Guys, red pill is a bitter medicine for feminist extremism, do you agree?

[MaxUsefull]

[inhua]

no. it's not the polar opposite of feminism. that's just a lazy way of describing it

feminism is a political ideology. red pill is just the truth of how the world works via facts, logic, stats and science. it doesn't promote anything nor recruit anyone. people mistaken this for various factions e. g. PUA/dating coaches and MGTOW. both are not the same but use this information to the best of their ability

you could be a completely traditional conservative family man and still use this knowledge for your benefit

how someone chooses to use this information is up to them

it's only bitter when you don't swallow it completely. guys in the red pill rage phase have the pill stuck in their throat and for people who haven't tasted it, it appears as bitter from the outside

by swallowing it completely you accept the world for what it is and act accordingly

there's nothing with knowing and understanding how the world works. for example, a white guy can't just randomly say the n-word even if a bunch of black guys say the same thing.

a lot of people will deny the red pill but if you don't trust the government, then you are red pill, if you believe there are bad people out there then you are red pill, if you believe that the LGBTQ is pushing an agenda into schools then you are red pill

[MaxUsefull]

This is partially true, every ideology has a scientific basis to support it... the problem is that this basis is cut. This is the case with the great generalization that the Red Pill makes all the time. Feminism does this constantly too

[inhua]

that depends on what the generalization is but generalizations aren't completely unfounded. Red Pill doesn't teach people how think but only what the science is. how people choose to use this science is up to them. PUAs use this knowledge to try and get women. MRAs use this knowledge to combat feminists. MGTOW use this knowledge to avoid false accusations and divorces that could take away everything they've worked hard for

[ScisorsAndRaisins]

I've never understood this fear of women. The only reason crazy women protest, is because they want YOU to notice. So don't notice them. It drives them crazy. I told a buddy of mine that I wanted to conduct an experiment, and I needed his help.

I took him to a strip club, and I instructed him to not look at the dancers. And we sat right next to the stage.

On the opposite side of the stage, the fellas were hooping and hollering and throwing money. But my buddy and I were pretending to look at a brochure and not look.

These beauties were right up in our business, and spreading their legs. They were so desperate for attention and being validating, that they ignored the stupid guys with money. lol This is true!

Even the most drop dead gorgeous women, need attention.

So when you come across these slags, don't look, just check your messages on your phone. It will drive them fucking crazy, and they'll go home. lol

[EricSummer]

Red pill is dangerous for young men who have difficulties getting a woman. It suggests to them that their situation is both hopeless and quite normal, as only few can be "Chads".

Far from being realistic, red pill content overshoots the target and portrays things worse than they are in reality. For example, the "80/20 rule" is obvious bullshit given that 50% of guys have sex by the end of highschool or shortly after.

Ironically, red pill is dangerous for men but extremist feminism is dangerous mostly for women.

[inhua]

it's only dangerous when used incorrectly and misinterpreted otherwise it's not dangerous at all

[EricSummer]

It depends on what you want from life. The danger is that an intelligent young man proves to himself that it is normal and also the fault of society or feminism that he cannot get a partner.
He then gets a network of guys who are also struggling and they can then frown at sexually active men together and call them "beta men". It can make them accept their situation too readily.

[inhua]

from a historical perspective, it is relatively normal not to get a partner. humanity as a whole has far more female ancestors than male ancestors. most men died without ever passing on their genes and this definitely would be the case because there was no birth control back then

the men who sired the most offspring were usually those in some position of power and leadership namely kings, emperors, warlords and their generals. every other man was either a slave who got nothing, a soldier who died in war or a peasant/merchant who was lucky to get any

polygamy existed in the past and still exists today where 1 man can get himself multiple women and if we assume that the population has 50% men and 50% women then via polygamy there will be single men left over. many countries in Africa and the Middle East are unstable as a result of this where fighting age men are illegally migrating to Europe in large numbers

fairytales and entertainment make it seem like its normal to get a partner and this might have been the case when religion was still the norm but today feminism has pushed religion aside and revealed hidden secrets about both the male and female brain.

when people are given the option to do whatever they want without consequence (but within the law) we get to see what they truly want and it shouldn't be a surprise when some men don't get partners. even today the most ignored demographic are homeless men because they have no way of communicating their problems to the world

as far as fault is assigned, nobody has to be assigned any fault. sometimes things are just the way they are. attraction is biological, not political thus you can't force it even by changing a few things around

sexually active men aren't called beta men. they're called alpha men and they usually have to be getting sex from multiple different women not just limit himself to one woman because he has no other options.

