Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[asifarahim]

4 hours ago, Chew211 said:

@Karmadhi @asifarahimasi

Red Pill doesn't transform you. You're only dealing with surface level traits. 

But the books recommended at the end of redpill hand book will transform myself.if i work on books like no more mr nice guy,way of men,robert greene,models etc they will transform me.books like the way of men are work of pure genius

Edited August 27, 2021 by asifarahim

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Chew211 said:

@Emerald

Thanks for your insight.

When people, regardless of their sex, talk about what they want (in a partner or otherwise), it's usually not it. The psychoanalytic model does not take what people say at their face value. However, the difference is with the Red Pill, the assumption is that women are either dishonest or deluded whereas men or not-- or even worse, the inconsistency between what women say and what they do is justification to do the same. There are women who say they want a nice guy but keep getting into relationships with men who are not nice. Just like there are guys who say they want to get laid/improve their dating life but instead complain on this forum about women being a certain way which prevents them from getting laid-- you did a good job pointing out a particular dudes inconsistency yourself. 

The issue with the Red Pill is that it doesn't teach you anything about how to find out about how to find a woman's true desires. They just say that all chicks desire one thing (projection of their phallic nature), and act based off of that. And like you've said many times, that'll work for a certain type of women, but it's not a universal. The guys that get success of off this way of thinking have the stereotype reinforced because their behavior is selected for the type of women where Red Pill strategies work, just like how all the "there's no good men" women think all men are douches because of their preselection bias.

In Lacanian terms, people are only looking at the level of the Imaginary, but not the Symbolic.  

I do understand that most people aren't in a place to speak deeply or accurately about what they want sexually.

But yes... it's always been my issue that the idea is that women specifically are deluded about what they want. And then, this becomes justification for them to shut their ears to anything women say on the matter, thus leading them deeper into the delusion that they do understand.

And then, of course, it becomes confirmation bias when they get sex with the women who the Red Pill ideas/strategies work with. And the idea is that 'if it's effective for getting me laid with some women, then it must be universally true for all women.'

And they just chalk the women who reject them up to not being interested in them specifically (or because they made a mistake and did the techniques wrong)... when in reality most of the women probably reject them because they've experienced these kinds of approaches a zillion times before since age 12, and they just don't get anything out of them. It's kind of like how the Nigerian Prince emails don't work on everyone... but I'm sure they do work on some people. 

And because it might make that man feel less insecure, it's a nicer story for him to imagine that these techniques are a magic bullet that will work on ALL women... and that he finally has the core tenets of female sexuality figured out and under control, once and for all. And furthermore, he knows them EVEN BETTER than women themselves and can always be in the empowered position. 

I can see why the mindset is very intoxicating... especially for men dealing with heaps of self-love and insecurity issues. 

And then, as you mentioned, because they're seeing female sexuality through this ruthless "zero sum" kind of lens, they feel plenty justified and emboldened towards all sorts of fuckery. And perhaps, in their minds, they even NEED to do this fuckery to make sure that they aren't outdrawn by the ruthless woman. He must match (and raise) the ruthlessness he projects upon her so that he isn't one-upped and brought back down into his world of insecurity. It's purely a survival game of fuck or be fucked.

But as a woman who is mostly non-phallic in her sexuality, I can look at these "truths about female nature" and see that almost none of it is true for me... or for most women I know. And even the elements that are true are framed in a very distorted way. For example, with hypergamy, I am somewhat hypergamous with regard to age, as I have a slight preference towards older men. But this is such a background detail. It is not the defining characteristic of my sexuality.

There's a lot more going on in me when I light upon a man that really considers him as a whole person and not just a collection of traits.

 

[Karmadhi]

8 hours ago, Chew211 said:

The only good "wisdom" Red Pill offers is to not be Blue Pill. 

It basically makes you less of a nice guy. Which is important. Thats about it that is good. However if not used properly the knowledge can fuck you up even more so its dangerous territory.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Karmadhi

[Karmadhi]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

But yes... it's always been my issue that the idea is that women specifically are deluded about what they want

I can tell from my personal experience that their advice is not good. My sample size is not small either. Their advice is too soft and catered to a female perspective which is not at all how guys situations are. The best people to learn from is those that are good at it. Just like anything in life. So guys that are good with girls are better sources to learn from.

Maybe girls are good sources of advice for relationships but most guys struggle with attraction , not relationships. 

[Chew211]

8 hours ago, asifarahim said:

But the books recommended at the end of redpill hand book will transform myself.if i work on books like no more mr nice guy,way of men,robert greene,models etc they will transform me.books like the way of men are work of pure genius

Lol, I've read all those books, man. 

