Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[Chew211]

First off, I want to begin by saying this is a long post. It takes more than "typing your thoughts out in a few minutes" in order to challenge a paradigm and present alternatives.

Brief Background: I first read the Rational Male and got introduced to Red Pill ideology the beginning of 2017. It was this year when I first dabbled in Game. The Rational Male completely changed my  paradigm of relationships. It was a quick shift from my most blue mixed with immature green view of sex/romance/relationships to hard Orange. Early 2018, I went through a MGTOW phase. Late 2018 brief upshift into a stage green, hippie like view. 2019, got my head out of my ass, and started to get laid, but also the majority of the center of gravity moved back down to stage orange, and some of it went up to yellow. 2020, I started studying philosophy, critical theory, etc hardcore, which has given me more sophisticated models for looking at reality. 

 

Main Post

The Rational Male is a very influential book in The Red Pill, and going through it will give you all the Red Pill fundamentals. The Red Pill community still holds the fundamentals in the book as universal truths, which is why it’s still stuck in 2013. In this post I will attack 3 of Rollo’s positions, from Lacanian (Psychoanalytic) and Dialectical Materialist positions. I will also criticize the Red Pill’s notions of masculinity and provide an alternative psychoanalytic model of looking at masculinity and femininity, and I’ll end it with a general attack on the Red Pill’s meta position. 

If there’s any questions you have, feel free to ask it in the thread. I will likely take time in answering questions that require a long explanation, so please don't sperg out on me for seemingly "hiding behind the fact that I am without knowledge" 

Muh Hypergamy 

This is the central tenet of The Rational Male, and by extension Red Pill Ideology. It is seen to be the cause of literally everything. On the surface the idea seems sound, and one can easily see it reflected in reality. The issue is that it confuses female ”mating strategy” in the present socio-economic circumstances as inherent to females as a part of their nature. 

Here’s the Red Pill worldview in a nutshell:

Female Mating Strategy --> Male Mating Strategy --> Culture 

Essentially, the Red Pill perspective sees the female mating strategy as this unchangeable kernel which is to be adapted to. This is problematic for two reasons: 1. It’s a built in victimhood complex, because everything was/is/will be about reacting to Hypergamy, 2. It ignores/denies that material reality is what shapes our (rather flexible/adaptable) human nature, and actually thinks that it’s the other way around. 

We DO in fact change our material circumstances, as it is in our nature to do so, but it’s the material circumstances that’s the initial point.

Here’s Reality in a nutshell:

Socio-Economic Conditions <-->>> Culture <-->>> Mating Strategy 

Socio-Economic conditions include technological advancements, the general state of the economy, employment, social antagonisms (wealth disparity), the fact that most people are wage slaves who get their surplus value appropriated, the fact that in recent years more money has gone towards speculative investing than actual production, because it’s more profitable, etc. 

A few examples of Socio-Economic Conditions being the root cause of Mating Strategy:

1. Boomers had more sex and got married earlier because the economic conditions of the post-war boom allowed them to buy a house and afford children. Most of them weren’t in dating purgatory for most of their early adult life like millennials. 
2. During the Bubble-Era in Japan’s late Showa period, people were having sex left-and-right. There was also a lot of cheating going on, but more so by men, because the corporate work culture still took most of their time, and for them it was natural to enjoy the nightlife after work. The bubble popped though, and now the birthrate is low, and a lot of people (men especially), aren’t having sex. Salaries have also dropped since the bubble era, which has made starting families difficult as well. 
3. This Vaush video showing male virginity in the U.S. skyrocketed after 2008.

The Red Pill doesn’t like to think about Socio-Economic conditions because they’re methodological individualists incapable of seeing the big picture, and unable/unwilling to learn complicated models of reality. 

What I’ve argued so far might not have disproved Hypergamy itself, but hopefully I’ve at least taken it off the pedestal

Red Pill Notions of Masculinity and Femininity 

The Red Pill bases its theories of masculinity and femininity (which include Hypergamy) on (pseudo) Evolutionary Psychology and Behaviorism. They extrapolate on the idea that the goal of genes is to be passed down and we are mere vessels for doing that. It’s not a bad idea, and Evolutionary Psychology isn’t a BS field by any means, however the Red Pill tries to boil down all human behavior to the goal of passing down one’s genes. Nevermind that they get wrong that it’s on the level of the individual genes where the theory applies, not on the level of individual organisms-- but also, Evolutionary Psychology doesn’t explain things like fetishisms, desires that aren’t correlated with reproductive success, why there’s people that cut off their own genitals, etc. General American Psychology (the predominant Psychological authority in the world today) would dismiss anything that falls out of their framework for “normal people” as abnormal psychology. 

Psychoanalysis encompasses it all, and takes more things into account. This post isn’t about Psychoanalysis itself, so I’ll just stick to introducing a Freudian/Lacanian model for masculinity and femininity in the next section. The next section is an optional read for those only interested in why the Red Pill is wrong, and are not interested in alternative models. 

Phallic and Non-Phallic Sexuality

When asked to define masculinity, the Red Pill, along with most people in general, would give a list of qualities. Even in Leo’s video How to be Man part 1, he debunks other mainstream definitions, and gives his own list. For example, one of the qualities was “icy”. Femininity is also given a list of qualities, one such quality being submissive. Obviously the issue with this is that it’s too narrow, and that masculinity and femininity have different forms of expressing itself. 

Psychoanalysis offers a more universal way of looking at masculinity and femininity, through the concept of the Phallus. 

Disclaimer: in Psychoanalysis, words don’t have fixed definitions. This includes terms like “men” and “women”. You might be a biological male who might have a non-phallic sexuality, in which case, according to the psychological model, you can be considered a “woman”. You might be a biological female, but in the context of your professional life, the psychoanalytic model will treat you as a “man”. You will see why below. 

Men have a phallic sexuality, and women have a phallic AND non-phallic sexuality. The more phallic you are, the more you care about numbers, size, expansion, etc. Non-phallic sexuality is a mystery-- there’s a connection to the infinite there. Phallic sexuality is easy to understand, and no one understands non-phallic sexuality. The idea that women are only into looks, money, big dicks, etc is assuming that there’s only phallic sexuality at play. The more feminine a woman is, the more non-phallic she is, and therefore the more random factors there are to her sexuality. The issue is that non-phallic sexuality isn’t observable. 

The more phallic you are, the more masculine you are, and therefore more engaged in metaphorical (and at times literal) dick measuring contests. The phallus is your metaphorical (and at times, your literal) dick. The phallus could be your performance in something, your strength, your skills, your money, your wife, etc. 

Men want to have the phallus, and women want to be the phallus.  

The issue is that men don’t have the phallus. Not having the phallus gives us anxiety... the technical term is castration anxiety. This castration anxiety pushes men to compensate for not having the phallus. This compensation is growth. 

For example, a guy can’t get laid, so he does things like hit the gym, study pick up, etc. Then he goes out into the field, and gets laid.

Obviously nowadays, most guys aren’t like the men I described above. Indeed, they are less masculine. Instead of pushing themselves to grow, they cope with jouissance, which is a cycle of frustration and release from the frustration. An easy example of jouissance is porn use. Guy can't get laid, is sexually frustrated, so he consumes porn. The word jouissance comes from the French word meaning orgasm, so with porn use, you have a literal jouissance cycle. 

Alpha-Beta Dichotomy 

Some people don’t like these labels, but I’ll use them for the sake of my argument. 

Alpha and Beta are the two classifications of men. Alpha means you have a strong frame, you're confident, and you get laid. Beta means you're a nice guy chump, you’re at the bottom of the social totem pole, and you don’t get laid/ you're a doormat for your girlfriend/wife. 

I’m not going to deny that there are indeed these two general categories, but the issue is that these qualities are seen to be essential parts of an individual. It’s as if being Alpha or Beta is a trait IN you, when in fact, it’s not. It’s about where you happen to be in a socio-economic network. 

The rise of Beta males who can’t get laid isn’t simply because of the culture. The culture doesn’t just decide to change on a whim-- it’s affected by socio-economic conditions. The prevailing conditions for most males in post-Industrial nations are as follows: working at least 8 hours a day, due to technological advancements, more work and therefore more stress is placed on each individual culture, most workplaces and schools now train most people to be obedient wage slaves who need to be told what to do and are overly reliant on an inorganic system to regulate their social relations (think corporate work culture). Most men are Beta males because they must be in order to keep the economy running-- and Capitalism is about infinite expansion on finite mediums, and extracting surplus from workers. 

An Alpha is someone with surplus. Surplus time, energy, money, muscles, etc. It’s a contextual determination, so let’s say if you’re in a workplace full of nerds, but you workout, in that environment you’ll be more Alpha because you have more (muscles) than everyone around you-- adjusting for everything else, of course. 

Red Pill ideology is about apeing Alphas. It’s about appearing to have surplus, when in most cases you don’t. In this way the Red Pill sexual strategy is not holistic. The Red Pill is full of Beta Males. 

Sure, technique matters in Game. But what’s more important than Game is your infrastructure. The less of your productive hours are sapped by your employer, the more you have to build up yourself. Build up yourself, go to a place with a lot of attractive women, minimize the amount of wage labor you have to do, and boom, you’re an Alpha.

LMS and Confidence 

Either it’s all about looks, money, status, or “just be confident, bro”. 

Here’s what’s wrong with LMS: Money itself doesn’t attract most women. It’s the surplus that comes with it that’s attractive. Women that are after money itself are gold diggers, who are relatively few in number. Status is context dependent, and the whole point of cold approach and Online Game is that it doesn’t matter. Also, society itself is becoming more alienated, so status matters a lot less than it did before. As for Looks, gets your foot in the door, but if you’re taking initiative after moving to a high-volume area, it’ll be impossible NOT to get laid (unless you have other issues). 

The issue with confidence: If you have enough confidence to take action, then that’s all you need. The Red Pill is overly concerned with appearing confident and making their approach smooth, etc. Confidence doesn’t matter as much as taking the right action is. In fact, you gotta take risks to grow, and when you’re taking risks it’s natural to not feel confident. You just gotta do it anyway. Confidence will grow as a side effect. 

“Just build up surplus, bro.”

Rational Males 

The Red Pill assumes that it is free from ideology, and has an objective world view. They look down on philosophy as irrelevant BS, and consider themselves free of any psychological biases. Never mind that Rationalism and Empiricism are philosophical positions. If you have read the Rational Male or posts on the Red Pill you can easily find emotions, sentimentality, and ideological leanings. 

The Red Pill also assumes a position of being outside of the system. The people of the Red Pill take the position of detached observers looking at the “system”, but they don’t realize that them being detached observers is also part of the overall system. That position, along with, and going hand in hand with being methodological individuals, is the reason why they can’t change anything in the world. They think they’re gaming the system when in fact they are behaving exactly how the system wants them to behave. 

If being red pilled means being free from delusions, the Red Pill is not. 

Real red pills 

The following are books I recommend to get a good holistic model, in which mating strategy has a part. Trying to study mating strategy independent of everything else is a problem in and of itself. 

• Lacan for Beginners, Phillip Hill 
  • Intro to Lacanian Psychoanalysis 
• Sublime Object of Ideology, Slavoj Zizek
  • Teaches and ties together the ideas of many thinkers
  • Pretty difficult book though, I don’t recommend going at it on your own
  • Might be better reading the other recommended books before touching this one
• A Companion to Marx’s Capital, David Harvey
  • Reading the first 2 chapters of this book will cover the first 3 chapters of Marx’s Capital, which gives you the fundamentals. 
  • A lot of you have your own preconceived notions of Marx. Ignore them and read this. 
• The Accursed Share, Georges Bataille
  • This book is centered on surplus
  • Read the first 2 chapters of David Harvey’s book first. 
• Ideology and State Ideological Apparatuses, Louis Althusser 
  •  about how and why the system shapes us to be the way we are
  • Can be read on it’s own, imo, but I’d recommend the first two chapters of DAvid Harvey first 
• Critique of Liberal Ideology, Alain de Benoist
  • The author is right-wing, but incorporates left-wing ideas as well
  • Again, get over your distaste of people of this political stripe, and read this

Edited June 12, 2021 by Chew211
accidentally submitted it without completing it

[Preety_India]

Red pill is stereotypical and archaic and actually does more harm to men than good

It constantly forces men to be super alpha and this strategy backfires because human beings, man or woman are made of emotions. 

 

[assx95]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

Red pill is stereotypical and archaic and actually does more harm to men than good

It constantly forces men to be super alpha and this strategy backfires because human beings, man or woman are made of emotions. 

 

You are right. 

Redpill made me a toxic, manipulative, deceptive, lying, sneaky person. Ideology like this only harms men. Even if they get laid with this ideology, it's not worth it. For they don't see women for what they really are. I'm not claiming that I know how women really are. But the perception is distorted when you begin consuming Redpill in the hopes of attracting women, cause previously you weren't able to

All I need to do as a man to learn and attract women is contemplation about relationships, respecting boundaries, and backing off when I get a feeling that they don't want me to come any closer (I still fail at this and it concerns me), becoming more aware, taking chances when you feel like their body language is inviting you or you have the intuition to do so. 

And even if after all this, I fail to attract women, then to simply accept it, rather than spin a story about how I am the victim, and the world is fucked up and unjust, and how women are a certain way, this is just a grand narrative of the ego. And it becomes perverted very soon. 

I don't even need to attract women. Yesterday, I just sat with my eyes closed and was just being. And I imagined, and it just happened, some good sex with someone I might like. It was so vivid, it was real. It's that simple. 

 

[Consept]

@Chew211 Interesting post man, I especially liked what you said about surplus, abundance is attractive and scarcity is not. 

I agree with most of it but I would say red pill does have some useful ideas but the issue is that (like with most viewpoints), it becomes an ideology that is dogmatically followed. If you take the point that currently most guys drift in to that nice guy, beta perspective, where women are held high on a pedestal and almost bowed down to, this doesnt help the guys as they dont get anywhere with women and it also doesnt help the women because they are not attracted to this type of guy. So there is the need for guys to be able to see women at least on the same level as them, if not see themselves on a higher level simply because women are usually attracted to guys who are better than them in some way. Its also actually more objectifying to women to see them as these beautiful alien life forms rather than just people. 

So i guess the question is how do you teach men how to stop being the 'nice guy' and embrace their own value and masculinity. I agree with your criticisms of red pill ideology, I think a lot of it comes from male pain at being rejected or having a hard time with women and its almost like now 'we've got one over on them look at the stats'. Of course any ideas that come from pain are going to have a biased edge to them, these then filter down to the consumers of the content and it paints an overall world view that allows men to push all responsibility for their own lack of success on to women. Mosg that buy into red pill are at this stage and thats why it can be dangerous but the argument can also be most people at the stage, especially men, are very susceptible to toxic ideology. I think the truth within the red pill is still important as you will not be able to shift from 'nice guy' without it but by the same token you need to have a certain maturity to really take it on board without getting toxic.

Youre also right in that guys can use it to ape alphas, which then creates this shell of an alpha rather than an authentic men who has embraced his masculinity. I think if you follow any ideology to the letter by definition you wouldnt be an alpha. So its important to take on this knowledge and then transcend it. 

[Chew211]

19 hours ago, Consept said:

So i guess the question is how do you teach men how to stop being the 'nice guy' and embrace their own value and masculinity... I think the truth within the red pill is still important as you will not be able to shift from 'nice guy' without it but by the same token you need to have a certain maturity to really take it on board without getting toxic.

I got a long answer, so bear with me. 

As I established, the Red Pill's ideas of masculinity is wrong, nor does it teach mean to embrace their own values. Most men on the Red Pill follow the dumb rule of "think as you like, but behave like others"-- so effectively their still betas, and them no longer being a niceguy doesn't really mean anything, except what they post on forums. 

The most the Red Pill does is point out some facts, such as women have sex, being nice doesn't get you laid, etc. It's not wrong, it is indeed a step in the right direction, but like, that's it. 

The solution is real red pills. 

We live in a society. The society has a State as a super-structure, and an Economy as the Base. In between the State and the Base are ideological apparatuses such as schools, universities, workplaces, entertainment industries, etc. The Ideological Apparatuses exist to ensure that Reproduction of the Means of Production takes place. Pretty much we need a certain amount of people who will be a certain professions, we need a certain number of people with leadership qualities, and we need the vast majority of people to be obedient wage-slaves that won't threaten the "balance of power".  This is WHY most people are "blue pilled".  

The niceguy characteristics is just one part of the overall character of the average worker needed in a post-industrial society. The economy needs the vast majority of men to be: complacent, interchangeable, really care about the opinions of those around them, have plenty of problems, have a tendency to solve those problems with some sort of consumption (entertainment, alcohol, games, e-books on amazon about confidence, etc), have as little close, true friends as possible, and recently, because the amount of human labor needed is decreasing, difficulty in reproduction. 

Just like how by design most people are wage slaves, it is by design that men are increasingly having trouble with getting laid/forming relationships/having good marriages/getting married at all. 

Having an excess of people is trouble. The reason why the early 20th century had a lot of revolutions was because of the surplus of people. 21st century rulers won't make that mistake. 

Women get affected negatively too... to pair the increasing number of men who can't get laid, we have an increasing number of women who can't find someone suitable to settle down with. Decreasing population. Again, because not as many people are needed for Capitalists to increase profits. 

 

Okay, so what's the solution?

1. As I said earlier, real Red Pills. A real re-education. The reading list I posted at the end of the original post is a good starting place. 
2. An understanding of Psychoanalysis. This will make the gender dynamics part easy.
3. Taking action and building surplus. 

Why is the Red Pill not a solution?

1. It is one of the apparatuses I mentioned above that helps with the current "balance of power", meaning that regardless of "taking the red pill", number of men that can't have sexual relations is going to increase
2. It is too focused on the individual, and doesn't want to actually challenge the status quo
3. It just takes most guys from being nice guys (who can't get laid) to not-nice guys (who can't get laid)

 

I didn't really mention "toxicity", misogyny, etc in the original post and here because those problems are surface level and insignificant compared to the deeper problems of the Red Pill. 

[Peter Miklis]

@Chew211 That's nicely explained. Seems like a lot of societal problems nowadays have to do with survival of capitalism.

[Chew211]

1 hour ago, hyruga said:

I agree with your viewpoints and my argument is that the author is just more focused on the red pill strategies.

...

So for these men, assuming they still cannot find a proper job and they can't get out of their country, their next best strategy is still to practise the techniques mentioned by author and get a partner (whether for short or long term that's up to the individual). 

The Rational Male, and Rollo Tomassi in general, isn't focused on strategies as much as presenting you with a model. The only real strategies he mentions are spinning plates, not putting yourself at the mercy of women by things like cohabitating and not using a condom, etc. (The Iron Rules Section).

PUA has actual technique, but that and overall strategy also changes with the times. 

The amount of people that the "next best strategy" works for is decreasing. 

[Consept]

@Chew211 I agree with your position and I agree that people in society are a means to the productivity of society and as such its not conducive for men, in this case, to have the qualities that will attract women.

However your solution (which I also agree with) is not necessarily accessible to the average guy. Its looking at it from a meta perspective, which of course the more meta the better, but most will not be moved to action on it as simply put they don't care. It maybe that something like the red pill can speak to men where they are at and hopefully many will then incorporate what's useful and move on, as you yourself have done. 

So in that the red pill has value in that it can shift men from that society default frame as into another one. Granted there is the risk of men then getting stuck in this frame and just being alpha warriors online. But I still think its a step toward where they actually want to be. 

[Chew211]

10 hours ago, Consept said:

However your solution (which I also agree with) is not necessarily accessible to the average guy.

Its looking at it from a meta perspective, which of course the more meta the better, but most will not be moved to action on it as simply put they don't care.

We're pretty much in agreement. 

Most people, by default, just suck. No way around that.

10 hours ago, Consept said:

It maybe that something like the red pill can speak to men where they are at and hopefully many will then incorporate what's useful and move on, as you yourself have done. 

It does speak to men where there at, but most men don't move on, because they don't actually grow beyond a mental shift that isn't accompanied with useful action. 

Whether or not the Red Pill was just a stepping stone or not can only be determined after the fact.

10 hours ago, Consept said:

So in that the red pill has value in that it can shift men from that society default frame as into another one.

For sure. My argument was not that the Red Pill has no value, but rather it has less value than other more sophisticated models, and it gets a lot of things wrong. 

Granted, the more sophisticated models take a longer time to learn, higher intelligence, and more creativity to apply to one's personal situation. 

The Red Pill is scalable, which is why it's big. 

[Mannyb]

People are awesome! 

[Kshantivadin]

Quality post, thanks.

What do you think about posting this on /r/TheRedPill and seeing what happens?

 

About hypergamy : 

I still hold the belief that hypergamy is innate to the female gender, and not just a contextual mating strategy. I haven't deeply contemplated the differences between men and women, but I strongly feel that first of all, there are differences. Masculinity and femininity is an age-old duality, with even some factorial analyses of language regarding individual differences have masculinity/femininity as an emerging factor. In our own experience we can find numerous ways in which men and women differ. Why isn't it possible that a certain sex has an innate mating strategy? Let's question this deeply - I also hold some limiting beliefs (or maybe they aren't) regarding this (eg that a woman cannot love the same way a man can (while men look for motherly love, hence misogyny and resentment))

The point of your post is weakened by the fact that your first arguments about TRP aren't disproving the concepts - just pointing out that they are relative. TRP is full of absurdities and to me it seems that the concept of hypergamy is actually one of the kernels of the theory. 

The Rational Male can be thrown in the bin solely because of the fact that it is 100% reliant on Evo-Psych while at the same time being unscientific. But the pick-up community, from which TRP arose, along with all its wisdom, is indispensable.

 

[Chew211]

Thanks for the quality response. 

As for Hypergamy, true, I don't disprove it perse. But I take it off the pedestal. To the Red Pill Hypergamy is the center of everything. 

Male and Female do have inherent "drives" if you will, and we can the female drive Hypergamy, but the way these drives are employed (sexual strategy), depends on the context, hence different norms in different time periods. 

As for posting it on TRP, I just might do that. I've never posted there before, just lurked.

[asifarahim]

@Chew211 do u know a system more efficient and powerful than redpill

[Chew211]

5 hours ago, asifarahim said:

@Chew211 do u know a system more efficient and powerful than redpill

Lacanian psychoanalysis to understand human behavior.

Marxist analysis to understand socioeconomic factors.

A Nietzschean will to power.

And action: apply knowledge of the above, find/set up location independent income, and approach women you're interested in.

With this approach, you'll develop the ability to create a sexual strategy for YOU. 

Read the Lacan for Beginners book to get started. 

[Karmadhi]

Red pill is very biased and pro male however i think it can be useful on extreme nice guy cases. It tends to make them more grounded and less female worthshipping. It helped me to some extent but you gotta see its limitation and outgrow it. Pick the good bits of wisdom it has and ignore the toxic parts.

[asifarahim]

Redpill is very good in dealing with orange woman.it is also very good in transforming people at the bottom to be ready for dating

[Emerald]

Yes... this all makes sense to me from the female perspective. There's a ton of misattribution where nurture is viewed as nature. 

I can tell you from my first-hand experience that feminine sexuality is incredibly loving and truly not particularly hierarchical. But it falls on deaf ears because this kind of reading material boils female sexuality down to some cold and ruthless hypergamous status game. And all it does is freak men out about women and exacerbate their insecurities about themselves and their own masculinity. 

Essentially, it frames female sexuality as a projection of male sexuality and male fears about female sexuality... but there's not much female sexuality to be found. So, it is like you said with framing non-phallic sexuality through the lens of phallic sexuality. My experience of my own sexuality is primarily non-phallic with just a little bit of phallic sexuality.

Like in the phallic range, I can look and see status and looks and wealth and there is a mild attraction factor to it. And I am more attracted usually to men who are a bit older than me, so I'm a bit hypergamous in that sense. But overall, it's very mysterious to me how my attractions arise. There really isn't much rhyme or reason. It's kind of like a Cupid's Arrow... or like something that surfaces from the bottom of a dark lake. And it's amazing and it's like you get to see the God in the man that strikes that chord. And it could be just a guy that hierarchically is nowhere near the top. 

It's honestly just really annoying that like 3/4 of the male population now-a-days project all this falsehood onto female sexuality. It's nails on a chalkboard level of annoying.

And you tell these guys what you do like, and they just start regurgitating talking points to gaslight you out of your own desires and machination because they read "The Rational Male" and now they think they know better. 

Mind you, I'm sure it's useful with certain women. That's where the socio-economic, evolutionary, and psychological variants come into play.

But I often look at all this red pill/pick up stuff and think about how ineffective it would be with me. The whole thing just highlights insecurities. 

[Vzdoh]

Hypergamy is obviously present in my filtering dating strategy. No way to deny it! 

However, i tend to think of it as more related to my own personality rather than to overall social economic hypergamy. 

What I mean here is that I myself am an achiever in life, in fact, I was deep strong orange sometime ago and of course by going through that stage and making a mark on the world, I kinda expect my man to be equally successful. At the least! And of course, all of us always want a better option among options available to us, so I want someone better and more successful than me. 

But as I mentioned on this forum many many many times and men here completely skipped that part of course, because they are looking for signs to prove red pill ideology for themselves, I mentioned that this hypergamy part is ONLY the INITIAL criterium. 

This means if a guy happens to pass that criterium, I start looking for traits not related to hypergamy at all! 

Things like emotional and physical availability, integrated feminine side, decent EQ level, personal growth/awareness journey, care for others around, generosity of soul, kindness, humor, positive attitude to life, self-love, and etc. 

These are very important criteria for me, I won't choose a man who is the top in hypergamy terms, but lacks in all or some aspects of the other soft criteria. In fact, I drop men that lack those qualities, because where I live there is a decent supply of successful and wealthy men for me to be picky. 

So in summary, I agree that some aspects of hypergamy exist for women as to how they make their mating choices, but when a woman lives in a society where money is not a major issue and she has financial means to look for other softer qualities in a man, she will certainly do that. 

Maybe hypergamy in its purest form exists only in socio-economic circumstances where women are much weaker financially and hypergamy is therefore on top of their list and almost single most important criterium, like former CIS countries or poorer Asia Pac countries. So here I agree with the author of the post, that red pill philosophy completely ignores different stages of socio-economic development in the world and therefore cannot be applied to all women everywhere in the world. 

Great post! Thanks! 

[Chew211]

@Karmadhi @asifarahim

17 hours ago, asifarahim said:

Redpill is very good in dealing with orange woman.it is also very good in transforming people at the bottom to be ready for dating

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

17 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Red pill is very biased and pro male however i think it can be useful on extreme nice guy cases. It tends to make them more grounded and less female worthshipping. It helped me to some extent but you gotta see its limitation and outgrow it. Pick the good bits of wisdom it has and ignore the toxic parts.

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

[Chew211]

@Emerald

Thanks for your insight.

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

And you tell these guys what you do like, and they just start regurgitating talking points to gaslight you out of your own desires and machination because they read "The Rational Male" and now they think they know better. 

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.