is in vain. As the credits begin to roll, she states that her journey has transformed her - and in good conscience, she can no longer identify as a feminist.

Some of you may read this and immediately assume that Jaye is pandering to her audience. You may be familiar with the Breitbart campaign to raise funds to make this film. I was skeptical as well, and going into this experience I decided to reserve my judgement until I had watched the whole thing and could comment fairly on what I had seen. I am happy to say that I do not feel Jaye pandered at all. There was adequate screen time for both the MRAs and Feminists, and any holes or flaws in the feminist logic came directly out of the mouths of their speakers - not from Jaye.

This is an important film. Jaye successfully unpacks the extremely complex issues surrounding modern gender politics and presents mens rights as a multitude of intersecting topics, and all worth discussing. Through evidence, she debunks the hateful rhetoric which is associated with the manosphere, and opens the door for further dialogue around the meaning of egalitarianism in the 21st century.

Part of the reason we all visit TRP is because we acknowledge that our culture increasingly lacks a positive identity for men. One of the central tenets of TRP is, a-la Fight Club, that you do not talk about the red pill. But therein lies a problem - if we cannot have an open dialogue regarding equality in our culture, especially when it pertains to half our populace, we cannot consider ourselves free. We remain prisoners in a gyno-centric society where men are disposable and unwanted. If any of you one day wish to have sons, it stands to reason that we cannot allow this to continue.

I hope that this film opens new doors to the public discussion of the issues facing men and boys, and as such I give this film ***** - Highly recommended.

Post Information
Title Last night I attended a screening of "The Red Pill" by Cassie Jaye.
Upvotes 716
Comments 173
Date 03 December 2016 03:33 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
domestic violencefeminist logictestosteronethe red pillMRAmanospherefeminist

[–]DirtyProject0r291 points292 points  (43 children) | Copy

As the credits begin to roll, she states that her journey has transformed her - and in good conscience, she can no longer identify as a feminist.

... and all it took was actually talk to MRAs instead of bashing them, listen to them instead of interrupting them by showering them with misinterpreted Oxford dictionary definitions ("You misogynist!") and form conclusions from relevant statistics sorted to gender instead of bantering some subjective post-truth nonsense about them being "biased" because "most data analysts/data scientists are straight white men and thus evil!".

The ease of Jaye's conversion shows the weakness of the (Third-wave) feminism paradigm and its axioms.

[–]mrcs84usn148 points149 points  (32 children) | Copy

This just in!!! Apparently it was supposed to be shown in Ottawa, but it was cancelled because of some feminist intervention.

[Julie] Lalonde, one of several who complained to the Mayfair Theatre, called the documentary "misogynistic" though she said has only seen clips, not the entire film. She said a controversial film does not have an inherent right to be screened. "They want to be painted as these poor victims of censorship because it feeds into this narrative that they constantly have that women get all the services, women get all the conversation and these men are left in the dust," she said. "This idea of freedom of expression, oh my God, it is so abused in this country. ... No one has the right to have their film shown. And if you are proud to say your film is very controversial, it makes people uncomfortable, then don't be surprised if people don't want to see it of people don't want to show it."

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat140 points141 points  (21 children) | Copy

"They want to be painted as these poor victims of censorship"

.. said the woman who complained to the theatre due to play the movie until it cancelled its scheduled showing over complaints.


It's quite incredible, when you think of it, how proof-resistant people's prejudice can get.

[–]Ir0nSkies40 points41 points  (4 children) | Copy

They really believe that their right to not view the film trumps the freedom of speech to show it in the first place

[–]dpape3922 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy

I don't want it so nobody can have it

[–]theXald10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Children. What you're all trying to say is "They're acting just like toddlers"

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (11 children) | Copy

beyond prejudice; these people are genuinely mentally ill and have severe emotional disorders, that are only indulged and affirmed instead of challenged.

It's repulsive and sad.

[–]TryDoingSomethingNew15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

You are very correct - you don't have to look at extreme cases to see the multitude of mentally & emotionally deficient women (as well as the "male" supporters, also!) who are some of the most outspoken proponents of feminism.

There are common traits of these types, and there are a huge range of easily seen clues in their behavior, speech, lifestyles, and more that show how these are people with emotional disorders.

Additionally, often they at times even state publicly about how they have emotional disorders.

You'll never see an attractive, emotionally healthy woman with a masculine husband and/or family care about the horseshit that feminists do.

[–]rockymountainoysters16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy

You'll never see an attractive, emotionally healthy woman with a masculine husband and/or family care about the horseshit that feminists do.

Rush Limbaugh's been saying it since at least as long ago as the 1980's:

The purpose of feminism is to grant unattractive women better access to the mainstream of society.

[–]analyticaltoafault0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Gave me some great material if I ever decide to protest in satire along with them.

Maybe a sign reading, "ban evolution!"

I'm a 25 YO guy and even I thought PC fairness ribbons and shit in sports growing up was retarded. Individuals are innnately different, and these heffer nerds want to insist everyone is the same because they wish they could compete with even the baseline average in almost every area of life.

They seem like the truly prejudiced as they do not accept everyone's inherent individualistic traits. Nope. It's the white patriarchy ruining their lives. It really is true about the healthy women not giving a fuck besides maybe some public coddling of the worse off women. Some of the most feminine and women's rights supporting women I know think this blame shifting mentality and such is complete horseshit.

