~ archived since 2018 ~

Bad arguements

FairlyNaive

August 8, 2016

9 upvotes

In this post I wanted to give my take on commonly used arguements with excessive amount of straw in them. I understand that you can always say that there are people who truly believe this, but in my opinion they are far from general consensus.

Blue side

"Reds believe that men are just better then women" I understand where this idea is coming from, as its very often repeated that to be attractive to women you have to be taller then women, earn more money, be a leader in a relationship etc. But it doesnt imply that every man is capable of doing this, I would go even further and say that idea "80% of men are spineless beta/omega slobs whith no ambition" is widely accepted. To have wide romantic success with women you need to be top dog, but it doesnt come from having a penis, it comes from eithera shit ton of hard work or winning genetic lottery, usually both.

"TRP is trying to return to marriage 1.0 like it was in 1950s" If the most coommonly used phrase on trp is lift, then the second one is dont get married, and preferably get a vasectomy. "She is not yours, its just your turn" "There is no unicorns" In fact I never seen a community that would be more pro casual sex, child free hedonistic approach to life. Beeing locked with a single woman for life seems like a nightmare for a person who truly believes in AWALT, doesnt it? Ive even witnessed on multiple occasions tradcons/non trp people from alt right give reds shit for exactly this attitudes.

Red side

"We were indoctrinated by blue propaganda during our youth by Disney cartoons and shit" Which Disney cartoons? The Disney cartoons where female protagonist ends up with model looking royalty? For Christs sake, Beast is a close to alpha brute fantsay as it gets, there are even fakebook mems about him beeing rich, having immortal servants and beeing literally beast in bed. The message was always there you just looked in the wrong direction.

"TRP is just a group of autistic kids who try to understand human interaction" This one is just insulting. There are some people who fall into this category among reds but they are clearly a minority. Quit this attempts to gain sympathy covering with disability, they are antithetical to the ideas you subscribe to. Its becoming as popular to cry autism the moment a peson doesnt get a social cue as it is to cry depression every time a person gets sad for a moment.

Thoughts?

Edit: ok, after reading the comments and some additional thinking i realised i misunderstood the 1rst arguement. I stand corrected.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Bad arguements
Author	FairlyNaive
Upvotes	9
Comments	107
Date	August 8, 2016 1:25 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4wq4rp/bad_arguements/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/bad-arguements.273682 https://theredarchive.com/post/273682

Comments

[–]dakruNeither5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming-3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme145 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme145 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme145 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme145 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme1454 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme1455 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme1453 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Justbeingme1454 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why does it bother you that women are assigned negative aspects?

You're moving the goalposts. First you stated that you didn't consider aspects attributed to women as negative (you said you think honor isn't a positive trait). Now you're admitting that TRP does in fact do it and trying to move the argument.

You stopped wanting to talk about honor, since you don't want to define it(My guess is because you can't). I'm just going with your convo.

There are negative aspects assigned to women. Women not having honor is not one of them to me, not compared to the truly negative aspects like immaturity. Though if you want to say not having honor is a negative aspect then fine, I'll accept that too. When women are brought up to be like men then not having honor is indeed negative to that woman.

But you asked for times where women have positive aspects assigned to them and men the negative aspects assigned and I gave you that too.

[–]Justbeingme1453 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl693 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl692 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl693 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well then clearly some women have honor and some men do. You can't seriously believe it's something all men have and no women have with a straight face.

Women casually lie to spare feelings all the time. Very difficult to trust what they say. And then if her feelings change regarding whatever deal you made in the future, the deal can be off just like that. What, she going to feel guilty that her feelings changed? I think not.

Men have to have honor more so because men are dangerous and need honor to trust each other at all, to know if shit goes crazy they're not going to be abandoned and can rely on their team. Not sure if this is a mechanic or not, and some men can reject being honorable.

Whereas women not trusting each other is normal.

Women don't need honor, and it makes being Machiavellian harder.

