If we accept the notion of Pareto principle and hypergamy that the red pill claims (and I do accept it is true). Women will always choose the most attractive males, and the top 20% will have 80% of the sex.
So TRP tells you: Improve yourself and get to the top 20% and you're golden. The problem is that mating is a zero sum game. If every male is going to self-improve himself at the same level everyone will be exactly in the same situation as before, with the only difference is that the men wasted time and resources while doing it. In game theory this situation is known as Iterative Prisoner Dilemma, or in this specific private case: Arms race.
A very simplified example would be a situation where 2 Men (Johnny and Mark) compete for the same woman (Lisa). Lisa prefers Mark but hasn't finally decided yet. Both of them decide to invest money in expensive clothes to improve their chances, both buy fancy Armani suits. And eventually, Lisa still prefers Mark. Their relative situation hasn't changed but they both lost money to buy those clothes which made them both worse. The thing is as soon as one of them decided to buy fancy clothes the other guy was forced to do the same in order to not lose his advantage. That's the classic prisoner dilemma result of rational players' choices that lead to negative results for both of them.
But itself improvement is still a good thing - even if their relative situation didn't change they still got benefit from doing what TRP suggests
I would agree with this notion for some of the things TRP preaches: showering and basic grooming are almost always good. But a lot of the things that TRP preaches doesn't really make you a better person, It just makes you better seducer:
- Lifting is good for you, But what if you would rather do yoga or other kinds of sport that doesn't build as impressive physique. It will put you at a detriment compared to the gym bros.
- There is nothing inherently good at being good at flirting or learning the ability to approach women in public spaces.
- There is nothing inherently good at having a better fashion sense, eventually you will be forced to spend more money/time to outcompete other guys in your ability to dress.
- There is nothing inherently good in choosing high-status hobbies and lifestyle over choosing low-status hobbies and lifestyle (Playing in a band Vs playing chess)
- There is nothing inherently good at having a cool and polished social media account and wasting time on signaling with cool travel photos and status symbols.
- And there's nothing inherently good in doing plastical surgeries or lookmaxing.
Many of the things that TRP calls self-improvement isn't actually self-improvement but weaponized signaling that doesn't make you a better person for society but just a better seducer. So in order to keep up with the competition - Men will have to spend more time doing things that make them attractive instead of doing other valuable things like volunteering, becoming more educated or investing time in low-status hobbies that they will actually enjoy.
And eventually the situation of men as a whole wouldn't improve (Maybe some men would getter a higher ranking after focusing on TRP advice, but on average the same amount of sex will happen). TRP just makes this process of competition more obvious and more efficient and the competition more fierce, Means you'll have to waste more time and resources than before to compete.
[–]StorkKing 6 points7 points8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
This is by no means proven. The DNA stats are heavily skewed because the vast majority of people who have ever lived have lived in civilized societies. Civilized societies (to date) have been hierarchical, and in hierarchal societies women are hypergamous. "Red Pill" DNA stats also fail to take into account war and androcide. Men and boys make up the vast majority of deaths in violent conflicts.
What about our ancestors?
"Boehm explains this seeming contradiction with the claim that hunter-gatherers have “reverse dominance hierarchies”: the adult males in the society form a general coalition to prevent any one of their number, alone or with a few allies, from dominating the others. Male egalitarianism is not necessarily extended to females—the degree to which females are subject to male despotism varies, even among hunter-gatherers. But the reverse dominance hierarchy prevents the monopolization of females by dominant males. This makes possible the heterosexual nuclear family as we know it, based on (relatively) stable cross-gender pair bonding and mutual nurturance of children by parents, precisely what is missing in our closest primate relatives."
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Hunter-Gatherers%E2%80%99_Egalitarianism
Ethnographies of hunter-gatherers show a more bonobo than chimpanzee type arrangement in terms of sexual access for would be "beta" males (though without the female dominance). Would-be "alpha" males are actually considered socially deviant.
Under civilization, alpha males re-emerged and quickly figured out that monopolizing all of the females would lead to their speedy demise. Hence the institution of marriage.
The current paradigm -- hierarchy, ultra-competition and feminism -- is unsustainable. Some variety of "feminism" may be compatible with egalitarianism (in a social, political and economic sense), but it is not compatible with hierarchy.
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
So the solution is to stop living in civilization then we don't have to worry about the 80/20 rule?
The reason women spread around before is early civilization was barely making it and was therefore communistic/socialistic. You had to share for the group survival and therefore women were loyal to the group because that gave the best chance of her children surviving. Once surplus resources existed, individual property rights came about and then women were an individual because he represented the resources which gave the best chance of her children surviving.
That's what it really all comes down to.
I've talked about this before:
Women have always been attracted to the leader, the alpha, and even the rogue bad guy. Always.
