X-post from /r/changemyview: TRP is mostly correct

Interversity · 2016-03-27T21:26:06+00:00

I just came across this thread by our very own /u/coratoad on /r/changemyview...

[–]OlBastardRP|She said she was 18.16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coratoad6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coratoad1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ForeskinLampRed8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

my response to the OP:

I think the fact that most people read your points and then go "...yes but women..." is probably some of the best evidence for your post that you could possibly ask for. Most people here have a pretty simplistic view of TRP, and take it as antagonistic woman-hating, or a judgement of women in general, when really it's just a bunch of guys pointing out behaviors that they observe, and comparing notes with other guys. Sometimes science gets brought up, and sometimes it's even done well.

What most posters in here fail to see is that a lot RPers don't care, and that what they're fascinated with is the truth, without judgement, no matter how ugly or scary. If a woman cheats on her husband, it doesn't necessarily reflect on her as a person. Her decision-making, maybe, but she could be feeding homeless people in her spare time for all we know. Even if all women cheated, they could still be good people in other ways, because no one is truly one thing. Sometimes women do shit things, and pointing this out is something that society has a kneejerk reaction over, because they think you're negatively judging all women, or that women are only that one thing.

If I start making the points you yourself have just made, I'm suddenly a bitter misogynist who believes all women are evil, when I haven't inferred any judgement of character, only pointed out certain behavioral trends or statistical facts. It's hard for people in here to even accept that women prefer more masculine guys when you have a paper in your OP demonstrating that male dominance in the relationship is one of the best predictors of stability.

I think you and I both know that the answers in this thread -- for the most part -- aren't directly addressing your points.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–]ForeskinLampRed11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

I find a lot of the conversation highly offensive to people, although much of it does target women. When I said "toxic" I meant that it perpetuates negative views of women, which can be harmful to both the individual who holds those views and the people they interact with. Use of the word toxic is not gender specific so I don't know where you're getting that I'm trying to shame "masculine discourse".

I wish it was just what you say it was. I would not have an issue with it if it were. But what I see is a forum supposedly about "self improvement" that churns out very negative beliefs about women and relationships with them too. The theory may not be intended to be harmful, but the application apparently is.

And who made you the moral police? Why do you care so much what a few guys on the internet say to one another, and who are you to judge if what they say is "toxic" or not?

Um...I thought this was a discussion sub. One of the biggest conflicts between RP and BP is that BP argues from a moral standpoint so I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive? You should expect morality to come into the discussion when you post here or on PPD.

There are far worse places online than TRP.

That's irrelevant to me. That doesn't make TRP better.

[–]ForeskinLampRed4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Something being offensive to you or other people is not an argument against it. Neither is morality for that matter; something being immoral has no bearing on its truth. The truth is still the truth, no matter how it's delivered, who supplies it, or how it makes us feel.

The word toxic as it pertains to this discussion is rarely used in any context other than masculinity. Toxic femininity, for example, is only a relatively recent concept that has come out of the push-back against third wave feminism. Again, it has no real meaning other than attempting to pathologize normal expressions of male sexuality.

Also, what negative beliefs exactly? Be specific if we're going to discuss this. Following on from this, a belief being negative or not has no bearing on its veracity. It may be that those negative beliefs are entirely valid and true.

As for TRP being harmful to women, please. Women aren't damsels in distress, and they're certainly not stupid. They're entirely capable of looking out for themselves when necessary, and it's laughable to assert that a few amateurs on the internet are somehow out-manipulating the gender that invented makeup, push-up bras, and selfie angles that hide cankles and a fat ass. Women are the masters when it comes to manipulation.

