The fundamental problem with redpill

[Tyler Robinson]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

For example, in a lot of species, the males will be stronger than the females. So, the males will fight over the females. But, humanity has managed to civilize ourselves and construct a system in which women are even getting a certain degree of equality! This would never be possible without a superior human brain. 

As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. 

 

Solid point. A lot of people simply ignore this. 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[Consept]

29 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. 

OK can you breakdown the exact philosophies from the red pill that you disagree with?

The issue with your argument is that you seem to be saying red pill and patriarchy or social constructs that are outdated and we should abandon them for a higher level way of getting together. I appreciate your sentiment, but i think what youre missing is that red pill is attempting to teach what is already ingrained in human the psyche in terms of attraction and desire, its not inventing it. These attraction cues are hard wired in us and are an evolution of why our ancestors selected the partners that they did, you are how you are specifically because your ancestors had some trait that was considered attractive in the mating market place and they would have been chosen over other rivals who didnt get to reproduce. Men have always gone for women that have markers of youth as this is when they can reproduce, women will go for guys with good genes and who have resources dependent on their mating strategy. Red pill did not invent any of this, its just trying to manipulate this nature and is essentially just another mating strategy designed to help men who are at risk of not being able to reproduce. 

37 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. 

The issue isnt so much women have more say in who they mate with, the issue is that they now have more resources, which by itself is not an issue of course but the way they have been wired for 1000s of years is to be attracted to someone who has a lot of resources, so their mark of a lot of resources is basically a man who has more than them. This makes it harder for a self made wealthy woman to find an eligible man around her age who is making more than her, her pool has now shrunk immensely. Of course social media, advertising, films etc has also increased the standards of women and men, so it does make it harder all round. 

Also males fight over females strictly because of how women select males, a fertile female in the animal kingdom, lets gorillas for example chooses the strongest male, whoever the winner of their battles is, she sets that standard. In other species it could be the most nurturing males get chosen, i think thats the case with penguins for example, its basically whatever evolution needs you to be and the females make that choice. With humans, females select for lots of stuff inc ability to procure resources, intelligence, physical strength, this is just what it is. 

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

OK can you breakdown the exact philosophies from the red pill that you disagree with?

It defines 'hypergamy' in a very one-dimensional, linear way. In terms of financial income or social-status. 

The reality is that this is because most people are indoctrinated into the patriarchal style of family. This is the role that women have been essentially forced to give men. Now, when women are able to go on their own, women's need for men changes. The roles that individual women give to individual men change! For example, some women may really value a man who's good with technology. Someone else may value a man who is adventurous and can lead the two of them on an adventure. Someone else may value a man who is able to lift stuff. Someone else may value a leader who is able to take the pressure of crises. 

If women are given more of a say in what the fundamental building-block of society should be, I am 100% sure they won't say 'a single family home'. It will be more community-oriented. And, the need for men in that kind of system radically changes. 

'Hypergamy' the way redpill defines it, is not fundamental to human female nature. It's just the norm right now, in an unconscious society. It's the Ockham's razor explanation for female behavior, basically. Works for now, but isn't reliable long-term. It'll change as conditions change. 

[Consept]

Hypergamy is definitely overstated by the redpill but to say women don't have much of a say on who they mate with, of course they do, they literally push men to become who they want them to be. 

I'm not sure you're taking in what km saying though, so I'll leave it here otherwise we'll just go round in circles. I would recommend you read evolution of desire by Dr Buss he touches on a lot of what was discussed in the thread. 

[Roy]

The problem with RedPill is that it's just the biased male perspective and like any ideology it's fundamentally limited by being only a slice of the reality pie. To quote great inspirational leader Emperor Palpatine;

"If one is to understand the great mystery one must study all it's aspects, not just the dogmatic narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader you must embrace a larger view of the force."

If you were truly wise for every RedPill documentary you watch should be matched with a modern Feminism documentary

Edited November 2, 2022 by Roy

[mr_engineer]

9 hours ago, Consept said:

Hypergamy is definitely overstated by the redpill but to say women don't have much of a say on who they mate with, of course they do, they literally push men to become who they want them to be. 

I'm not sure you're taking in what km saying though, so I'll leave it here otherwise we'll just go round in circles. I would recommend you read evolution of desire by Dr Buss he touches on a lot of what was discussed in the thread. 

It's not women pushing men into who they want them to be. It's other men! The more powerful men. They're in charge of the status-hierarchy, so they set the rules. And women are just trying to operate in this situation. Most women are hopelessly conditioned into this way of quantifying people's value, so the peer-pressure factor is also there. 

[Consept]

3 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

It's not women pushing men into who they want them to be. It's other men! The more powerful men. They're in charge of the status-hierarchy, so they set the rules. And women are just trying to operate in this situation. Most women are hopelessly conditioned into this way of quantifying people's value, so the peer-pressure factor is also there. 

So would you say women are going against their nature when selecting men? If so what do you characteristics in men do you think they would select for if there wasn't this pressure?

[mr_engineer]

18 minutes ago, Consept said:

So would you say women are going against their nature when selecting men? If so what do you characteristics in men do you think they would select for if there wasn't this pressure?