It's just that before women's suffrage changed our government to the point where women could get men's resources from men without having to keep the man's commitment by pleasing him, these men were big risks for the woman to pursue. Sure, the alpha guy would fuck her, but would he stick around to support her children? As such, the woman's rational brains would temper these drives and impulses such that only women with poor impulse control would actively pursue these men.
The rules have changed now, and the boundary case is the majority of women (boundary case: those who change behavior due to change of rules). Now the majority of women are seeking these previously alpha men (because even if they don't please him enough to secure his commitment, government will secure his resources for her). Only women who think they have no chance of attracting an alpha man or those with extremely high levels of impulse control are those who go after the provider men.
So the women of our society stop rewarding men who protect and provide and instead reward men who are not contributing to society, who are less stable, and who are more rebel like (anti-establishment). Men, of course, react by becoming those types of men to be rewarded. Social stability takes a nosedive and, well, welcome to the death-throes of western civilization. Enjoy the decline; Prepare for the bottom.
[–]StorkKing 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say that. I just pointed out that the 80/20 "rule" is misleading because it is portrayed as a constant rather than a product of specific social arrangements. And theoretically at least, egalitarianism is still possible in civilized societies. Indeed monogamy through marriage is itself an example of egalitarianism, since it prevents total alpha male dominance of females.
It may also be impossible to create extensive egalitarianism under civilization or may be contingent on certain technological advancements. We don't know one way or the other. Claiming that "this is how things have been for the past X thousand years and therefore will always be that way" is an example of the only game in town fallacy.
Actually all recorded hunter-gatherer bands in history were coerced or enslaved into hierarchal societies, which makes sense given that "alpha" behavior is their number one sin. This didn't mean that some didn't do so on a more volutary basis over large periods of time. For example I suspect the Haida Gwaii in British Columbia became sedentary due to the abundance of fish. Conversely, agriculture probably came about due to an absence of resources brought about by environmental change in a specific region (in Eve's seed, the author suggests that it was almost certainly women who invented agriculture). Richard Heinberg has suggested that this is where the universal myth of a lost golden age comes from (a la Adam and Eve). Nomadic hunter-gatherers lived lives of leisure, play and sex. Many of them didn't even have a word for "work."
Yes and no. Most "primitive" sedentary societies were highly egalitarian and shared the majority of "property." They had individual possessions, but no one could own property at the expense of the well being of others.
Women also enforced the exclusion of alpha males in early societies because they did not want to become slaves. They were the "first line of defense", in fact -- they would begin to mock the would-be upstart. If that didn't work the males would get involved. If worst came to worst and his behavior didn't change they would kill him. Note that by "alpha" I'm not talking about an attractive man or proficient hunter, but rather a man who attempts to dominate others.
A social safety net became inevitable because capitalists refused to provide a living wage and universal employment. In the case of the United States, Roosevelt was actually supported by about half of the capitalist class because they feared a communist revolution. This was sparked by the militancy of male workers.
Second wave feminism was also bankrolled by the capitalist elites, though no one is sure exactly why. It could have been something as simple as wanting more tax revenue or wanting to divide and conquer the working class. Feminists are just useful idiots.
If we were living in ancient Rome I might agree with you. But we are now living in a global village with nuclear and biological weapons. Given enough time and pressure the men's rights movement may be able to reverse the most egregious feminist laws, or society could even adapt by bringing back a large degree of sex segregation. Either way, the best way of ensuring that the majority of men have access to sex is egalitarianism.
Edit: few words
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Let me stop you right there. Where is the modern egalitarian society?
Nowhere?
Then it is the only game in town.
Wax philosophical all you want about could be's and might be's... I'll stay over here in the real world.
Nope. The USA offered a perfect natural experiment. The massive increase in government is due to women's suffrage alone.
[–]StorkKing 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Egalitarianism exists on a spectrum, meaning that some countries are more egalitarian than others. The United States would rank near the bottom. That helps to explain why everyone is taking anti-depressants. It's not natural to have such massive inequality.
There are also different kinds of egalitarianism. As mentioned, widespread monogamy is one kind because there is more equal sexual access for males. But that's really only a temporary fix, as Unwin noted.
That's preposterous. The first state police force was created in in the early 20th century and was designed to socialize the cost of enforcing labor discipline (before that, working men were mostly controlled by private militias like the Pinkertons). This was during the progressive movement, when gargantuan corporate monopolies had to be curtailed by federal regulatory powers lest they become more powerful than the government itself (the same problem is re-emerging). This pattern was already evident during the 1880's when President Harding wrote in his diary that the US had become a government "of, by and for corporations." During the first world war the government again massively increased in size. Huge propaganda bureaus were created and the Bureau of Investigation (later FBI), which formerly consisted of two dozen men, became a huge and increasingly sinister bureaucracy.
You simply don't know your history.
It was inevitable that a social safety net would be created under Roosevelt. The alternative was revolution. Indeed there was almost a second civil war when the Duponts and other dynasties tried to overthrow the government in a fascist putsch.