I mean, if you're so worried about the morality and the potential for victimisation, why aren't you going after false rape accusers? Where's the outrage and activism there? Not only are they proven manipulators, they've actually destroyed lives, and make life harder for real victims. Even better, there's an endless supply of them. There are major rape cases falling apart just about every day now.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Morality is absolutely a relevant argument - regardless of how truthful something is. That's one of the reasons the RP and BP conflict. I don't find TRP toxic because it offends me. It honestly has very little impact on me specifically, my husband and all the men in my life think it's bullshit. I find it toxic because it promotes harmful and destructive views of women and relationships. Hey I also don't like racism for the same reason. You can be offended by something and yet still have a good argument against it. They are no mutually exclusive.

Again, it has no real meaning other than attempting to pathologize normal expressions of male sexuality.

I have never used it that way. I have never referred to "toxic masculinity" although I have heard that term used, and I did not intend to use it that way. You're adding a definition of the word that I didn't intend, so it's not me that pathologizing anything.

As for TRP being harmful to women, please. Women aren't damsels in distress, and they're certainly not stupid. They're entirely capable of looking out for themselves when necessary, and it's laughable to assert that a few amateurs on the internet are somehow out-manipulating the gender that invented makeup, push-up bras, and selfie angles that hide cankles and a fat ass. Women are the masters when it comes to manipulation.

What are you even going on about here? Some of the specifics I am talking about: the view that women are biologically "less", the view that women are only good for sex, the view that women will cheat the instant they find someone more "alpha", the view that women haven't earned anything but instead are just offered everything on a silver platter, your apparent view that all women will manipulate men to the man's detriment, etc. I could go on. These are all views I've seen spouted on TRP. And yet none of these views have anything but a very tenuous basis in fact (some more than others, of course). These are just biased beliefs that some terpers subscribe to to make them feel better.

I absolutely am against false rape accusers. I just honestly have never seen one IRL. Ironically, when I practiced criminal law, I had a case (can't go into too many specifics ethically) where a woman was charged with false rape. She was actually raped. What happened to her was just devastating. I do think false rape accusers need to be prosecuted as frauds. So I fully support that cause. I just don't think it happens IRL as you and many TRPers choose to believe.

[–]ForeskinLampRed3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What are you even going on about here? Some of the specifics I am talking about: the view that women are biologically "less", the view that women are only good for sex,

I've never seen anyone on TRP openly believe that women are biologically "less". I mean, in what context are you talking about? Again, be specific.

As for women only being good for sex, I can't blame men for wanting to avoid serious relationships. I think it's a rational response when a serious relationship could see you lose half of your assets and a significant chunk of your income (and I have seen this happen, repeatedly). Hell, even if it's something as simple as no women having the traits you look for in a long term partner, it makes sense to use the system to your advantage and have fuck buddies rather than partnerships. The only context in which it makes sense to have a long term relationship is if you want to settle down and have kids, or you meet someone who is so fantastic that you couldn't leave them. I'm not so inclined to have kids right now, and I'm skeptical that the second one even exists.

the view that women will cheat the instant they find someone more "alpha",

No, only that the potential is there; there's a difference between the desire to do something, and actually following through on it. Some women will cheat, and all women have the potential to do so if they're inclined. Generally, the guy she cheats with will lack your shortcomings (be more dominant, cooler, stronger, better looking, or some combination of factors).

the view that women haven't earned anything but instead are just offered everything on a silver platter,

I'm an engineer. I graduated with girls who wouldn't have gotten through if it weren't for the guys helping them. In a tough job market, they're gainfully employed with shit grades and zero analytical skills while a lot of the guys I graduated with struggled despite having far better GPAs, publications, and extra-curricular involvement. In some areas, women genuinely do get handed opportunities on a golden platter. I don't blame them for taking those opportunities, but let's not pretend like they don't exist, especially in STEM.

your apparent view that all women will manipulate men to the man's detriment, etc.

Where did I say that they would manipulate men to the man's detriment? I said that women are the masters of manipulation, full stop. Some women will use manipulation, others won't. All have the potential, if they're so inclined, to destroy a man socially and end his career. If it comes to a he-said-she-said dispute, men are far more likely to be seen as the aggressors and abusers. Pointing this out doesn't imply that any singular woman will use this to her advantage, it's just pointing out that the advantage exists. You are the one inferring additional bias here.

