Men and Women Smeared as Red Pill

Red pill men are used to being criticized by the mainstream media. What’s surprising about the Telegraph article “Welcome to the Red Pill: The angry men’s rights group that ‘knows what women want'” is the amount of vitriol author Rebecca Reid reserves for women who identify as red pilled. This article is about 4 years old, but I haven’t seen attitudes toward men’s rights activists (MRAs), men going their own way (MGTOW), and pick up artists (PUAs) change very much since then.

If you haven’t heard of the “red pill” theory then you might want to look away now. But if you’re a glutton for punishment read on.

Right away, Reid attempts to poison the well. Not a good start.

Red pill theory is based on film The Matrix, (remember that?) in which Keanu Reeves’s character Neo is offered a blue pill to stay plugged in where everything is nice, or a red pill where everything goes horribly wrong but makes a much better movie. Rather than languishing in the early 2000s where it belongs, the premise has now been adopted by a group of men’s activists or “meninists.”

Four years later, we can say that the “meninists” smear didn’t stick. Reid doesn’t even understand the matrix. Taking the blue pill doesn’t mean “everything is nice”, it’s an authoritarian hell hole controlled by vicious secret police, the agents of the system. The red pill shows Neo reality, where everything has gone horribly wrong, but without seeing reality, there is no way to fight the authoritarian matrix. The idea that this brilliant metaphor “belongs” in the early 2000s shows the author’s cluelessness.

The movement has gained traction over the past couple of years, even leading to the production of a controversial film The Red Pill, which saw feminist film maker Cassie Jaye explore the men’s rights movement and is due for cinematic release in 2016, following a Kickstarter campaign.

And Jaye went on to be smeared by the mainstream media.

These men’s activists use the term ‘blue pill’ to refer to conventional dating practices. According to MarriedManSexLife.com (a life coach who claims to ‘help you attract your wife, beat affairs and breakthrough relationship blockages’), the blue pill is “what women say they want from a man.”

MRA’s are at the periphery of the red pill community. They believe in egalitarianism, whereas MGTOW tend toward libertarianism and PUAs to androsuperiority. The “life coach” quoted sounds more like a PUA than an MRA. Pointing out that what women say they want is different from what they actually want isn’t new. The phrase “nice guys finish last” has been applied to men in relationships since the eighties.

But, as we all know, our tiny lady brains aren’t capable of deciding what they want. We might think we want to be treated with kindness and consideration – but we’re wrong.

Actions speak louder than words. The actions of many women show that they do not want to be treated with kindness and consideration. This is why the stereotypes of the nice guy who finishes last and the bad boy who gets all the girls exist. Not understanding your subconcious urges is a problem common to both sexes.

Enter ‘red pill’ theory. This is the belief that what women really want from men is a bit of good old-fashioned subjection.

This is certainly a position held by PUAs, but it misrepresents red pill philosophy in general, which states that women want a man who can provide for them and protect them when they are pregnant and caring for young children. This generalization of female psychology is backed up with real data. For example, see my post Study Blames Hypergamy for Low Marriage Rate.

Rather than focussing on the very real issues affecting men today such as mental health stigma, suicide and the under reporting of sexual abuse, the activists focusses on how women ‘should’ behave instead.

MRAs and MGTOW do focus on male suicide. No red pill men focus on how women ‘should’ behave, though they have strong opinions about how women do behave, and how they should behave if they want to be happy. Big difference.

Red pill aficionados, who mostly hang out on Reddit boards, really believe that women are wrong when they claim that they want respect and equality. Apparently what we really want is dominance and traditional gender roles. We’ve just been brainwashed by feminist propaganda.

Red pill men do not “mostly hang out on Reddit boards”. There is a large community on YouTube, FaceBook, and Twitter, as well as on the alternative technology platforms. Not all red pillers claim that women want to be dominated, though the fact that Fifty Shades of Grey has sold over 125 million copies does seem to support the theory. Traditional conservatives, who are not red pilled, are the ones who believe that women want to return to traditional roles. Nearly all red pillers believe that feminists are lying when they claim that they want equality, and that they actually want supremacy. Judging from their actions, I find it hard to disagree.