[EricSummer]

In current Western society the majority of men have only one woman at any time. The majority of sexual intercourse happens in this setting (lots of times always with the same woman).

After the age of 25, a man will usually also use his resources in this, especially if he wants kids, usually by marrying a woman. I understand this is seen as a "beta" strategy but I see nothing wrong with it. Not everybody even wants multiple women or changing partners and I cannot understand why this is admired so much by followers of the red pill.

Importantly, most women are not interested in casual sex and will change partners only while looking for long-term commitment, sometimes unsuccessfully. The existence of a "hoe phase" for practically all Western women is a fiction.

What more can I say? It's easy to call out the bullshit when you've lived, loved and fucked for several decades but it's young impressionable college graduates who are at risk.

[inhua]

I would agree with you if current western society was traditional and religious but currently it is not. it has devolved into degeneracy to the point where grown men in g-strings can shake their dong in front of little girls and grown women can shake their ass in front of little boys and nobody does anything about it but say the wrong pronouns and the cops come knocking at your door

even behind closed doors there's a lot of secrets hidden from the outside world that are considered too taboo to talk about. people refusing to address the elephant in the room because it's too uncomfortable

it is not a beta strategy for a man to marry a woman particularly if it's a two way relationship. it's only beta when a man is in a one-sided relationship, basically she's settling for him due to missing out on who she truly wanted and he has no other options than to be with her, often having to tolerate some level of abuse and disrespect

the idea of a man with multiple women is not about him actually being with all those women at the same time. it's about him having the options and women are attracted to men who have options. a man with no options would be considered a "loser" and losers aren't seen as attractive

there's a difference between being interested in casual sex and actually engaging in it. a string of unsuccessful short-term relationships has very little difference to casual sex. the hoe phase for western women is very much encouraged by feminism. traditionalism tells them to not engage in this as I've said before, western society is turning into degeneracy.

college graduates are not at risk when it's the truth. if anything it should help them navigate through life even easier. a wise man learns from his mistakes but a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others. it's better to learn the truth first and accepting it than discovering it later and being pissed off.

[EricSummer]

It depends on the conclusions that's for sure. Just now I was judging by "manosphere" videos on YouTube which circle around the same few messages.

There are always hot young women in those videos who have fun and sex with an elite of alpha males that the usual viewer cannot hope to belong to. These women complain that "Chad" does not give them commitment but at the same time are ignoring good guys who would do just that, only to fall back to those good guys as of age 35.

My conclusion would be that long-term commitment is in short supply and valuable to women. Deliver it and you can have a strategic advantage. I always found it a little tricky to attract a woman but easy to keep her.

Of course this requires women to consider candidates who are not the top 20% most sexually attractive. In fact they do. About 70% of young men will eventually get a partner.

The 20% is a misintetpretation of likes on OkCupid. Few men get all the likes there which may mean that online dating is not for everyone, but it does not mean these are the only ones who can get women.

As to the degeneration of Western society I think there was no generation in which this was not feared. The current does not seem so bad. Here in Europe the kids are drinking a lot less alcohol and they are starting later. The median age of first sex also edged upward. People with unclear gender play no role in the dating life of most people. Much of what you pointed out exists only on social media.