I could go on. These are all views I've seen spouted on TRP. And yet none of these views have anything but a very tenuous basis in fact (some more than others, of course). These are just biased beliefs that some terpers subscribe to to make them feel better.

Most of us started out on the other side of the fence, and found that the reality we observed didn't mesh with what we were told. Terpers aren't born, they're made. I would wager that the average terper (especially on this board) probably has a pretty good grounding in underlying studies and stats on gender issues, and that probably helped shape their opinions. Holding any kind of gender-based bias is pretty hard in this day and age, so it's a lot more likely to me that terpers were forced into their views. There is a crazy fringe element on TRP, but a huge number of us are athiest, well-educated, and socially liberal in our views. We just happen to be very reductionist in our view of humanity, and believe that people are animals driven by their impulses at the end of the day.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Specifically, I've seen posts/comments about women being biologically inferior because they are less rational, more emotional, not as intelligent, not as capable of becoming skilled, etc.

As for women only being good for sex, I can't blame men for wanting to avoid serious relationships. I think it's a rational response when a serious relationship could see you lose half of your assets and a significant chunk of your income (and I have seen this happen, repeatedly).

This is exactly what I'm talking about though. It's one thing to caution men on just what they are getting into with LTRs and marriage. That's just smart. It's completely another to turn that into "women are only useful for sex and nothing else." Can you not see the difference? One is helpful and honestly just common sense. The other is destructive and promotes an unhealthy worldview.

No, only that the potential is there; there's a difference between the desire to do something, and actually following through on it. Some women will cheat, and all women have the potential to do so if they're inclined.

As is for men. As is for literally any person. But again, I see a lot of terpers acting like this is a given for any woman in any circumstance at all times, which just isn't true. I have literally had a TRPer tell me that not only will I cheat on my husband (as if it's preordained) but that he didn't believe me I hadn't cheated on him already. This is not a healthy way to view women. I understand AWALT (as it's been explained to me by TRP) and based on my understanding, this guy went way overboard with it. Just shows you that the terpers applying these theories don't always do it right, and when they don't, it can most definitely be harmful.

I'm an engineer. I graduated with girls who wouldn't have gotten through if it weren't for the guys helping them. In a tough job market, they're gainfully employed with shit grades and zero analytical skills while a lot of the guys I graduated with struggled despite having far better GPAs, publications, and extra-curricular involvement. In some areas, women genuinely do get handed opportunities on a golden platter. I don't blame them for taking those opportunities, but let's not pretend like they don't exist, especially in STEM.

Well I'm a lawyer. I got nothing handed to me on a golden platter. I've earned my way every bit as much as the men in my industry. In fact, I'd say there's actually some bias in my specific industry against women taking lead counsel roles. Not because they aren't qualified or smart enough. Can't say it's completely gender-based either but the question is: why? I can't speak to STEM because it isn't my industry, but suffice it to say, mine requires a similar amount of skill, education, intelligence and ambition.

Where did I say that they would manipulate men to the man's detriment? I said that women are the masters of manipulation, full stop. Some women will use manipulation, others won't. All have the potential, if they're so inclined, to destroy a man socially and end his career.

You're right you didn't say that specifically, I went ahead and assumed it out of what you were saying. So if that's not what you meant, ok, I can agree I assumed it. But what woman is going around ending careers? Honestly. The outlier cases you see in the media are not indicative of every woman ever. And men can be just as manipulative as women. The only RPer I ever met IRL was the most manipulative (and insecure) person I've ever met. Not a woman. All that guy did was apply dread after dread. Very manipulative.

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hey I also don't like racism for the same reason.

This is an interesting topic related to this by the way.