Men on the internet who claim that women are lying about wanting equality are nothing new. What’s far more disturbing is the presence of another board within the online red pill community, titled ‘Red Pill Women’. This is a discussion space for women who believe that they are biologically programmed purely to procreate, and see being single in your thirties as an actual tragedy.

Women are biologically programmed to procreate, as are men. Being single in your late thirties can lead to tragedy if you want to have children. Women who have never had a child become infertile much more quickly that those who have. Given that, if you are single, you’re likely to take some time to find a partner, you increase the odds of infertility.

fecundity-ratio

According to MarriedManSexLife.com there’s a list of 20 characteristics that define a red pill woman; from keeping herself physically attractive to her partner (at no point is it suggested that he might do the same) to understanding that she should never deny her partner sex.

It is important to remain physically attractive if you want to maintain a healthy relationship. Since women place less importance on appearance, it’s less important for a man to maintain his physique, but red pill men, especially PUAs, do focus on doing so. Women are free to deny their partner sex, but if you deny that sex is an important part of a relationship between a man and a woman, you are a fool.

“Red pill women spend their time sharing tips on being ‘better’, including a lively debate about how to improve your man’s morning routine”.

I fail to see a problem with women discussing how to please men, assuming that they want to.

The forum itself goes further in to explaining how a red pill woman is expected to deport herself. For instance the importance of not being too bright: “You do not have to act less capable than you are to be feminine. Men are not sexually attracted to intelligence, and are put off by argumentative know-it-alls.”

Except this doesn’t say that a woman shouldn’t be bright. It merely points out that intelligence won’t attract most men. Who isn’t put of by argumentative know-it-alls?

Or the essential ability to put yourself second: “Don’t keep score of who is doing what for whom, simply focus on the ways you can enhance his life. Expectations are nothing more than future disappointments.” What a brilliant life hack. If you stop having any expectations from your partner, he can never disappoint you. Sorted!

Not keeping score is good advice. Keeping score is petty. Expectations are fine if they are communicated and agreed on.

The red pill women of Reddit spend most of their time sharing tips on being ‘better’, including a lively debate about how to improve your man’s morning routine (get up an hour before him, look pretty, make his breakfast is the general consensus). It’s toe curling stuff.

If you have found a man you love, what’s wrong with trying to determine how best to make sure he remains with you?

The women who populate the forum were unsurprisingly loathe to discuss their involvement with me (perhaps realising that publicly stating unmarried 35-year-old women had ‘failed at life’ wouldn’t make them any friends).

Why would they want to discuss anything with someone who is hostile to them?

“Be compassionate. Be honest. Be nurturing. Be sweet. Be gentle. Be positive. Be meek. Learn how to cook and clean”.

Compassion, honesty, sweetness, and positivity all seem like good attributes to strive for. Someone who is going to raise children should be gentle. Personally, I don’t see much value in being meek. Cooking and cleaning are useful life skills.

But the posts they share are unguarded. Take this painful contribution: “I’m 19 year-old college student and even though I’m currently looking for a part-time job I still have a lot of free time. I was wondering how I could spend my time to become a better woman and a better partner for my future boyfriend/husband”.

A woman wanting to learn how to be a better match so that she can marry the best man possible is smart, but Reid classifies this as “painful”. Sad.

“Sex and physical intimacy is not a choice, so stop thinking of it as a voluntary endeavour. Make it your mission to spoil him rotten. Every day you should have some kind of sexual interaction with him. Make an effort to flirt and have

Garbage tier journalism. The paragraph actually just cuts off like this. As I said previously, you can’t have an intimate relationship without sex. You can choose not to have sex with your partner, but you can’t then expect him to remain with you.