Wouldn't you say an evil man can be moral too?

How are you defining evil and moral?

[–]DrunkGirl694 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women casually lie to spare feelings all the time.

And yet, I have actually been told by red pillers that anytime a guy has told me that I'm too soft and not argumentative enough to date, that he was lying to spare my feelings, because obviously men actually want quiet submissive women!

Look at the movies Liar Liar and The Invention of Lying -- literally based on male characters who lie their way through all situations in life.

Men have to have honor more so because men are dangerous and need honor to trust each other at all, to know if shit goes crazy they're not going to be abandoned and can rely on their team. Not sure if this is a mechanic or not, and some men can reject being honorable.

Yeah it sounds like you are more talking about kinship and trust within a team, which is something I have experienced to a great degree. No I haven't been to war but I have been on teams where we talked about how we were going to battle together, and trusted literally every person to contribute everything they were capable of contributing without resorting to selfish distractions. I don't think it is a mechanic, I think it is a choice, that someone of either gender is typically capable of making.

Whereas women not trusting each other is normal.

What would they have to not trust each other about? Women have natural abundance mentality, they don't really need to steal each other's men. Maybe some of what you would probably call ultra-feminine women maintain their high school habits of gossiping behind each other's backs but this doesn't seem to happen in real adult world life.

Edit (hit send too early):

Women don't need honor, and it makes being Machiavellian harder.

By your own description, men really don't need honor either. Not the individual man anyways. If he is only worried about his ability to trust other men, then he needs to believe other men have honor, not to have it himself.

Don't men also want to be Machiavellian? Especially RP men. So shouldn't you dispose of your honor for your Machiavellian pursuits?

How are you defining evil and moral?

I was obviously hoping you'd tell me daddy!

[–]i_have_a_semicolon1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]i_have_a_semicolon2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me try again.

Picture yourself, the way you are, and the honor you have. And now picture someone else telling you, you do not have honor, that you're incapable of it.

Take the male/female part out of the equation.

How would that make you feel/think - Since you value honor, and it's important to you, it would not be pleasant to hear from some other source that you do not have it.

But then, for them to turn around and say, "but its OK for you to not have it..."

That would definitely make you even angrier. Here is a quality you poses, you value, and here is someone else telling you not only that you do not have it, but also that it doesn't even matter that you do not have it. It defies your own sense of reality, doesn't it?

you have conditional honor, which is not honor, so I'm not sure where you're trying to with this.

I believe you also admitted to having conditional honor when you said you would not associate with a man without honor? Isn't that stipulating that your honor is conditional on the basis that other men also have honor?

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me try again.

Picture yourself, the way you are, and the honor you have. And now picture someone else telling you, you do not have honor, that you're incapable of it.

Take the male/female part out of the equation.

How would that make you feel/think - Since you value honor, and it's important to you, it would not be pleasant to hear from some other source that you do not have it.

But then, for them to turn around and say, "but its OK for you to not have it..."

That would definitely make you even angrier. Here is a quality you poses, you value, and here is someone else telling you not only that you do not have it, but also that it doesn't even matter that you do not have it. It defies your own sense of reality, doesn't it?

Angry? Most definitely not. If I get angry then I would have needed to take offense. I don't remember the last time someone offended me.

When someone says something to me that doesn't conform with reality, typically I snicker, and dismiss it.

Now if someone could tell me when I acted without honor and their point be valid, I'd have a hard time disagreeing since they did backup their opinion with facts.

you have conditional honor, which is not honor, so I'm not sure where you're trying to with this.

I believe you also admitted to having conditional honor when you said you would not associate with a man without honor? Isn't that stipulating that your honor is conditional on the basis that other men also have honor?

No. Lol. For you to think so further reinforces that you don't know what honor is.

I will avoid dishonorable people, not because I don't have honor or am choosing not to at that time, but because I can't trust a dishonorable person. I'm still acting honorably with dishonorable men.