In my country, for the societal mainstream racism is - due to it being inseparably intertwined with the most unfortunate period of our history - considered practically the worst thing ever. And while I certainly don't find it appealing, I am lucid enough to see that trying to be as non-racist as possible may lead to catastrophic outcomes, for example when it leads you to accept an unhealthy amount of unqualified immigration from war-torn areas without any (feasible) plan whatseover what you'll do with them in the long term, which happened in my country precisely because of this: Basically, there is a very strong segment of our population - and unfortunately they are overrepresented among politicians and vastly overrepresented among political journalists - that operates under the assumption that collectively setting ourselves on fire to keep other people warm is preferable to harboring racist sentiments, even when the later just means in this case "not wanting to set ourselves on fire to keep other people warm".

And a pretty similar case can be made for anti-female sexism of the TRP brand, which is something most bloops don't understand: At its most basic level, it's just reminding guys in the most unambiguous terms that setting themselves on fire to keep women warm is a shitty idea.

And if you seriously ask "but who asks men to set themselves on fire to keep women warm?!" I want to point you to any feminist or white knight or feminist white knight giving men directives on how to behave.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you in theory. I don't know enough about the current refugee situation (only listen to NPR in the mornings) to feel like I have a real position on the issue, other than there's obviously a problem but regardless these people need help.

And if you seriously ask "but who asks men to set themselves on fire to keep women warm?!" I want to point you to any feminist or white knight or feminist white knight giving men directives on how to behave.

Personally I think you're getting a little head of yourself here. Sure I would agree that men shouldn't disadvantage themselves voluntarily solely for the betterment of anyone. But I think there's a fine line between what is for the greater public good and what truly "disadvantaging oneself" really means. Are there requests/expectations of men that unreasonably benefit women with no benefit to men? Sure. Are there also requests/expectations of men that benefit women and ultimately the greater good that don't really disadvantage men? I believe those exist too. I don't think it's as simple as saying every "directive on how to behave" is harmful to men either as a group or as individuals. I would say women have a lot of directives on how to behave as well, despite feminism trying to debunk a lot of them.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you trying to say that every single feminist act that works to empower or provide incentives to help women disadvantages men? Honestly asking. You think there's nothing that's mutually beneficial?

I think the mutually beneficial stuff isn't even remotely as prevalent as feminists claim. You're free to give me a few examples of things you would consider mutually beneficial and why and I may offer you my take on it.

There's nothing to be gained by supporting women in the workplace? WTF do you mean by that?

Simple, that for men (individually as well as a group) there isn't much to be gained by supporting women in the workplace. Sure, if you're only counting CEOs who get more potential employees or politicians who can brag about "better" employment numbers, then yeah, it has its merits. But the average guy only gets more competition and, in case of fields where women enjoy preferential hiring, competition he has to fight with an arm tied behind his back.

Women shouldn't be working or women workers shouldn't be supported in some way? Little girls shouldn't be motivated to go into marginalized fields and to have ambition? Explain please because I don't understand.

All ways in which supporting women benefits, surprise surprise, women. It makes sense why women want it and it's perfectly legitimate for them to work towards it, but please don't piss in my pocket only to tell me it's raining when saying that this is for the betterment for men as well.

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the mutually beneficial stuff isn't even remotely as prevalent as feminists claim. You're free to give me a few examples of things you would consider mutually beneficial and why and I may offer you my take on it.

Better access to birth control or even free birth control, better access to abortion, better sex education, paid maternity leave (which I would argue can be advantageous to some men and not others). These would be some things that arguably indirectly benefit men, particularly if you believe some the MRA positions made on this sub. But I do agree there's plenty of movements that do not provide any benefit to men, and some which are directly disadvantageous to men. I tend to think there's less of the latter than you do apparently.

But the average guy only gets more competition and, in case of fields where women enjoy preferential hiring, competition he has to fight with an arm tied behind his back.

