Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Things like Return of Kings or Roosh V or this Matt Forney character are misogynistic (= women hatred) sites.

    Red Pill is better than that and is about self-improvement, taking the helm in social situations and your relationship. Generally the stuff it says is true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CervixPounder)
    Men suffering is men's fault? What.

    Men don't have bluetooth in their dicks where everyone can communicate with each other.

    Your statement is like saying, "Black people are discriminated against by police for a reason, they commit more crimes".

    Do you agree with that? Perhaps you are an advocate for discrimination, I'm not sure.
    Really? I mean firstly I don't think black people have ever been in a position of superiority, they've pretty much always been discriminated against.

    Secondly, in the scenarios I have mentioned, yes we as men have reaped what we sowed.

    Funnily enough if you all but force women to be child rearers and men breadwinners, then when it comes time to decide who gets the child, you choose the child rearer. Can't help but think if we just removed these roles the court issues would disappear as they would both be equally valid options.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    In the past I haven't really got involved in this "red pill" crap because the whole thing is toxic and I'm gay so I don't really care. But I had to laugh when a friend clued me on to two of the "manosphere" big wigs, which prompted me to research a little about the "movement". And suddenly it all made sense; why they are so desperately unhappy and bitter against women, why they act generally like complete losers.

    Now keep in mind these two bozos below are constantly talking about being an "alpha" male, how they bang loads of women, how women shouldn't be allowed to own property or vote or get a university education. I give you Exhibit 1, Matt Forney



    He's got a face like a scalded ballsack, all the physical charisma of a hemorrhoid and a child molestery look about him. Presumably he channeled all his rage at female rejection into a misogynistic feedback loop of low self-esteem and hatred that further reduces his prospects to have sexual relations with a woman.

    Matt Forney is apparently a big cheese in the "manosphere" world. He regularly writes articles about how women are to be treated (badly, he tells us; they love it apparently) and how men can increase their prospects with the opposite sex by calling women retards and denying that sex requires consent. Tbh even using the ludicrous standards of the manosphere world, Forney looks weak, passive, effeminate and gross.

    Exhibit 2 is Dean Esmay, another player in the manosphere world



    Surely it's a mistake that a neckbeard who looks like he spends his days and nights in his Mum's basement masturbating to pictures of women dressed as a fantasy orc can be offering advice on the fairer sex to other men.

    I'm genuinely curious what proportion of men are into this subculture. None of my straight guy friends are into this stuff so I don't really have anyone to ask IRL. But having dipped my toe in to this subculture and seeing the sort of weirdos these people look up to, it only confirms my previous impressions.
    :rofl: you're amazing OP
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Really? I mean firstly I don't think black people have ever been in a position of superiority, they've pretty much always been discriminated against.

    Secondly, in the scenarios I have mentioned, yes we as men have reaped what we sowed.

    Funnily enough if you all but force women to be child rearers and men breadwinners, then when it comes time to decide who gets the child, you choose the child rearer. Can't help but think if we just removed these roles the court issues would disappear as they would both be equally valid options.
    Why does it matter if they've ever held positions of superiority...the discrimination is happening right now?

    So men suffer for others' actions, and you are just totally fine with that? Jesus Christ.

    How are people "forcing" women to be child rearers? If they get child custody, its 99.9% of the time because she wanted the child. The mother has lots of options when having a child which men don't have, prime example terminating the pregnancy. Everybody has a choice whether they become a mother/father or not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    .
    What you think you look like:



    What you actually look like:



    What you think you look like:



    What you actually look like:



    But seriously though your average red pill type is those guys. I can honestly say I've honestly never met anybody in my life who was inspired to hate women as a result of being found to be attractive by an abundance of them.......
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)

    But seriously though your average red pill type is those guys. I can honestly say I've honestly never met anybody in my life who was inspired to hate women as a result of being found to be attractive to an abundance of them.......
    Well, I'd certainly say there are misogynist men who are still physically attractive. But in general, in those cases their misogyny is dismissive, crudely simplistic, patronising and ultimately driven by arrogance. They're very rarely TRP types, the kind who obsess over it and develop pseudo-theories and persecution complexes over it to justify their misogyny. That said, there'll always be exceptions to the role.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    The main point is he was very against self-improvement and believed he was entitled to pussy without having to do anything. That is the polar opposite to what red pill/PUA mentality entails.
    Not really, it's just a very slight variation. Both feel entitled to get laid, define their self-worth by how often they get laid. They differ merely regarding what kind of man is rightly so entitled.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not really, it's just a very slight variation. Both feel entitled to get laid, define their self-worth by how often they get laid. They differ merely regarding what kind of man is rightly so entitled.
    If that were true then they wouldn't encourage any actions which lead towards getting laid because you'd already be entitled. But I would say ability to get laid says a lot about a man's personality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am not a fan of what you claim they rant about (probably select extremes because you want to dismiss their more subtle grey area contentions utilising the umbrella effect and fallacy) but although they aren't a pretty pair if in their day to day life people judge them as superficially based on appearance as you do (which you've inverted to get away with it, the same as a racist saying this person is a rapist and look at their picture, black skin) then I am not entirely sure how much I can blame them.

    You don't have to like them based on their appearance but you're taking it to an extreme. Stick to the codswallop they're rambling on about please. Give me a quote, not a picture. I'll disagree with a quote any day so long as it has context but a person, it's not so easy to fool me.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    all this nasty stuff about unsuccessful males can lead to real life tragedies:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/ElliotRodger
    I thought that you would post a link to a school shooting or something lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm on the fence with that subculture. There are a helluva lot of whiny butt hurt dudes who basically got walked over and are angry and bitter towards females.

    However, I do have no intention to marry because, as a man in our society, there's absolutely no benefit.

    I also believe that women around my age and older (27) are non-starters because they've been spat out by the dating pool and seem to think the world owes them a bloke.

    As men, our stock in the sexual marketplace increases with age as we make more money and become generally more stable.

    Unfortunately, women age like milk and their appeal to men decreases as they lose their youthful looks. This is why you see many successful men with hot young wives but almost never the other way around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Never heard of it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CervixPounder)
    Why does it matter if they've ever held positions of superiority...the discrimination is happening right now?

    So men suffer for others' actions, and you are just totally fine with that? Jesus Christ.

    How are people "forcing" women to be child rearers? If they get child custody, its 99.9% of the time because she wanted the child. The mother has lots of options when having a child which men don't have, prime example terminating the pregnancy. Everybody has a choice whether they become a mother/father or not.
    Because the whole point is that the minor injustices I am referring to are a result of those who have typically held the dominant/powerful position now having to shift to a equal system. Given black people have always been discriminated against, it's not an applicable example in the slightest.

    I also think you're confused about what I am saying. I'm not saying it's right that men have faced injustices, in an ideal world there would be none. What I am saying is that the areas of injustice referred to by mens rights advocates always exist as an accidental result of discrimination against women.

    If you don't think we have historically made it the woman's "place" to bring up the children and look after the household, then I suggest you look at history. When you dedicate an entire gender to a role, funnily enough they're going to be the first choice when you go to court to decide who will do that role.

    Men have a choice regarding having a child, they can either wrap it or they can't. Complaining that a woman doesn't want to suffer for 9 months for a child they don't want is infringing on your rights as a man is simply ridiculous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    These guys and the feminists should be sent to the gulags

    Together
    That would make a great tv show
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Because the whole point is that the minor injustices I am referring to are a result of those who have typically held the dominant/powerful position now having to shift to a equal system. Given black people have always been discriminated against, it's not an applicable example in the slightest.

    I also think you're confused about what I am saying. I'm not saying it's right that men have faced injustices, in an ideal world there would be none. What I am saying is that the areas of injustice referred to by mens rights advocates always exist as an accidental result of discrimination against women.

    If you don't think we have historically made it the woman's "place" to bring up the children and look after the household, then I suggest you look at history. When you dedicate an entire gender to a role, funnily enough they're going to be the first choice when you go to court to decide who will do that role.

    Men have a choice regarding having a child, they can either wrap it or they can't. Complaining that a woman doesn't want to suffer for 9 months for a child they don't want is infringing on your rights as a man is simply ridiculous.
    "Discrimination against men is due to discrimination against women"

    Classic.

    The problem here is you are being too collectivist. You aren't viewing individual situations as such. Am I surprised that a court is more likely to give a women custody because of "past roles"? Well yes, because it means the courts aren't viewing the cases as individual instances, but rather assigning the situation to a general trend. My example is similar, REGARDLESS of who you think is discriminated against, because as I said, it's about individuals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CervixPounder)
    "Discrimination against men is due to discrimination against women"

    Classic.

    The problem here is you are being too collectivist. You aren't viewing individual situations as such. Am I surprised that a court is more likely to give a women custody because of "past roles"? Well yes, because it means the courts aren't viewing the cases as individual instances, but rather assigning the situation to a general trend. My example is similar, REGARDLESS of who you think is discriminated against, because as I said, it's about individuals.
    Except you are trying to take the entire thing out of context.

    The context is that red pillers feel that woman and feminism has caused them huge social injustice and is hurting their way of life. My argument is that the areas where they have identified these social injustices are areas where there has historically been social injustice against women and are side issues surrounding the problems.

    The entire discussion is surrounding the large collective and not individual situations, which you are trying to turn it towards.

    In individual situations I fully agree that the rights of any party should be help up and fairness guaranteed, regardless of their race, gender or any other aspect. I would also argue that these situations are improving, but as with all change, it doesn't happen overnight. But that isn't what this discussion is about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BirdIsWord)
    lol what
    What do you mean "what"? Is English your second language?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I find the Manosphere a bizarre place ranging between absolutely foul and just plain ridiculous, and I have to admit I do find it quite amusing when self-proclaimed alpha males are clearly losers in real life. That said, I don't want to just take the piss out of their looks. It's not their looks that made them misogynistic dicks, they made choices to be like that.
    It's true that their rejection comes from choices they made but that also ties into their physical appearance. If they so choose, they could go to the gym. They could wear vaguely decent clothes. If they paired that with choosing to be a nicer and more interesting person they would have much greater success with women.

    I'm gay and I've slept with women. I'm not by any means particularly hot or amazing physically, I'm in okay shape. How is it that I can get with women and they can't? It's because they choose to be disgusting slobs and then aggravate that by becoming total dicks rendering themselves completely repulsive to women.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    It's true that their rejection comes from choices they made but that also ties into their physical appearance. If they so choose, they could go to the gym. They could wear vaguely decent clothes. If they paired that with choosing to be a nicer and more interesting person they would have much greater success with women.

    I'm gay and I've slept with women. I'm not by any means particularly hot or amazing physically, I'm in okay shape. How is it that I can get with women and they can't? It's because they choose to be disgusting slobs and then aggravate that by becoming total dicks rendering themselves completely repulsive to women.
    I've typically found having a remotely palatable personality works just fine without hitting the gym. Although which is more effort depends on your starting position I suppose.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    If that were true then they wouldn't encourage any actions which lead towards getting laid because you'd already be entitled.
    From what I've read they clearly believe they are morally entitled to get laid, hence their demands for a return to a time when women were legally bound to males.

    There certainly are some websites online that engage in providing basic advice for men about fitness, health, style and dating advice etc. That is not what people like Roosh V and PUA sites do. They come bundled with

    (1) A whole lot of misogynistic conspiracy theories about how the evil, feminist lesbians have taken over society and are running everything behind the scenes, and obstructing the Red Pillers god given right to vagina

    (2) A whole lot of very unhelpful advice providing cheesy (or offensive) pick up lines, tips revolving around lowering womens' self-esteem, etc

    The latter is very far from the kind of GQ/Esquire/Mens Health/Simpleguyskills type of publication or website that seems to me to be diametrically opposed to the embittered, reactionary manosphere
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.