MRA=PUA=POS=DUMBMALESLUT=LULZ

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Velocitea 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedSunBlue 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedSunBlue 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed Contributorpontifx 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

This post has been deleted but I wanted to comment on a few things, because I think you may have misinterpreted.

Now, as for what I believe this sub gets wrong: there are people in this sub however tend to automatically assume all woman want assholes, and although woman can be attracted to assholes, it doesn't make for a long lasting and fulfilling relationship.

Being an asshole/confident is really just one factor in the grand scheme. The red piill theory is that women want somebody of equal or higher value in the sexual marketplace. Being an asshole is one way to boost (perhaps artificially) your SMV. Being good looking is another. Being rich is another. Women all want the highest status/value mate they can get at. Confidence and a certain level of arrogance I believe is key to good game, but certainly isn't the only variable.

Many people also assume woman should be considered lower than men,

This is a common misconception. They make worse men than men do. But they make great women. Judging a woman based on a man's standards will always show women to be "lower" than men. For instance, look at the olympics. Objectively, women are actually worse at olympic sports than men. That's why we have women's competitions separate.

But that doesn't mean somehow they hold less value than men. Looking at what men are willing to do for access to a woman, it seems women hold much higher social value than men. (Male disposability and such).

A common Red Pill sentiment is that on the scale we measure men, yes, women will always come up short. But that's unfair to do. Can't judge lemons by an orange's standard. Both have a great place in cooking, but if you ask which is sweeter, the orange always wins.

that they stop aging mentally at 18

It's not that they stop aging mentally at 18, it's that they reach maturity much sooner by 18, and then based on societal pressures, often find no reason to pursue further personality development. (Why work on a sense of humor when people will like you without one?)

Ever wonder why female nerds are so cool? It's because they have hobbies and developed personalities. Of course, they did so for the same reason most men do, because they won't get by on looks alone. This isn't a man vs woman question- it's a question of economics and asking the right questions. What drives the development of certain qualities and behaviors?

that they are trying to suppress male masculinity in today's society

This is pretty self evident if you follow Jezebel.

that they shouldn't vote, that they think too illogically

The only argument ever held on women voting was regarding their lack of responsibility to what the vote entails. Men had the responsibility of conscription for the right to vote. That's actually why they lowered the voting age to 18- because men were fighting for our country without representation!

that woman can't make good leaders

Self interested women won't. Hillary won't. Here's a quote: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." -Hillary Clinton.

That doesn't mean women can't make good leaders, it's that they tend not to be. I'd vote for GirlWritesWhat any day.

that when it comes to marriages or dating the woman should be lower than the man when it comes to equality.

When it comes to marriage, the man must be in charge.... because any other setup would fail due to hypergamy. It's not like we just repeat this shit because we think it's funny. There are solid reasons behind a lot of this. Just because you can't be bothered to actually read this stuff, doesn't mean it's all to be taken on face value. If you do not lead the family, women will tend to lose respect for you. Dominance is a trait that women select for and it builds attraction. What happens when you don't have it? They get restless and divorce/consider cheating.

Not that we wouldn't love an equitable marriage, it's that without dominance it won't work. That's not us enforcing that rule. Talk to the ladies if you think that's unfair.

And more woman hating bullshit

Oh this old chestnut. Hey, get your shit straight before coming to my sub and telling me who I hate. Only thing I hate is people misrepresenting the points here.

These are things that i personally believe are far too out there and probably stems from much deep seeded hatred of woman from many users in this sub. Also, the constant woman bashing and misogyny in this sub is just fucking sad.

Your suspicions are misplaced and wrong. But you just decided to drag up the ol' misogyny word, so I have a feeling you're not long for this sub. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Take a look at what I wrote. Let's see if you're here to be reasonable or just here to accuse people you disagree with of misogyny and deep seeded hatred.

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

All that shows is that the women specifically in this one study received more messages than men and the reason behind that is because gender roles dictate that men are the aggressors when it comes to sex. You've done nothing to demonstrate women can just get any man they want or to demonstrate that people somehow fit into the little boxes you put them in and aren't individuals.

So, no the question wasn't misguided you just can't answer it. Being bombarded by messages from guys who are only interested in sex isn't somehow the best thing to ever happen to you and that only happens if you happen to be very attractive anyway and it doesn't make finding a successful relationship inherently any more easier.

Usually, they do this before they have committed to any one man with the broken seal of their vagina

This made me laugh though. Furthers the fact that this entire subreddit just seems one long exercise in treating women like video games that you insert coins into to get a prize out at the end followed by shaming her and all women if you don't get that prize.