[–]TryDoingSomethingNew0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


I remember him saying that - and later - understanding that it makes so much sense!

[–]AcrossHallowedGround6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know man. As someone with an actual 'severe emotional disorder' (BPD); that may play a role but I have a feeling it has more to do with the indulgence you mentioned along with an overactive/excessive ego brought on by a lack of real hardships.

It's a fairly good example of the "the one you feed" proverb.

[–]ihateyouguys5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

No dude, it's a common feature of human thinking. You don't need to demonize them, it won't help at all. That's anger-phase stuff.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

I try to be compassionate for them. It's coming from a place of suffering and it creates more suffering. But it is unfortunate to see.

[–]TryDoingSomethingNew11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

No, he's correct. It requires an absolute lack of healthy mental capacity, as those who are easily indoctrinated into a cult-like metality (and propaganda) are commonly unstable/broken internally.

Your statement about "demonizing" them is quite off the mark, and not related to "anger" - it's a common observation made about them by those not even knowledgable about red pill topics.

[–]NikoMyshkin3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

It requires an absolute lack of healthy mental capacity

all it really requires is a lack of critical enquiry. that is not something routinely taught in the west any more :-/

[–]TryDoingSomethingNew0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I would say after a certain point they're no longer capable, to a degree, of critical thinking except on a trivial level.

The outrageous behavior we see sometimes from SJWs and others really shows how it's like they're following a script, indoctrinated to a certain way of thinking, and nearly every time I see those types they display behavior indicating they are not emotionally mature (at the least) or internally broken individuals (at the worst - like the Hugh Mungus lady).

[–]NikoMyshkin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

yeah; SJWism denies the the opportunity to mature into adults - which is painful for everyone - because it tells them that any pain they feel is the result of some injustice caused by some evil other.

and just like in any other religion or cult - they listen and believe

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

To keep to the point of this sub: what does this tell us about women in general? Feels>Reals

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

I hope you understand that the extreme opposite of an irrational position isn't a rational position - it's an irrational position from an opposite perspective. Radical feminism is deeply flawed, but so is men's rights and The Red Pill. You all claim to have an enlightened position, but you're just as mixed up as the Tumblr crowd. You just have a different vocabulary and a different set of prejudices.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

I hope you understand that the extreme opposite of an irrational position isn't a rational position - it's an irrational position from an opposite perspective.

I agree. But I didn't define my position as "the extreme opposite of an irrational position". The red pill is not defined as anti-feminism or anti-tumblr. So I don't think that comment applies to us. Which of course still doesn't make us automatically a rational position.

Our claim of rational/enlightened position comes from the fact that the red pill "works":

  • A man who is sexless can read, understand and apply red pill theory and it results in him getting sex.

  • A man who is married and in a dead bedroom situation can read, understand and apply red pill theory and it results in him getting sex from his wife.

  • A man who don't understand women can read, understand and apply red pill theory and it results in him understanding women, which then allow him to befriend them or work with them or have sex with them or marry them with less bad consequences than the clueless man he was before.

You could say that feminism "works" in terms of the collective advancement of women's rights and perhaps MRA might "work" in the future in terms of the collective advancement of men's rights, but they don't work at the personal level like the red pill does. They don't provide their proponents with a personally better life. Sure their proponents bind together and feel good about themselves by painting themselves as being victimized whether it's true or not (ps: they often are, because everyone is a victim at some point to some extent. That's life. Of course they don't really spend much time talking about those times when they are not victims).

And sure there are a hell lot of angry men on the red pill who complain about being victims of women, and making it look like yet another victimization position, such as feminism and MRAs. In a way, you could say that this "men's victim positioning" is exactly what MRA is, which just goes on to say the red pill and MRA overlap. The issue is that the angered men are the more vocal. As they wise up to what TRP really is and the anger fades into acceptance, these men shut up while they apply the theory and reap the personal benefits.

But once you pass the social posturing phase / anger phase / MRA phase, the red pill reveals the jewel it contains. The red pill is the Manufacturer's Manual to Women's Mind and reading it gets me laid. See, I didn't come to the red pill because I agree with their ideas. I came to it because the theory perfectly explained all my past failures and successes with women (the reasons of which were completely obscure to me at the time), and that since I have learned the theory, I have had no more failures at all and I understand very well all my successes. The red pill is giving me more girls to sleep with when I'm a bachelor and more quality relationship when I am with someone. I only follow TRP to the extent it works this way. The day I suddenly discover a completely different theory that works better at getting me laid, based on feminism social theories, I'll jump ship immediately.

Even though we are aware that this vocal angst creates a target on our back and classify us as just another "victim social movement", we do not condemn it. First because anger is often a necessary stage to understand the red pill, and second because men's opinion being beaten up into a socially sanctioned mold is one of the reasons that men are so out of touch with their masculine essence nowadays.

[–]1NPIF50 points51 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is true! Thankfully the organizers found a new, better venue anyway: Ottawa's City Hall.

[–]NameOfAction19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Don't be surprised if people dont want to see it."

Thats not the same as "I dont want to see ot so no one in my town can see it either."

