“The modern man was good hearted, cared about others, expected good things out of the world and believed in equality for all. He believed in the golden rule, and believed that the rule of law would enforce it if push came to shove. He tried his best to make the world a better place for everyone. He expected his efforts to have an effect, and that society would reward him in kind. He believed that happiness was the result of good intentions. Sadly this man can no longer survive in the world.”
So says RedPillSchool at The Red Pill on Reddit in his post “Building Power – 200,000+ Subscribers, A New Direction”.
How about we play flip the genders here and try the paragraph again this time from a female sympathetic point of view:
“The modern woman was good hearted, cared about others, expected good things out of the world and believed in equality for all. She believed in the golden rule, and believed that the rule of law would enforce it if push came to shove. She tried her best to make the world a better place for everyone. She expected her efforts to have an effect, and that society would reward her in kind. She believed that happiness was the result of good intentions. Sadly this woman can no longer survive in the world.”
Which paragraph is more true, the male sympathetic version or the female sympathetic version? I would say they are both equally true; both equally true and both equally false I will add.
Is feminism an evil conspiracy cooked up by women to harm men for the woman’s own selfish benefit? Yes. Is feminism an evil conspiracy cooked up by men to harm women for the man’s own selfish benefit? Yes. As the feminists always say; patriarchy hurts men to / feminism helps men to. There is a female reward to feminism and there is also a male reward to feminism; the female reward being more power and the male reward being less responsibility.
Interestingly the entire premise of The Red Pill on Reddit is based on men exploiting one of the male rewards of feminism; that being easy access to sex, being able to have sex without having to marry the girl and take on the responsibilities and commitment of being a husband first.
In the next paragraph of his article RedPillSchool states:
“The defining feature and ultimate downfall of the modern man was his desire to fit in. What was once an advantageous trait that generated group cohesion, built society and facilitated comradery has slowly become the greatest weapon used against him. Feminists and those who craved power recognized man’s shortcoming and exploited it. Men, it seemed, would attack other men at the behest of any female cry. They were so intent on saving women, they would even attack themselves.”
Now I can see how this paragraph makes sense for someone born into an already established feminist culture but it should be remembered that feminism wasn’t based on the desire to “fit in” at first; at first feminism was radical and counter-cultural. Then feminism took over and then after that feminism became the status quo enforced by conformity and the desire to “fit in.”
Feminists definitely realize that they get a lot of mileage out of pretending to be victims and casting themselves as being “discriminated against” or “oppressed” whenever they don’t get their way as women. I wonder however if this is really a “shortcoming” in men or maybe this protective instinct in men to guard the interests of women and to be concerned when a woman expresses distress or a feeling of being victimized is a good thing, is an attribute in men that serves a moral purpose. Yes a woman or women in general may take advantage of men’s kindness and men’s desire for women’s approval but that doesn’t mean that men’s kindness is bad or that men desiring women’s approval is bad. Being easily manipulated by women is bad, not standing up to women’s selfish and unreasonable demands is bad, but protecting women’s interests is good, protecting women from selfish and abusive men is good, listening to women’s complaints and concerns to at least be aware of the problems women may be experiencing in their lives is good.
It needs to be kept in mind that when a man “gives in” to a woman’s demands he is choosing to do what the woman is telling him to do for a reason. Men gave into feminist demands because they wanted to, because it served a purpose for the man. Men not standing up to women is men’s fault because it is the man’s choice.
RedPillSchool then states:
“The modern man tried his hardest to cast off his manhood to answer the cry of feminists. Men were evil, bitter, women-haters, oppressors, rapists, and dangerous. He thought he might find love if he made himself entirely inoffensive and nonthreatening. He failed to realize that he would never be absolved of the sin of being a man. The goalposts for “fixing” maleness were ever-shifting, and no penance paid could ever be enough to satisfy the reparations demanded by the ‘oppressed.’”
This paragraph speaks to the abusive manipulative nature of feminism; in particular the threat of romantic rejection if the man refuses to go along with the bullying accusations the feminists make against him. The thing is that the man doesn’t have a right to “cast off his manhood” to please feminists or anybody else; a man needs to stick to his duties as a man and his role as a man no matter what. Feminists make an immoral demand when they demand that men submit to them as women; this demand being immoral both for the woman who makes the demand and also for the man who agrees to the demand.
It should be remembered however that feminism hurts women to. Women are forced into feminism just like men are. Women are threatened with romantic rejection and abandonment if they fail to accept the feminist line just like men are. Feminist men will punish a traditional woman just like feminist women will punish a traditional man. A woman who demands that a man take care of her (financially support her) and place her needs first and sacrifice for her will receive as much rejection and hostility from men as a man who claims and expects and enforces obedience and submission on a woman will receive rejection and hostility from women.
The starting point of male female relationships is not equality; it is instead women being dependent upon and obedient to men and men needing to protect and support and take care of women; the woman’s interests come first and the man is in charge. Feminism is a male attack against women’s rightful interests in being supported by and being taken care of by a man and feminism is a female attack against men’s right to protect their own interests as men, to set their own goals and purpose as men, and men’s right to dominance and authority over women.
Gender equality is basically men denigrating and attacking women’s areas of superiority and women denigrating and attacking men’s areas of superiority; denying the other sexes’ unique contribution and value then leading to the fabled “equality” feminists pretend to want.
So it is wrong headed to view feminism as not being mutual; feminism is a contract of sorts between the sexes. In feminism female interests do come first but not as strongly as was the case in the prior patriarchal social system. Under feminism men still tend to be more powerful than women. Patriarchy has not yet completely gone away. Basically the feminist social contract is that the man will be allowed more freedom and less responsibility if the woman is allowed to control her own path in life with only minimal supports offered by the man. This is a bad social contract because this social contract does not take care of the needs of children and leads to mutual abuse between men and women and leads to highly insecure relationships overall but it is a social contract nonetheless.
This feminist “gender equality” social contract is breaking down. It is true that the “modern man” increasingly cannot succeed with women or form good relationships with women anymore. There is a contradiction in feminism; that is that the feminist wants a man who is weak and can provide to her good value; these being mutually contradictory goals. The feminist wants the man to be weak, a man she can boss around, a man who is not “threatening” where she can be “in charge” in the relationship. At the same time the feminist wants the man to be successful, to be making good money, for the man to have charm and charisma, for him to be “confidant.” The feminist basically wants a high value man she can control. The thing is if the man is high value then probably she can’t control him; if he is easy to control it is probably because he is low value and weak.
As feminism becomes more successful in “empowering” women the men become weaker and weaker and thus less and less desirable to women; this leading to men who are “following the rules” of doing what feminists tell them to do finding that they are shut out of the romantic marketplace.
There is a rebellion against feminism taking place at long last; The Red Pill on Reddit being a prime example of this. It is easy as a man to see all that feminism does and says and see it as simply attacks on men for female advantage. What is not so easy to see is all the duties and responsibilities and expectations that once were placed upon men that now are gone. Sure yes feminism is abusive lying manipulative and selfish but a man not only needs to reject and protect himself from feminism; he also needs to reclaim and take on all of the duties responsibilities and expectations that were imposed upon men in the past before feminism came along and took those masculine duties away from men to put the man into a weakened state that the woman could then control.
Related article: The Red Pill urging men to Build Power