[–]i_have_a_semicolon3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When someone says something to me that doesn't conform with reality, typically I snicker, and dismiss it.

Okay, now you can hopefully understand why so many people are dismissive of TRP :)

I will avoid dishonorable people, not because I don't have honor or am choosing not to at that time, but because I can't trust a dishonorable person.

You cannot trust a dishonorable person. Sure. I get that. But that does have consequence on how you treat the person, does it not? Real world consequence. Hypothetically, if you had made an arrangement with a person who you perceived to be honorable, then they showed themselves to be without honor, you have no obligation to "honor" the arrangement with that person as they have broken their part of the unspoken contract two honorable people have together? How is that not conditonal honor?

You won't honor someone who is dishonorable. How is that not conditional? Wouldn't unconditional honor be honor that is upheld despite all circumstances?

To admit to having unconditional honor is to admit to being truly selfless and never having any selfish interest or take self-preservatory actions. Which would make you like the second coming of jesus in which case I am terribly sorry and please forgive me of my selfishness and wrong doings :P

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When someone says something to me that doesn't conform with reality, typically I snicker, and dismiss it.

Okay, now you can hopefully understand why so many people are dismissive of TRP :)

Been there, done that.

Then I honestly looked into it. Not even a year later, and here I am.

I will avoid dishonorable people, not because I don't have honor or am choosing not to at that time, but because I can't trust a dishonorable person.

You cannot trust a dishonorable person. Sure. I get that. But that does have consequence on how you treat the person, does it not? Real world consequence. Hypothetically, if you had made an arrangement with a person who you perceived to be honorable, then they showed themselves to be without honor, you have no obligation to "honor" the arrangement with that person as they have broken their part of the unspoken contract two honorable people have together? How is that not conditonal honor?

You still have an obligation to uphold the arrangement regardless of that man's prior honor.

However making an arrangement with a dishonorable man is silly and dangerous in the first place.

I have literally been in that situation before, a dishonorable man wanted to make a deal. I refused to make any hard commitment because I couldn't trust him, but left it open to possibility because he had connections that may be useful to me. I avoided obligation and did not harm my honor.

You won't honor someone who is dishonorable. How is that not conditional? Wouldn't unconditional honor be honor that is upheld despite all circumstances?

To admit to having unconditional honor is to admit to being truly selfless and never having any selfish interest or take self-preservatory actions. Which would make you like the second coming of jesus in which case I am terribly sorry and please forgive me of my selfishness and wrong doings :P

The distinction is that you are not forced to enter into an agreement in the first place.

I'm more willing to trust basic things with dishonorable people, like, we can be in the same room and you won't stab me, or if we're doing a simple transaction you won't rip me off.

Your last paragraph really makes you seem confused about honor and how it's used, why it exists, and what its purpose is.

[–]i_have_a_semicolon2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe I am confused about honor and who has it or who doesn't or what have you.

But you also seem to be confused about a few things as well.

Honor is a value. All people (men and women) can posses the ability to value Honor. all people (men and women) can posses the ability to behave with honor.

"Conditional" honor is nothing more than choosing self preservation over the value of "honor". Maybe you can enlighten me as to what honor is, but I'm certain that there are times when one's duty to behave honorably is at odds with their own self preservation, and there is a tipping point for all people where they would choose self preservation over behaving with honor, which is why your claim "conditional honor is not honor" is false since all people's honor would be conditional, inherently, because at a point where upholding honor is at odds with your own self preservation, men and women alike will often choose themselves.

Maybe not you - but I'm pretty sure that you would too. If it came down to it - life or death - you think you'd choose an honorable death over life. And many, many, many men have chosen an honorable death. But that's far from a majority in society. Self preservation does seem to trump honor and therefore it's not too unrealistic to believe that "condtional" honor is not a feminine or masculine trait, it is just what it is and people have it or do not.