[–]1Original_Dankster12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

They found a new venue at the last minute - at City Hall at 3:15 pm on Sunday.

[–]wanderer7795 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah the left loves to censor so that you only hear one side. Then they misrepresent the fuck out anyone who disagrees with them.

I think that after Trump a lot of guys are running around thinking that they won but in truth there is a pretty strong movement already underway to shove all this shit back down in the hole it just exploded out of. For example google and facebook censoring "fake" news (not sure how fakeness will be determined but it sounds like some ministry of truth bs waiting to happen). They are still pretty successful branding people as misogynists or racists.

This shit is far from over and if I had to bet I might still bet on the leftists.

[–]analyticaltoafault1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Note: I don't heavily associate with either party and believe each has their use in various social/economic environments as well as a lot of ideas either espouses that are wrong and unjust. Always tried to ignore dogma and build my own opinions.

Been loving people posting shit on social media about people waking up and realizing the fake news is propaganda. I agree, but they ignore the propaganda from, and their own moments of being manipulated by the left authoritarians.

Humans be humans, and it will forever be amusing. I'm not a man of faith, but I believe I can understand the formation of (demi)god(s) in one's mind, and why they're often amused with stupid humans being stupid humans.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I can't believe how dumb some people are, there isn't a bucket of rights that we ration out, Feminists thinking additional men's rights will somehow cost them are fucking insane

[–]analyticaltoafault1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You don't have to believe, lol, humans have been humans for millennia. Now we just have more tech.

[–]1NPIF0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

To some, it's a zero sum game. But I agree with you, this is a flawed conclusion.

[–]Rhythmic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I very much appreciate the way she promptly confirms the facts of the film with her behavior. This may delay the inevitable - just a bit. But the cat is out of the bag. Not the smartest move on her part, but she doesn't know it yet.

[–]1NPIF51 points52 points  (1 child) | Copy

Bingo. The criticisms MRAs have of third-wave feminism is finally unpacked and explored critically in the documentary, which was extremely poignant when Jaye explored how feminists claim to want equality for the sexes in support services, but yet there is only one men's domestic violence shelter in the entire continental US (vs. 2000+ for women). When confronted with the data that men are 43% of DV victims, the feminist advocates denied the data and claimed "the patriarchy" was somehow still responsible.

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Don't forget, Kimmel also lied about what MRAs want. He said, "it's not true, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument. If that's the case, we need way more funding. Not to get rid of services for women like the MRAs want."

When Nick Reading ran for city council on the "Patriarchy Party" ticket, we riffed off of this go-to assumption by feminists that we want to get rid of DV services: "By the time I'm done reforming domestic violence services, I promise you, there will be one bed in the province for men, and a dirty dog blanket for women." (Apparently, 448 people in Ward 8 of Edmonton had a sense of humor, though he did come in dead last as expected.)

[–]NikoMyshkin3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

and all it took was actually talk to MRAs instead of bashing them

alas no - she seems to understand, value and apply critical enquiry as opposed to believing what those around her confidently preach. i wish we were so lucky as to have such personalities dominate in feminism (and beyond...)

[–]girlwriteswhat11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

One thing she said helped was the interview process she uses. All her other films, she just asked a question and let people talk until they were done, then asked another question.

She said after that there were lots of times she wanted to interrupt, and it was difficult to stick with her process.

So basically, if she were just having ordinary conversations with MRAs, she might not have been swayed because she'd have been interrupting and arguing through the whole thing, defending her position. But to make the film, she HAD to listen during the interviews, and then she had to watch and rewatch hundreds of hours of these interviews to decide which portions presented the best argument (from both sides).

That's a lot of listening and not talking.

[–]NikoMyshkin3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

she HAD to listen

this is one thing that SJWs and feminism must stop its followers from doing. else they will wake up and leave

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why do you think the standard response is to interrupt and accuse? Its to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]KingoftheAssholes17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy

All men. Honestly feminists have use the lbgt community for years to push their own agenda. They use racial communities in the same way.

[–]Bolt_Ironstag[🍰] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Some people have become so radical that even gay men, who actually were and are oppressed by many societies, are now part of the boogie man patriarchy.

It's insanity.

[–]An_All-Beef_Engineer2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's a toolbox, you use what you need to, or feel like.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl175 points176 points  (13 children) | Copy

I too saw the movie and a female friend accompanied me. She said, "I had no fucking clue" when discussing what the men described in the movie. She admitted some of her male friends described similar situations but never realized the extent of the male systematic abuse done through the court systems. Even she wanted to punch the feminists in the face for their rhetoric.

May the awaking continue. Stay diligent.

[–]Magnum99491 points92 points  (8 children) | Copy

Well of course she would say that. What would she gained from saying anything against the movie and male rights in front of a male? She just said what you wanted to hear. Id say this is good example of law 38 used by a woman.

[–]1v1mebruh56 points57 points  (4 children) | Copy

Idk man, not all women are brainwashed to just whip out law 38 on you and hide their true opinions, etc. There's a decent handful of quality, open minded and critical thinking women out there who understand rational, logical, fact based claims. I'd be inclined to believe she was being honest, but who knows I wasnt there after all.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy

Either she sat there and formulated a response or totally faked the, "Holy shit, that really happened?" immediately following the section (in the movie) about the guy w/the overweight daughter. Having known my friend for a decade, it was a genuine response.