So it's affirmative action that is your biggest beef? Or are there other feminists causes you think are worse? Well, when it comes to preferential hiring, here's what I will say: I've never seen it, at least in my industry. Not denying it doesn't exist, I'm sure there are plenty of companies who do this, but I don't see it at all so it's hard for me to say whether it's beneficial or not to the companies who employ it. I can obviously see why it's not beneficial to men, so no debate there, but it's hard for me to gauge whether it's beneficial to the company/society as a whole because I just don't really see it.

The only way I see any shape of that in my industry would be for steering committee slates for big coordinated personal injury cases. These are court appointed so it's not "hiring" but it is a huge benefit to an attorney's career and it can make you millions. Since so many of those involve birth controls or products for women, I don't find a problem with that at all. These slates are typically determined by the old boy's club in my industry. It's very political so I won't bore you with all the details. Judges are starting to react by asking for more women to be appointed to leadership positions, particularly if the product or injury is focused on women. Since this can only benefit the clients, I have no problem with it whatsoever because ultimately it's them who we need to be thinking about.

All ways in which supporting women benefits, surprise surprise, women. It makes sense why women want it and it's perfectly legitimate for them to work towards it, but please don't piss in my pocket only to tell me it's raining when saying that this is for the betterment for men as well.

I was trying to understand your position. I mean ultimately, these are people too. It's one thing to say "I have traditional family values and prefer women to be in the home." If that's representative of your values. It's completely different to say "women shouldn't be allowed to work" or "there should be incentives to prevent women from working." Which would be imposing your values on a whole class of people. So I'm trying to figure out where you fall on the spectrum. If you fall in the "women should be encouraged/promoted, but only when there's merit and not at the expense of anyone, including men" category, I can get behind that for the most part.

[–]probably_quite_drunk 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My statement that "people" find TRP offensive isn't illogical. Because I've witnessed "people" being offended by TRP. And that includes both men and women. The original comment I responded to made it seem as if only women are offended by TRP. Since I've seen plenty of men on this sub find it offensive, I said "people." You'll also notice I used the word "people" and not "the general populace" or "all people everywhere." So, no, I didn't say that.

But what you cannot do is act like your opinion represents the general populace as you are trying to do.

Ok I wasn't trying to do this, but if you've misunderstood, I'll make it clear that I'm not speaking for everyone everywhere. Are we understood on that point?

As a related question - what is your opinion on the matter? Do you believe the "general populace" is in favor of TRP theories?

[–]probably_quite_drunk 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]purple_lockPurplish0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wish it was just what you say it was. I would not have an issue with it if it were. But what I see is a forum supposedly about "self improvement" that churns out very negative beliefs about women and relationships with them too.

What if it actually is just men trading notes and observations about women? Can you only call it that if the notes and observations put women in a positive light? If it puts them in a negative light then it's some sort of propaganda? What if those "negative beliefs" about women are entirely justified?

Because I personally think that's exactly what is going on at TRP. Men sharing there experiences and notes on relationships they've had with women. It's just that, those experiences are overwhelmingly negative. Personally, I think women should look at TRP et al as men being truly honest with what they've been through, and what they want, and act accordingly, instead of dismissing it as "woman hating."

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you only call it that if the notes and observations put women in a positive light? If it puts them in a negative light then it's some sort of propaganda? What if those "negative beliefs" about women are entirely justified?

No of course not. I believe in some RP theories myself that may not be putting women in some angelic, positive light. But are you arguing that all the RP stuff we see on this sub that is negative about women is entirely justified? Because I see stuff all the time that is completely unjustified.

Personally, I think women should look at TRP et al as men being truly honest with what they've been through, and what they want, and act accordingly, instead of dismissing it as "woman hating."

There's a difference between a group of men commensurating about their negative experiences with women and discussing ways to self-improve and learn from whatever mistakes were made, versus turning that into harmful attitudes about women as a whole like "most women will manipulate you and use you to get what they want", "women are irrational and should be treated like children", "no woman has earned her way in life, she's been handed everything on a silver platter," and "women will most likely cheat when a higher alpha comes along." Just to name a few. Can you not see the difference?

