I don't know if this is redpill specifically, but I think you guys can help me out a bit. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where you were so baffled by what they were saying, you couldn't really argue against it? It'd be like someone saying "I don't believe in trees. Trees are made up." Where exactly do you begin? I'm just going to leave this conversation here verbatim and I invite you to offer your thoughts. One request though: I don't want this to be a target for mockery. I'd like to know your perspective on how someone comes to form a world view like this one.

The conversation begins about something I was saying over in /r/MensLib, but gets steadily stranger with time. My responses are in italics. Some conversational dead ends have been removed. Gaps are marked with "..."

I wanted to point out that in the tread you denied female agency and blamed men for having attitudes about taking it.

Mothers do something called "maternal gatekeeping". They make sure they are the main caregiver and keep the fathers somewhat at arms length. You see it most obviously in divorce, where they typically limit the father's custody to every second weekend.

This is also the primary reason for the wage gap and glass ceiling, which are also typically blamed on the system or men (denial of female agency).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_parent

Do you think this is something inherent or a societal construct?

...

Inherent, they bond with the baby inside them for 9 months, their brain changes, the first three months after birth they have special hormones that keep them less stressed and they develop OCD sort of behaviours ( is the baby ok, fed, breathing etc).

Its all blamed on the system and men though, because of the notion that women can't possibly be making their own decisions.

Would you be open to changing your mind? Could you hypothetically be convinced that gender roles are a societal construct? What would constitute evidence, in your opinion?

If women were perfectly happy to give birth and then go and work 60 hour weeks while someone else did all the nice loving, nurturing stuff.

And shared parenting wasn;t being blocked by the womens movement and its support base, and women were routinely pushing for more equitable custody arrangements.

How is this indistinguishable from a societal pressure? How can you know that that's inherent behaviour? Also, not to nitpick or anything, but most men don't work 60 hours a week.

...

1. Women do all the quote "nice, loving, nuturing stuff." You believe that's inherent to their gender.

...

Wouldn't it be consistent to say that the relationship between biology and our culture is fairly complex and that the truth is probably somewhat more nuanced? Why dismiss the idea of gender roles as a societal construct out of hand?

Women do all the quote "nice, loving, nuturing stuff." You believe that's inherent to their gender.

Its inherent to someone that grows a child in their body and has all these amazing feelings and hormones. Its beautify bonding with child and taking care of them. Far better than working for some corporation.

...

Also, men dominate the lower and extreme ends of the iq spectrum. An most areas of life. The richest and poorest. So it would stand to reason that they occupy those extremes too.

Pick another negative statistic about men then. Are there any that you believe are inherent?

Like what?

Autism primarily male dominated? It looks to be inherent.

There are roles that are exaggerated due to social pressure sure.

But hormonal things like women bonding with the children inside them, and autism and so on have biological explanations.

Are you suggesting that men don't hormonally bond with their children? If, as you suggested, the wage gap and glass ceiling are all natural consequences of women's maternal nature, then why are women unhappy with the status quo? What do you believe the motivations of feminism are?

Are you suggesting that men don't hormonally bond with their children?

Not at all, mens brains and priorities change dramatically when they are main care giver.

Womens change dramtically during the pregnancy and they start maternal gate keeping when the child is born.

If, as you suggested, the wage gap and glass ceiling are all natural consequences of women's maternal nature, then why are women unhappy with the status quo?

Most aren't. 83% of college women in a recent study aspire to be house wives and mothers.

What do you believe the motivations of feminism are?

Initially lesbian women wanting the change the status quo.

The goal is to have equal or better outcome regardless of input, while maintaining all the areas where women benefit.

Most young feminists are brainwashed victims of rabble rousing.

They think the fact that upper and upper middle class women can afford the choice to work or not, and often chose not to ... and that then creates gaps in high society jobs is proof of oppression, when in reality its proof of privilege.

So yeah according to this person, women all inherently want to be housewives and mothers and want to keep dads away from the kids. They have a very deterministic attitude towards women's behaviour. When asked whether there is any parallel in men's behaviour, the example they suggest is a medical condition that's more prominent in men. It seems like they perceive men as having free will more than women, although I don't think they'd necessarily describe it that way. Wanting to break through the glass ceiling and be more than a homemaker and mother, should they wish, is because of brainwashing due to a movement begun by rabble rousing lesbians.

How does someone even get to the point where they say stuff like this offhand?