Yes, there are some facets of women that make them AWALT, but not every woman has every trait that makes them worthless fuck holes.

[–]TryDoingSomethingNew9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

What planet are those women from?

[–]punis19 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Women don't need to be brainwashed to whip out law 38, it's one of their biological imperatives

[–]2awalt_cupcake24 points25 points  (0 children) | Copy

this guy is being downvoted but he's right

[–]BluestBlackBalls4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Couldn't she just have been saying what she thought you expected her to say?

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nah. She likes men is a healthy way. Hates bitches that shit on men. She makes a good RP woman.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Would you suggest that bringing a female is a good idea? Particularly an LTR interest?

My gut says just live TRP and if she's on board, so be it. But another part of me would like her to see the wider scope of the problem.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know your relationship dynamics to provide an insightful opinion. But, I totally support you going with your gut. Learn to trust it and make decisions based on that trust. It'll serve you well.

Besides, you can always take her later if she seems open to the idea after you see it.

My friend has been around for ages and hates todays feminist movement. My gut told me she'd appreciate the movie.

Enjoy the movie!

[–]EsteraMC 28 points28 points [recovered] | Copy

Where can I watch this movie online or at least torrent it or something?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy

Cassie Jaye has a website for the movie, I think you can schedule a screening for a small fee. I'm sure you could torrent it somewhere, but find a way to put some financial support behind Cassie Jaye. Gotta cast that economic vote in favor of this kind of stuff. That's why feminism is so strong: lots of money in it.

Edit: if anyone is in Southern MN/twin cities and interested, I'd be willing to host a viewing.

[–]EsteraMC 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy

Does it screen in Turkmenistan? No? Then I cannot schedule a screening.

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

check the website. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If it's just for yourself, sorry mate no idea if its on torrent

[–]a4b0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It will be released on amazon etc early 2017.

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS53 points54 points  (8 children) | Copy

Part of the reason we all visit TRP is because we acknowledge that our culture increasingly lacks a positive identity for men. One of the central tenets of TRP is, a-la Fight Club, that you do not talk about the red pill. But therein lies a problem - if we cannot have an open dialogue regarding equality in our culture, especially when it pertains to half our populace, we cannot consider ourselves free. We remain prisoners in a gyno-centric society where men are disposable and unwanted. If any of you one day wish to have sons, it stands to reason that we cannot allow this to continue.

One of the common critiques I've heard is, the people interviewed were not Red Pill exemplars. This is a natural consequence of the anonymity and secrecy surrounding a stigmatized cause. Because so few of our own speak for us, we wind up being defined in the public sphere by our enemies or at best milquetoast allies.

The risks of doxxing and real-life trolling and brigading are real, and I respect any man who recognizes his personal need to remain incognito as part of his broader life mission. Far be it from me to persuade anyone to take risks that didn't originate in their own minds.

However, somebody has to speak for our cause, and hold our position. I'm definitely not satisfied with the sentiment that's been expressed to the effect of, "I'm content to let women and faggots do our publicity work."

This movie and its criticisms have given me the final nudge to begin embarking on a more public mission for Manosphere and RP issues. This isn't the first time in my life that I've felt a calling to support a stigmatized cause, so I bring skills and experience to the game. If anyone else has been considering a more public RP face and wants to watch the next part of my plan unfold, feel free to PM me.

[–]yaboimoneymitch22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy

If she would have been able to interview GLO or RPS for this movie I would have shit my pants.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedsideoftheMoon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

A TRP networking/bro group (for business, socialization, etc) would be fucking incredible. My friends are awesome (and naturally fairly RP in thinking), but it would be nice to have more RP aware friends just because there'a a certain esoteric quality to ascribing to the same belief system as someone that shrinks conversations into glances and leaves more time for enjoyment

[–]matthew83672 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That said, the movie wasn't about the manosphere, "red pill" is a term many disillusioned groups use.

[–]growingstronk0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

If you truly have enough experience that you can come out in support of TRP of all places, then your skills are worth a post in and of itself imo.

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'll formally announce when the plan is ready.

Never show half-finished work. -R. Buckminster Fuller

[–]mrcs84usn80 points81 points  (11 children) | Copy

do not talk about the red pill. But therein lies a problem - if we cannot have an open dialogue regarding equality in our culture, especially when it pertains to half our populace, we cannot consider ourselves free.

We are still at a point where people get doxxed and their lives ruined if they openly speak against leftist "progressive" principles. There are a fair share of talking heads that have their names out there that are dealing with the bulk of the bullshit, but most people can't have such a black mark on their reputations.

any holes or flaws in the feminist logic came directly out of the mouths of their speakers

As the saying goes, the Left wants the Right to shut up. The Right wants the Left to keep talking.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl25 points26 points  (2 children) | Copy

When I speak to people, mentioning "The Red Pill" is about the movie. I still do not openly speak about reddit/TRP unless it's with a guy and he's carefully vetted. In fact, the movie helps directing conversation to Reddit/TRP because it gets a brief mention at the end of the movie.