Maybe there aren't tons of great examples of women who have chosen to die honorably like there are tales of men, but either way, you can't argue that

All men are inherently honorable / unconditionally honorable (just because you are)
Honor is not a positive trait or a value human beings should strive for personally, or a human with honor is not a human who is revered or viewed in a positive light

[–]questioningwomandetached from society4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What if a woman is good at "male tasks" like science or engineering? Should she stop because of her sex?

Absolutely not. "Should" just means "I prefer".

If a woman enjoys science, has a capacity for abstract thinking, a strong will to overcome tedium and failure, and enough backbone to ignore the inevitable naysayers and critics, then she should absolutely do what she is suited for, if that she what she prefers.

Indeed, many women have done this and made history as a result:

Hypatia of Alexandria's development of astrolabes, and her key observations about the planes of regular solid shapes.
Ada Lovelace authoring the first "computer" algorithm.
Barbara McClintock and her discovery that genes have mobility within chromosomes.
Florence Nightingale and her revolutionizing of healthcare using statistical analysis.
Marie Curie's discovery of radioactivity.
Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin's pioneering of x-ray crystallography.

But while these women are significant for their contributions to science, the list of men and their contributions is much, much longer. The Red Pill attributes to this disparity the different genetic predispositions of the sexes.

Now, I have heard it argued that women face additional pressures and obstacles in their attempts to achieve in these fields - that the obstacles are social rather than genetic. But many of the above-mentioned women also faced special pressures (many unique to their own eras and societies - Hypatia, for instance, faced opposition from religious fundamentalists), and that pressure did not stop them achieving what they did.

History shows us that, statistically, fewer women possess the traits or preference to become scientists, engineers, soldiers, pioneers, etc. than do men.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That does not mean that she couldn't have achieved more easily had those pressures not been there, or that many other women were almost strong enough to overcome them but could not.

You're speaking purely in hypotheticals now.

Science is hard. Achieving something historically significant is even harder. How many men do you think went unrecognized for their efforts simply because they lacked the work ethic, the opportunity, or the luck?

When you look at the data available to us, these are the conclusions we draw. And those conclusions appear to agree with phenomenon we observe in every day life. I can count the number of women in my past computer science classes on one hand, and that's not for lack of support programs, special grants and funding to get women into STEM fields, and constant motivational lectures given by successful professional women at our school.

When you're not suited for something, it's hard and uninteresting.

Women ain't interested in science.

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure there are absolutes. Humans are born. Humans die. Humans need food and water to live. Humans breath. Humans need to sleep. I'm able to come up with tons of "absolute" statements very easily.

Why speak in absoluteles "as a convenient shorthand"? To me that seems intellectually dishonest. It would be like an argument between a tired mother and father over who gets to take care of the baby. If one person makes the absolute statement, "I always take care of baby", the other person can find fault in it, "No you do not, I took care of him 3 times this week" and they will get sidetracked by the nature of the absolute statement and not by the thing they are actually fighting about...

Absolute statements are not a convenient shorthand. How hard is it to say "Most women are not interested in science?" It is 4 more characters in your senstance but is not falsified by evidence to the contrary, because it's much harder to come up with evedince to the contrary of "most" than "all".

For real though what is with RP's strict adherance to speaking in absolutes and claiming "all" when there is clearly not "all" ? How is it a "convienent shorthand" if it more often than not causes others to have to refute it becuse it's simply false? Wouldn't it be more convienient to skip that whole mess and just say the actual thing?

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]i_have_a_semicolon5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackbeard3450 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Reds believe that men are just better then women" I understand where this idea is coming from, as its very often repeated that to be attractive to women you have to be taller then women, earn more money, be a leader in a relationship etc. But it doesnt imply that every man is capable of doing this, I would go even further and say that idea "80% of men are spineless beta/omega slobs whith no ambition" is widely accepted. To have wide romantic success with women you need to be top dog, but it doesnt come from having a penis, it comes from eithera shit ton of hard work or winning genetic lottery, usually both.