It does answer a question. Just not the misguided one you pose.

I don't presuppose that women can access the man they want. In fact, a large reason we have "where have all the good men gone" articles in the media is because a lot of women are finding out they cannot access the men they so desire.

The problem here is the difference between men and women's mating strategy. I recommend you start by reading the side bar:

Women in Love

Men in Love

Of Love and War

Schedules of Mating

These really outline the differences between the gender's mating strategies.

So what question did I answer?

That women have choices, far more than men. Women are the selective gender, men are the selected. Since you seem to believe that just because men are selected they are on equal footing as women as far as options go, I'll explain- hypergamy states that a majority of women will go for a small minority of men. Since men are the selected, a large portion of men may go without, while a small portion of men will act.. well, hypergamous themselves! Although for men with no strict need for monogamy, instead of swinging from branch to branch you'd more likely see a prevalence of harems (historically as well as present day in some cultures).

So, no the question wasn't misguided you just can't answer it.

You act like you're the first person to challenge me. You want a debate? I'll run laps around you. But don't waste my time. If you're not going to so much as read our sidebar material, what on earth makes you think you're qualified to comment on it?

[–][deleted] 13 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not redpillschool, so I don't have ego invested in this.

...but you're still wrong.

Boiling down complex human relationships to 'mating strategies' as if you were sitting and watching a nature documentary on the breeding habits of the Gazelle.

We do the best we can, which is better than can be said of the conventional dogma (yes, I said dogma) of studious ignorance. Look around TRP, and in addition to all the "hate," you'll find links to peer-reviewed (i.e., reviewed by people not us, who would probably strenuously dissociate themselves from our "anti-woman worldview") research results. The views on this subreddit are richer and more nuanced than yours, or we'd run out of things to talk about.

All you're doing is taking away all individuality from both sexes and simplistically generalising everybody into the little boxes that fits into your anti-woman world view.

I see this come up on this topic all the time, and I feel a need to correct it. Many (and probably most) subscribers adopted their views while kicking and screaming. I certainly was one. The "anti-woman (it's not) worldview," as you call it, came from experience and analysis, not the other way around.

Hence why all those links you sent me are flawed in their entire conception because again real life relationships aren't some video game that you press the right button combination to...

This would be entirely convincing if it had any bearing on reality. The standard advice here is to improve oneself. Good people attract good people. I hope that wasn't too much of a generalization for you.

...until you learn that and maybe gain some human empathy I don't think anybody here is going to have a fulfilling relationship.

I acknowledge women don't think like I do, so I treat them differently than men. Where is the lack of empathy here?

Simply put you're reluctant to treat men and women as individual human beings which is all you actually need to do.

One can treat members of a group as individuals, while acknowledging characteristics the members of the group have in common.

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] dropit_sphere 4 points 5 points 6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

science?

1,2,3, all drawing from scientific journals, right off the front page.

amount of material isn't necessarily a testament of nuance

It may not be a testament of truth, but I feel safe saying it's a testament to nuance. I could rattle off a string of terms that members of the subreddit would understand and you wouldn't. That's not proof that they have bearing on reality, but you sure as hell can't be the judge of that.

white supremacist strawman, nonsense

Whatever.

would love to see experience/analysis

Good news! An entire blogosphere awaits you.

I don't like the goal of the subreddit, and the guys there creep me out.

Understandable. Can't help you there.

Generalities you mention are all negatives

There is definitely a negative bent, but that's not evidence of untruth any more than positivity is evidence of truth.

the subreddit has normative shaming

Oh, wait, I forgot, we're talking about /r/theredpill, universally derided by reddit as being full of misogynistic losers. So, yeah, whatever.

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] dropit_sphere 3 points 4 points 5 points 13 years ago * (1 child) | Copy Link

|You're not sciencey enough

Are you? How did you come to think what you think?

Terms don't mean shit

True, but you have to know the terms before you can say that for certain.

All I've seen is a complete lack of evidence mixed with bitter, lonely men blaming women for all their problems.

Then you haven't looked hard enough. There is definitely that. There is also more.

Yeah, I suppose bitter, lonely misogynists are kind of creepy I'm glad we can agree.

Remember kids, make them look scary, that makes them wrong.

Well if you guys didn't spend paragraph after paragraph describing how you were shot down by all these girls you had given the required amount of 'nice points' in order that they should have had sex with then follow it up by saying all women are sluts who only want assholes and therefore you'll all become assholes they probably wouldn't get that idea.