[–]purple_lockPurplish0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No of course not. I believe in some RP theories myself that may not be putting women in some angelic, positive light. But are you arguing that all the RP stuff we see on this sub that is negative about women is entirely justified? Because I see stuff all the time that is completely unjustified.

I won't argue that, and I spend little to no time on the main sub anyway. I just think that much more of it is justified than the mainstream/BP would have you believe.

There's a difference between a group of men commensurating about their negative experiences with women and discussing ways to self-improve and learn from whatever mistakes were made, versus turning that into harmful attitudes about women as a whole like "most women will manipulate you and use you to get what they want", "women are irrational and should be treated like children", "no woman has earned her way in life, she's been handed everything on a silver platter," and "women will most likely cheat when a higher alpha comes along." Just to name a few. Can you not see the difference?

Yes for some of those things. But what if those observations are the reality for many men? What if they have never been with a woman who didn't manipulate them, or cheat on them, or act irrationally around them?

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]sleeping_willow_Blue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

JFC it's just a word. A word I didn't realize the "feminist weasels" had a monopoly on. Does it really bother you that much?

My argument is that TRP, when applied by some followers, is harmful and destructive. You see posts all the time about men basically sabotaging a perfectly good thing because they overanalyze what they presume to be manipulation from women. You see posts where TRP men say women are not valuable for anything other than sex. That they have no ambition, that they haven't earned anything because everything is given to them, that they will jump ship anytime a more "alpha" man comes along so you should always make sure to keep her on her toes with manipulative tactics. That type of application I believe is harmful and destructive. It fosters a "me vs. them" mentality, it promotes deception, and it hurts both men and women.

I get that you're upset, but I'm not really arguing anything novel here. So please relax. I'm not trying to attack you at all.

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sleeping_willow_Blue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Silly or not, I'm just saying how it is. There are certain words and phrases that are toxic (haha) to a post. If you use them, the opposite side won't take your post as seriously because you are revealing your position prematurely. For instance, if I said "Sluts are disgusting. Here are the reasons...blah blah blah.." The only people who will read this are people looking for outrage porn. But if I create an argument that doesn't use these trigger words, people are more likely to read and think about my post. They want to know how I feel about sluts, but they have to think about what I write to figure it out. For an example, "Promiscuous women certainly provide a validation and companionship to some men, but the implications of their behavior might have unintended consequences." You think you might know how I feel about sluts, but you aren't sure. You have to keep reading to find out. It just provides some motivation for people to think about your posts and take you seriously.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sleeping_willow_Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Koffing 4 points4 points4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Koffing 4 points4 points4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]probably_quite_drunk1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkinnySweaty1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviously1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolobviouslyRed Pill3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

IMO, that's not a legitimate justification.

Yes it is, for the simple reason that anti-female sexism is heavily policed and frowned upon as a rule.

Think of it: from early on, guys are fed all these stupid stories about women being basically super-capable angelic beings and every man should take pride sacrificing his life for their collective well-being. Yet when push comes to pull, all this behavior gets you is scorned, being used and abused and cornered in a dead bedroom or on the incel heap.

And then someone comes along and says "well, you were told bullshit all your life, you wasted your time pursuing an ideal that doesn't exist and let people take advantage of you on the way".

Of course this leads to the anger phase, and expecting people to take that realization in stride is just adding fuel to the flames.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. Fanning the flames doesn't fix things, it makes things worse. If TRP truly wants men to self-improve then they need to also focus on the angry men who just want to take their anger out in any way possible in an entirely destructive manner. That doesn't help anyone, IMO. I prefer the TRP that says "this is the way it is, and in order to change things for yourself, you have options that include healthy and productive ways to improve yourself," rather than the TRP that promotes unhealthy lashing out at women and unrealistic and negative stereotypes of women and relationships. But that's my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

I think there's a difference between being supportive and letting someone vent and actually fostering a negative/cynical view of women that develops into an unrealistic "me vs. them" mentality.