This makes no sense. When BP says "Reds believe that men are better than women" it means something totally different than what you are talking about.

We mean that RP actually believes that men are BETTER than women. That they are smarter, stronger, more loyal, blah, blah, blah. All that shit that RP says when they bag on women. They then use that to justify why they shit all over women and support inequality wherever they find it.

[–]midnightvulpine4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

"We were indoctrinated by blue propaganda during our youth by Disney cartoons and shit"

I always wonder if they just had very controlling parents that didn't let them watch anything they didn't approve of, not even when they were teens.

It's like they never watched any MTV (there was some PUA show once) or never listened to rap music, never seen a James Bond, Indiana Jones, Clint Eastwood or any other movie with a masculine male lead, no Fight Club, no American Psycho, not even American Beauty and no Scarface, no Big Lebowsky and no Two and a Half Men, no The Graduate and no Dead Poets Society, no Top Gun, no Rocky and no Rambo, no Californication and no Alfie,...

Or even Simpsons. Milhouse the beta orbiter wasn't meant to be a role model to follow and his father wasn't either. Lisa fell in love with the bad boy Nelson and Homer's fatness is a joke. Marge cheats on him with the hot bowling guy and there is even one episode where he hits the gym and stands in front of the mirror imagining how hot he will be.

The media is filled with alpha men and RP truths.

Beta, weak, skinny or fat, shy and awkward guys are usually the comic relief. Big Bang Theory is not a series for nerds; it's a series for people that want to laugh at awkward people.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The rest of my post is more important, do you have nothing to say to it?

I can't be a prince because you must be born a prince, and the prince is usually not portrayed as intelligent, him being handsome, rich, have game, brave, is all that's needed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because America doesn't have royalty, boys can't relate to fairy tales? That because the Disney leads are princes, boys can't see that they're also rich and handsome and get the girl?

Men can't relate to be aristocracy because it's a retardedly illogical notion since you must be born into it.

Everyone knows being handsome and rich gets girls. Becoming rich is seen as impossible or very difficult to most, becoming handsome is largely genetics past basics.

How many men have you heard identifying as princes? Now compared to women and princesses?

If boys essentially can't relate to Disney films, then how can Disney films be blue pill propaganda? Aren't they a neutral influence, at best?

Of course they can relate to the movie, but they're not relating to the prince, the prince is an ideal they can never be, that doesn't even exist in our society, and so don't even try to be. What man can be the prince in Sleeping Beauty who by virtue of being a prince is the hero?

Disney is one of the biggest outlets of American propaganda. Every single thing they touch is laced with propaganda themes. Yes Pixar. Yes Marvel movies.

Nearly all of it feminist, and none of it with the best possible men in society existing.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Everyone knows being handsome and rich gets girls.

Yes, this is the blue pill argument against the red pill idea that Disney cartoons indoctrinate children into thinking "looks don't matter" and "just be nice". I think it's an obvious fact of life that being handsome and rich gets girls, but many RPers argue that they were taught otherwise, and discovering the importance of their looks was a turning point. It sounds like we agree on this point.

Disney is one of the biggest outlets of American propaganda. Nearly all of it feminist.

I think this really depends on what era of Disney you're looking at. Disney Princess films, especially older ones, do not offer a feminist message IMO. The princesses' defining virtues are youth, beauty and kindness, and they have no ambition beyond finding a good man. In return, beauty is all the prince needs to fall deeply in love with her. This is far from the feminist message of equality and independence.

What specific message do you think pre-2000 era Disney films are relaying to boys? Which movies do you think best illustrate this? (I'm using pre-2000 era because these are the films that would have effected men today.)