IMO, reddit/TRP is for us. It's our foundation. The Red Pill movie is for the masses. It gets a point across. Those that want more information need to seek it out. Then they'll find us and hopefully with an open mind.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed. The greatest power in this world is that which is covert, not overt. Clever people wield their influence from the shadows, to do otherwise merely makes you a target to aim at.

Or in other words: Assume Formlessness

[–]xx69bootyhunter69xx4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm guilty of talking about TRP in public, but then again, it's India and law enforcement isn't as strict here.

I've successfully made a previously BP-ed friend who had a long distance girlfriend, whom he previously didn't even have sex with ("We've planned to do it all after marriage only"), dump her ass after long conversations of RP-truths.

Dude used to cut, he was so depressed. Now he looks much more cheerful and even banters with us, sometimes. Coincidence?

[–]1NPIF46 points47 points  (4 children) | Copy

And I think we owe a debt of gratitude to those who are willing to expose themselves personally to the diatribe coming from the regressive left. Without their sacrifice, their willingness to open themselves up to doxxing and personal attacks, social change would be impossible.

You know, we talk a lot about how unhappy men are here at TRP, but for some reason when people actively try and do something to change the status quo, a percentage of our member base just shits all over them for speaking up. It's kind of ironic.

[–]magus67831 points32 points  (3 children) | Copy

You know, we talk a lot about how unhappy men are here at TRP, but for some reason when people actively try and do something to change the status quo, a percentage of our member base just shits all over them for speaking up. It's kind of ironic.

"Enjoy the decline"

Maybe my single biggest issue with the sub. This is a smash and grab "get yours" mentality that is frankly better suited for 18 year old girls than men.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

welcome to the fundamental problem with the sub.

[–]PureNegus13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

Men going THEIR OWN WAY. If you think you can turn the tides of a dying civilization go ahead we won't stop you one bit.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy

Males also hunt in packs.

We're social animals, telling yourself anything else is living in denial.

[–]dinosauralienspirits8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

We are still at a point where people get doxxed and their lives ruined if they openly speak against leftist "progressive" principles.

Read a newspaper lately?

Because last I heard speaking out against leftist values can make you the most powerful person on the planet.

[–]BluestBlackBalls15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

One case does not a study make

[–]2dogsandpizza8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most powerful person on the planet? I think the rothschilds would have something to say about that.

[–]uni3993 15 points15 points [recovered] | Copy

I was there too man! Very grateful that crazy feminists didn't disrupt the event at a SJW-infested university (UofT).

Also important to note that there was a very brief mention of TRP in the movie (nothing negative or positive, just about our existence).

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy

They must of had guards to keep Big Red from pulling any fire alarms this time.

[–]NikoMyshkin7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

i don't understand how that is not an imprisonable offence

[–]FubukiAmagi5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm sure it is. But pussy pass does exist after all.

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

If it weren't for White Knights and their faux "chivalry juxtaposed with feminism" it wouldn't exist.

[–]Jimmy_Big_Nuts12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks, great post. Can't trust 'professional reviewers', they always get it wrong as they tend to be pretentious failed intellectuals, and a film like this is likely to get a lot of negative reviews bringing down its aggregate review scores. I hope this film gets seen widely. Will have to check it out.

[–]redpillren11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

[–]Prophets_Prey7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy

Thank you for the review and the gist of the documentary. Unfortunately, the screening of the film has been banned in Australia thanks to feminists - and for the usual reasons. Hope it becomes available soon.

[–]Gman7772 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy

You're fucking joking, right?!?

[–]Prophets_Prey4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy

I wish I were making this up, but it is [the current year] and the diaper-fascists are out in force to ban things that offend them. You guys are lucky you still get to see the screenings.

[–]Gman7770 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

No no, i'm in Aus. too mate, would like to see the film. WTF.

I can see why people argue we should have a bill of rights, maybe less chance this sort of shit would happen. Seriously, under what grounds could they justify banning it?

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

The screening in Melbourne did eventually go a head, in a different venue. The one in Sydney lost its venue and they're still looking for a new one, I believe.

[–]AngryPacman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's a screening in Keilor Park on Boxing day if anyone else is in/around Melbourne.

[–]Prophets_Prey0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Because it's "misogynistic" and promotes "hate speech". I feel for our country, mate. It's going down the shitter by the PC globalists.

[–]JohnKway17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Any way to watch this online?

[–]TaroShake6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm from Toronto. I miss the showing of this yesterday. Where or when can I go to see this again in Toronto?

[–]2undead_keyboard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Looks like there's none coming up for Toronto, but if you don't mind a bit of a drive, there's a screening in Hamilton on December 10th. Details on The Red Pill Movie website here.

[–]twy34408 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thank you for the thoughtful review.

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

I'd appreciate a stream if anyone has one

[–]deville056 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

As far as talking about TRP goes yoh have it slightly wrong. TRP is not about equality like you wrongly associated it with. It's about men, and about being men and about the nature of women and sexual strategies. What you mean by equality is the truth of men and women and their current state and state of Rights and equality under law. Which is I suppose MRA

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

I was hoping this question would be addressed in this excellent post as well:

When and where will it be showing in the United States? Will it be picked up by netflix? Etc.

[–]2undead_keyboard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A full list of upcoming screenings around the world can be found on The Red Pill Movie website here.

The distribution company for the movie is planning on an online release (netflix, hulu, etc.) in February.