Women would look at who they are, what their own emotional-needs are and then, look for men who can meet those specific emotional-needs. This is the root-solution to the problem of hypergamy as we see today, actually.

You can liken hypergamy to a 'rat-race' of sorts, where no matter how 'high-status' your man is, it doesn't fill the hole in your soul. That's why you have to monkey-branch. The actual solution is to do inner-work, to come to terms with what you actually need and to change your life-priorities radically. 

It's just not the norm cuz it's hard. And 'hard' is bad in a capitalistic, consumeristic society, so it's not the norm, it's not the 'trend'. As times get harder, this is what women will turn to. 

[Consept]

Hypergamy is actually where i disagree with the redpill, i dont think most women are just going to jump into another relationship if they are happy enough with the guy that theyre with, it basically speaks to a fear men have evolved to have because they need to make sure that the child they have with their partner is actually theirs. 

32 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Women would look at who they are, what their own emotional-needs are and then, look for men who can meet those specific emotional-needs. This is the root-solution to the problem of hypergamy as we see today, actually.

How would this work in practice though? On a desire and attraction level women are not going to get horny for someone who just fulfils their emotional needs and not their attraction needs, so im not saying fulfilling emotional needs is not important but it seems like youre down playing the role of attraction which is fundamental in people getting together. Ideally you would have both. Would you personally be with someone that you werent attracted to but fulfilled your emotional needs?

[mr_engineer]

37 minutes ago, Consept said:

How would this work in practice though? On a desire and attraction level women are not going to get horny for someone who just fulfils their emotional needs and not their attraction needs, so im not saying fulfilling emotional needs is not important but it seems like youre down playing the role of attraction which is fundamental in people getting together. Ideally you would have both. Would you personally be with someone that you werent attracted to but fulfilled your emotional needs?

What you're saying is true for men. Men's attraction towards women is purely physical. Because, the masculine epistemology is facts-first. Aka, masculine individuals see the world in terms of 'facts'. But, feminine epistemology is feelings-first! 

This is another mistake that redpill makes in understanding female attraction. What if, this is what women are actually attracted to?! Someone who can meet emotional-needs such as safety and closeness and intimacy?! And, what if it just looks and feels very different to them than it would to a man? 

And, one final point about this - the reason 'hypergamy' plays out the way it does, is because women associate 'safety' and 'protection' with resources, or power in a male-dominated world. Because women have been conditioned into a masculine, facts-first epistemology in a male-dominated world. The day women start waking up to their own feminine power, which is more energetic and vibrational than physical, they will question the patriarchal conditioning that represses their femininity. And, because religion is a big part of this, questioning religion will improve their relationship to their sexuality and this will make them wake up to their emotional-needs. This will radically change their mating-choices! This is how I see this norm shifting. 

And, the fact that this system is coming down and the bullshittery of feminism is being exposed, also helps. 

[Consept]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

This is another mistake that redpill makes in understanding female attraction. What if, this is what women are actually attracted to?! Someone who can meet emotional-needs such as safety and closeness and intimacy?! And, what if it just looks and feels very different to them than it would to a man? 

When i say female attraction, im not just talking about physical, women select differently than men but there is still a criteria eg confidence, intelligence, ambition etc. Yes it is about how they feel toward you, as in you have to make them feel good in some way for them to consider you a viable partner but initially, that usually revolves around the man being fun or interesting to be around. 

What I want to ask though is do you put any weight on genetics in terms of women choosing partners due to how theyve evolved, also do you give them any autonomy in their selection? or do you think its completely down to their social conditioning which has been effectively chosen for them by men in power?

[mr_engineer]

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

What I want to ask though is do you put any weight on genetics in terms of women choosing partners due to how theyve evolved

Most women who are genuinely feminine have a relatively low bar for genetics. Yes, you can build your body and stuff, and that matters, but that isn't as much genetics as your own work. 

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

also do you give them any autonomy in their selection? or do you think its completely down to their social conditioning which has been effectively chosen for them by men in power?

For unconscious women, for women who are unconscious of their femininity, yes. I really do think that it is completely down to their social conditioning. Can't be otherwise. And there is no autonomy on that front. Cuz consciousness is a pre-requisite for autonomy. 

The reality is that most women don't use their brains in the way they choose men. It's totally feeling-based. And their feelings towards someone will be based on their mental-associations, which come from conditioning. What I'm essentially saying is that women who are unconscious of their feminine power are lost in the patriarchy and aren't living in reality about men, which is why they concoct all kinds of stories and rationalizations for why they choose the men they choose. None of which are true. And this, ironically, includes feminists. 

[Lila9]

15 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

The reality is that this is because most people are indoctrinated into the patriarchal style of family. This is the role that women have been essentially forced to give men. Now, when women are able to go on their own, women's need for men changes. The roles that individual women give to individual men change! For example, some women may really value a man who's good with technology. Someone else may value a man who is adventurous and can lead the two of them on an adventure. Someone else may value a man who is able to lift stuff. Someone else may value a leader who is able to take the pressure of crises. 

