Their claim is simple: patriarchy is “biological” because men historically provided protection and enforced rights. They deploy this in two predictable ways—first as the fantasy of the lone “alpha warrior,” and second as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism, insisting women only gain rights by appealing to male force.

But before touching history or philosophy, there’s an obvious problem: we invented firearms centuries ago. Modern technology already erased whatever biological advantage individual men once had. A woman with a Glock doesn’t need an “alpha protector”; she is one. And if society collapsed tomorrow, it doesn’t suddenly become 5000 BC—women don’t forget how to operate the exact same weapons men use. Even without guns, collective coordination easily overwhelms individual strength. The “one man beats one woman” observation is trivial and tells us only who’s more likely to violate the social contract, not who should be in charge of anything.

Historically, force doctrine is just as flimsy. The idea that “men” collectively held and bestowed rights is inaccurate—rights were monopolized by tiny elites, and most men lived under domination, conscription, or serfdom. Appeals for rights were never requests for favors; they were demands that existing rights—grounded in the basic premise of rational agency—finally be respected. Philosophers from Locke to Rawls have pointed out that rights do not originate from brute capacity but from the status of persons as moral equals. Red-pill logic erases that entire tradition because it can’t survive it.

At its core, force doctrine is merely a refurbished version of might makes right. It’s the same reasoning used by warlords, abusers, and other people who can’t distinguish between “having power” and “having legitimacy.” Calling it a theory of masculinity or politics doesn’t make it less primitive; it just adds a veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

In short: technology invalidates the personal-strength myth, history contradicts the narrative of male “granting” of rights, and political philosophy rejects the idea that force creates authority. Force doctrine doesn’t explain patriarchy—it exposes the insecurity of people who need violence to feel relevant so why still use it as an appeal?