[–]Johnny_Lawless_Esq 1 points1 points1 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But what I read far too often goes much deeper than that and becomes much more toxic. Then TRP says "don't worry about it, it's just the anger phase." IMO, that's not a legitimate justification.

You speak as if TRP has to answer to you or someone else, and to that I say: Fuck off. We are not responsible to you or anyone for what we say.

That said...

Yeah, there are angry, misogynistic twits on redpill. But they aren't most of RP, not even half. I'd say 25% at most. The rest are pretty reasonable guys who, like me, tend to chuckle and roll their eyes when they see bullshit pseudoscience posted in the name of misogyny. Sometimes we even cut it down with logic and argumentation. But we aren't sniveling feminists who police embarassing or distasteful ideas and make them disappear. RP is not for the thin-skinned. No male space ever has been.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]moodyprism 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]energyvolley-6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe[S] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My answer is no.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/wiki/main#wiki_1._bias_against_men_in_relationship_contexts

The 2004 study sent out a survey to practicing psychologists, asking them to look at a list of 100 behaviours and decide whether they count as psychologically abusive or not [1]. Half the participants received a version of the survey where the actions were said to be done by a man to his wife, and the other half received a version indicating that the actions were done by a woman to her husband. Out of the 100 behaviours, just 1 was more likely to be seen as abusive if done by a woman, but 42 (almost half) were more likely to be seen as abusive if done by a man.

Not to mention Duluth Model which refuses to acknowledge that women can be instigators of violence as well, as we see in the 2011 NISVS which showed men suffering more DV than women.

[–]dakruNeither8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps that's the case for you personally, but I don't think you can take it for granted that other people don't have a hesitancy to see women as aggressors or perpetrators or wrong-doers. In fact there's data that, in my opinion, quite clearly shows that people do have this hesitancy: women receive substantially shorter sentences than men (when controlling for legally relevant variables), according to numerous studies.

Here's an excerpt from one paper that talks about judges' perception of gender (and race, since there are also racial disparities in sentencing) as a reason for this disparity (citation provided in the link I included above):

The explanation offered by Spohn and Beichner (2000) also focuses on judges’ perceptions and stereotypes of men and women. They suggest that the findings of their study lend credence to assertions that court officials attempt to simplify and routinize the sentencing process by relying on stereotypes that link defendant characteristics such as race or ethnicity and gender to perceptions of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and risk of recidivism. They note that criminal justice officials interviewed for the study admitted that they viewed female offenders, particularly those with dependent children, differently from male offenders.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tkxr 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moldy_GeckoPurple Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion.

What?

She means statements like: "I'm frustrated because women always reject me." That's a legitimate reason to feel frustrated but it implicitly blames women.

She isn't saying "they can never blame women ever." She is saying we have to be careful. She is right, we do.

Male sexuality is considered shameful

Oh really

Yes. Staring at an ass is considered shameful. Many women shame men for judging women based on looks, despite the fact they are wired to do so. Saying "I like this woman more because she is hot" is considered shameful among a large subsection of society, despite the fact it is really his prerogative how he wants to judge people.

Getting butthurt about it is hardly a useful response (which is also where feminists go wrong) but you have to have your head physically stuffed into the ground to miss that.

[–]energyvolley6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coratoad5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tkxr 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]coratoad0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]coratoad1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	X-post from /r/changemyview: TRP is mostly correct
Author	Interversity
Upvotes	13
Comments	144
Date	March 27, 2016 9:26 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4c7a55/xpost_from_rchangemyview_trp_is_mostly_correct/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/x-post-from-rchangemyview-trp-is-mostly-correct.275443 https://theredarchive.com/post/275443

Comments