~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
MrWillRedPill
[–]rkg-pua11 points 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Undesirable behavior from women (they’re manipulative, overly-emotional, hypergamous) is attributed to their inherent biology, while undesirable behavior from men (weak, feminized, too sensitive) is attributed to a culture forced upon them. You can’t have it both ways.
I generally think Manson is great, but he is wrong here. Our culture suppresses male nature and encourages female nature (hypergamy).
Until mens nature is equally encouraged, which isnt happening anytime soon, his argument is flawed.
[–]BoyMeetsHarem 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I was about to post this exact quote from the article, but to make a different point - who cares whether it's attributed to biology or culture? Manson hasn't disproven the existence of hypergamy here, he has simply shined a light on the possibility that it isn't explained intrinsically by biology.
To which I say, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?? If we believe hypergamy is a real thing (and I do) then who cares what causes it? We are not going to fundamentally change our culture anytime soon, so whether it's cultural or biological, it's here to stay.
Might as well optimize your strategy to work with it.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a big point. Most TRP writers agree that social factors are a huge part of what make up people, which is why not every age resembles our own exactly. It takes effort to convince people not to behave like the animals they are.
But if you tell people the animal inside of them is beautiful and noble, whose impulses are inherently good for them and society at large? All bets are off. Women are told their natures are wonderful and empowering, and men are told that they have a criminal rape-bot inside of them. Who is going to behave badly?
[–]Modredpillschool 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
A lot of non arguments wrapped in a veneer of UNfalsifiable bs to maintain a level beyond reproach for the few arguments put forward.
[–]Endorsed Contributorracontemoi 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's fairly predictable, really. Losers lean politically left, towards helping other losers through laws and redistribution. Most scientists have few social skills, so they grew as losers. Most scientists are therefore lefties.
Bias is extremely common in science, therefore when scientists see something like epigenetics they say "aha! All that racism stuff is disproven! It's environment that makes poor people lazy and hunter-gatherers stupid."
But it's not. They're poor because they're lazy and they're dumb because there's no need for abstract thinking in the jungle.
Never underestimate a scientist's ability to misunderstand a complex system.
[–]piggnutt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The sophistry and dishonesty of that crowd is amazing.
"Because environment is a factor, we just know in our feels that nature has nothing to do with anything. Evolution, therefore, only occurs from the neck down." -Creationism for liberals
[–]Endorsed Contributorracontemoi 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha yeahhh, they really are the new creationists.
[–]Piroko 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Mark Manson
Who?
[–]IntrovertSuccess 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Been in the PU scene for 6 - 7 years.
[–]socal83 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
this supposed bias goes away once you just admit that you're a shitty person. it's got other names too, like the 'fundamental attribution error'
i admit i'm a shitty person along with most other people, now what?
[–]DaddyMonster 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Manson makes some valid points in his book "Models", but he is a bit of an idealist (understatement) and many of his writings, esp on the so called "madonna whore complex" seem tailored towards justifying his own behaviour and/or philosophical/ideological leanings. Essentially, his position seems to be that if you judge a woman unfit for a serious relationship due to her past, you're a bad person and/or needy and/or operating from a scarcity frame. Bullxxxx if you ask me.
He gives of white knight vibes at an increasing rate IMO. That said, a lot of his material is great, but as with everything else, one should make up one's own mind. To me, self improvement is about bringing forth one's true nature; some of the stuff he advocates seems to be about reprograming oneself in order to get more poon, and that's treason against oneself.
[–]roe_ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's important to recognize that much in the manosphere comes from anger.
It's important, also, to understand that this expression of anger, and specifically how it's expressed in the manosphere is important to the process of the collective project of reclaiming and redefining masculinity.
But I think the anger is transitory - we're dealing with a solvable problem.
It's valid, as Mark does, to observe biases, but it's wrong to mistake the anger (and it's importance) for the bias.
[–]forbinsdecline 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is some truth to this when you apply it to how some posters here look at their own behavior. So frequently I hear posters blaming popular american culture for their blue pill behavior. They are just picking the parts of the culture that reinforce their existing attitudes and ignoring the parts that tell them to be more aggressive.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The actor/observer bias states that all of us unconsciously assume others to be more responsible for their negative actions than their environment, and for ourselves to be less responsible for our negative actions than our environment.
The problem is that it does not say which one is more correct. Evaluating others or evaluating ourselves? I think we evaluate others more correctly than ourselves, because less involved. Nemo iudex in causa sua - nobody can be a judge of his own case. Basically, we should judge ourselves the same strict ways as we do others.
False parallel.
Female, undesirable, cultural: bitchy feminist
Female, undesirable, biological: shit-testing hypergamy, cheating with alphas
Male, undesirable, cultural: weak, too sensitive etc.
Male, undesirable, biological: aggressive, dominating, tyrannical, rude, picking fights, yelling people down
[–]iamme21 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So...
We're all delusional and biased because of psychological mechanics. Okay but I'm not sure how I apply this groundbreaking knowledge to my life. Don't trust my own eyes and decisions? Be extremely cautious when making any observation, though, opinion or decision? Assume everyone is innocent, wonderful and loving because my brain doesn't dwell and attack itself when it comes to my own mistakes thereby indirectly holding everyone else caged in my sick fucking double standards philosophy preventing them from enjoying their life?
We unfairly stereotype women. Sorry. I didn't mean to oppress, I'm just a simple peasant walking on the shit stained grass from all these white stallions riding around. Forgive me knight, forgive me.
"All of the men who make these statements have a history of rejection or emotional trauma involving women."
NAWALT philosophy everywhere. Clearly if a man ever had a problem with a woman it was from one of those rare naughty women who was picked up at a whore house or a "sleazy club". Why the fuck do I keep going to these fucking places and building a rejection history and having my heart broken? I can't wait to apply this new revelation and change!
So apparently we have a problem with nature vs nurture. Apparently issues with women stem from culture which we unfairly blame on nature. Clearly these issues haven't been experienced by almost all groupings of humans to ever exist. Nope, just modern western society is the first. While on the other hand effeminate, weak, males might be nature caused if we're going to play by our own rules. Faggots and walking tampons clearly built human civilization, clearly.
"We are all equal". Under what standard of measurement? This knight must be incapable of a fundamental, core mechanism of critical thinking and absence of severe mental retardation: Judgement. Clearly everyone is equal. The planet is just one big equally sized, same date manufactured chunks of matter.
Finishing the article one should clearly emulate the author and meditate, watch the clouds go by and be very thoughtful. All core prerequisites to any sort of success.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]rkg-pua11 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoyMeetsHarem 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Modredpillschool 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorracontemoi 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]piggnutt 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorracontemoi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Piroko 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IntrovertSuccess 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]socal83 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DaddyMonster 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]roe_ 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]forbinsdecline 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iamme21 point [recovered] | Copy Link