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shoup881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shoup881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shoup883 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Cognitive dissonance and societally pressure. Men were basically made to choose between being a good guy that wasn't supposed to care about looks and is nice, and being the bad guy that does but is also mean sometimes.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is pretty much a perfect example, the guy men are supposed to be is nice, fat, sensitive, kind, the main protagonist, the guy that men are not supposed to be but is successful with women is mean, fit, has game, and the main antagonist.

That said, part of being good looking is learning beauty and fitness skills and working on them, that's it's own hurdle too, and plenty of men avoid it out of laziness or wanting to focus time elsewhere(other skills typically). They often think if I have enough skill it'll make up for not being as fit or as beautiful.

But innately, I do think men generally know being good looking helps get the girl.

Thinking about myself, I got fitter not for women, but to get stronger in general and getting into bodybuilding. Women liking it and coming on to me was an unexpected perk, and that was a point when I realized how wrong my beliefs I had held were.

[–]shoup883 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This sounds to me like the boys are making the emotional, illogical choice - not the girls. Despite consuming media where handsome men get beautiful women, and despite observing this dynamic all around them, boys are choosing instead to concentrate on niceness. Why? Because it's easier. Because it feels good to think you're good enough just the way you are. And because recognizing that something very important might be out of your control feels bad.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is pretty much a perfect example, the guy men are supposed to be is nice, fat, sensitive, kind, the main protagonist, the guy that men are not supposed to be but is successful with women is mean, fit, has game, and the main antagonist

That's an interesting interpretation. I thought it was pretty obvious that we're supposed to like Aldous Snow. He's cool, he's funny, he's charming. Even the protagonist admits he likes him. And in the end, Sarah Marshall doesn't dump Aldous for Peter - Aldous dumps her.

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This sounds to me like the boys are making the emotional, illogical choice - not the girls. Despite consuming media where handsome men get beautiful women, and despite observing this dynamic all around them, boys are choosing instead to concentrate on niceness. Why? Because it's easier. Because it feels good to think you're good enough just the way you are. And because recognizing that something very important might be out of your control feels bad.

Sure it isn't logical. That's the point. It's what society says to do and there's a moral compulsion too.

Logic is what lets rp stamp out the bullshit diet fed to us by society about what women like, need, and respond to, and how they are.

Having to worry about my looks is quite frankly a waste of time. I only do it because I need to, I have so many better things to do that help me achieve my goals. Women can't appreciate a man for what is actually worth appreciating, but oh how important a pretty face and some muscles are. Men don't hold looks over skills, not even slightly, with regards to men(obviously not the case with regards to women).

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is pretty much a perfect example, the guy men are supposed to be is nice, fat, sensitive, kind, the main protagonist, the guy that men are not supposed to be but is successful with women is mean, fit, has game, and the main antagonist

That's an interesting interpretation. I thought it was pretty obvious that we're supposed to like Aldous Snow. He's cool, he's funny, he's charming. Even the protagonist admits he likes him. And in the end, Sarah Marshall doesn't dump Aldous for Peter - Aldous dumps her.

Right, he's a dick, he never appreciates a woman, he fucks and chucks her when he's bored. A non intellectual buffoon that women get wet over because he had attitude and is not fat and has some style. Cool and funny, yay.

But no, by definition you're supposed to want to be the protagonist. Most men don't embrace being evil/bad, nor do they want to. Though it certainly makes life better.

[–]shoup882 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure it isn't logical. That's the point.

Ah, ok. I misinterpreted your previous comments about how men can't relate to illogical storylines, and how girls make emotional choices. It sounds like we agree here - in the case of disney films and societal messages, boys are just as, if not more so, illogical than girls.

Right, he's a dick, he never appreciates a woman, he fucks and chucks her when he's bored. A non intellectual buffoon that women get wet over because he had attitude and is not fat and has some style. Cool and funny, yay.

This is the reality preached by RP, no? Other RPers seem upset that media doesn't represent reality as they know it. Am I correct in saying that your biggest beef with entertainment is that it doesn't represent the ideal alpha man? You wish it offered more?

