Hostility to Submissive women. Is it acceptable?

2014-01-20T17:03:50+00:00

After reading two of the threads on this sub re differences in people and self respect alongside submission I had some questions. I understand that some people...

[–]salty-lemons26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

Hostility to submissive women is extremely common in this debate and I find it disturbing. I admire the RPW who keep coming back and trying to explain themselves, which doesn't seem very submissive to me (which makes sense because these ladies keep saying that they are only submissive to their husbands, not to everyone).

What bothers me the most is that in our culture men are encouraged to take the attitude of "my wife is always right" and "when mom's happy, everyone is happy", and the second you flip it to, "my husband is always right", and "when dad's happy, everyone's happy", you have people sniffing around for abuse or calling the women in that relationship 'weak' or having 'low self-esteem'. If a man says, "my wife's happiness is my number one goal in life", everyone sighs about how wonderful that is, but if a woman says, "my husband's happiness is my number one goal in life," people start grumbling and judging. That's what I don't understand.

If living a Red Pill or Blue Pill romantic relationship works for you and your romantic partner, great! I don't need to tear you down for your choices.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If most people agreed, things wouldn't be this way, now would they? And if you find the inverse as objectionable as you're pretending to, why aren't you ever on relationships boards giving them shit for their 'Happy wife, happy life' BS? You all only target red pillers, and that puts the lie to your claim that both are equally objectionable to you.

In principle, most people will agree with you. However the issue is that statistically, women are overwhelmingly less happy in marriage than men. For women on average, marriage is more stressful.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jftr.12003/pdf

Typical studies of the household division of labor do not begin to capture all the unpaid caring work—for friends, extended family, schools, and religious and other community organizations—that women disproportionately do. Nor do they capture wives’ planning, organizing, and structuring of family life, evident in Rubin’s (1994) study of working- class families, for example.

The apparent issue is that women are still expected to carry all the emotional burdens of marriage. I think that in general, men need this kind of advice more than women.

[–]Deansdale1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Now that we're citing statistics you surely know that women were a lot happier in the 50's, when everything was soooo patriarchal. It is a statistical fact that women's happiness declined with the rise of ekvalitee and feminism, and for some strange reason I doubt that the solution would be even more feminism.

And I call BS on both of your statements. I very much doubt that husbands are so much happier than wives, precisely because "when mom's happy, everyone is happy" is so ingrained in the zeitgeist. To be blunt, most wives ensure that their hubbies won't ever get happier than themselves. Also, "carrying all the emotional burdens of marriage" is meaningless psycho-babble, a typical femi-centric notion designed to denigrate men as emotionless/uncaring baboons. Ah teh poor wymmyn, look at all the emotional burden they suffer under! You can effortlessly prove me wrong by stating clearly in simple english what the heck that supposed to mean.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Now that we're citing statistics you surely know that women were a lot happier in the 50's, when everything was soooo patriarchal. It is a statistical fact that women's happiness declined with the rise of ekvalitee and feminism, and for some strange reason I doubt that the solution would be even more feminism.

There are several issues with the conclusion you've reached.

1.) Correlation does not imply causation. You have to delve deeper into the subject if you want to suggest that feminism as caused women's unhappiness.

2.) Women of the 1950s had different expectations than women today. It's perfectly possible that if you took women today and put them in the 1950s, they'd be even less happy than they are now. Happiness is relative, which is why it's difficult to compare over time. Different generations have differing definitions of what's needed to make oneself "happy."

And I call BS on both of your statements. I very much doubt that husbands are so much happier than wives, precisely because "when mom's happy, everyone is happy" is so ingrained in the zeitgeist.

Did you read the link I posted? It cites several surveys that indeed show that husbands are happier than wives, by quite a large margin might I add. They're just self-reports, but still.

Also, overall, men are happier than women and men are happier than they were in the 1950s and the 1970s. Mens happiness has increased quite noticeably in the last few decades.

I think that paper I posted hit the nail on the head. Women are unhappier today because they're doing everything they did in 1950 PLUS they now have full-time jobs. Instead of passing off some of the household labor to their husbands, they're still doing it all themselves. For the most part, women are still cooking, cleaning, doing the laundry, taking care of the kids, managing the family schedule, and shouldering all the emotional responsibility.

[–]Deansdale5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is a lame excuse and you know it. Most social changes to the nuclear family structure in the last 60 years came from feminist origins, and if women are less happy in marriages than before, it is quite obvious it has something to do with feminism. Saying that the rise of the chip on the shoulder movement has nothing to do with women having a chip on their shoulders is disingenuous to say the least. (In case you didn't notice feminism needs unhappy women. If women are content with what they have they don't become feminists, and this is why women are the angriest in the most feminist countries, like Sweden for example. Are they happy because feminism? No, they are miserable because feminism.)
Well, this contains a grain of truth, but if you push this idea to its conclusion, it turns out that it was feminism that raised women's expectations through the roof, making them unhappy in the process. Feminism is the most influential social movement (especially if we talk about women) of the last few decades, pretending it has nothing to do with the the present state of women makes any debate on this subject meaningless.

I'm sorry but I don't take feminist "studies" at face value. They lie way too much for their own good. But then again, let's assume that women are less happy nowadays because there are more expectations on them. Who put those expectations on them? Feminism. It was their idea that women could "have it all", that they should be dissatisfied with being good mothers and force themselves into the labor market besides being mothers and housekeepers. Society did everything humanely possible to accomodate the needs of these women for ~60 years but we're still not getting anywhere (basically because a day consists of 24 hours regardless of how you cut it). It's not some mysterious patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down.

But let's put all this to a simple test: look out the window and tell me if the men out there are full to the brim with happiness while women are more miserable than ever. Or look around here. Are men happy? Divorce, fatherlessness, false accusations, joblessness, etc. are more rampant than ever, how could an average man be unhappy??? It's a patriarchal paradise. What we need is to "raise the consciousness" of more women so they "realize" how bad they have it, right? Let them rage and let them hate men, that will solve all our problems.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

This is a lame excuse and you know it. Most social changes to the nuclear family structure in the last 60 years came from feminist origins, and if women are less happy in marriages than before, it is quite obvious it has something to do with feminism. Saying that the rise of the chip on the shoulder movement has nothing to do with women having a chip on their shoulders is disingenuous to say the least. (In case you didn't notice feminism needs unhappy women. If women are content with what they have they don't become feminists, and this is why women are the angriest in the most feminist countries, like Sweden for example. Are they happy because feminism? No, they are miserable because feminism.)

It's not an excuse. You committed a logical fallacy and I called you out. If you want to link feminism to the other trend you mentioned, you're going to have to do some leg work. Posting ONE correlation is not convincing or conclusive. That's not how logic and reasoning works.

Furthermore, you're completely ignoring the fact that in developed countries where feminism never really existed, women are miserable to. Look at Japan for Christ's sake. In terms of gender related issues, they're WAY worse off that we are in the United States, and yet they've remained untouched by the women's liberation movement.

And this is why you have to actually build an argument, rather than jumping to a convenient conclusion based on a single correlation. The world is a complicated place, and correlations can be found just about anywhere. That's why we don't imply causation from correlation without further evidence and reasoning. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm saying you haven't made a convincing argument.

Well, this contains a grain of truth, but if you push this idea to its conclusion, it turns out that it was feminism that raised women's expectations through the roof, making them unhappy in the process. Feminism is the most influential social movement (especially if we talk about women) of the last few decades, pretending it has nothing to do with the the present state of women makes any debate on this subject meaningless.

Do you think we should lower female (or anyone else's) expectations? I don't think you'll win many people over with that viewpoint.

Feminism is undoubtedly influential and I'm not saying it has a role, but by no means is it the only thing at work here. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of things at work shaping trends in gender issues. Furthermore, feminism is not a single movement, but rather a group of movements. Many of those movements can't agree on a damn thing. It's a 100,000 headed monster that spends half it's time attacking itself. Blaming feminism as a whole for any one thing is absurd.

I'm sorry but I don't take feminist "studies" at face value.

The authors are genders studies experts and sociologists
That's a logical fallacy. You don't disqualify a paper because of the authors, you disqualify it for it's content. That's logic 101.

It's not some mysterious patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down.

I didn't say it was. Neither did the paper I sourced. Listen, it's a complicated issue, no doubt. Maybe men need to pick up more of the burden of housework if the women is working full time. It seems only logical to split the housework 50-50 if you both work 40 hours a week.

But let's put all this to a simple test: look out the window and tell me if the men out there are full to the brim with happiness while women are more miserable than ever. Or look around here. Are men happy? Divorce, fatherlessness, false accusations, joblessness, etc. are more rampant than ever, how could an average man be unhappy??? It's a patriarchal paradise.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that you're personal experience conflicts with statistics, therefore the statistics are useless? That's logically absurd and fallacious.

What we need is to "raise the consciousness" of more women so they "realize" how bad they have it, right? Let them rage and let them hate men, that will solve all our problems.

When did I ever say that? You have to stop straw manning. It doesn't add to your argument or your credibility. No one here is blaming men or patriarchy or retarded shit like that.

[–]Deansdale7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Look, denying the obvious because there are no peer reviewed studies proving it is still denying the obvious. And I bet that no matter how many studies I'd link, you still wouldn't change your mind because you place moral value in having the specific opinion you have regardless of it being true or not. And this is why I don't bother building arguments anymore. I've been debating these things for 10+ years now and there is always a new wave of enlightened liberals denying that feminism has anything to do with women's hardships, demanding that I prove my words with feminist-approved studies.

Well, since artificially hightened expectations inevitably lead to suffering for those not exceptional, I reckon it would be wise to stop inflating them. Of course this idea isn't popular among those who are already trapped. They want everything and wouldn't settle for anything less. I wish them good luck... I wonder though how seemingly intelligent people like yourself imply that it's better to protect their inflated egos than to save them from actual pain and suffering.

Furthermore, feminism is not a single movement, but rather a group of movements.

Please just stop. I was already tired of this bullshit when people were preparing for Y2K. Talking down to me might win a few status points among your peers but it's meaningless and it's low. If feminism contains contradictory ideas than the label is absolutely meaningless because it could mean anything and its exact opposite. But of course we all now that the radical wing (the Hillary gang) is in power, and has been for decades. Talking about little flower feminists or la chupacabra feminists is meaningless as long as the most hateful ones are sitting in the white house and in the media. But please tell me, if nazis would form a girlscout group handing out cookies, naming it "cookie nazism", would you agree that from that point on it is absurd to attack nazism? Why would the same bullshit work with feminism? The radical ones destroy society while the moderate ones sit around doing nothing. Hallelujah.

The authors are genders studies experts and sociologists

Erhm, no. The authors you refer to are feminists, which should be abundantly clear after a simple google search. And considering that they have a vested interest in saying specific things, and in a strange coincidence their "study" "found" exactly those things, I am still sceptical about it. If a cannibal says to you that his scientific research has proven that eating humans is the best thing ever, is it a logical fallacy to point out the obvious conflict of interest? Logic 101 my ass. I wonder what you would say if I would refer to a "study" made by Heartiste that "proves" that women love being submissive. You wouldn't take it seriously at all because of who came up with it. And this situation is even worse because I have never seen Heartiste lie intentionally, but I have seen feminists do exactly that literally thousands of times.

Look up the relevant statistics, men in general work more than 40 hours a week - women work less. And even if they would work the same it's oversimplistic to state that "It seems only logical to split the housework 50-50" exactly because "it's a complicated issue". Funny how the issue is complicated when our opinions are swept off the table but not complicated enough to ruin your simplistic answers :)

Are you saying that you're personal experience conflicts with statistics, therefore the statistics are useless?

No. I say that every human being with half a brain has the ability to check the surrounding reality and compare it to a theory. If I say that the sky is green with purple dots you can look out the window and call BS. And that is true even if I insist that a peer reviewed study just came out in Scientific American in which renowned astrophysicists Robert Dwight and Sandra Wainsworth say that the sky is green with purple dots. Appealing to authority is a fallacy of its own, you know. Not everything people in lab coats say is true.

Look. Out. The. Fucking. Window. For Christ's sake, and tell me with a straight face that you see the world feminists preach about. Rapists behind every corner, men ruling over women, gleaming with their privileges, et cetera. Yeah, right. I see women behind the wheels of cars I'll never be able to buy and I see men fixing roads for minimum wage. I know that there are also rich men and poor women out there but this simple look out the window is enough to make me realize that men and women are not classes and they are not in war with each other. Feminism (all of it) is built on the premise that men oppress and women suffer which is complete, utter bullshit, so the whole totality of feminism is invalid with all its little subgroups.

So, two feminists present their study in which they find that married women are oh so miserable but their husbands are happier than ever. I wonder how that could work even theoretically... At best it implies that men don't care about the happiness of their wives at all, at worst it implies that men are happy because their wives aren't, suggesting that men intentionally torture their wives for their own twisted joy. Pardon me if I don't take "studies" like this seriously.

When did I ever say that?

Sorry, I tend to wonder off on tangents, and not everything I say is a direct response to something you have said. I thought you'll figure this out.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Look, denying the obvious because there are no peer reviewed studies proving it is still denying the obvious. And I bet that no matter how many studies I'd link, you still wouldn't change your mind because you place moral value in having the specific opinion you have regardless of it being true or not. And this is why I don't bother building arguments anymore. I've been debating these things for 10+ years now and there is always a new wave of enlightened liberals denying that feminism has anything to do with women's hardships, demanding that I prove my words with feminist-approved studies.

Listen, you don't quite have a grasp of what I'm saying. What you did was take two coinciding trends (aka a correlation) and imply that one causes the other. This is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. When I pointed that out, you said "well it's obvious, isn't it?" No. In logic and reasoning, nothing is ever obvious. If you want to suggest that one trend causes the other, you have to use either inductive or deductive reasoning to theorize that they might be linked. You're also probably going to have to delve deeper into the subject and perhaps statistically examine why women are more unhappy now, as that will almost certainly be relevant. That's how you construct an argument.

And by the way, I don't give two shits about morals. I pretty much only care about logic/reasoning and science. If you constructed an actual argument rather than inferring causation from correlation, I'd listen.

I wonder though how seemingly intelligent people like yourself imply that it's better to protect their inflated egos than to save them from actual pain and suffering.

Because since the enlightenment (and the invention of philosophical progressivism), most of humanity have a greed that it's better to be informed/enlightened and unhappy than it is to be ignorant and blissful. Only when you're informed/enlightened can you work to advance technology and society.

Please just stop. I was already tired of this bullshit when people were preparing for Y2K. Talking down to me might win a few status points among your peers but it's meaningless and it's low. If feminism contains contradictory ideas than the label is absolutely meaningless because it could mean anything and its exact opposite. But of course we all now that the radical wing (the Hillary gang) is in power, and has been for decades. Talking about little flower feminists or la chupacabra feminists is meaningless as long as the most hateful ones are sitting in the white house and in the media. But please tell me, if nazis would form a girlscout group handing out cookies, naming it "cookie nazism", would you agree that from that point on it is absurd to attack nazism? Why would the same bullshit work with feminism? The radical ones destroy society while the moderate ones sit around doing nothing. Hallelujah.

Again, you completely missed my point. I'm not saying you can't criticize feminism. I think there are valid criticisms of the entire series of movements. For one, it's disjointed and can't accomplish much of anything anymore. It's pretty useless. I'm saying that when you talk about policy, you have to criticize specific groups, because different groups have drastically different policies.

Erhm, no. The authors you refer to are feminists, which should be abundantly clear after a simple google search. And considering that they have a vested interest in saying specific things, and in a strange coincidence their "study" "found" exactly those things, I am still sceptical about it. If a cannibal says to you that his scientific research has proven that eating humans is the best thing ever, is it a logical fallacy to point out the obvious conflict of interest?

Pointing out the conflict of interest doesn't render the study wrong. The only thing that can render the study wrong is the paper itself. I hate fox news, but it's a logical fallacy to say that because a story ran on fox new, it's wrong. That's logic 101. I seriously cannot believe you've been debating this for 10+ years without knowing this kinda stuff.

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I wonder what you would say if I would refer to a "study" made by Heartiste that "proves" that women love being submissive. You wouldn't take it seriously at all because of who came up with it. And this situation is even worse because I have never seen Heartiste lie intentionally, but I have seen feminists do exactly that literally thousands of times.

If the study used the scientific method, I'd absolutely consider it. And I don't know why you keep bringing up feminists. I hate feminism. I hate many feminists.

No. I say that every human being with half a brain has the ability to check the surrounding reality and compare it to a theory. If I say that the sky is green with purple dots you can look out the window and call BS. And that is true even if I insist that a peer reviewed study just came out in Scientific American in which renowned astrophysicists Robert Dwight and Sandra Wainsworth say that the sky is green with purple dots. Appealing to authority is a fallacy of its own, you know. Not everything people in lab coats say is true.

You either don't understand appeal to authority, or you didn't read what I wrote. I never implied that the paper is correct because of the status of the author. An argument or a scientific paper has legitimacy because it's well constructed, not because of the author.

I say that every human being with half a brain has the ability to check the surrounding reality and compare it to a theory.

Your observations are anecdotal evidence. When it comes to "truth" they matter significantly less than a well constructed scientific paper or study. Ultimately, you're interpretation of the world is subject to bias. The scientific method is the only known way to attempt to eliminate bias. If a well constructed study is counter to common sense or the common sentiment, then common sense is likely wrong. This is how our world has worked since the enlightenment and since the invention of the scientific method.

Look. Out. The. Fucking. Window. For Christ's sake, and tell me with a straight face that you see the world feminists preach about. Rapists behind every corner, men ruling over women, gleaming with their privileges, et cetera. Yeah, right. I see women behind the wheels of cars I'll never be able to buy and I see men fixing roads for minimum wage. I know that there are also rich men and poor women out there but this simple look out the window is enough to make me realize that men and women are not classes and they are not in war with each other. Feminism (all of it) is built on the premise that men oppress and women suffer which is complete, utter bullshit, so the whole totality of feminism is invalid with all its little subgroups.

I agree with you, however you've misunderstood academic feminism (rather than tumblr feminism). Academic feminism dictates that social institutions are what hold women back in some areas. It's not men versus women. It's the social system and it represses both genders in different ways.

So, two feminists present their study in which they find that married women are oh so miserable but their husbands are happier than ever. I wonder how that could work even theoretically... At best it implies that men don't care about the happiness of their wives at all, at worst it implies that men are happy because their wives aren't, suggesting that men intentionally torture their wives for their own twisted joy. Pardon me if I don't take "studies" like this seriously.

You didn't read the paper, did you. The paper concludes a few things:

1.) Society and individuals need to understand their roles in marriage. Rather than accepting traditional gender roles, couples should divide tasks based on their strengths. If the women is really the best at cooking and household chores and raising the children, then she should do that. Furthermore, couples should regularly communicate regarding their roles in the relationships to ensure that both partners remain happy.
2.) Relationship self-help books are useless at building lasting relationships.
3.) Relationships that last the longest are the ones in which the man and the woman are on the same page and generally agree with each other when it comes to what they want from the relationship.
4.) Women often expect men to carry some of the emotional burdens of the relationship, however often men come up short in this area. This is the primary source of unhappiness for women in marriage.
5.) Marriages where men do perform a large chunk of the emotional work are the happiest and longest lasting. Basically, nowadays when two people marry, a women expects the man to become her best friend in addition to her mate. When a man refuses to really befriend her, she is left unhappy.

Side note: A lot of the conclusions are based on the work of John Gottman, one of the foremost relationship experts. Some of his work is really great reading if you want to improve your knowledge of relationship dynamics.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's due to the fact that they base their worldviews on anecdotes, and so they're hugely inaccurate as a result of a number of cognitive biases that skew their perception.

So what happens is that they act submissive in a relationship, and then the relationship goes south. They talk to other people and find that they have similar anecdotes. Conclusion? Submissiveness causes the collapse of relationships.

In reality, they have absolutely no reason to think that was the cause or trigger of the breakdown. There are an almost infinite number of other factors which are 'correlated', like I imagine all those men drank milk occasionally or ate bread, but they rarely blame their relationship problems on diet - why? Because they already have a narrative of what they think is true and instead of trying to test whether they're right or wrong, they just selectively gather anecdotes to support their own biases.

That's why it's particularly dangerous that TRP is one of the biggest echo chambers on the internet that allows absolutely no form of dissent or questioning - it just reaffirms their beliefs even more because any time a contradiction comes up the mods quickly ban or delete it.

Just look at the concept of NAWALT. They had to invent a term and put it in the rules simply because so many people were coming up with examples that didn't fit specific narratives.

Bit of a rant there but the long and short of it is that they don't want to believe it because it contradicts the ideology they've built for themselves that protects them from blame.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salty-lemons0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

There is a lot of hostility, which I find not only insulting to me, but to my husband as well. I don't know why I come back either, haha. I haven't seen anyone from RPW try to say that all women must be submissive and that if you don't convert to TRP you will automatically have a miserable life. I see no reason the way other people choose to live their lives should be offensive to anyone else when said choice affects no one outside of the relationship.

It does get tiresome hearing the same argument so frequently. Especially considering that arguing that RPW have no self esteem is claiming to know another person better than they know themselves. What I'm really hearing is "trust me. I know what's best for you. You don't even know how much you hate yourself, but I promise you that you do, whether you recognize it or not." It's incredibly condescending.

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I stand by my statement that it's incredibly condescending for someone to think I need to be rescued from an abusive relationship because I submit to my husband. If a woman were being abused and coerced into submission I find it unlikely she would be an active member in RPW or getting on reddit to defend her lifestyle. No one here is seeking help. There are plenty of distinctions mentioned in RPW about how submitting to an alpha male is entirely different from bending to the will of an abusive tyrant. Half of our goal is to please our men, but the other half aimed at single ladies is to find a good man in the first place. This means one worthy of our respect. We will not submit to a man we don't trust and respect.

Furthermore, how exactly can we prove that we aren't being coerced? I would accept this answer if someone said they feared I was in it for the wrong reasons and then backed off once I said I was happy. That isn't how it works. I explain my reasons for being submissive to my husband, say that this arrangement makes me very happy, and then continue to be chastised or told that I hate myself. To be hostile under the guise of "concern" doesn't cut it for me as an explanation.

I don't follow TRP because it isn't really relevant to me. I don't need to know how to spin plates. So if you take issue with things that are said there I'm not the person to answer for them.

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Please don't take offense, that's why I ended with:

If the sub desires it and is fulfilled by it, more power to you. That's not what anyone objects to, it's the worry that the sub is not a willing participant.

I was just offering my thoughts on why people might get up in arms about women and submissiveness in relationships. You are obviously very happy in your arrangement, I don't think anyone looks at you and thinks you need rescuing. It was not my intention to lump you into that box, and I apologize if I came off as accusatory. There are instances on some of the relationship and women-centric subs where men and women are being forced into unwilling submissiveness by their partners (of both genders) and asking for help on how to make sense of their partner's behavior. That's where I get concerned.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I understand. It sucks having your choices dismissed and undervalued, and it feels SO DAMN PATRONIZING when people think they know what's best for you better than you know yourself. You know, I think that's what I fear the most when I think of expectations around gendered submissiveness--in the past, I was a meek, submissive woman, and it did not served me well. I was very passive aggressive, I never spoke my needs and found my voice, and it damaged my personal and professional life (I've felt very taken advantage of because I didn't know how to say no, etc.), and now as I have gotten older, I am extremely fed up with feeling that way. I now wish to lead myself in all aspects of my life, and I find myself very loathe to give up any agency at all (including in a romantic relationship). I fear that if I am submissive to anyone, I will become lost in someone else's choices and decisions regarding my life and my journey, and end up deeply unfulfilled.

But the way you've described your life with your husband, you sound very fulfilled. So would it be safe to say you do not share this fear? It sounds like you have found a balance that works for you and your husband, and he is quite deserving of your trust. Even so, I don't think I could ever trust anyone more than I trust myself to have my best interests at heart. That's a LTR, I guess?

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's something that I definitely feared in past relationships. I never trusted anyone to have any sort of control over anything I did at all really. I feared it at first with my husband, but that's almost entirely disappeared now. I understand that fear entirely, though. I was a pushover for most of my life and made all of my choices based on what would please other people rather than what I really wanted.

It's easy with my husband because we are SO MUCH alike in our world view and desires, but we are both very much the stereotypical "male" and "female." I lived on my own and found my independence, so I know how to fend for myself and do what needs to be done. I am a high stress person, though, so it's been helpful for me to be able to trust someone else to take the lead so I can focus on tasks I'm more comfortable with. Letting go and not insisting on being in control of everything has dramatically reduced arguments and tension between us because I feel more calm, and he feels more confident and fulfilled when he has the trust of a woman he respects.

I think that there are many different ways for people to be happy in relationships and relationships are not one-size-fits-all. I enjoy conversing with women in similar relationships to mine to share ideas, but I do like listening to other perspectives sometimes. When those other perspectives are presented as a respectful exchange I think it's a helpful way to explore my own views and understand myself better. Since I really like those conversations it's particularly frustrating to me when people choose to attack and invalidate me by lumping me into this preconceived notion they have.

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hear you about pleasing others--I was definitely a pushover in my younger years, and I still struggle with boundaries and stating my needs. I'm getting better, but I think that's why I am extremely adverse to submissiveness in my relationship dynamics--I never want to feel that way again, because even my good friends didn't treat me as kindly as they should. When I stood up for myself after friends took advantage of me, I lost those friendships, and that was a very hard realization. Some people preferred me to be submissive so they could manipulate me. It wasn't necessarily malicious, but it certainly didn't do me any favors. I need to make sure that never happens again, because it sets a dangerous precedent. I swung the pendulum the other way, and now I am fiercely independent.

I think that's wonderful that you've found your balance. You sound very grounded and quite satisfied with your relationship; I'm glad it's working for you. I agree that respectful discourse if always preferable, although with gender relations it seems rare to have a levelheaded conversation. :P Thank you for showing me your perspective!

P.S. Your user name looks delicious, will you give me a recipe for your favorite pie? Full disclaimer, I will cheat and buy the ready made crust, but I'll make everything else! :)

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]BlowingBlueSmoke0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, I'm glad you found me reasonable. :) I don't read RPW, so I can't give you an example from that sub. From what little I have seen of RPW, the majority of ladies seem very happy with their submissive role in their relationships, and I'm not concerned about those that are happy in their submissive role. If they are happy, awesome! I was actually thinking of a recent thread on r/relationships from the perspective of a woman being treated as submissive by her boyfriend, and she did not want to be treated that way all the time. It made her very unhappy:

http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1uvgc4/me_21f_with_my_bf_24_m_6_months_self_proclaimed/

Unfortunately, she deleted her update:

http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1v9o2u/update_me_21f_with_my_bf_24_m_6_months_self/

But basically she was unwilling to be totally submissive to her boyfriend, despite his insistence that being submissive is what women are really supposed to be like, and the relationship imploded.

Her ex showed up a bit later in the sub and wrote a long justification for his actions, where he was evicerated. I admit to doing some of that evicerating, as he sounded like a terrible boyfriend:

http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1vesg7/update_from_the_bf_me_21f_with_my_bf_24_m_6/

Partly why I no longer act submissive is because my submissive behavior broadcast to others that I was "easy pickings," to be taken advantage of by people who did not have my best interests at heart. This is the danger of having a submissive personality--predators and emotional vampires will eat you alive. Of course, there are plenty of folks who are submissive at home and very dominant in public who don't have this problem, but I had to build up my boundaries so I could protect myself. So that's why I am concerned about submission and consent--unless the person who is submissive is doing so BY CHOICE, it can lead to some serious emotional fallout.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most Red Pill women come off as having healthy, happy relationships and how fully consenting adults want to structure their relationships is no business of mine. I just have a problem with users who believe that their relationship is the type that everyone would be the most happy in. I also wonder why you would choose to associate yourselves with the Red Pill rather than setting up your own independent sub, given the a lot of the Red Pill's negative content on women.

Anyway, to answer your question, user /u/berryokt definitely appears to be in an unhealthy and abusive relationship that is leading to her continuing a drug addiction. In her case, the Red Pill seems to be feeding her idea that her relationship is healthy rather than encouraging her to seek the help and counselling she seems to need to deal with the abuse in her childhood, her drug addiction, and her current relationship.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

If you go to feminist, sex-positive, implicitly blue-pill circles, there is rampant discussion of submissive women and how they fit into feminist ideologies. There is shaming, sure, but I've observed a much larger contingent that affirms their existence and their desires and does plenty of work to understand how the existence of such women relate to feminism. There are many submissive feminist bloggers.

The reason why people are concerned for red pill women is because they're red pill. TRP encompasses far more than a set of relationship preferences. It makes all kinds of assumptions about why the genders act the way they do-- assumptions which are actively hostile to people like me. Sorry if you think that being told that being part of a toxic ideology is, well, toxic is condescending, but that's the nature of disagreement, after all.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DorianCairne8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's about the relationship itself, but more about the reasons why you would be submissive. If you are submissive because it makes you happy, because it rings your bell, whatever, then great. If you are submissive because you believe you are less than a man, or that you don't have as much to offer or something, that's when people get concerned. I'm sure you can see how easily someone could manipulate a person who considers themself lower than other people. Then when this belief gets pushed on to people at large - i.e. "I believe all women should be submissive because they aren't logical and need men to guide them" or whatever, it very rightfully pisses people off.

I personally do not care if you (or anyone) chooses to be submissive in a relationship, if it's for good reasons (i.e. it makes you happy, etc). If you choose to be submissive because you believe you are less than someone else, that's where I consider there's a problem. RP states that women should be lead because they aren't as capable, so I oppose that.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]DuchessSandwich8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Apparently she has a bunch of beta orbiters who tell her she's pretty and buy her things? I'm not going to argue that point because I don't agree with RP philosophy at all and I can't make it make sense because I don't see how it does. I was merely pointing out that if you as a woman (right?) were to submit to your SO because you considered yourself less than capable for whatever reason (including because of your gender) I would try to change that given an opportunity. You are a capable person who is just as able as a man to make decisions and conduct your life. If you believe that about yourself and still choose to be in a relationship where your SO leads you and makes most of the decisions (or whatever your definition of "submissive" is) then more power to you and I'm glad you're actually happy.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]DuchessSandwich11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Red pill men (as a whole) do not believe women are inferior - they believe women are different. There are a handful of extremists who say they are inferior, but I believe most of them do not. Usually, the ones who do go as far as to say women are inferior are either kidding around or not referring to all women in every way. Sure I can have an argument with a red piller trying to convince him women are just as intelligent as men and he will disagree with me, but there will be another red piller backing me up and saying that hey, you know, there will definitely be some women who are more intelligent than some men and vice versa.

Incapable of logic, yet another exageration TRP uses in their discourse. What if I told you, Women are not encouraged to be logical all the time ?? That's true, actually. Women arent taught how to stifle emotional responses or employ rational thinking when it comes to sexual strategy. Most of the time, women go with how they "feel" which is why they think a lot of women aren't attracted to the "betas" who pretty much have what it takes to be a good boyfriend on paper but lack what it takes to make a woman "feel" hot and bothered so to speak. You would think, if women are so logical, they would be able to easily determine who is right for them and just date those people? Then how do women end up dating jerks? Emotions.

Its not saying that women are incapable of logic in all arenas of life. I've stated my career many times and yeah, people aren't like "youre a women so thats not true" - more of than not, they will respect me because I have shown that I am capable of logic.

As a budding red pill women, its nice to have people give me a different perspective, not one which constantly caters to my ego, and tells me how good I am. Being made aware of my limitations, of how I can be prone to error, etc, make me all the better overcome them. Its not about circlejerking over BDSM or traditional marriage roles. Its about asking the controversial question "What is shitty about women?" Well, no one bats an eye if you ask them whats shitty about men, no one will cry "Sexism!" if someone says something bad about the male gender because women are seen as the "minority" in many cases, so they are the victim of sexism and not men. This is the source of privilege for women; feeling that nothing that they do is wrong, and which is why they need to rationalize every action into something right. Sure, you'll get people saying "Men are harmed as well" by gender roles, but only in order to further their argument that women need to be given more things in order to be equal. This discourse which has been on since the dawn of feminism has always had the agenda of bettering things for women, at the expense of men. The red pill is the only modern philosophy which seeks to empower men and help them take control of their own lives, and not be controlled by women who see them as merely means to their own end.

As a red pill women, my goal is to make sure that I understand the perspective no one dares talk about. The one which claims women are not perfect. The one that says, no, people shouldnt except us for who we are just because we are that way. I like the challenge of being told that I am not good enough; it only makes me want to better myself.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women arent taught how to stifle emotional responses or employ rational thinking when it comes to sexual strategy. Most of the time, women go with how they "feel" which is why they think a lot of women aren't attracted to the "betas" who pretty much have what it takes to be a good boyfriend on paper but lack what it takes to make a woman "feel" hot and bothered so to speak. You would think, if women are so logical, they would be able to easily determine who is right for them and just date those people? Then how do women end up dating jerks? Emotions.

Very, very few people, men or women, use logic rather than emotions when it comes to dating. Men end up with jerky women because of emotions and attraction just as much as women end up with jerky men because of emotions and attraction. It is a very rare person who can "easily determine who is right for them and just date those people". I fail to see how this argument says anything about men being more logical than women. I've seen plenty of men make some stupid ass decisions in dating for some highly irrational reasons.

The red pill is the only modern philosophy which seeks to empower men and help them take control of their own lives, and not be controlled by women who see them as merely means to their own end.

I disagree with this. Most places giving dating advice and self-help teach about not being manipulated by potential partners. However, what they don't teach is to answer that manipulation with more manipulation. Yes there are women who manipulate men for their own ends, their are also men who manipulate women for their own ends. Both are completely scummy but the Red Pill condemns the former while encouraging the latter. There is nothing positive about that.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

the perspective no one dares talk about. The one which claims women are not perfect.

This myth needs to be crushed into atoms. This is a Red Pill talking point that has gone unchallenged for so long it has become a meme.

the controversial question "What is shitty about women?"

Really? Calling women shitty when they act shitty is controversial? You think media put women on a pedestal and you and your ilk are somehow tearing down untouchable idols and doing society a favor. Let me show you some shitty women trope:

1) The Wicked Stepmother, see also meddling mother-in-law.

This is probably the oldest evil woman trope. There's no equivalent of a wicked stepfather or a meddling harpy of a father-in-law. The only thing that comes close is the inversion of the Robert deNiro character in Meet the Parents. TV sitcoms are littered with this stereotype.

2) The Golddigger/Social Climber

This woman is universally hated, even though, according to "Red Pill see it as it is", it's perfectly acceptable to trade looks for money. Every time there's a reddit thread about dating and wealth, there's a pile-on about how women are only after money. /r/AskMen will automatically assume a young woman dating an older man because of money. The hate that I get from threads like that is palpable. You know who's the golddigger that doesn't get all the hate? Men. That's right. When the British landed gentry fell into hard times and found their estates unmanageable without money, they married American wealth. Edith Wharton, Henry James, E.M. Forster period novels are rife with examples of this. The hottest high-brow period drama currently running, Downton Abbey, features an English lord who married American wealth. Far from being reviled, he's sketched as a sympathetic character, despite having twice ruined his wife's fortune and ran his estates into the grounds.

3) The Bridezilla

Need I say more? There's even a show called Bridezilla, the portmanteau of a bride and a rampaging monster that destroys cities. Say Yes to the Dress are vignettes of horrible brides, horrible mother of brides and their ridiculous quest for the fairytale dress. It tends to end well, but not after showing up these people as ridiculous, unreasonable, pathologically selfish monsters.

4) The Black Widow

A twist on the gold digger, who kills the husband. Did you know that Chinese physiognomy (it's a pseudo-science that purports to detect characteristics and fortunes in facial features, limbs, moles) has a whole chapter on detecting women who are going to kill their husbands? The Guanyin bodhisattva was a woman who was falsely accused of trying to kill her husband when he was sleeping (she was trying to snip off a hair off his mole.)

5) The Stupid Housewife

For all the lip service Red Pill pays to this character, she gets no respect. Probably the saddest of all portrayal, she gets it from both sides, the men think she's a leeching parasite who does nothing all day because housework isn't that hard. Some feminist think nearly the same thing of her that she's living an unfulfilled life of subservience.

Have you seen any episode of Housewives of XYZ, Jersey Shore, Princesses of Long Island? It's all about women behaving badly, women we love to hate and dump on. These stereotypes are all over mass media. As much, and as often as men are portrayed as bronzer-wearing guidos, bumbling husbands, women are just as frequently ridiculed and reviled: as stupid, as duplicitous, as manipulative, as immature, as conniving, the whole range of nasty habits and behavior.

What world do you live in that you can't talk shit about women? Give me a freaking break. You are so wrapped up in your narrative that women have been placed on pedestals forever you can't see what is obvious and ubiquitous.

[–]PenguinLovrPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm thinking more like the average relationship dynamic, where the woman is constantly complaining to the boyfriend or whatever, and whenever she does something wrong and he points it out she flips it over on him instead of doing some self reflection. The only way for the argument to end is for the boyfriend to back down, apologize, and appease the woman.

The first thing about modern society which is true: it is easier for average-attractive women to find a partner than men, which gives them this false sense of how women are "better" than the men they date because these men are disposable; a woman could easily find a new man the second the man shes currently seeing does something wrong, but men don't have it that way. Its harder for men to find women, so when he does, he has to accept her flaws because he is conditioned to think that he is lucky if he even has a girl.

This is my perception of the world, and by the way I am a girl, and I didnt like the Red Pill at first either, but its been an eye opener.

I dont watch a of those TV shows. But I'm not talking about these obviously terrible women, I'm talking about your average human being, the one who you'd think is just fine, because she isnt a terrible person. Does that excuse her behavior when she throws a tantrum or becomes demanding over something insignificant? No. But thats still shitty. For a boyfriend to repeatedly dismiss stuff like that because he feels lucky to even have her, only for it to end 3 years later because he is unhappy or she isnt attracted to him anymore.

[–]DuchessSandwich0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Past bad experiences don't justify calling half of the human race inferior or bad or anything. You're not allowed to justify hatred toward large groups because one (or two or three or ten) people who may belong to that group did something bad to you. That's just crazy.

The fact that you're defending them makes me think you're on "their side". You know that you aren't inferior or incapable and I know that you aren't inferior or incapable. Why do you subscribe to a "movement" that has a majority of members who think you are inferior or incapable? You could follow any number of housewife or stay at home mom or submissive-feminine women blogs but you choose to follow something that at its heart says you lack honor and you cannot love. I cannot understand that. You can't pick and choose what you like about it if the majority of it is so toxic.

Edit: spelling

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Very few women are actually that scummy. Red Pillers tend to come from a group that has an over representative experience with this type (that's a big part of why they became Red Pillers), but even they wouldn't claim that every woman acts that way.

The big problem is, people like you deny that exploitative women even exist. That, to me, is far more troubling than their willingness to assume bad faith. You refuse to acknowledge that women are even human, because if you did, you'd know how fucked up they can be.

I have little respect for blue pillers, because whereas red pillers are coming from a place of honest resentment (they used to suck with women, and that will make someone massively resentfull -- and they acknowledge the reason why), your resentment comes from having someone pry your eyes open and force you to look at something you don't want to see. That is the resentment of flat-earthers and creationists, and it simply isn't honest.

[–]DuchessSandwich4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Red Pillers tend to come from a group that has an over representative experience with this type (that's a big part of why they became Red Pillers), but even they wouldn't claim that every woman acts that way.

A core tenant of TRP is that women are hypergamous, which means they have little to no loyalty to any man, and will dump him for a more alpha man who gets the gina tingling. They even have a fun little anagram for anyone who says otherwise: NAWALT, not all women are like that, meant to mock anyone who disagrees with the notion that women are a monolithic group of every bad human trait with little to no redeeming value beyond sex.

I have little respect for blue pillers, because whereas red pillers are coming from a place of honest resentment

Red Pillers largely come from a place of anger, sadness, resentment, jealousy, humiliation, etc... which are some of the strongest human emotions. If you think that their logic, their beliefs are not clouded by these strong emotions as well as saving face for their ego, you are sadly mistaken.

your resentment comes from having someone pry your eyes open and force you to look at something you don't want to see.

Get over yourself. My resentment of TRP comes from the frequent dehumanizing rhetoric against women, not because I am just so shell shocked by their uncomfortable truths.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

And there we see your intolerance. We only look for reasons when we disapprove of something.

When something has the potential to be harmful, that's when I look into it. I don't agree that a non-submissive relationship (simply by virtue of being non-submissive) is potentially harmful to either party. I disapprove of people being manipulated or abused. If I see a situation where I believe that is possible, I will look for reasons why a person would be in that situation.

And who appointed you judge of people's reasons anyway? You have neither the cause nor the right nor the expertise to say if someone's reasons for being submissive are "good" or not. That's up to her.

No one did. Someone asked a question on a debate subreddit and I answered it.

Are you RP? No? Then don't tell other people what they believe.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a debate sub.

I'm not sure why you're getting riled up. I was just providing my thoughts/opinion on the subject.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

When something has the potential to be harmful, that's when I look into it. I don't agree that a non-submissive relationship (simply by virtue of being non-submissive) is potentially harmful to either party.

So this means you either think that a submissive person is potentially harmed simply by virtue of being submissive, or that you think equalist relationships contain no potential for harm.

Puzzling.

I was just providing my thoughts/opinion on the subject.

You were misrepresenting the opposing position.

You said:

RP states that women should be lead because they aren't as capable, so I oppose that.

This sentence makes two statements, and contains two misrepresentations. Either you're trying to cunningly craft the easiest possible position to argue against (postmodern discourse, not interested in getting at truth), or you're ignorant of the position you are attempting to oppose, and your opinion can thus be disregarded on those grounds.

But, in the interests of making things clear, let's assume the second.

So, first error:

RP states that women should be lead

No. TRP is a sexual strategy forum, not a cultural crusade. It is not a prescription for society at large, or for a society, but a recipe for how individual men (and, to, a lesser extent, couples) can have good, abundant sex, and successful relationships if they want them.

Therefore, anytime we use the word "should" it doesn't mean "morally, everyone must". It means "do this, it works". It also means this is instructions for the individual, not for "society".

So the correct phrasing is:

RP states that you should lead your woman

Let's look at the second error:

because they aren't as capable

First of all, what does this even mean? You haven't specified "capable at what".

But more importantly, you've missed the point. TRP is a sexual strategy forum, not a cultural crusade. If we were about leading women "because they were less capable", who would that benefit? Us? No. Society... in some vague, nebulous, unspecified way.

We're not about "society". We're about relationships (whether those be a quick screw against the back wall of a nightclub, marriage, or anything in between). So all of all advice is for individuals. The correct phrasing is

because women respond positively (especially sexually) to being led.

So we can see that you took "Take the lead with women, it'll get you laid", and turned it into "women are idiots, and should not be allowed to make decisions".

And I can see why. Arguing against the first statement is hopeless.

[–]DuchessSandwich3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I'm so embarrassed.

This article, linked in your sidebar literally states:

We observe an identical difference between men as a whole and women as a whole. A young woman of twenty reacts with intuitive promptitude and security in all the usual circumstances in which she may be placed. Her likes and dislikes are formed; her opinions, to a great extent, the same that they will be through life. Her character is, in fact, finished in its essentials. How inferior to her is a boy of twenty in all these respects! His character is still gelatinous, uncertain what shape to assume, "trying it on" in every direction. Feeling his power, yet ignorant of the manner in which he shall express it, he is, when compared with his sister, a being of no definite contour. But this absence of prompt tendency in his brain to set into particular modes is the very condition which insures that it shall ultimately become so much more efficient than the woman's.

While going on to say that women are children and need to be lead.

[–]Deansdale-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

You cite someone (No Maam) who himself is unrelated to RP and who cites someone else (William James) from freakin' 1890, saying something vaguely similar to something you want to prove... I'm not sold yet.

The real problem is that you want to prove that we are mysygynysts, and you reframe anything you find to mean something completely different than what it was supposed to mean. Whisper already explained the RP viewpoint:

RP states that you should lead your woman because women respond positively (especially sexually) to being led.

This is as "official" as it gets for RP statements, and it's pretty far from what you try to imagine into it. There is 0% mysygyny in talking about the psychological fact that - generally speaking - women react positively to guys who take the lead with confidence. You might try to dispute this but 50 shades says you shouldn't.

I find it amusing that we RP guys are EXPLICITLY stating what it is we believe in, and you still try to argue that we believe in something else.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Look, I totally get where you're coming from and I would accept your criticism if you were honest. But you aren't. Let's just analyze the inherent absurdity of this situation for a second:

I am a "redpiller". I saw the Matrix and I was there when the manosphere began to use the red pill metaphor. I wrote a blog about dating when it was relatively new, I wrote articles about "game" years ago. I think by now I have the right to say that I more or less know what the red pill is, and what it isn't.

On the other hand you are outsiders, coming in attacking TRP. I don't want to brag or sound rude but your knowledge about it is quite limited compared to mine.

And when I say that "RP says this and this" you have the gall to discard my points and insist that you know TRP better than I do. The same with Whisper and many others. We know what we are talking about and we state everything clearly and explicitly. But you still scuba dive in search for links where someone said something that might be misconstrued as mysygyny or whatever. The arrogance is mindblowing when someone says "I'm X, I represent X, and I say ABC", and someone else keeps repeating that "Yes, you are X, you represent X, but you don't say ABC, you say EFG". Would you just please let me know what I believe in? If you are not interested at all in actual RP ideas, if you just want to insist that we're mysygynysts, then don't pretend that it's a debate. If you don't even let us defend ourselves then it's a witchhunt, and I'm an idiot to waste my time on it :)

[–]DuchessSandwich1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You're picking and choosing what you "believe" in then. It's on sidebar of your subreddit. That's "official", no?

Here's a quote from the writer himself:

In the same way that it would be nearly impossible for parents to properly raise children if the government passed a plethora of laws deconstructing parent’s natural roles and restricting them from setting boundaries for children, so it is increasingly difficult for a man to properly fulfill his leadership role that women instinctively seek and need.

Women need a man to fill a leadership role. It says that right there. Earlier he cites someone who says that men's brains are more efficient than women's. Why does it matter if the quote is from 1890 or 2014 if a person who is featured on the sidebar of TRP is using a specific quote to espouse a theory? They could have cut up the paragraph to not include that sentence. They could have chosen a different quote. But they didn't.

I don't need to prove you're misogynists. It's pretty self-evident.

This is the 6th highest post of all time on your subreddit. A post which states

women have no loyalty beyond their own narcissism

While not outright "hating" women, that statement certainly smacks of distrust, and dislike of women.

Or this.

[–]Deansdale1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Women need a man to fill a leadership role. It says that right there.

He wrote that women instinctively seek a leader, yes, but it does not imply in any way, shape or form that it is because "women are less capable". It implies that we have different psychosexual needs. Contrary to popular dogma "different" does not mean inferior/superior.

I very rarely speak about RP ideas to outsiders so you might consider yourself honored when I take the time to explain that the core of RP knowledge is that the basic sexual impulses of men and women are both shaped by evolution and thus they are not subject to any morality. Anybody who projects moral categories onto male or female sexuality does not understand TRP. To put it simply: we don't believe that "men=good, women=bad". We believe that we are all people with different instincts. If it turns out that women in general are less loyal than men, well, we accept it as it is without moralizing, focusing instead on the consequences. We can debate whether women in general are loyal or not, but I sense you have an innate aversion to seemingly negative statements about women. What you call mysygyny is anything negative toward women regardless of it being true or false. We say it's not mysygyny to acknowledge that women too have a dark side - just as men. Go figure.

I don't need to prove you're misogynists. It's pretty self-evident.

Yeah, here's the problem. You want us to be mysygynysts, but it is your preconception, not based on anything factual. You came in "knowing" that we hate women and you twist every single thing you find to fit that narrative, which effectively makes you blind to what is actually going on.

I do realize that some of us make sweeping statements which might seem a tad radical to outsiders, but I could raise a dozen different defences to that, like the classic "not all redpillers are like that", you know :) But instead let me just ask you a simple question: tens of thousands of feminists have proudly shouted at the world for at least 6 decades now that they distrust and dislike men, how come you don't condemn them for their apparent misandry? Or is that justified because men are evil?

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpatwerp11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

People really get uptight about this "submissive" thing. "Submissive" doesn't mean the cartoon version of some slave anime-maid-robot shuffling around, looking at the ground, calling her man "master" and hoping he doesn't hit her this time. That's not real life.

Submissive means somebody who, honest to goodness, actually obtains satisfaction and fulfillment from doing things that gratify others, and takes pride in putting himself or herself second because they genuinely believe in what that other person is doing and genuinely want him or her to succeed and play a role in fostering that success.

Some women pride themselves in not knowing how to cook, and think that cooking meals for their husband is demeaning, anti-feminist, and beneath them. Some women obtain tremendous satisfaction from working hard to create a meal from scratch and nourishing their husband and children with something they produced. I cook nearly all of my family's meals, think that anybody who can't cook food is lacking a basic adult survival skill, and genuinely believe that anybody who takes pride in the fact that they can get away with not having to do the work nourishing their spouse or children is sick in the head.

Some women enthusiastically undertake the task of sexually pleasing their husbands. Knowing that her man is erect for her, has an orgasm for her, and that she satisfies him fulfills her. She gets off on getting him off and makes pleasing her husband a priority. Some women roll their eyes at the thought of having sex with their husbands, think it's a pain in the ass that they have to do this once a month, don't know why their company isn't enough, and brag to their friends about the incredible quality of life they're living and how little they have to work for it.

I could spit out a few more examples, but you get it. And there are various middle grounds between these extremes, obviously. A submissive woman isn't a weak "yes sir, I will have sex the way you requested immediately even though I don't want to sir" brainwashed child. A submissive woman is somebody who honest-to-goodness respects, cherishes, and admires her man and all that he does, and willingly makes herself second to him, because if she plays a supporting role furthering his success, their entire family goes farther.

Honest-to-goodness gratitude, respect, and admiration for a man, by his woman, and a willingness by her to sacrifice for him is so darn rare that people actually find themselves thinking that any woman who would "submit" like this must be a weak, brainwashed child. Because no self-respecting woman could possibly love a man like that.

[–]twentyfoursevensex5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]twentyfoursevensex5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]twentyfoursevensex0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad you're an awesome woman. Most aren't.

A woman who doesn't care whether her husband is sexually satisfied, because she's not into it has a disregard for her loved one.

A woman who doesn't feel that she should have to cook or clean or get a job and earn income because the mere fact that she was willing to marry a man is a gift he should cherish by doing all of these things for her (or getting a good job and paying people to clean for her while eating out every night) has a disregard for her loved one.

A woman who won't sacrifice her wants and comfort for the greater good of her family, which could include moving for her husband's career, quitting her job because daycare for kid #2 or #3 makes her going to work non-economical, cleaning the house herself because maids are too expensive and her husband works too many hours to do it himself, living in a smaller house, driving a used car, ironing her husband's shirts because 2.79 per shirt at the cleaners is a bitch, going grocery shopping while her husband's at work, cooking meals from scratch because that's just plain more economical as well as healthier -- all kinds of things that, hands down, involve giving up a piece of herself, what she wants, what she enjoys, and who she is, when she doesn't get anything in return. All things she would do solely to benefit her husband and her family, and the only thing she would get back would be the satisfaction of knowing that she's playing an essential supporting role for her family to help all of them get a little farther.

That's submission.

[–]twentyfoursevensex4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I've never thought that dividing essential life tasks as being submission. I've always considered it to be when one person's decisions trumps another's.

You really have a straw man argument for the non-submissive women as some incredibly selfish person, slothing around, making demands and doing nothing in return. And I do not agree with that.

I would say I do a lot of what you describe except not expecting anything in return- if my needs are not also met (of course there is leniency) it seems like an incredibly one sided relationship and rather selfish on the other parties end. I will love and give my all to someone but I will not be taken advantage of and I expect both parties voices to be heard. My parents had a similar relationship to what you described, my mother was mainly a homemaker and my father worked but they did not have a dominant-submissive relationship. My mother did not acquiesce to my father's will, they worked together.

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We get into semantics here.

Nobody wants to wash the dishes. But somebody has to do it. If my wife decides to wash dishes every night so I can work an extra half hour at the office, in recognition of the fact that my breadwinning job is more important than her part-time work from home job, her fun playtime with our daughter, her relaxing time after work with her cell phone or facebooking while our daughter watches a DVD, or anything else she could be doing with that time, she's submitting. The fact that this division of labor also makes logical sense doesn't suddenly make it not submission. Neither one of us wants to wash the dishes, but if she does it because I'm doing something more important, and doesn't get anything out of it, she's submitted.

If my wife sits on her ass and plays with her cell phone and leaves all the chores for me to do, bitches that she had to take care of our daughter from the time daycare let out until the time I got home from work so she's tired, and instead of putting her in her place, I keep my mouth shut and do all of the chores because if the bitch divorces me, I lose my daughter, I've submitted. I don't want to do the dishes, but somebody needs to do it, and since she has power over me, I do the fucking dishes.

Nobody ordered me to do the dishes. They just needed doing. You're taking this whole "submission" concept to a ludicrous extreme, where an abusive man bosses a timid mouse of a woman around, while she scuttles about saying "yes master." If you sacrifice your time, energy, and resources for someone else because they're more important to you than you are, you've submitted. Even if nobody's bossing you around and beating you.

[–]twentyfoursevensex5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You sound like my mother... She'd always tell me to do some chores by the time she got home from work, and if I forgot about something then she'd start doing it acting like a martyr, and even if I said "Sorry I forgot, I'll just do it now", she'd be like "No it's too late, I have to do it now, how could you be so careless and absent-minded?!"

I'll admit I usually didn't have any good excuse for failing to do the chores on time, but I guess I just never saw why those tasks were so time-critical - I mean it's not like the world's going to explode if there's some plates in the sink or some breadcrumbs on the table for a few more hours.

Now living on my own I try to keep the mess contained, but I'm not the neatest person in the world and never will be. Living with a guy who's going to either "put me in my place" or passive-aggressively start polishing things while radiating resentment at me if the house isn't spotless enough, sounds like a bloody nightmare.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sub·mit [suhb-mit] verb (used without object), sub·mit·ted, sub·mit·ting. 5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror. 6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy. 7. to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.

Doing the dishes is not an act of submission. If you tell your wife to do the dishes and she does, that is submission. If your boss told you to do X before tomorrow and you stayed late to finish it, that's submission. If your wife took it upon herself to do the dishes because she's a human being with foresight, that is not submission, that's just doing something that needs to be done without having to be told. Submission by its own definition requires one person to submit to another. You cannot be submissive in a relationship without having someone to be submissive to. A lot of relationships involve both parties submitting to the other, depending on the circumstances, back and forth. TRP seems to advocate the woman submitting to the man, without it going the other way.

[–]Shadow_Nirvana4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Some women pride themselves in not knowing how to cook, and think that cooking meals for their husband is demeaning, anti-feminist, and beneath them.

I have never, ever encountered this in real life. Hell, I haven't even encountered this on the internet (besides as a strawman argument) though I'd imagine you could dig it up on tumblr or something.

Edit: The same applies to any of the other examples you put forth.

Some women enthusiastically undertake the task of sexually pleasing their husbands. Knowing that her man is erect for her, has an orgasm for her, and that she satisfies him fulfills her. She gets off on getting him off and makes pleasing her husband a priority.

What I don't understand about this is why can't the husband also have as a priority the sexual pleasure of his wife? Why don't they both just please each other and make each other happy? Why does it seem one-sided? I get that this could just be a matter of wording (since you don't specifically say that the husband doesn't also strive to make his wife happy the same way she makes him happy) but the way I read it looks like it's really one-sided.

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What I don't understand about this is why can't the husband also have as a priority the sexual pleasure of his wife? Why don't they both just please each other and make each other happy?

I never said he couldn't. Like you said, my paragraphs above only talked about female mindset. My wife might piss and moan and bear with my advances once in a blue moon, but she gets off every time, because I take great satisfaction in seeing her eyes roll back and making her shove her pillow over her face so her noises don't wake the kid up. And this after cooking the family dinner, washing the dishes, and bathing and putting our daughter to bed, all after having worked all day supporting our family.

I take great pride in pride in doing these things for my family, even though it takes a lot out of me and I could probably accomplish more professionally or personally if I didn't. You could say I'm submissive to my family.

[–]DuchessSandwich7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Being married isn't the RP norm. But opinions differ. Sexual prowess and knowing all kinds of ways to get a woman off is a valuable male skill if you're the kind of guy who wants to maintain a lot of casual sexual relationships at once. If you suck in bed, you're not going to get many repeat visits.

There's a lot of support toward the male putting his pleasure first, though. While I won't generalize about all women, lots and lots of women enjoy the feeling of being "taken" by a man, want him to finish first, and feel good about being so attractive that the man just seemed to lose himself and go at her in a way he enjoyed. There are as many shades of this as there are people on earth, so I'm in no way generalizing every woman's sexual preference, but many girls enjoy a guy who's into enjoying himself more than they enjoy a guy who's fixated on pleasing her.

Anyway, it would be awfully nice if my wife would do more of the shit I do at home so I could excel professionally and take our family farther, but I'm a selfish pig if I don't recognize that sitting on the couch playing with her cellphone after having to deal with our little girl for 2 hours after day care, instead of washing the dishes while I put our girl to bed, is an essential unwinding process for my wife. And I definitely wouldn't think about suggesting that my loving partner, who works from home, cook dinner. That's my job between 7 and 7:15, while carrying our daughter in one arm. I said fuck it last Friday and made a frozen lasagna and had a drink. It had been a long week. My wife complained at the subpar dinner. I shared my beer with our daughter, which made my wife complain more. I laughed because it was funny. I live in a sitcom.

[–]DuchessSandwich-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5168-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]51680 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]berryokt1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link

I assume you know what the word "submission" means. It means you give someone else power over yourself. I'm not sure why you are surprised that people think that's weak. I'm trying to think of any situation in nature or among humans where giving up power over oneself is considered strong. I'm drawing a blank.

I have no idea why you think being gay is comparable. That you are gay doesn't mean you are any different than anyone else except for the fact that you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. You are not talking about sexual attraction you are talking about a life style. There is no gay lifestyle in that sense. Gay people are allowed to do whatever they want.

"Submitting" to another person means you cease to be a person to some extent. The power over yourself is what defines you. It's what distinguishes you from another person. When I visit a friend they become happy because they know I wanted to visit them. If I had "submitted" to someone my friend could never again be sure that I was doing it because I wanted to.

Do you oppose a RP relationship but accept the BDSM version of it?

Yes obviously because what happens in the bedroom doesn't affect a persons relations with the rest of the world.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

For many reasons. First of all, TRP argues that "all" women would do better in a TRP style relationship (which you seem to be implying is like TPE?) - yet even for those in the kink community (a small subsection of the population), only a tiny percentage choose TPE. Further, BDSM involves submissive men, dominant women, and switches (to name a few), which seems to be knocked within TRP.

Furthermore, BDSM involves safeguards, such as safewords and negotiations. Secondly, there are many BDSM relationships that aren't sexual, or involve a relationship at all. Using BDSM to demonstrate why TRP is acceptable is silly, since BDSM covers everything from liking to be tied up every now and then to age play to animal play to TPE. We're not talking about a monolithic set of ideals - hell, if you want to see a fight, bring up RACK and SSC in front of BDSMers - but rather a loose set of guidelines people choose from.

Look, I'm not knocking TPE, though it would never be a relationship I would choose. I am knocking TRP relationships, but not for having submissive women. That's be somewhat hypocritical. I knock TRP for being borderline abusive, unhealthy, fostering codependency, justifying double standards because of some amorphous definition of biology, and a ton of other things.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

My husband has the final say in decisions that affect both our lives, i.e. what house we will live in and when we will move, how much we can spend on a car, general budgeting, and other mundane day-to-day things I don't feel like listing. This doesn't mean I don't have my own opinions. He is more knowledgable in these areas than I am, so I submit to him as an authority on those matters because it makes no sense for me to challenge him when he has spent his life studying some of these things while I know very little about them. I'm more knowledgable about some things than he is, and so I share that skill set with him. I prefer not to lead, however.

We can still have discussions and debates and disagreements about various subjects. Submitting to my husband has not caused me to lose my personality and become a different person. That is the dynamic we have within our relationship, and though that does extend to outside areas that also affect the relationship, it doesn't mean that I'm a slave to his every desire with no voice of my own. He doesn't tell me what opinions to have.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

A lot of these arguments against submission are based on some pretty damn shitty husbands. Why would anyone defer to someone who was going to throw their life in shambles? If my husband told me to quit my job I would expect him to have a damn good reason. If he abused his leadership role and put us in bad situations or showed no respect for me I would not be submitting to him. I feel comfortable submitting to him because I trust him. This doesn't mean I can't question anything he says.

If he told me I had to quit my job he would give me a reason why. If I disagreed with that reason I would state my argument. He would consider my argument, weigh both of our sides, and then thoroughly explain to me why he made whatever decision he did, and what compromises he would like to try, and when we can convene again to determine if this plan is working out. I may not like all of his decisions, but I know that they make sense and are logical and rational. I don't just shut off my brain. If something really doesn't seem right to me I will respectfully ask for an explanation. 90% of the time he will bring up something I never thought of that explains the whole situation. Other times he will thank me for calling an issue to his attention and alter his plan based on my concerns. In the end he is the one calling the shots, but I'm not just a sock puppet along for the ride.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I didn't really peruse those threads but I didn't see the insults you are talking about. Could you link to them for me, please?

I stayed out of those threads but I sort of hold the opinion you describe. I think it is entirely your decision. I also think that the decision to be submissive in a relationship can and often does arise from a woman who struggles with self-esteem problems, a dearth of self-confidence, mental health issues, codependency issues, all sorts of stuff like that. I'll use the word 'weak' to mean a person who struggles with self-esteem problems, a dearth of self-confidence, mental health issues, codependency issues, all sorts of stuff like that

I am NOT saying that any woman who chooses to be submissive in a relationship is weak. I am saying that I think it is far more likely for a weak woman to choose to be submissive than for a woman who is not weak to make that decision.

I have know strong women who wanted that. I know it happens. But the vast majority of women who make that choice have seemed like simpering, fearful mice in general.

I feel this way about the women I have seen in the BDSM version of RP relationships...meaning a 24 hr D/s relationship. I feel this way about people who hook up with feeders and become obese to please them.

I don't feel hostile to any of these people. I just have that opinion.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What a lot of people (including you here) seem to miss is that submission takes a great deal of strength. Submission requires love, respect and a wiling yield to another. A personal relationship where there is devotion, knowledge, and foresight to the future. Submission is done as a very purposeful act, where the one you are submitting to has proved themselves worthy of your submission, devotion, and most of all, trust.

Oftentimes submission seems to be compared to

rom a woman who struggles with self-esteem problems, a dearth of self-confidence, mental health issues, codependency issues, all sorts of stuff like that. I'll use the word 'weak' to mean a person who struggles with self-esteem problems, a dearth of self-confidence, mental health issues, codependency issues, all sorts of stuff like that

and that's not a fair comparison. Especially not to the women of RPW. Submission is not oppression.

Only a strong person with an open heart can be submissive. Submissiveness is not timidity, it is not servility, it is not subservience, it is not docility, it is not degrading, it is not a sign of weakness.

True submission is a sign of inner strength, not of weakness. A greater degree of submission requires a greater degree of strength of personal character. As true love is a positive, so is true submission. A positive can only make more positives.

Submission is an act of the will — it is the “result of a choice” and a result of a decision. The act of submission can only come from a choice and a decision that a person makes.

Submission is a gift that one person chooses to give to another person. “Loving Submission” cannot be enforced upon a person. Either a person submits of their own free will, or they do not “truly submit”, at all.

By contrast oppression is the act of extracting something from a person against their will. Submission and oppression are, therefore, opposite qualities of a relationship and are not even remotely similar.

The submission of a good wife is a glorious thing that is intended to help her and her husband to have a contented life together. Problems in life and in marriage are more or less inevitable, but when a wife lovingly gives submission to her husband it is much more likely that those problems can be resolved harmoniously, without unpleasant quarrelling and without bitterness and resentment.

Those people who look down on submission as if it were something oppressing, demeaning, degrading, or humiliating are merely showing that they have no understanding of what submission is and that they are ignorant of its good power.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points-2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand that some people can take issue to the a Dominant/Submissive relationship if there is little awareness around the subject but there were some pretty hostile comments reverting to name calling things like "sock puppet" "fragile egos" "no self respect" "poor self esteem"

You forgot "doormat" and "stepford {something}", both feminist favourites when engaging in a healthy, invigorating bout of sub-shaming.

I would just like to ask the people whom oppose it so fervently do they offer the same sort of hostility to other couples who choose to live a different lifestyle .... are you homophobic as well, for instance?

Don't be silly. Feminists, SJWs, cultural Marxists, and other leftoids aren't in favour of tolerance in general. They're in favour of tolerance for choices and groups they like, not for anyone they disapprove of.

This is why, to them, fat people, homosexuals, blacks, and independent or dominant women must all be shielded from any criticism...

... but fit people, heterosexuals, whites, submissive women, well-off people, etc, etc. are all fair game.

The rather threadbare argument is that the second categories are somehow "privileged" and always doing okay, but the first are weak and in need of special protection.

But the reality is that they are really a-okay with having a culture that loves some groups more than others. They just want to decide which groups.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I get what you're saying, but sometimes it's not so complicated. If you point at a man and say "that is a good, honest, kind man" and then an hour later I see that man kicking a puppy, I would not believe that he is a good, honest, kind man.

If you told me that submissive relationships were very, very bad and anti-woman and then I saw a submissive relationship (with my own eyes, not a story on the internet) that was very good and made that woman very happy, I would certainly change my perspective somewhat on it (that it's not inherently bad to be in a submissive relationship or something like that). Obviously every person wouldn't be so open to changing their mind, but I don't think I'm some "special snowflake" - most people would be able to come to that conclusion having being given evidence, despite what they'd been told in the past.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Of course people are capable of learning and questioning their own belief systems, but depending on how much of their own self-identity is tied to that belief, they will refuse to consider.

For example, I was raised as a Christian from an early age, and I did reject it by the time I was 16 or so, but most people who are indoctrinated like I was wouldn't escape that degree social programming and psychological/emotional dependency on religion. And it just so happens social media sources had a strong influence on me in my teenage years that helped me escape it, so it wasn't entirely on my own. Left to my own devices, I may have never escaped it.

It becomes a part of you, and rejecting it means rejecting yourself, your place in the universe, and every comforting thought that goes with that. We like to believe we have the world largely figured out. I believe we instinctively want to be a part of something larger than ourselves, so humans create belief systems to satisfy that desire.

The example you cite, of seeing a woman in a happy submissive relationship and being able to question your belief that submission is bad, is just another example of only knowing what you're told. You didn't deduce on your own that there was insufficient evidence supporting anti-submission, you saw an example with your own eyes, "you were told differently." A lot of people when they see the same thing will begin to rationalize why that still may be a harmful or less desirable condition, even if she is happy, she's ignorant/has low self-esteem/etc. Equality is inherently superior to happiness is a statement I see often among feminists.

[–]DuchessSandwich4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The example you cite, of seeing a woman in a happy submissive relationship and being able to question your belief that submission is bad, is just another example of only knowing what you're told.

I don't equate "observing on one's own" to being told something.

A lot of people when they see the same thing will begin to rationalize why that still may be a harmful or less desirable condition, even if she is happy, she's ignorant/has low self-esteem/etc.

Because if she was ignorant or if she did have low self esteem then she could be manipulated into thinking she's "happy" in a type of abusive relationship. I'm not saying that all relationships where the man leads are abusive. But you can't fault people for being concerned over someone else's well being, especially when they aren't able to really know whether someone is being coerced or not.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuchessSandwich1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't say you had self esteem issues or that your lifestyle is inherently wrong. I said that someone in a "submissive" style relationship could have self esteem or other issues that allowed them to be manipulated into submitting. I suppose I am biased in that it is really hard for me to understand why someone would be in a submissive relationship. But that doesn't mean I feel hostile toward you for doing so. I also don't understand why people eat uni (sea urchin). It's disgusting. But I don't feel hostile toward people who eat it, I just wonder if there's some difference between their taste buds and mine.

I don't agree that being submissive is a "natural" state for humans in general. That doesn't mean that I think it's bad if you are. Lots of things people do aren't "natural".

I think I've used the word "I" enough times for today.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]twentyfoursevensex3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]twentyfoursevensex2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Title	Hostility to Submissive women. Is it acceptable?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	13
Comments	229
Date	January 20, 2014 5:03 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1vol2s/hostility_to_submissive_women_is_it_acceptable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/hostility-to-submissive-women-is-it-acceptable.286338 https://theredarchive.com/post/286338

Comments