[–]2kevin322 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Does the documentary talk about any changes in laws or policies that actually benefit men, perhaps as a result of the film? Or is it just about hearing men out?

I ask because on the surface it appears that the film attempts to create awareness of men's issues. However I wonder if it's really just feminism indirectly poking fun at men by showcasing their disadvantages and hearing them complain so feminist viewers can "drink male tears".

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

For tgat to be the case, femimists sure are fighting nails, teeth, and fists. shinning a light in a dark place sends the cockroaches scuttling for cover.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

You went and saw this in Toronto?

Is that safe? It's not hard to imagine nutjobs recording who sees this movie.

where I minored in Women's Studies.

Solid investment there.

[–]1NPIF5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

To be fair, I went into women's studies exclusively to meet girls. Getting a few A's on my transcript didn't hurt either!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hitting on chicks which are being trained to see everything as rape?


[–]atifhere6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Forced to pay child support for a child that is not yours ?!? I am proud for the first time that I live in a Muslim country.

[–]Dr_HoaxArthurWilmoth2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

"My first exposure to gender politics was in university, where I minored in Women's Studies."

Glad I didn't stop there, pretty good synopsis and post.

[–]coffee_341 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

When is this coming to DVD/ torrent?

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

She said something about Netflix, Hulu, etc hopefully by February.

[–]crx11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Everything OP said and more. I saw the premiere of this film and had the pleasure of meeting Cassie Jaye and the MRA cast. If you haven't already, please see this documentary and spread the word/support the project. This is an extremely well-made film and we are very fortunate to have it being shown at this critical time.

[–]NeoreactionSafe7 points8 points  (49 children) | Copy


Through evidence, she debunks the hateful rhetoric which is associated with the manosphere, and opens the door for further dialogue around the meaning of egalitarianism in the 21st century.


  • Equality ------------------------------> No Attraction.


  • Masculine-to-Feminine polarity ------> Attraction.


Equality is a Shit Test... it's "failure" personified.

We reject equality as fundamentally a violation of Natural Laws. (gender)


Remember our model:


Men love women, women love children, children love puppies.


Chad Thundercock is the exception because he has a IDGAF attitude and doesn't care about anyone but himself and his short term gratification.

We reject all beta male traits of Altruism.

The Red Pill Alpha male has power and a sense of ownership over his crew.


[–]1NPIF20 points21 points  (36 children) | Copy

I'm not referring to equality, which is why I didn't use the word. I'm referring to egalitarianism, which means having equal rights under law.

This film is not about attraction or sexual strategy, it's about men's rights and men's issues (which is why I flaired the post as such).

[–]Battle-Scars0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I'm curious why she would name her film RedPill which is about attraction and sexual strategy. I haven't seen the movie so I can't form an opinion of it but your write up interested me enough to take a look at it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy

Since the Matrix movie, the "taking the red pill" allegory has been used by many groups of people to describe a massive and sudden change in one's perspective of a topic from one that is universally-accepted-and-socially-sanctioned-delusion to one that is little-known-and-bitter-truth.

Quite obviously the allegory applies to the truth about "intersexual dynamics and competing sexual strategies", hence why we took on the allegory for ourselves.

But we're not the only ones using the allegory. For example, I've recently observed users on The_Donald subreddit using the allegory for the truth about "the partisanship of mainstream media".

Here, Cassie Jaye used the allegory to make it about her own paradigm shift on the social conditions of men and women. The fact that she'd use that allegory for a movie topic that is thinly linked to our subreddit is either incidental, or a good PR move.

[–]Battle-Scars1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks for the clarification. When I google "RedPill" this is what comes up in order, Wiki (allegory), this Sub, and her movie. It will be interesting to see the reaction when someone visits this sub after seeing the movie. I'm not sure they will understand the nuance between a sexual strategy/improvement sub and a men's rights movie. Although related, they are completely different. My bet is a good PR move on her part.

[–]1NPIF1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Good question. I'm not sure if "The Red Pill" as a term originated from /u/RedPillSchool or if it was first coined by another manosphere writer. Either way, it is somewhat ubiquitous and doesn't seem to be "owned" by Reddit's TRP (which is mentioned only in passing in the film, and we were described as wishing to "profit" from the current gyno-centric society).

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

From hawaiian libertarians blog

[–]segagaga0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I always thought it was inspired by The Matrix and as such belongs to no-where in particular.

[–]NeoreactionSafe-3 points-2 points  (26 children) | Copy


Legally we are fucked because Child Support Laws recreate the male slavery that had once been eliminated.

From the "legal rights" perspective the Child Support Laws (1950) need to be removed and the entire Family Court system dismantled.

The legal system should not get involved in domestic issues... at all.


[–]1NPIF9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy

You might be pleasantly surprised to know that exploration of child support and fathers rights is a large part of the film. The family court system cannot be fully "dismantled" and we all know that. Reform however is possible, and I think the doc makes a good case for it.

[–]2kevin324 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy

Off topic, but this is the first time I've seen you say something like a normal person instead of like a Buddhist monk.

[–]NeoreactionSafe3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy

I do that so it's different that a "Chatbot" program.

However, there are Chatbots now that can pretend to be very human like.

The test is abstract reasoning skills. If you ever suspect that someone is a Chatbot program then try asking a question that requires some deeper thought. The Chatbot can only create "witty banter" not deep thought involving abstractions.


[–]wanderer7790 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

This isn't my field but many people seem to think this day isn't far off.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

They exist.

During the election it was estimated that something like 30% of the posts online supporting "The Establishment" (Hillary) were actually Chatbots.


[–]wanderer7790 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I was referring to AI being capable of human-like thought.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Well those Chatbots were human enough to imitate Hillary supporters.

I know... that's a low bar to clear.


[–]wanderer7790 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Ha, that's a good one.

Seriously though I'm starting to think maybe just handing things over to the robots is a good idea. With humans you have insane policies based off of feelings. It's not that they slip in from time to time, that is the standard procedure. And then they stay long after they've been proven to be bullshit. For example the wage gap was debunked ages ago and HRC still ran on it and almost won because a lot of people still believe it. You don't get that with robots.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

You are a liar and manipulator.

Source article (from peer reviewed journal):

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I thought you died.

Oh well... we can hope.


[–]oNodrak0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Your source article is flawed...
"By querying the Twitter Search API at regular intervals of 10 seconds, continuously and without interruptions in three periods between 16 September and 21 October 2016, we collected a large dataset constituted by 20.7 million tweets posted by nearly 2.8 million distinct users. Table 2 reports some aggregate statistics of the dataset. The data collection infrastructure ran inside an Amazon Web Services (AWS) instance to ensure resilience and scalability. We chose to use the Twitter Search API ( to make sure that we obtained all tweets that contain the search terms of interest posted during the data collection period, rather than a sample of unfiltered tweets: this precaution we took avoids incurring in the issues reported in literature related to collecting sampled data using the Twitter Stream API ( instead (Morstatter, et al., 2013)."

Via the twitter API doc...
"Before getting involved, it’s important to know that the Search API is focused on relevance and not completeness. This means that some Tweets and users may be missing from search results. If you want to match for completeness you should consider using a Streaming API instead."

They used an incomplete search function instead of gathering all the tweets. The Search function uses relevance as a primary search function, and thus this study has more to do with the Twitter Search Relevance algorithm, than the complete analysis of tweets over a span of time...

Their test methodology is flawed as well, since the search pools the last 7 days of tweets, there is no need to poll it every 10 seconds (unless you are a clueless web dev with no API understanding)... Then they say their sample size is limited by the twitter API poll rate (because they are using it wrong), so they can only run the BotDetector on the 'most active' 50,000 accounts (which is already flawed, since their data collection was flawed). They go on to say they can use this 'top end' sample to extrapolate data for all twitter users...

"Although these top 50 thousand users account for roughly only two percent of the entire population, it is worth noting that they are responsible for producing over 12.6 million tweets, which is about 60 percent of the total conversation. This choice gives us sufficient statistical power to extrapolate the distribution of bots and humans for the entire population without the need to test accounts that are only marginally involved in the conversation."

Seriously, what the fuck kind of reasearcher puts up a picture of this low quality to show off their work... It is un-readable, and the 'bigger' version, it just a zoomed in version of this one...

This isn't even going into the problem of the twitter API's returning sampled results instead of unfiltered results (Firehose vs API). These researchers even reference another researcher who pointed out this fact, yet they fall to their own hubris by thinking they found a simple solution... I am almost certain their 21 million tweets have hundreds of thousands of duplicates due to their methodology (Twitter Search API returns max of 3200 tweets per search, and they searched once every 10 seconds, almost guaranteeing duplicates).

There is also this little gem hidden away at the bottom:
"It is worth noting that earlier versions of the BotOrNot API used to classify organization accounts as likely to be bots. This happened mostly because of the large weight associated to the volume of tweets posted by a user: since several people use organization accounts at the same time, they usually exceed regular users’ tweet volumes. This issue has been addressed in latest version of BotOrNot, the one adopted in this study. As for verification, we manually checked the list of the top few hundred accounts with the highest bot scores, and we did not identify any recognizable organization, such as news agencies, political party accounts, etc."

As an aside, you should sanitize your links, as your just Doxx'ed yourself to living in Poland.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

As an aside, you should sanitize your links, as your just Doxx'ed yourself to living in Poland.

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind.

They used an incomplete search function instead of gathering all the tweets. The Search function uses relevance as a primary search function, and thus this study has more to do with the Twitter Search Relevance algorithm, than the complete analysis of tweets over a span of time...

I knew about the API of Twitter not providing everything, just the "rounded" data sample:

  1. It applies to both Hillary and Trump bots.

  2. The general ("Trump bot significantly outperformed Hillary bot") results seem to confirm the "50k most active accounts" theory. The more Trump bot spammed, the more results they got.

  3. Despite the "rounded" results the API provides, it's still accurate enough NOT to make a mistake like "Trump bot spammed 7 times more", especially considering the conclusions of the second paper you posted ("the more data, the more accurate API becomes").

  4. The paper was peer reviewed, so theoretically somoene did check their research methods.

I am almost certain their 21 million tweets have hundreds of thousands of duplicates due to their methodology

Can I quote your reply in the email to the authors?

[–]NaughtyFred0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

We reject all beta male traits of Altruism.

Every man for himself...fair enough.