That’s right ladies. Consensual sex is not a choice. We’ve got it twisted with all our silly feminism. Our vaginas should be freely available to our partners, at all times, regardless of what else is going on.

If you choose to become unavailable, don’t be surprised when your relationship ends. You have choice, but choices come with consequences.

Aside from how painful it is to see ‘meekness’ praised as a character trait in 2015, the the salient question is why on earth any young woman would find herself aligning with this view?

To each her own I guess. If you are attracted to the kind of man who likes meek women, I suppose valuing meekness makes sense. As I said above, it ain’t my thing, but calling these women out as “painful” seems controlling.

In the 1980s, along with the rise of power suits and career women came a rise in the sales of Mills and Boon books. In the 2000s, 50 Shades of Grey out sold Harry Potter and the Bible. The correlation between the emancipation of women and the increased popularity of the dominant male in fiction is often used by red pill theorists as proof that women don’t actually want power; they want to be controlled.

And there is some truth in this. Women admire assertiveness, and want a man who can provide for and protect them. Millions of years of evolution have made hypergamy instinctual.

What red pill people seem to misunderstand is that they deal exclusively in theory and further than that, in fantasy.

When a theory has the ability to predict reality, it is not fantasy.

Women might well lust after a Christian Grey type, who forces us to forget about climbing the career ladder with blindfolds and wrist ties. But it’s a fantasy. It’s not real. And for these women who haunt Reddit, discussing how to be a better surrendered wife? It’s all part of the same fantasy. And really? Fantasy is exactly where it belongs.

But is it? Women have the right to pursue happiness. If they decide that “climbing the career ladder” is not for them, that’s their right. How would Reid feel if they told her that climbing the career ladder was fantasy?

Yes, a powerful, assertive man is a sexy prospect. But what red pill theory misunderstands is that women might want that, but they certainly don’t want that all the time.

So do you or don’t you want a powerful assertive man? Because a powerful, assertive man is unlikely to want a woman who doesn’t want him all the time, and if there is a red pill woman who does, I suspect that she will be the one to land him.

Ultimately, the adoption of the red pill by women is about fantasy. While the movement is buried in forums like Reddit – so the posters could be anyone, male or female – it seems likely that they are truly women. Unhappy women who want their lives to be better, and who have been taken in by a false promise.

Is it a false promise? How do you know? If it makes them happy, more power to them.

I don’t deny that if one partner is capable of being totally selfless, self-sacrificing and never complaining when they’re unhappy, then it’s likely going reduce the number of arguments a couple has. But that doesn’t make things better. It just makes women quieter.

If you are getting what you want, you aren’t being selfless. If you are getting what you want, hopefully you won’t be unhappy. Reducing the number of arguments a couple has does make things better. If you don’t want this kind of relationship, don’t engage in one, but don’t preach to those who do.

Aggressively maintained gender roles don’t make for happy relationships. Compromise, sharing and love do that. And that’s why, despite all the thousands of words written about it on the internet, red pill theory will remain exactly that. A theory.

Compromise does not make for a happy relationship. The strongest relationships are win/win relationships, where each partner gives what is easy for them to give and gets what they want.

For millions of years, traditional gender roles were necessary for survival, and because of this, behaviors like male dominance and female hypergamy have become hard wired instincts. Red pill theory attempts to explain human sexual behavior through evolutionary psychology.

Reid shows here that she doesn’t understand what a theory is. A scientific theory is constantly evolving as new facts come to light that contradict it. Over time, when the theory consistently matches reality, it comes to be accepted as fact. The red pill community is certainly full of pop psychology, but there is also insight to be found there. Discarding a theory because it doesn’t fit your ideology doesn’t make it wrong. If you want to discredit a theory, you need to find facts that disprove it.

About jimbelton

I'm a software developer, and a writer of both fiction and non-fiction, and I blog about movies, books, and philosophy. My interest in religious philosophy and the search for the truth inspires much of my writing.
This entry was posted in philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s