Those books won't change you because they don't get to the core of the issue. If they did, then no one would have those problems, because those books have sold so much. 

[Chew211]

4 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

It basically makes you less of a nice guy. Which is important. Thats about it that is good.

 

Yeah, but not being a nice guy is just changing your external behaviors for most people, which is why it's not the real results getter. Both being a nice guy and not being a nice guy is coming from the same place of seeking female validation. 

[Chew211]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

I do understand that most people aren't in a place to speak deeply or accurately about what they want sexually.

 

Which is why listening doesn't mean taking things at face value. 

When it comes to the things you have to say though, it's spot on, based off of what I studied as well. 

Even from our different viewpoints (Lacanian vs Jungian) we can see the same issues. 

5 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

I can tell from my personal experience that their advice is not good. 

Most people's advice isn't good. When one says something there's the content of what they are saying and then the context. You're only focusing on the content and taking everything at face value, which is the issue. 

Did you take into account that most women won't open up about their fantasies to most guys because most guys don't know what's up and will think she's a slut? 

Did you figure out that the advice women give on dating conforms with what's socially acceptable, but what goes under the sheets is a private matter, and therefore there HAS to be a discrepancy between the two?

5 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

 Maybe girls are good sources of advice for relationships but most guys struggle with attraction , not relationships. 

If you don't come off as an inexperienced nice guy trying not to be a nice guy and develop a personal connection with women, and you don't judge them, they'll tell you all sorts of thing from first hand experience. That's how you learn about relationships, not advice. Advice, at least with the type your talking about, amounts to "tell me what I have to do so I don't have to actually think and navigate my way through reality. I want something to blindly follow to get me results." 

[Chew211]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

And because it might make that man feel less insecure, it's a nicer story for him to imagine that these techniques are a magic bullet that will work on ALL women... and that he finally has the core tenets of female sexuality figured out and under control, once and for all. And furthermore, he knows them EVEN BETTER than women themselves and can always be in the empowered position. 

And then, as you mentioned, because they're seeing female sexuality through this ruthless "zero sum" kind of lens, they feel plenty justified and emboldened towards all sorts of fuckery. And perhaps, in their minds, they even NEED to do this fuckery to make sure that they aren't outdrawn by the ruthless woman. He must match (and raise) the ruthlessness he projects upon her so that he isn't one-upped and brought back down into his world of insecurity. It's purely a survival game of fuck or be fucked.

This sort of fucked up environment is most profitable. There's economic incentive for things to be like this, for most men to continually shoot themselves in the foot. 

 

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

There's a lot more going on in me when I light upon a man that really considers him as a whole person and not just a collection of traits.

Boy would it be a nightmare if women didn't have a nonphallic component. 

 

[Jacob Morres]

@Chew211 you ever see this movie?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/

[Chew211]

2 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

@Chew211 you ever see this movie?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/

Yes. 

That red pill is the MRA strain, which is different than the predominant reddit one because it's concern is with marriage laws, divorce, etc. 

The lesson I took from that documentary is to not get married in the West. 

[Surfingthewave]

17 hours ago, Chew211 said:

@Emerald

The issue with the Red Pill is that it doesn't teach you anything about how to find out about how to find a woman's true desires. They just say that all chicks desire one thing (projection of their phallic nature), and act based off of that.  

Yes - because the Red pill theory is written by men. 

Impressive analysis. Particularly your breaking down of psychoanalysis and Freudian theories. These are all very dated, however. Freud famously described women as inferior to men. 

What I would say is looking at the book list all the books are written by men. 

If you want to find out about a woman's desires perhaps read more womens studies and research about how women view their sexuality and gender. Date women not to get laid but to understand how a to be in a relationship with a woman. I think to really analyse Red Pill thinking come at it from the understanding about what it might be like to live in a world where women were viewed as second class citizens for a very long time, and still are by many cultures. How does this impact on Red Pill thinking? 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Surfingthewave

[Chew211]

@Surfingthewave

Thanks for your comment. 

13 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

Impressive analysis. Particularly your breaking down of psychoanalysis and Freudian theories. These are all very dated, however. Freud famously described women as inferior to men. 

My theories are more Lacanian than Freudian. Lacan did indeed build off of Freud, but went past the biologisms. As ideas get more refined through the editing process and by more thinkers adding on to the corpus, the idea gets refined to the point where Freuds particular views of women doesn't really affect psychoanalysis. 

21 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

What I would say is looking at the book list all the books are written by men. 

If you want to find out about a woman's desires perhaps read more womens studies and research about how women view their sexuality and gender. 

The idea is to get an idea of all the factors that are meta to desires. Women have indeed contributed to the Psychoanalytic and Marxist paradigms, but the gender of the author doesn't matter so much as the information, even if their gender does affect their worldview. 