That isn't to say that women's groups haven't introduced plenty of harmful legislation. Tender years doctrine, prohibition, no fault divorce etc.
You're delusional if you think women required the vote to effect massive social change. The tender years doctrine was introduced before female suffrage.
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You have a really fancy way of admitting it doesn't exist.
Really now?
So the States which allowed women's suffrage before the 19th expanding is not history? The States which didn't ratify the 19th expanding after it was passed expanding wasn't history?
You are the one ignoring history because it doesn't fit your worldview.
P.S. look up how tender years doctrine started in the USA. You'll find it was in a State where women already had suffrage.
[–]StorkKing 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Does a purely free market capitalist system exist? Does that mean capitalism doesn't exist? Do you deny that some societies are more egalitarian than others? Do you deny that a society can move in one direction or the other?
Sure. But the main impetus behind the explosive growth of the federal government during the early 20th century was (a) the need to curb the power of corporate monopolies and (b) the need to continue to control the average working man.
What about the UK? They passed it without the vote.
Voting is overrated. As the saying goes, if it really changed anything they'd make it a illegal. In the 19th century the vote was mostly controlled by gangs and political machines. Today it can be controlled by voting machines, PR firms, advertising etc.
[–]GunOfSod 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
I bloody hate the latest trend of misusing the Bonobono analogy as a model for human society. There is a reason Bonobonos are quite rare in the wild and that is due to the fact that they are geographically isolated. Whenever a Bonobono society comes into contact with a Chimpanzee population, they are rapidly wiped out. That is the lesson.
[–]StorkKing 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Pick one.
In any case, I was merely providing an analogy, not a model. Primitive societies were egalitarian not only in terms of sharing resources but access to sex.
[–]GunOfSod 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
OK, I pick the lesson where the society that is not able to switch into hyper aggressive mode at a moments notice disappears from the face of the earth.
[–]StorkKing 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Good thing we're not chimps and bonobos. As human beings, we'll eventually have to do away with war or it will do away with us.
[–]GunOfSod 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
We're chimps with suits on.
[–]StorkKing 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Speak for yourself.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
TRP is a good way for some men to deal with the craziness of modern women. Some is the key word. For some it is MGTOW. For some it is MRA. Having a plurality of options is a good thing.
[–]Moonvie 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And TRP will still win. I find it funny they are trying to rationalize it.
The thing is: improving yourself, studying, going regularly to the gym and getting fit or learning pick up lines and learning the rules of "the game" takes effort. Most people can't do that. If you put in more effort than others, you get better results. I don't really see how you're going to change that.
Do they want an upside down world where putting in more effort leads magically to worse results? How do they expect TRP to react to that?
[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
You assume that anywhere close to 100% of men will self improve. Thats hilarious. Most men will, at best, complain they dont meet female standards and remain unchanged. This 'request' is simply to clearly stand out from the herd, rather than half blend in. You want near parity in mating? Bring back no sex without marriage, along with severe penalties for infidelity, and you may have a shot. Good luck with that.
Point is, women require being forced to marry, then learn to love, subpar men....they will not do it on their own. Never have in all of human history. In fact, the resentment collectively for being forced to do so powers feminism.
So, either rise above the rest, or advocate authoritarian 'solutions', or ignore the problem. Those, as always, are your choices.
[–]makenewreditacount99 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Doesn't need 100% men to impact the world, as competition rises, men will have to choose between competing harder or leaving. The more competition, the more men leave. For example japan has a ton of guys who'd rather play video games than make families. Why? Too much work for little gain. Society expects them to provide for their wife, kids, parents and other old people via taxes, all by working day and night in the same company forever.
So they rather go neet or live minimally.
The only reason so many still choose to make families is indoctrination, society makes us believe we must do it, parents want grandkids, grandparents want great grand kids.. Marriage is romantizised, virgins are shamed, men's value depends on how much pussy he slays etc. If a man doesn't want to provide for family then he is shamed and his masculinity is thrown away. Also women are shamed for not wanting kids
If this brainwashing was removed, we'd see a huge spike in loners i bet.
Also as entertainment and tech get better (VR, sexbots etc?) there would be even less incentive to marry. We're gonna have big problems forcing people to make babies...
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Women won't marry men that cannot support them when they want to have children.
Without simple regulations that stop the top hoarding the wealth, like measures the mens movement fought for and lost - labour laws, good wages, full employment, and so on.
At the same time, a declining birth rate in developed countries is probably preferable to avoid social unrest and collapse.
Increased automation is negating the need for a traditional replacement rate.
https://economics.mit.edu/files/12536
[–]ee4m -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
There something else about them. They skew right and tend to favour making 20% of the population very rich while the other 80% pay for it.
Which creates more demand for the top 20% of earners because the rest struggle to support others.