Oh they can point at whatever they want, no foul there. What irks members of the subreddit is that SRS is allowed to do this, but when /r/theredpill does so, its conclusions are treated as proof of illegitimacy.

See, my personal experience has shown than being kind and treating women like human beings does work.

Excellent, please post about your experiences in detail, we'd love to hear about them.

I'm not the 'alpha male jock bro dude' you all seem to be aspiring to

You really need to do some reading.

but somehow I've never been without a relationship, in my teen years or early twenties or now. I just came out of a five year relationship and am in another very fulfilling relationship already. All these women have said they liked me because I'm kind, intelligent, compassionate and caring

I'm happy for you. Did you tell your girlfriend that you like her because of her tits? And if you don't, would you have talked to her if she didn't have them? We all have our pretty lies.

Wow, how could this be if women only want assholes to 'fuck and chuck them'?

And we boil things down to the point of being simplistic...

[–]chiefroaringpeacock 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–] chiefroaringpeacock 1 point 2 points 3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] chiefroaringpeacock 0 points 1 point 2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How are we not animals? We are in the kingdom Animalia, in the Domain Eukarya alongside every other animal. We share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 75% with dogs. We require water, air, and food just like all other animals. Do you think that our "higher thought" somehow makes us immune to biological motivations? Does your house that your family lives in make your family anything more than a pack of wolves living in the forest? Is it our literature that means we are somehow no longer related to the pride of lions living on the savannah? Or is it our blind acceptance of whatever the media tells us that separate us from a herd of sheep? Maybe it is the savage brutal wars that mankind has waged throughout history that make us "better"? Maybe it is the stubborn racist homophobic hateful people who used to put on silly white dresses and violently kill because of the color of someone's skin? Don't tell me humans don't have animalistic instincts, they are called rage, envy, lust, greed. But I believe the human animal also has a beautiful side. The countless random acts of kindness that go undocumented every day. The donation to philanthropic charities. Love. The arts. But do these things separate us from animals? Does the ability to enjoy an art gallery detract from the instincts that guide me in other aspects of life? Does my ability to love my wife render me immune to any biological influences on my psyche?

All this without even mentioning hormones. 100% scientific undebatable fact: Humans have substances in our bodies that affect our thoughts and emotions, introducing these substances changes our mood and behavior. Think about that. For all of our unlimited intelligence a simple chemical that our body naturally produces in response to different situations called adrenaline will cause a response that causes us to have a strong and immediate physical and mental reaction. Testosterone and estrogen.

IDK maybe you're right, maybe humans have truly transcended the animal realm and I am just a babbling idiot. Animals can't build giant monuments, they can't write epic poems like The Odyssey. Even if we are not currently "super-animal" I have confidence we will be one day. One thing I do know is that I agree with anyone that says sometimes this sub is too sexist and even borders on misogyny. Guys, quick red pill PSA: if you want people to take our views seriously we can't let people be spouting REALLY sexist bullshit, let's keep it to a reasonable level. I agree that usually we keep it to a reasonable level, but I've seen some really sexist shit on here too, and that is the stuff scaring away people whose eyes could be opened.

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] Mod redpillschool 1 point 2 points 3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 13 years ago * (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Mod redpillschool 3 points 4 points 5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just did and you ignored it. You arguments are not based in fact. They're based on personal experience which my own personal experience contradicts.

Look you did it again. Listen I can tell you I read the entire dictionary and determined it's wrong.

You probably wouldn't believe me unless I stated my case. You know, made points and backed them up.

You're just stated your opinion and pretending it's an argument... under the guise that you've actually read our material. You clearly haven't since you have yet to actually refute anything in particular other than you think generally our stuff isn't fact. But I mean, one of our theories is that women have vaginas. I'm going to assume you didn't know that, but now you can't lump everything into the "nonfactual zone," you'll just have to do a point by point.

But no really I have no time for you. You're obviously not here for open discussion nor honest debate. You've got your mind made up, and gosh darn it, you've made the mistake of assuming that actually reading our material isn't worth your time because you already know everything. The mark of the fool is the assumption that they already have all the knowledge they need.

You're out!

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	MRA=PUA=POS=DUMBMALESLUT=LULZ
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	39
Date	April 19, 2013 12:42 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1cna08/mrapuaposdumbmaleslutlulz/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/mrapuaposdumbmaleslutlulz.4018 https://theredarchive.com/post/4018

Comments