[inhua]

I wouldn't say it's just a few messages but there are no new messages left other than gathering new evidence that proves the message right. every time a man gets cheated on, blindsided by divorce or gets shamed for his preferences only proves the manosphere right. likewise every time a woman gets away with cheating, domestic abuse or falsely accusing a man of a crime against them or just being disrespectful to men also proves the manosphere. and given that people would rather get pissed at the manosphere for pointing this out instead of addressing the issue further solidifies their case. red-pill isn't limited to just the manosphere. anyone including women could benefit from it but ignoring it is the reason why a lot of them are in the predicament they are in. for example just having sex with Chad alone won't keep him around and many do not understand why

[inhua]

the 80/20 rule doesn't come from online dating stats. studies have shown that humanity has far more female ancestors than male ancestors. one of the reasons why feminism tried desperately to dismantle the institution of marriage was due to socially enforced monogamy somehow "forcing" women to spend the rest of their lives with a man even if he was undesirable. the narrative being told has to why divorce rates are very high and initiated by women is due to men being "abusive". I for one do not buy into this narrative of there being an epidemic of abusive husbands but given that women aren't very good at dealing with pressure and there's no bigger pressure than having to stay loyal to an undesirable man hence why it's considered "abusive"

sure there were men who were with undesirable women too but men typically have lower standards for women and a higher tolerance for their bad behaviors

think about the men who get the most attention in society. it's namely celebrities like pro-athletes, movie stars, rappers, male models, politicians, CEOs who are less than 20% of the male population. the other 80% are ignored. the fact that famous men like Prince Harry and LeBron James can talk about their problems and society will listen speaks more volume given that a homeless man can't even voice his thoughts without being labeled a sexist, misogynist, loser, whiny crybaby etc.

the red-pill goes a lot deeper than just mating strategies. it's science mixed with psychology but without the political correctness and political incorrectness tends to be "offensive"

[EricSummer]

Some of the red pill content is based on actual scientific research, and I will also follow the research about mating in our ancestral environment.

Still, I cannot accept statements about our current society that are blown completely out of proportion. How can 80% of men be "undesirable"? About 50% get to have sex right away in high school or early college. There are no strings attached and few will have any significant resources at their disposal.
Later, when they can offer a woman stability and some resources, about 70% do well with women and by middle age about 80%.

Why are you mentioning homeless men? They are less than 0.5% of all men. I am prepared to admit that for the least desirable or successful 10% it can be difficult. It's the proportion that matters.

By the way, I'm surprised you count Prince Harry as one of the lucky ones. He is obviously no Chad. He had a handful of girlfriends some of which clearly went mainly for his resources. One was hot, though, the one named Cressida. Then he took a wife who had already "hit the wall", as they say, to still have two kids at the last moment. We'll see how it continues after the divorce. I'm aware he is not yet fully spent.

[inhua]

you're misinterpreting how the 80/20 rule works. the rule pertains to each individual woman where she would find at most 1 in 5 men (20%) she ever comes across as being attractive. this statistic is not meant to apply for women as an overall collective. with a large enough sample size, a woman will reject the vast majority of men who approach her. she isn't trying to date 80% of men she ever comes across

just because a guy has sex doesn't debunk the stat because he could very well be within that specific 20% (or less) for the woman he had sex with

if you apply the 80/20 rule literally to the collective, then some men would be objectively attractive to ALL women but because attractiveness is subjective and women have to be picky for biological reasons, she as an individual can't possibly find the majority of men attractive

it's not just homeless men, you can add imprisoned men, men with physical or mental disabilities, NEETs, men who work low paying jobs etc. the point being is that there are certain patterns that women can be observed reacting to positively and other patterns they react negatively

with all things considered equal and identical in every way for 2 male candidates, a woman will choose a taller guy over a shorter guy, a richer guy over a broke guy etc.

Prince Harry was born into wealth and status plus he was good looking at one point. the thing is people will listen and feel sympathy for his "bad" experiences growing up and his "stressful" life whereas the average and below average needs to "shut up and man up" so to speak and this is allowed because Prince Harry is a top 20% man. the west has a sick perversion with celeb worship and are often having to use celebrities to speak up on their behalf for their causes

[Anonymous]

Red Pillers, MGTOWs and Incels are just the inevitable backlash to what feminism has become and what it has done in recent years. These groups are cut from the same cloth as feminists. They are two sides of the same hateful, bitter, sexist, divisive coin. At this point they are each just throwing gasoine on the same fire.

[OddBeMe]

No it’s a sleep aid to go deeper down the incel rabbit hole. Nighty night!

[Snakeyes7]

The red pill in general is a very bitter pill.