You've look at the authors names, but I would recommend reading the books. 

If you have insight from reading women's studies and research, then feel free to share. 

24 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

I think to really analyse Red Pill thinking come at it from the understanding about what it might be like to live in a world where women were viewed as second class citizens for a very long time, and still are by many cultures. How does this impact on Red Pill thinking? 

Red Pillers think that it's women that are the more privledged ones. 

30 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

Date women not to get laid but to understand how a to be in a relationship with a woman.

Or rather how to be in different relationships with different women, finding out the type of relationship you want and the type of women you like, etc. But dating is being given too much importance in my opinion. It's das ding of all the neurotics in the subforum, which is why they constantly fail at it. 

[Epikur]

The mother of red pill is a certain argentinian psychologist.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Epikur

[Spiral]

Like many have said so far, I do think red pill philosophy is useful for many guys. However it’s should only be a stage and pretty early one at that. Girls and the world as a whole is more way more complicated.

[hamedsf]

redpill isn't merely the problem. making ideology out of any idea is much dangerous.

some tips from redpill might be beneficial for men and some not. 

nothing is perfect.

 

 

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, Chew211 said:

This sort of fucked up environment is most profitable. There's economic incentive for things to be like this, for most men to continually shoot themselves in the foot. 

That's a great point. TONS of people are profiting off of insecurities.

And those who advertise in the manosphere are playing the same game that beauty and fashion companies (especially before 10 years ago) put on women. 

It makes men feel like trash by giving them a scary view of women. And then they sell them solutions to that problem. 

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, Chew211 said:

Boy would it be a nightmare if women didn't have a nonphallic component. 

Yes. Male sexuality and female sexuality all have one easy component and one difficult component.

For men, their easy component is lack of selectivity. Their difficult component is objectivity. 

For women, their easy component is subjectivity. Their difficult component is selectivity.

And when men view female sexuality through the male lens, they see the woman's difficult component of selectivity... but they project their own difficult component of objectivity.

And so, they imagine that women are just hyper selective men who are constantly sussing out male flaws with an objective eye... when that's not the case at all. 

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

Yes. Male sexuality and female sexuality all have one easy component and one difficult component.

For men, their easy component is lack of selectivity. Their difficult component is objectivity. 

For women, their easy component is subjectivity. Their difficult component is selectivity.

And when men view female sexuality through the male lens, they see the woman's difficult component of selectivity... but they project their own difficult component of objectivity.

And so, they imagine that women are just hyper selective men who are constantly sussing out male flaws with an objective eye... when that's not the case at all. 

Can you expand on this? How are you defining subjectivity and objectivity?

I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what you’re getting at but I’d like to hear it from you.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Can you expand on this? How are you defining subjectivity and objectivity?

I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what you’re getting at but I’d like to hear it from you.

For men, the objectivity comes in in terms of sussing out the objective attractiveness of a woman in terms of her appearance and other traits. In the attraction phase, women are just a collection of desirable or undesirable attributes to men. But along with this objectivity (which often leads to objectification), men are also non-selective. So even for the pickiest of men it still doesn't filter out the majority of women. But there is an objectivity to his filtering process. It isn't about how he feels. It's about the pros and cons and the objective facts of the woman's ability to meet a standard. 

For women, there is a subjectivity to the experience of attraction because it's all rooted in feeling. And this means that she's capable of feeling significantly more attracted to a man who is objectively average than to a guy who is objectively more attractive across all or most categories. And even her girlfriends might look at the guy and say, "Really?!?!"

But she can really see the man as more than a collection of his attributes, and thus subjectively can see him as more than the sum of his parts. Feminine sexuality is truly non-objective... unless she is choosing from her masculine energy. But along with this subjectivity and subjectification of men and seeing men as particular individuals that are as unique as snowflakes, the woman is selective in that she will filter out most of the male population from her consideration. Like, it has to be just that guy. There's only one special snowflake that will do. And she won't want anyone else. 

So, for men, they tend toward objectivity and even objectification in the attraction phase... but they aren't very picky. And for women, they tend towards subjectifying a given man to where she feels that it's only really that guy that can give her what she's looking for... but this makes women a lot more picky though not primarily on the basis of a man's objective attractiveness. 

So, men tend to recognize the selectivity of women... but fail to recognize the subjectivity of her attractions.

And so, in their minds, they turn women into more selective men... especially men who are very objectifying towards women.

So, there is a projection of hyper-objectification onto women, where they fear women are sussing out men the same way that men suss out women... only with higher standards and more selectivity.

So a man whose objectivity has unhealthily fallen out of alignment and into objectification who sees women as merely an amalgamation of pornographic traits will be extra terrified that women are looking at him with the same level of objectification. And he projects objectification onto all women who he sees as constantly scrutinizing him for his masculinity and looking to poke holes in his manhood... and maybe they might even be comparing him to other men who are objectively more attractive. Like, "Oh no. This guy is classically handsome. Why would she like me?" or "That guy's dick is two inches longer than me. Surely she'll prefer him?"

But this insecurity comes from projecting male objectivity (and even objectification) onto women, when our sexuality doesn't really work that way. And then hypergamy becomes this horror story that makes men harden themselves and always have to take women down a peg to feel less secure. And to have to tell themselves that they have female sexuality learned and under control for fear of being scrutinized and objectified. And again... it's much worse if that person has a tendency to objectify women. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Emerald

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

For men, the objectivity comes in in terms of sussing out the objective attractiveness of a woman in terms of her appearance and other traits. In the attraction phase, women are just a collection of desirable or undesirable attributes to men. But along with this objectivity (which often leads to objectification), men are also non-selective. So even for the pickiest of men it still doesn't filter out the majority of women. But there is an objectivity to his filtering process. It isn't about how he feels. It's about the pros and cons and the objective facts of the woman's ability to meet a standard. 

For women, there is a subjectivity to the experience of attraction because it's all rooted in feeling. And this means that she's capable of feeling significantly more attracted to a man who is objectively average than to a guy who is objectively more attractive across all or most categories. And even her girlfriends might look at the guy and say, "Really?!?!"

But she can really see the man as more than a collection of his attributes, and thus subjectively can see him as more than the sum of his parts. Feminine sexuality is truly non-objective... unless she is choosing from her masculine energy. But along with this subjectivity and subjectification of men and seeing men as particular individuals that are as unique as snowflakes, the woman is selective in that she will filter out most of the male population from her consideration. Like, it has to be just that guy. There's only one special snowflake that will do. And she won't want anyone else. 

So, for men, they tend toward objectivity and even objectification in the attraction phase... but they aren't very picky. And for women, they tend towards subjectifying a given man to where she feels that it's only really that guy that can give her what she's looking for... but this makes women a lot more picky though not primarily on the basis of a man's objective attractiveness. 

So, men tend to recognize the selectivity of women... but fail to recognize the subjectivity of her attractions.

And so, in their minds, they turn women into more selective men... especially men who are very objectifying towards women.

So, there is a projection of hyper-objectification onto women, where they fear women are sussing out men the same way that men suss out women... only with higher standards and more selectivity.

So a man whose objectivity has unhealthily fallen out of alignment and into objectification who sees women as merely an amalgamation of pornographic traits will be extra terrified that women are looking at him with the same level of objectification. And he projects objectification onto all women who he sees as constantly scrutinizing him for his masculinity and looking to poke holes in his manhood... and maybe they might even be comparing him to other men who are objectively more attractive. Like, "Oh no. This guy is classically handsome. Why would she like me?" or "That guy's dick is two inches longer than me. Surely she'll prefer him?"

But this insecurity comes from projecting male objectivity (and even objectification) onto women, when our sexuality doesn't really work that way. And then hypergamy becomes this horror story that makes men harden themselves and always have to take women down a peg to feel less secure. And to have to tell themselves that they have female sexuality learned and under control for fear of being scrutinized and objectified. And again... it's much worse if that person has a tendency to objectify women. 

It’s interesting because I feel like RSD (one of the biggest PUA companies) taught something similar.

They always railed against guys who believed that their success with women came down to object measures like looks, money or even status. They often would push a narrative that attraction with women was way more subjective and based on how she felt, versus an objective resume type of mindset. 

It was this fluidity and subjectivity in female sexuality that they taught was the reason you could easily pick up women. In other words, because women don’t care how you look or the money you have, you could go out to a bar and find success right now. All those things you thought you needed, you didn’t. That was the core message I took away from them.

The reason RSD would always push this narrative was because there were so many insecure guys who refused to believe it. They just could not grasp that women really were not judging their looks that harshly. And they constantly projected onto women how they would get picked up.

I know you are not a fan of cold approach. But I do find it fascinating that you seem to be saying something similar in terms of subjectivity.

Where you and RSD seem to diverge is about selectivity. You’re arguing that female selectivity is because of women’s ability to perceive men as unique. While a company like RSD would probably argue female selectivity exists because women are biologically driven to seek out alpha males and then to get them to commit.

This was also the origin of female subjectivity, as women were looking for subliminal hints of alpha male behavior, like body language or vocal tonality, rather than object measures.

Thanks for clarifying. I love this topic so these ideas have been fun to play with.