This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, no, you are gonna have to fix that if you wanna get anywhere. Try The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, followed by The Red Pill Handbook anthology.
BTW, if you liked "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless", you will probably enjoy Scott's old ten-post sequence on gender, sex, etc. from his LiveJournal.
I've heard that "Red Pill" men are men who don't care about women's feelings or rights. I've heard that "Red Pill" men view women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men, at least when it comes to sex/romance/dating.
Have I heard correctly? Is this what the Red Pill Handbook says? If not, could you summarize the book for me?
It's hard to summarize books with hundreds of pages, especially when those books are, themselves, the collected summaries of thousands of blog posts and comments. But if I had to give you the elevator pitch...
Most of what you think you know about sex/romance/dating is a feminist lie, fed to you through a combination of the education system and the media, or people repeating falsehoods they themselves learned from school and movies and TV shows. These lies are useful to women and society, but harmful to you. The Red Pill metaphor comes from the famous scene where Neo chooses to wake up from the Matrix.
Once you learn accurate truths about women, men, dating, and sex, you will almost certainly choose to change your behavior. Both your new beliefs and your new behaviors will be extremely at odds with feminist dogma, and most people, being in thrall to that ideology, will indeed boil it down to you viewing women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men. But that is obviously not how a practitioner of the Red Pill would frame it; unlike fictional villains, real people don't usually think of themselves as evil.
A quick sample of Red Pill beliefs:
Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Men are the expendable gender.
As a consequence, men are attracted to the majority of fertile-age women. Women are only attracted to a small minority of men.
Therefore, fertile-age women are able to easily have casual sex with men who are completely out of their league relationship-wise (rock stars, Olympic athletes, etc.) and often become deluded about their actual Sexual Market Value.
Women and men are attracted to different things. Men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, purity, and nurturing. Women are primarily attracted to height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits.
This explains why men age like wine, while women age like milk. Youth, beauty, fertility and purity are things that can only ever go down with age, while status, power, money, and sexual experience tend to increase with age.
Ipso facto, any dating advice which assumes men and women are the same is nonsense. Few do this explicitly, but many do it implicitly by failing to give out different dating advice to different demographics, e.g. "be yourself".
A surprisingly common mistake is projecting the desires of your gender into the other gender. For example, a woman in her 30s complaining about the lack of attention from high-quality men despite the fact that she spent her youth getting a fancy degree, a good paying job, a nice house, an expensive car, cool hobbies, etc. Not understanding that men don't give a fuck about any of that and would rather date a broke but cute 18-year-old waitress.
Women become infertile much faster than men. By 35, usually too late to have children. If plan to have 2-3 children, should be married by 30 at the absolute latest. In our culture, where you are expected to date and cohabit for a few years before marriage, means a surprisingly short window between the time a woman becomes legal at 18 and the time it is too late for her to find a husband. Goes double for middle-class and upper-class women, who are expected to finish a degree at 22 before even thinking about marriage.
Women often follow a dual-mating strategy of sleeping with high-value men in their sexual prime, then settling down with a reliable provider in their later years. This is called Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks. You want to be the Alpha Fucks, or at least avoid being the Beta Bucks.
Some implications of this information to your own life; self-improve, lift weights, never commit to a woman over 25, never commit to a woman with children, pretend you have more sexual experience than you do, project confidence, never appear needy or desperate, etc.
Is there evidence for this? I read an article that says men and women face similar disparities in the top X% of your gender getting a disproportionate amount of attention: https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps . For instance the top 1% of men get 16.4% of the likes from women, while the top 1% of women get 11.2% of the likes from men. So it's worse for men, but not a huge difference really
Is there evidence for this? Some sort of survey or something? (Also, how do we separate nature from nurture?)
How is "high-value" measured in this case? You said earlier that women are primarily attracted to "height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits." Are you saying that women value these traits in their sexual prime, but cease valuing these traits when they get older?
What's wrong with settling down with a reliable partner?
Why not? What would happen if I did that?
Has it occurred to you that lying might have negative consequences? If I'm actually feeling needy or desperate for whatever reason, isn't it better to seek out people (romantically or otherwise) who can deal with the emotions I actually have, instead of wearing a mask all my life?
Personally I have a long history of being smothered by masks.
For the first 2 questions regarding evidence: I am sure there is a lot of peer-reviewed evidence out of there of all sorts of quality. But the real proof lies in the fact that anyone (man or woman) in modern Western World can state these sentences in a small trusted friend group, in appropriate wording, and they will be taken as self-evident truths. Indeed, this is usually very good way of smoking out "hidden truths" of a society.
This is a correct understanding. Many women choose more reliable types of guys later in life if they are still on the dating market.
I am not totally sure but I believe the OP's thinking is that women will age and lose beauty/fertility very fast after this age. There might be some "purity" considerations at play here as well. Dating and hooking up with many people inevitably makes one much more cynical after a while and you have to stunt your powers of emotional connection a bit to deal with a series of breakups without going mad. The child thing sounds like an off-shoot of this.
I believe the idea is that after a couple of times you won't be lying anymore! A lot of red pill stuff is best thought off as a for-dummies guide and not a life-long strategy. The target demographics is people who are absolutely clueless, and the ideal case is to change their perspective and give them some practical tips so they understand the rules of the "game", get a feel for it, and then do their own thing.
More options
Context Copy link
You may feel like she's better off alone than with you. You might be wrong about it (and hopefully you're in the process of becoming wrong on that count by improving yourself and becoming more self-sufficient+attractive).
If you act like she's better off alone, you'll likely convince her. Don't have to give women excuses to reject you, they manage fine by themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Solid overview.
However, some of those points might be better characterised as black-pilled nowadays. Also—soft, euphemistic blue-pill language is somehow leaking through: e.g., “sleeping with”.
Taking the chatGPT "overfit on bland inoffensiveness" approach and overfitting on TRP guru books doesn't make a good style guide.
More options
Context Copy link
Are there pills of many different colors? Can someone give me a glossary?
Quick overview:
red pill: explained above
blue pill: the antithesis to the red pill, accepting social norms around sex
black pill: a grim and hopeless take on the red pill view
purple pill: the theoretic best of both words of red pill and blue pill
iron pill: disregard women, obtain lifts
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also, men getting ostracized or some shit for being "creepy" is a feature, not a bug; they failed to know their place and are paying for it.
You want to be a man, face life-and-death danger, preferably combat if you feel up to it and are OK with the guys you're fighting for.
Reminds me of the Mussolini quote 'War is to man what maternity is to a woman'.
Yes. Although modern war is incredibly destructive, and starting a low-grade WWI just so men can 'be men' sounds like an idiotic and craven waste of blood and treasure. Also badass brave motherfuckers get blown up while cowards and those that aren't strong enough for frontline combat survive.
Agreed. Volunteer militaries are especially bad since they target the most patriotic, energetic, disciplined men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link