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, he's a dick, he never appreciates a woman, he fucks and chucks her when he's bored. A non intellectual buffoon that women get wet over because he had attitude and is not fat and has some style. Cool and funny, yay.

This is the reality preached by RP, no? Other RPers seem upset that media doesn't represent reality as they know it. Am I correct in saying that your biggest beef with entertainment is that it doesn't represent the ideal alpha man? You wish it offered more?

Why not flip the protagonist and antagonist, make Aldous Snow one possibility of what men should want to be and make him appear good? Make the beta be the bad guy?

But yes my main gripe with American entertainment is all the male role models suck. I have to choose between being a dumb alpha, or a nice beta guy. Where are the smart alphas that actually achieve great things? Slaying pussy is not a great accomplishment to me.

Closest I've seen recently is Rick from Rick and Morty, his flaw is being a drunk, but at least he does whatever he wants and creates awesome things. That show is rp as fuck in general.

[–]shoup881 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And Bart is adventurous, interesting, rebellious and courageous, which 'happens' to fit perfectly into "boys will be boys".

But stupid. He's your criminal alpha. Fun, but won't make much money, and unthinking. He'll be like his dad in 20 years, stuck in a blue collar job and drunk, or be a lower end career criminal.

Homer is one of the protagonists, but that doesn't mean that he's meant as a role-model. He's an anti-role-model: don't be like Homer.

Except he is who most average men, blue collar workers and below, relate to.

Don't choke your son just because you have anger issues. Don't fall asleep on your job especially not if you are working in a nuclear reactor. Don't take your kids college money to buy something stupid.

It's a comically exaggerated portrayal of an useless drunk father.

The average man in America is a drunk father.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumes1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlackAquarius 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was also indoctrinated by religious schooling most of my life and from my perspective, Christianity was extremely harsh on female sexuality as well. This is how I think the "women are wonderful" effect works against us sometimes - it creates more rigid expectations to live up to with harsher consequences if you don't. I was told that men needed sex and that women didn't, so that sexual thoughts were a much worse sin for me than they were for my male classmates. These were the same people who made it clear that masturbation was normal and expected for boys while there is something broken about a girl who even feels those urges (cue the stereotypical repressed Catholic school girl shame).

I'm not trying to say it wasn't damaging to boys too, I believe these religious messages concerning sexuality can be harmful in a lot of ways.

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Leeloooooooooooooooo0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Excellent idea for a post; cutting down on willful misinterpretation is always a good goal. One point:

"We were indoctrinated by blue propaganda during our youth by Disney cartoons and shit" Which Disney cartoons? The Disney cartoons where female protagonist ends up with model looking royalty?

The girl never ends up with the protagonist because the protagonist is alpha; he gets the girl when he becomes vulnerable, when he shows he really cares, when he expresses his undying love, etc. Examples:

In Beauty and the Beast, Belle hates the Beast when he's aggressive, decisive, and super masculine (she hates Gaston for the same reasons). It's only when he cleans up for her, learns to dance, uses his table manners, and tells her all his deepest fears and insecurities that she falls for him.
In Aladdin, Jasmine has no particular love for Aladdin when he's a rich, powerful, alpha male prince with magic toys. It's only when he tells her how he feels and promises to go anywhere with her that she swoons.
In The Lion King, Nala thinks Simba is an insufferable jerk when he's a wild bachelor hanging out with his two best pals all the time. Again, it's when he shows he has feelings for her, and shows vulnerability around her, and leaves his hedonistic lifestyle to assume actual responsibility (i.e. grows up) that she comes to him.

Boiling these stories down to "oh he was an alpha male" (when the love interest hated him most) is a thimble-deep reading. The actual fantasy is taming that alpha male into a man with alpha window dressing (royalty, riches, looks, power) but beta behaviors.

[–]yo_radical_one 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]yo_radical_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yo_radical_one 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link