Legally we are fucked because Child Support Laws recreate the male slavery that had once been eliminated.

Welcome to lack of Altruism, shit when you're on the wrong side of that isn't it?

[–]NeoreactionSafe2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Child Support Law works to undermine the family because it grants automatic resources to the female without any regard to behavior.

What happens?

Women no longer feel the need to behave well and become spoiled entitled brats.

The optimal situation removes all outside influences (Family Court) and forces things back to nature.

In nature if a woman behaves badly she has consequences.


[–]NaughtyFred0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy


In nature if a woman behaves badly she has consequences.

This would be a form of altruism, the wronged party is given the priviledge of seeing justice ie: consequences done to the wrongdoer..altruism is something you don't agree with.

Intellectual check and mate.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

In nature when a man chooses to walk away for a woman there is nothing to stop him.

Child Support creates slavery for men who are "thrown out" of marriage by a woman.

So my "point" (which you didn't get) is that nature gives women negative consequences by default.

Only by a very elaborate Family Court system enforced by jail can the male be forced into slavery.

My point was correct.

We live in an inverted Blue Pill mythology... it's artificial.

Female entitlement only became possible in 1950 when they passed Child Support Laws. Before 1950 if there was a divorce the woman typically became an Old Maid. There is even a card game based on the idea.


[–]SetConsumes-5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy

You're confused if you think Egalitarianism between sexes is desired or achievable.

That's a large part of what enabled this whole mess, giving women equal rights.

Equality under the law should apply across races, not genders.

[–]1NPIF17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. As human beings we are all entitled to equal rights under law. The problem is when law is applied unevenly.

One of the examples Jaye mentions is how we are cognizant as a society of racial imbalances in criminal sentencing, but blind to the same inequities in gender bias.

Eg: Black men in the US receive sentences 10% longer than white men for the same crime. While men in general receive 60% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

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

Hence why "equal rights" is a bait and switch. Even in the 50s women werent abandoned in the streets to die, like men are today. So even if women didnt have the same access to education and employment - they still had a firm grip on the actual wealth, safety, and health. Failed men who can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps are promptly discarded and forgotten.

[–]demoneyes9054 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

You are confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome.

I have absolutely no problem with everyone being given the former but the latter is not only naive but simply the wrong approach and ignores social and biological differences.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat9 points10 points  (10 children) | Copy

Did you pick the word "egalitarianism" off OP's review and proceeded to discuss this word in a manner that is not even remotely relevant to OP's post?

I just can't believe the red pill mods would have endorsed someone whose 99% of comments are off-topic, so I can only guess that something must have happened recently that affected your mental health. Seriously, I worry for you, pal. If there isn't, please consult a professional soon.

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

The thing that affected his mental health was watching and believing disinformation and lunacy put out there by David I*** and Mark P***** (crazy fringe dwelling conspiracy theorists who believe in reptilian aliens, mind control, magic and all manner of utter nonsense. I will not even name them because that might lead someone to read their nonsense). NRS has a good mind and he has let it be corrupted by insane mental poison. I have tried to help him out but he is as stubborn as a child and he really thinks he is onto something (he is not). He has invented his own crazy world view which is a hodge podge of poorly understood esotericism, conspiracy theories, TRP, his own bizarre writing style mixed liberally with mental illness. The guy needs help. To any of our readers in here, keep the hell away from that crazy nonsense. There are conspiracies out there, but these lunatics are waaaaaay off.

[–]magus6785 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

I just can't believe the red pill mods would have endorsed someone whose 99% of comments are off-topic

He really damages the brand in my opinion. No EC can be expected to spit fire every time, but I don't know of him ever having done it once.

And it's hard to miss since he formats his posts like a fucking advertisement.

[–]Modredpillschool1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

His comment on egalitarianism is right.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

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

His post format is original. I see nothing wrong with it.

[–]NeoreactionSafe7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy



  • of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. "a fairer, more egalitarian society"


  • a person who advocates or supports egalitarian principles.


The Red Pill is about masculine polarity.

I stand by my point that we don't in any way support the abstraction called "equality".


[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

No idea why you are downvoted.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My guess is there are those that don't fully grasp that the Red Pill at it's core rejects the concept of blank slate equality between men and women.


The Purple Pill is the desire to compromise.

We don't do that here... masculine polarity is our mindset, not equality.

We return to nature.... not live in Blue Pill mythology.


[–]Luckyluke230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

this is great! same i won't be able to see it any time soon in my country.

( this kind of makes sense now, I wondered why the femos wanted to get it shut down, they must have seen the film themselves)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I wish it was shown here in Houston . I'd see it quick. I really don't wanna have to bootleg this.

[–]2undead_keyboard1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

There's a Houston screening on December 15th. Tickets still available here.

[–]1KyfhoMyoba0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

98% of military deaths are men

Off topic, but about 90% of deaths in wars are civilians, most likely split evenly between male and female.

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

Does she do porn? Her name sounds like she does porn.

[–]waitforit6668 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

i think she could make more money just threatening to do porn and having people pay her not to

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Comment of the week holy shit I'm saving this.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]EagleGod0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

By showing both sides as equally valid?

[–]kellykebab1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Dude, he can't respond. He's too busy elaborating Sunday

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter