The Remedial Red Pill

feminism-men-300x300

As of this post there are now 400 essays on Rational Male. And if there’s one thing that writing for as long as I have in what’s now known as the manosphere has taught me is the difficulty of having to initiate new readers to old concepts. When we get down and dirty in the commentary on a particular topic I tend to assume most commenters are familiar with at least the core concepts I’ve presented over the years and those who aren’t usually ask me for a link they probably could’ve found just by perusing the sidebar links, categories or a quick term search to see what I’ve post about a particular topic.

Still, this doesn’t seem to placate the disease of attention deficit disorder common to people who want to find whatever fault they can to defend the narrative they’ve invested themselves in. The problem then becomes one not unlike playing whack-a-mole where I’ve got to post links in comments or tweets I can only hope the critic will actually have the temerity and patience to read. Usually it comes back to TL;DR and they never really consider a rebuttal to their ‘Gotcha’ that I covered, in some cases, a decade ago.

As the manosphere and Red Pill awareness go more mainstream I expect this intellectual lethargy to increase on the part of those who are ego-invested in the continuance of a feminine-primary social order. As I’ve posted before,…ahem, the Red Pill is a Threat to the comfort and certainty of men and women conditioned to be dependent on its continuance:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

I’m proud to say that the comments in the last post reached a record high of over 700. And while I’m appreciative of that it does have the unfortunate effect of burying some really interesting commentary deep in the thread. Towards the 5th page of comments I got the following post from a commenter going by the handle ‘Alpha Female’. The consequent posts were a screed of what even the newest of Red Pill men can recognize as standard Gender Studies Major boilerplate.

I can’t say as I was surprised to see ‘Alpha Female’s’ comment on this week’s post since I was already aware of her previous foaming rant on the Women in Love post under the telling monicker of ‘The Best Thing You’ll Never Have’.

Against my better judgement I’m going to pick her comment apart here for this week’s discussion. Just so you know, I’m fully aware this is feeding a blatant troll. I also understand that Ms. Alpha lacks the critical thinking skills and curiosity to make even a cursory attempt to search for any of the 399 prior posts (a third of which I wrote for SoSuave over a decade ago) that might actually give her pause to think I’d covered them before.

Try not to think of this as a courtesy to Alpha Female, her argumentative style is one of presuming personal truths that fit her ego centered reality are the universally accepted ones. Think of this as more of a remedial lesson in Red Pill theory/ideology/practice and background for those new to Red Pill awareness.

Feel free to pick apart any or all of her initial list below in the comment thread. You can pick up the old thread to see where her rabbit hole goes here, but as you’ll probably expect most of the conversation revolves her own personal experiences and veers off into “ooh ooh, men do it too” and “people are all different, society sucks” tangents. Like most bad debaters, she flits from one issue to another when a snare she wasn’t expecting to conflict with her ‘correct’ reality holds her on that challenge for too long.

1. Equalitarian and “female-primary” social orders are not synonymous nor interchangeable. I assume you know the definition of equalitarian, yet you are using the term interchangeably to mean a female dominant social order. First example of flawed reasoning in this article.

Actually the only error is in AF not having searched the term “equalism” here, but keep that in mind, it’s going to come up often in this post. I’ve covered egalitarian equalism both here and here.

She is correct though, they shouldn’t be synonymous or interchangeable, but unfortunately the Feminine Imperative, and its predominant social arm of feminism, has conflated them both to serve a purpose for going on 70 years now. Universalism and Equalism have been the cover story to sell a feminine-primary social order since the late 60s.

It would be very simple if, as she constantly parrots, the definition of equalitarianism was only limited to a belief in ‘equal rights’ for all. Very few people are going to argue against that ideology, but the fact is that her ego-preferred definition has been contorted to be a useful tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The social veneer of ‘equalism’ was a necessary social convention in recruiting men to disavow their conventional masculinity (which later would be redefined by the feminine for them in later generations to better fit women’s dualistic sexual strategy) as well as their self-interests and adopt the idea that a nebulous ‘society’, and more specifically a Patriarchal one, was the source of gender roles they were told they should find oppressing.

Thus the synonymous association of a ‘faux equalist’ equalitarianism was paired with feminine social primacy. Equalism is simply the religion of feminism because it can hide the more egregious aspects of its agenda (unfettered Hypergamy for instance) behind a social convention that very few people would want to ‘be against’ – those who are are easily ostracized as “backwards” anachronisms by way of that definition. So the “flawed reasoning” really comes down to the semantics of the fluid definition the Feminine Imperative has prepared for women like AF to use and the observable facts of the utility it serves the Feminine Imperative.

Feminism has never been concerned with true egalitarian equality. Feminism has only ever been an effort in retribution and restitution. Our present social state of Open Hypergamy and feminist triumphalism is an indictment of that fact.

2. “The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.” There is evidence that exactly this is true.

This is interesting, because she cites no evidence. That’s because there is exactly zero evidence this is the case and increasingly science is proving exactly the opposite, much to the ideological discomfort of “equalists”. Men and women’s brains are literally wired differently (if she’d had the curiosity to look at this link I provided in the post she found so offensive she’d know this).

But we don’t even need those studies to grasp this most basic of human truths – we already know that men and women’s biochemistry and endocrinology work and affect their respective sex’s bodies and minds differently. Whether it’s the dominant presence of estrogen, progesterone and oxytocin in women or the dominant presence of testosterone in men, the body state – behavioral effects and emotional stimulus of those hormones make us fundamentally different beings – and that’s a good thing.

Complementarianism benefits women and men.

Furthermore, each sex evolved into different gender roles according to these biological predilections. We can split hairs as to which sex should be more suited for higher order vocations based on intellect and personal merit, but the obvious fact that men are more physically suited to certain tasks, and women are also similarly suited to other tasks – yet both complement the other – is inescapable.

Part of the evolved male neurological firmware is a natural aptitude to accurately and forcefully throw an object from a very early age – an evolved behavior necessary for survival and hunting. Yes, girls can be taught to throw as or more effectively than a boy with the right training, but it’s the natural unlearned aptitude boys have that puts the lie to the “we’re all born the same” blank slate trope.

So the question then becomes one of determining which sex’s strategy stands to benefit most from advocating for a belief that all humans are a blank slate, biology is meaningless and all gender is a social construct. Which sex has their interests served in lowering the bar and “leveling the playing field” to become more like the other?

Examine how being transgender impacts someone’s gender. You believe in a heteronormative gender binary which clouds your judgment and makes you incapable of understanding how gender relates to power dynamics in society. Until you can grasp that gender is defined by more than genitals, you will continue to write this complete and utter tripe that disparages women for the sake of helping you feel superior (which a truly superior person would not do).

Transgenderism is a mental disorder:

In the vast majority of cases, children who say they’re transgender and act that way change their minds about being the opposite sex—if you just leave them alone.According to a recent Hastings Center report, gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood in up to 73 to 94 percent of cases  (citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which noted dysphoria continuing in only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls.)

[…] Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels.

The term “heteronormative” is a common trope taught by Gender Studies academia with the latent purpose of canonizing a new definition of the term by demonizing and marginalizing the fundamental truth that gender finds its ‘normative’ condition in an evolved ‘hetero’sexual biology – and yes, that is a binary, one from which you cannot escape. Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.

The roots of gender are written into your DNA.That hetero normative state is responsible for producing you. Try as you may to convince yourself socially or psychologically it’s otherwise, you will never escape the biomechanic foundation that influences your motivations as a man or a woman.

With regard to how gender influences social dynamics, the Red Pill is the direct result of, and logical contingency to the feminine-primary social engineering the Feminine Imperative has instated into society over the last 70 years. If it weren’t for that foundational recognition of feminine-primary social power by the Red Pill you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

I do agree on this, gender is far more than genitals. Once an ideologically ‘correct’ form androgyny and egalitarian equalism enter the public sphere, the biological influences on gender determines who will play the perpetual victim and who must play the role of victimizer.

3. “It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways.” All people experience life in different ways. You are overvaluing the common experiences that you have with men and undervaluing the common experiences you have with women. The binary that you use to define your superiority is again hampering your ability to understand that you are not defined by gender and your experiences will never perfectly align with any other human being’s experiences and that you share lots of common experiences with BOTH men and women.

AF’s out of context quote only makes my preceding point for me:

I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

I found this interesting considering that it entirely contradicts point 2 – if gender is self or socially assigned and we’re all alike (blank slate) independent of biology this then precludes independent differences since we’re all supposed to have some ‘enlightened’ higher-self capacity to rise above them. In other words all people should be inherently bisexual and born with the capacity to fluidly transition from one set of arousal cues to the opposite in any given environment. Androgyny should be the normative in that model. Yet we find that in nature androgyny and homogeny lead to evolutionary dead ends

But if that’s true then homosexuals, and heterosexuals aren’t born the way they are, they’re behaviorally conditioned into their sexual alignments and gender roles by “society“, right?

Individuals do experience life in different ways, but each of those individuals are still subject to their biologically determined physical influences and the environments they find themselves in.

4. Hypergamy is conflated in your mind with gender, when it is absolutely normal for people in both genders (and not all people in either gender) to branch swing from one mate to the next based on perceived value or sexual attraction. Males engage in this behavior all the time. Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females, yet you claim women cannot “love” a man in the same way that a man “loves” a woman.

Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.

This metric is determined (again) by the inescapable biological realities of the influence women’s hormonal and menstrual cycles, and the evident behavioral effects play on their sexual selection strategies. The influences of women’s innate ovulatory shift behaviors and preferences define the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy on both the personal and societal level.

Remember the usefulness of the “equalitarian” term as defined by the Feminine Imperative we discussed above? Women’s innate, biologically determined and sex-specific Hypergamy is where that conflation finds its purpose. AF makes the same comparison to men’s sexual selectivity being itself a form of hypergamy because she fundamentally clings to her ego-investment that ‘all are equal’ and men’s sexual strategy serves the same purpose as women’s. It is not and it does not, and any basic knowledge of parental investment theory as well as the biological realities of men’s reproductive methods once again put the lie to her assertions. Men quantity, women quality, and no one’s ugly after 2am.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time. Neither can they sell Open Hypergamy and the premise of egalitarian equalism – particularly when AF’s feminine-primary boilerplate is refuted by statistics taken after the advent of unilaterally feminine controlled hormonal birth-control.

You see, it’s was a useful trope that men cheat more than women when Hypergamy was more socially concealed, but in an age of unrestricted, socially mandated Open Hypergamy the only question that remains is whether a man will choose to be cuckolded before or after he’s invested himself personally, emotionally and financially in monogamy with a woman who’s looking for an “equal partnership” (now that she’s less able to arouse the Alpha bad boys she’s happy to tell him about).

But, wait, if we’re all ‘equal’ and the plumbing doesn’t matter, wouldn’t men and women cheat equally?

5. ‘“I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.’ And yet asexual men exist, which directly contradicts the anecdotal evidence you use to support your non-fact based argument that men are simply horny all the time and are therefore experiencing a condition that women cannot even begin to fathom. I mean when you write this tripe, you are well aware of the many logical fallacies that you use to justify your beliefs, are you not? I hope you are. And if your response is “Well those asexual men are just exceptions to the rule” or “hyper sexual women are the exception to the rule” is simply to say that “I know my theory has been disproved but I would rather ignore the facts and evidence that do not support my claim in favor of plowing on so that I can continue to demean females with my outdated 15th century mindset.”

Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end. Only in our present social state of enlightenment do we entertain the “equalist” notion that an ‘asexual’ person in anyway represents anything significant to human development.

However AF still doesn’t grasp that the ‘anecdotal’ example I give here has been repeated in every woman who’s taken anabolic steroids, and every woman ever proscribed hormone therapy to aid her flagging libido and mood swings after menopause. It’s a good thing gynecologists and endocrinologists don’t share her opinion that we’re all the same except for the plumbing. It’s interesting that we’ll prescribe hormone therapy for menopausal women and transexuals, but we’re expected to accept that ‘asexuality’ is normative and not an ill.

I should also add that AF has very poor debate skills.

6. “So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s.” Your logic is inherently flawed, [presuming the condition] and then you make an assertion that there should be a logical conclusion that the assumptions you have not and cannot prove [already present in the post] should mean that all women experience relationships in exactly the same way [what part of individuated experience did I lose you on?] .

Let me make a correlation. [I reject your reality and replace it with my own] I am reading misogynistic psychobabble from overly emotional men [projecting bias] that demeans women and places them in a position beneath men [implied nowhere in the essay, and in fact I concede that women do love deeply based on their opportunistic criteria] based solely on their genital composition [“equalist’ binary presumption and again not implied in the post] , so I conclude based on this evidence (and my evidence is actually supported so it is very different from your flawed premise [support that is never supplied and expected to be presumed as valid] ) that all men view women as inferior beings that are not worthy of equal treatment. [presuming a truth. treatment is not to be conflated with expectations of stimulus to predicted behavior]

That is the logic you use, and it is absolutely worthless. [straw men always nod their heads in agreement with your reality] The saddest thing about it is that people with this mindset purport to be pseudo-intellectuals and use junk science to support their claims [still waiting on your non-junk science] while men of lower intellect just eat it up because it makes them feel all rough and tough and superior for a while. [yes, because spending hours a day reading a blog is a better high than getting drunk or going out to do something productive]

Group think is a terrible and scary thing, [you’re right about that] as this blog proves time and time again.

Final note: I realized in the time it took to compile this that Alpha Female is really an comment thread attention whore who’s need for catharsis over her sadly Hyena-like marriage motivates her to write stream-of-consciousness diatribes to support truths she needs to support her ego-investments and self-image.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
zdr01dz
Guest
zdr01dz
Offline

^^^^^
jf12, perfect response cool

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

What’s shameful is seeing self-declared intellectually competent women try to win debates that way. I’d guess that the need to keep the dualist strategy covert likely makes it impossible for most women to be truly honest with themselves on this topic.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

zdr01dz January 12th, 2015 at 3:54 pm DNA is not as simple as E=MC^2. Add it hormones and it gets more complex. Add in nutrition and you have more complications. To give you a simpler analogy – you can’t determine climate from F=ma. You can’t even determine it from Navier-Stokes and F=ma. When there are enough interactions a system becomes mathematically indeterminate. And that is especially true when the factors are unknown with sufficient degree of precision. And when there are unknown unknowns in the system. Reductionism is inadequate for complex systems. But you believe in reductionism. So where is… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

And note:

“E=mc^2” can not be violated. “Self+1=Profit” can be violated.

One is the law of the universe the other is a heuristic.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Rollo Tomassi
January 12th, 2015 at 5:19 pm

Demonstrate, never explicate the Red Pill.

My strategy is to demonstrate then explicate. NLP. You want to trigger the amygdala and then bring the cortex in line while the experience is fresh and irrefutable. It reduces resistance. Eventually.

sfcton
Guest
sfcton
Offline

What do women want? Reckon I don’t give a damn what they want

We’re lazy because we want this bullshit to crash? Never been called lazy before but I don’t believe lawyers so once again, don’t give a damn

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

Return of one answer to “What do women want?”

Women think that they are better at being beta males than beta males are, because beta males don’t “get” that they are supposed to think alpha males are so great, like women do. Hence, a woman wants an alpha male to think *she* would be a better choice of buddy, or companion, or wingman or whatever, than some guy.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

Remedial: alpha males are alpha over women. Period. Beta males are beta under women. Period.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

Clearly, beta males are concerned with “What do women want?”, while females are concerned with “What do alpha males want?”

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
Where is that [female who concerns herself with my wants]?

zdr01dz
Guest
zdr01dz
Offline

@ Simon
There will always be outliers in any type of distribution. But that doesn’t mean very much.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: AF poor debate skillz.

Presumably the major reason she was unable to engage in meaningful debate is because we didn’t bother to make her feel like it. Assuming she is, as self-described, an alpha female, then she is used to having the female herd, as well as beta males, suck up to her.

This is how she gets things done: she is Stroked until she Feelz, and then and only then will she perform.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

Here is where a woman’s social dynamics power begins and ends: ALL she knows how to do is stroke or be stroked. She knows nothing else.

zdr01dz
Guest
zdr01dz
Offline

@ jf12
Beta males are beta under women. Period.

Oddly enough many beta males are actually proud that they are under their women’s control. They say so publicly.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: DNA and dominance.

It turns out that it is nurture, not nature, that does the heavy lifting in sociogenomics. For example, nobody does better when dominated, nobody is “naturally” predisposed to be submissive in a social hierarchy. Dominated nondominants are vigilant against dominants’ displeasure, for example, and the stress always negatively affects gene expression. One reference

Tung et al. 2012. Social environment is associated with gene regulatory variation in the rhesus macaque immune system. PNAS, 109(17), 6490–6495.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6490.full

redlight
Guest
redlight
Offline

@alphafemale. impressive rebuttal! a few questions: “Hormones affect people differently. Therefore, we can deduce that hormonal changes do not have the same impact on every being nor are they experienced the same by every being, since all people are different.” since people are different are you saying hormones and biology do not have the same impact on each individual? “It is socially accepted that certain things are desirable – money, beauty, health, etc. however, it is SOCIAL and not BIOLOGICAL” Could anything be biologically accepted as desirable or is all desire social? “This is where we historically see a confluence… Read more »

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

A trite but relevant observation is that “good worker bees” don’t engage in sexual reproduction.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

“Good worker betas” are supposed to sublimate their sexual energies into “dominating” the (nonsocial) physical world.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

@redlight, re: “when rights for women increase does this mean a decrease in hypergamy”?

hee hee

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

The plowhorse is proud of the harness attaching him to his enormous load.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

It wasn’t his awareness that made his life a living hell.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/man-awakens-from-12-years-in-vegetative-state/

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

ibb be too funny.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/she-bought-a-fake-engagement-ring/#comment-155694
“When I was single I never felt pressured by my married friends to get married. Now that I am married, I never pressure my single friends to marry.”

theasdgamer
Guest

@ jf12

The plowhorse is proud of the harness attaching him to his enormous load.

Did you ever brag about how much load you could pull or buy trinkets to decorate your harness?

theasdgamer
Guest

A stewardess told me last night, “You make me do amazing things with my hips.” (We were dancing at the time.) I need to turn this into a tat.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: How do I work this.

The single master key to manipulating women is to understand that women are confrontationally antiphase. Women are always keen to behave to *decrease* arousal, while men’s behavior is designed for positive arousal reinforcement. So do the opposite of what you want to see her do.

Randall et al. 2013. Cooperating with your romantic partner: associations with interpersonal emotion coordination. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1072–1095.
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/30/8/1072.full

theasdgamer
Guest

Plowhorse: “Back in the day, I could plow 160 acres before breakfast.”

theasdgamer
Guest

@ jf12

Have you seen “Double Wedding” (1937) recently?

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: rings

I’m glad my denomination is against rings, but I think the social implications are well worth discussing despite/because of being nasty, brutish, and short. A woman thinks she’s wearing a ring to display (to a world that couldn’t tell otherwise …) that a man, some man, some where, some how, feelz she’s worth marrying. But, in fact, the reason for a ring was to ensure that the man had enough sunk costs so that he would marry *despite* his feeling like he should run.

jeremy
Guest
jeremy
Offline

Not sure I understand your question, Rollo, speaking as a married man with children. There is, quite simply, too much work for one person to do alone. An equalist-minded individual’s impetus to get married would simply be that fact – a desire to have a family life and raise children, and a realistic knowledge that one person can not shoulder that burden alone, no matter how awesome. Society may cheer single moms, but research shows that they are not the most effective way to raise children. I have no qualms with the ideals of equalist-minded people (truly equalist minded people,… Read more »

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@Rollo

That is actually the view I’ve expressed to a couple dyed-in-the-wool feminists I’ve run in to. “I don’t need a man” they espoused as they were bemoaning the state of the dating market. “Then I wouldn’t want you. Men want to be needed, and if that’s your attitude, then you serve no purpose in a long term relationship with me.”

Cue screeches about how my attitude is misogynist, chauvinist, and outdated. “That may be so, but yours is misandrist, confrontational, and sexually off-putting to men. Yet you wonder why you’re not meeting any good men.”

zdr01dz
Guest
zdr01dz
Offline

@ Rollo

Interesting. So according to Glenn Stanton women tame men. By that standard Leonardo DiCaprio must be the most domesticated man in Hollywood.

redlight
Guest
redlight
Offline

that’s old Leonardo DiCaprio news

the latest:

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/01/13/rihanna-disses-chris-brown-leonardo-dicaprio-relationship-dating-couple/

It sounds like things are heating up between Rihanna, 26, and Leonardo DiCaprio, 40! “She’s switched lanes. She’s playing with the grown and sexy men these days and the ride feels so much better”

“He’s funny. He’s real, honest and authentic”

“He holds a good conversation but the one thing that makes her weak every time she looks at him are his eyes. That alone makes her knees tremble.”

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: plowhorses

“we are of all men most miserable.”

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

Chick I went to high school with later became a model. On the cover of Vogue a few times, etc. She came back to town after some of that and told us the story of Leo trying to hit on her at some big party (wasn’t long after Titanic, so he was hot shit at the time) and her not being able to stand him. She left the party early, somebody gave him her number and address, and he starts pathetic beta game: filling her apartment with flowers, stupid shit like that. She never caved. At this point in the… Read more »

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

@Rollo, re: ” In a way I kind of have a similar criticism of MGTOWs”

Me too. Zero is even further from poly than mono is.

re: homosexuals

The male gay marriage rate stubbornly remains far below hetero rates, while the lesbian marriage rate is only somewhat below.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@jf12

Well really I fall in with the crowd that’s against gay marriage for one reason: haven’t the gays suffered enough?

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

I think most people who subscribe to the “equalist” mindset are actually subscribing to a mindset wherein the feminine is allowed and expected to dominate, not true equality. It is sold as “equality”, but all it really is is one person giving up dominance to another. “two people cannot walk together unless they be agreed…” is I think the old proverb. The point being that two truly independent people will never fully agree. Without independent thought, you don’t have independent people, and there’s simply too much random thought in every mind for two human minds to be on exactly the… Read more »

MSimon
Guest
MSimon
Offline

zdr01dz
January 13th, 2015 at 10:14 am

The tails mean there is not one cause. If there was one cause the distribution would be tight or bipolar even.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

“bipolar” should be “bimodal”

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

“bipolar” should be “bimodal”

Works either way.

Morgan
Guest
Morgan
Offline

You bring up some good points about the flaws of equalist thinking. Unfortunately they’re lost under AFs rambling defense. I want to underscore two important distinctions that her type don’t seem to understand. Men and women are equal ≠ Men and women have equal rights Progressives have pushed this straw man to the point where they believe if you say men and women are not equal, you’re saying women are inferior and shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own property. You never said that, yet AF can’t help but infer it. Saying men and women are not equal is not… Read more »

trackback

[…] Some remedial red pill. […]

SimonCorso
Guest
SimonCorso
Offline

” equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.”

This is so well stated I’m having trouble reading past this point. Like a ton of bricks. I would trade the word “pleading” with ” insisting” But it’s genius either way.

kaizersoze71
Guest

fuck her in the P

Princess
Guest
Princess
Offline

Introducing new readers to the blog? Not really. You have the same handful of 50-something year old dudes who make this blog out to the be a echo chamber. You have a much younger version of the ”rational male” in the reddit pill forum. Most of those are barely out of college and they already think they know much about women. Not that older red pillers fare much better, but hey. You do have a handful of young men(the vast majority of the men who read this blog are in their 40s and early 50s. Thinking of how much I… Read more »

Princess
Guest
Princess
Offline

”hick I went to high school with later became a model. On the cover of Vogue a few times, etc. She came back to town after some of that and told us the story of Leo trying to hit on her at some big party (wasn’t long after Titanic, so he was hot shit at the time) and her not being able to stand him. She left the party early, somebody gave him her number and address, and he starts pathetic beta game: filling her apartment with flowers, stupid shit like that. She never caved. At this point in the… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

@ Princess

trollol

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

re: “I’m either a blue piller, or a faggot, or a woman in disguise.”

Only women complain about men feeling entitled to sex, and only women think that older men could possibly disbelieve their lying eyes about younger women, so that pretty much narrow it down, Buttercup.

%d bloggers like this: