"On men, women and r/TheRedPill"

girlwriteswhat · 2015-05-27T06:46:26+00:00

[permanently deleted]

baserace · 2015-05-27T04:20:26+00:00

I miss her kitchen :(

_pluto_ · 2015-05-26T23:51:56+00:00

It's not often that I disagree with Karen Straughan. But I think she makes a couple of errors here, unless I'm misunderstanding her.

She attributes the lack of co-operation between MRA's and RedPill/ other manosphere sites like ROK to some sort of innate competitive tendency between men. In her words, it's "part of the male psyche." She goes on to say that women change/exacerbate the dynamic in these spaces, creating more competition.

I agree with the second point but not the first. Example: when a group of men go camping, they don't organize themselves into a competitive hierarchy. No one is appointed leader or "alpha male." Agreement is reached through consensus. Individual rights are respected. Different tasks are allocated to different people based on competency. The overall tendency is toward cooperation and fairness.

This is how we survived for 99% of our time on planet earth.

"Egalitarian foragers uniformly eschew strong, authoritative leadership. Yet they do not give up on making decisions at the band level. Consensus-seeking is a strong feature of all egalitarian societies (Boehm 1996) and of forager societies in particular (Mithen 1990; Knauft 1991);"

This occurs despite the fact that half of the people in the band are females. In fact females play a major role in ensuring egalitarianism. They understand that if an alpha emerges he will hoard resources and generally make everyone's lives miserable. Would-be alpha males are subjected to ridicule; if that doesn't curb the behaviour they are censured; if the problem persists they are banished; in extreme cases the alpha will be killed.

Inter-personal violence is most commonly caused by spats involving romantic relations (no surprise there).

Christopher Boehm characterizes hunter-gatherer bands as "reverse-dominance hierarchies." Personally I think this is a crude oversimplification. The defining characteristic of these societies is love of personal freedom. For example, "Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture. No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails - the apparatus of authority in European societies - were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong..." [Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, 1492-1992]

Radin lists "respect for the individual" as the "first aboriginal attribute."

Getting back to the main point, I think a lot of MRA's oppose the Red Pill/some other manosphere sites not due "innate male competition" but logical disagreement. Indeed, one of the reasons I personally oppose R/P (despite agreeing with some of their overall arguments) is that they ENCOURAGE excessive competition between males. They divide males into alpha and beta based on the sexual selection criteria of modern women. That in itself is "beta" and fundamentally gynocentric.

They have chauvinistic literature on the sidebar, such as "women -- the oldest teenagers in the house." They embrace far-right wing politics, which disempower men even more than feminism. And they glamourize strict hierarchical models.

I oppose hierarchical models because they discourage the very things most right-wingers seem to want: social health, self-sufficiency and individual liberty.

"Hierarchy implies power held by the leader. Without power the leader is inept. The possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. . . in spite of. . . good intentions . . . [Leadership means] power of initiative, this sense of responsibility, the self-respect which comes from expressed manhood, is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their initiative, their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his. . . [and the] order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the men, from being independent thinkers into being 'the men'. . . In a word, he is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy." Indeed, for the "leader," such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader "sees no need for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion." (IWW pamphlet, 1912)

To sum up: It is irksome when feminists conflate MRA's with the Red Pill, but they're gonna lie about us anyway. The main reason I don't support these groups is due to fundamental disagreement over exactly how men should go about improving society and their own lives. To the extent that R/P focusses on self-improvement, trying to help men become more confident etc. it could be a positive place for young men, but there are also toxic elements. I see little value in much of the non-MRA manosphere.

Edit: few words.

Edit 2: well how about it girlwriteswhat. You responded to the red pill folks. Care to comment here?

baserace · 2015-05-27T04:24:04+00:00

Anyone got a source for her post in the comments section of the video?

Even looking at men who rape women, 60-80% were sexually abused by women in childhood or adolescence.

2015-05-28T06:15:44+00:00

A lot of us here could afford to be more friendly to our similarly aligned comrades, I for one had argument with those of TRP and even though I don't agree with their individual methods of dealing with the situation I can understand why they do it. Just find it frustrating that they seem more "Survive in the now" rather than "Work towards the future".

DevilishRogue · 2015-05-26T22:59:55+00:00

A really nice expansion on her recent posts that have garnered so much attention. In answer to her final question about why there isn't greater solidarity, it's mostly down to TRP/PUA/MRM/MGTOW essentially being movements comprised predominantly of younger guys who don't yet understand the other perspectives. Over time this will change and improve as the Venn Diagram of the manosphere evolves and more people 'get it' as a result of either exposure or wisdom.

That said, the nature of each is quite distinct and it would be wrong to assume that they all want the same things. Yes, there are often overlapping beliefs but equally there are opposing beliefs both within and across these movements. As such, whilst there is solidarity from some, there isn't and won't be from others until they too understand why disagreeing with other elements doesn't mean that they shouldn't support these other elements. Unfortunately at the present time this sub seems to overly White Knight against TRP and TRP comes across as too antagonistic to those the MRM ostensibly wants to be treated as equals. But as adherents of each gain exposure and a better understanding of these differing perspectives hopefully this will change for the better.

DavidByron2 · 2015-05-28T04:55:36+00:00

You know i see people here occasionally going on about extremists, but you have to understand that GWW is about as extremist as it gets -- and that's a very good thing.

MatloxES · 2015-05-27T01:34:57+00:00

I think this person is pretty cool

ExpendableOne · 2015-05-27T13:31:03+00:00

Good video. Still loved the post she made on the red pill about men and women. On the topic of cooperation, I do agree that there is more room for cooperation between certain movements like the redpill or MRA's but, at the end of the day, there are still fundamental differences between the two that would create conflict and opposition(for example, redpill would pretty much throw every "beta" man under the bus, rather than simply recognize and argue for their value, redpill would support misandry from women as long as they can take advantage of it, and redpill would essentially reduce all women to stereotypes rather than trying to create allies and talk to them as equals). I'm not sure it's "innate" though, unless you call just people having different views not really sharing spaces as being innate. Redpill do have some philosophies that, in essence, promote sexism and negative gender roles for men, very much in the exact way that feminism does as well, so it's not like the views between mra's and redpill are always able to coincide. Some times they are directly at odds with one another.

dangerousopinions · 2015-05-27T05:01:02+00:00

I personally don't want to be in any way associated with PUA's or TRP simply for supporting men's human rights. I don't see why that's necessary anyway. They don't concern themselves with the same issues as the MRA, there is very little overlap, none at all in the case of PUA. What Karen is arguing to some extent is no unlike saying the MRM must have a better relationship with the NBA. It's immaterial.

ExpendableOne · 2015-05-28T02:35:13+00:00

wtf are you taking about? there are literally thousands of different cultures that favor certain traits over others, all of which are constantly changing over time. attraction is learned, and it stems from social value/conditioning. women no longer need protectors and providers, nor should they rely on men for this any longer. The fact that men are still valued by those traits has everything to do with social expectations rather than biology. you are completely contradicting yourself with your reasoning.

Title	"On men, women and r/TheRedPill"
Author	jamminnummeruno
Upvotes	60
Comments	141
Date	May 26, 2015 9:58 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/37drbg/on_men_women_and_rtheredpill/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/on-men-women-and-rtheredpill.979250 https://theredarchive.com/post/979250

Comments