If women are given more of a say in what the fundamental building-block of society should be, I am 100% sure they won't say 'a single family home'. It will be more community-oriented. And, the need for men in that kind of system radically changes. 

Accurate.

[Consept]

6 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

 

Feminine women would select for traits of a masculine man, men being attracted to feminine women would be a result of biology and evolution. If women always selected feminine men, men today would be a lot more feminine. 

Anyway overall I'm not saying social conditioning isn't a factor but I find your view quite black and white as to say its all social conditioning and I think the implication is that people's biology is over ridden by it. Personally I don't think this is the case but also there's a lot of scientific research that would dispute this. In reality itsva mixture of both but social conditioning usually leads off from biology. For example men are evolved to be attracted to youth in women so women wear make up to look younger, red lips are a sign of fertility hence lipstick. Women are predisposed to be attracted to a man who can gather resources (as they are in the animal kingdom) hence men get good at gathering resources, those who don't their bloodline dies out. I don't see how you can disregard all of this and just men decided to choose what women would be attracted to, seems like you're missing a big chunk of the story.

[mr_engineer]

@Consept All I'm saying is that biology isn't the absolute truth. Most of this is bro-science. And, I wouldn't take these theories too seriously. Yes, there are trends in that men are attracted to big boobs, big ass, a certain type of figure. Trends. Not absolutely, there are variations and the reality is that you're attracted to the woman who has the body-type of your mother, but culturally, we have defined certain beauty-standards. 

And redpill is essentially a rationalization of these trends in scientific terms. You change the data, the theory changes. Tomorrow, if there's a new trend of men being into short-haired women, I'm 100% sure there will be some counter-theory to redpill justifying that. It's mostly mental-masturbation and I don't take it seriously. 

The important part is the part about hypergamy. That's highly controversial. And it raises questions about women's fundamental conscience relative to loyalty and female animal nature. The 'bluepillers' believe that you get a good job, stable income and you get a woman and you get to raise a family. But then, when their women cheat on them or shit goes wrong, they become 'redpilled', where they look for justifications in 'female nature'. 

Do keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff about sex itself that redpill doesn't account for. For example, there is a section of men who are into cuckoldry. Redpill will look down on them and say 'that's dysfunctional'. Really?! Are you sure?! It's pretty narrow. 

What you really need, are sources of information coming from conscious women who can keep their personal biases in check, telling men what women want. They tell an entirely different story, trust me. 

Edit : All this while, we have been assuming that the heteronormativity of this ideology isn't a problem. Which it actually is. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Consept]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

 

I'm not really arguing from a redpill point of view I was more looking at evolutionary biology and research from people like Dr Buss, I think it's quite a big call to dismiss all of that but you do seem set on your opinion so I don't think there's room for you to move on it, so I will leave that point. 

If you asked the women that you're talking about what they would be attracted to in a mate at least initially, are you saying they wouldn't be attracted to masculinity, healthy or otherwise? Apart from fulfilling emotional needs what do you think they attracted to?

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

If you asked the women that you're talking about what they would be attracted to in a mate at least initially, are you saying they wouldn't be attracted to masculinity, healthy or otherwise? Apart from fulfilling emotional needs what do you think they attracted to?

What I'm concerned with isn't what they're attracted to per se, but who they choose to be with and why. Fine, redpill may have the ability to rationalize what they're attracted to, in general. But, I don't see having a one-size-fits-all standard for 'masculinity' as beneficial. Especially when women's choices are a lot more subjective and the trends in those generally come from patriarchal conditioning. Ultimately, I imagine that this is what redpill aims to theorize about, right?! About women's choices. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

Again I'm not arguing necessarily from a redpill perspective, but I guess redpill aims to work out why women choose the guys that they do and essentially how the average guy can become that guy. This is not necessarily one-size fits all masculinity though, for example some women are attracted to spiritual guys, some are attracted to ambitious guys, it is subjective to some extent but there tend to overarching characteristics that are more attractive in general, for example confidence or being good socially. 

A lot of this is to do with how we developed as a species. You wouldn't say it's weird that female gorillas are attracted to strong males, they must've been indoctrinated to like strong males. I guess a question to you, is what do you think cavewomen would've been attracted to in a mate?

[mr_engineer]

@Consept We can speculate all we want about who cavewomen were attracted to based on who they ended up being with. But, the fact of the matter is - we don't know, cuz they were never asked what they're into. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer 

I mean you can definitely guess that they would want someone who could get resources, most likely could hunt for food and could protect them, someone strong etc, this is the case in a lot of ape species especially and it would've been part of our evolution and has generally been the case throughout human history. 

If your position is that what women are attracted to is all down to how they've been socialised by the patriarchy, isn't it weird that they're still attracted to a lot of the traits that they're ancestors were? Ie being able to get resources, being strong and able to protect, having healthy genes to pass on etc. These things are deeply hardwired into humans to find attractive, mainly at least initially for survival and producing the best offspring. 

Now you might say those things are not needed as women can gather resources themselves and protection is generally outsourced to police. But the evolved markings of what is attractive can't be turned off just like that and this is the problem were having currently as the standards fir what's attractive have increased a lot. So it'll be interesting where it goes and what becomes attractive but it will take a while.