"Men playing by the rules weren’t getting what they wanted."
A crucial point you missed was that men 'playing by the rules' were also not giving women what they wanted either.
Today it is still generally assumed that successful men (financially, sexually or in terms of social status) must be successful at the expense of women. But this because everyone has been brainwashed by feminism which has redefined the dynamic between men and women from win- win (complimentary) to win - lose (direct competition).
The reality is there is a shortage of successful, strong, capable, masculine men and the biggest complaints about this are coming from women. The manosphere/ red pill is helping men throw all of that feminist garbage in the trash and go back to being men again.... something which will benefit women and children and society as a whole.
The other part you missed was that most of the complaints coming from the red pill / MGTOW communities are not so much about women per se, but rather the destructive and dangerous combo of women + the state.
As the saying goes, "three's a crowd" and you can understand why men are pissed that most women have already married the government, making authentic relationships with women almost impossible. The equivalent would be every man having his own personal live-in escort and women having to just accept this as part of the deal when dating or marrying men.
Also most women of the 'modern women' variety just repeat government slogans and talking points. Men feel like they are dating the government, when they really just want to date a woman.
Redpill spaces (reddit etc) were some of the first to start deconstructing feminism in a serious way (like 15+ years ago) and this ongoing project is helping both men AND women avoid catastrophic life choices.
The fact that men learning how to be masculine and successful again, and able to win women's affections (ie please women), is still seen as a terrible thing shows just how much more feminism we have to dismantle.
Eventually we will go back to understanding that for men to be successful (in everyday life and with women) is also a boon for women too. Because women don't actually gain anything from a society full of unsuccessful, unhappy, misguided, frustrated men who have been gaslit by a lifetime of feminist propaganda.
And as more women also ditch the feminism and re-embrace their true nature as well this also benefits men too.
The whole win-lose (oppressor-oppressed) narrative is completely toxic and false. Men and women both benefit from each other's success. Feminism's claim that men can only be successful at the expense of women is a lie which has almost destroyed civilisation. It's important to free ourselves from this toxic lie. And if men's way of exposing the toxic lies of feminism is a bit coarse and impolite at times, so be it!
No, redpill is in no way beneficial for women. It's degrading to women and wants a woman to shrink herself so that the man's ego can be boosted as 'leader'. A woman shouldn't have to shrink to make a small man feel big. Egalitarianism is what we want, and we can stay single if a man tries to force anything else onto us.
You being annoyed at 'women+state' just means that you're angry that women aren't as dependent on a husband, can be controlled as easily, and don't have to endure as much poor treatment.
Women should not give up feminism just because a few rightwing men are pouting about finding it difficult to thrive in a world where women aren't hobbled. We should stick with feminism. It has literally saved lives and given women a chance other than marriage, servitude and degradation.
You speak as if 'women' are a monolithic group who share the same goals and ambitions. I do agree that plenty of women benefit from feminism (both financially and in terms of social power and dominance) and the redpill is a threat to their grift.
But feminism's most fierce critics have always been women - going right back to the women who opposed the first wave/ suffragettes. These women, who argued against the claims of their feminist peers, were the original 'redpill' movement.
Over a century later, feminism's most harsh critics continue to be women, not men. Feminism has very little to do with men. Men's criticisms and objections are mild compered to women's because men (even most so called 'redpill' men) have a tendency to be simps and white knights ..... a trait that feminists have mercilessly exploited for the last 150 years!
"It's degrading to women and wants a woman to shrink herself so that the man's ego can be boosted as 'leader'."
Feminism's concept of a leader is just someone with social and political clout. But a true leader is someone who puts everyone else's needs above their own and acts in service to them. These selfless qualities are rare and demanding and the reason why we have always celebrated male leadership and male self sacrifice (heroic, dutiful, resourceful, capable men).
Feminists also demand male self sacrifice ("he for she") but they ALSO define men as 'toxic' and 'the enemy' and they do all they can to undermine and marginalise men and make them impotent. This is like demanding horses carry you everywhere, while simultaneously beating them, starving them and breaking their legs (and their spirit).
Men have put up with this terrible treatment by feminists for a century and maintained their loyalty and service to women ('he for she'), but now they are finally deciding it's not worth the effort and they are walking away in droves. It's amazing they have not done this sooner.
Feminists have responded by further aligning themselves with the state (essentially creating a harem with the state), but of course the state makes no money and cannot offer women anything of real value. The state only knows how to confiscate money from men and redistribute it to women (keeping most of it for themselves of course). The state recently injected all women with a toxic potion which has caused 15 million deaths worldwide, an epidemic of stillbirths/ miscarriage/ pregnancy complications and which may have sterilised the majority of people born after 2021 to vaxxed mothers. The state is no ally to women!
So feminists have dug themselves (and all of society) into a giant hole by partnering up with the state, and being seduced by all that 'free stuff' in the short term.
On balance only men actually pay taxes (men are net contributors, women are net consumers of tax spending). So as men continue to walk away from women and 'The System' (and give up even trying to be successful because there is no longer any incentive) the system will collapse. Feminists have no plan for this inevitability.
Before feminism took over our culture women were smart enough to support men and provide men with incentives to fulfil their masculine role, which in turn benefited women and children. There was a mutual exchange of support and sacrifice from both sexes to each other. Men served women, women served men. And both served the needs of CHILDREN.
Feminism then demanded women usurp men's role and status in society BUT WITHOUT the equivalent obligations that came with those roles. A successful woman (in feminism's terms) is successful ONLY for her own self gratification and material wealth. She is 'strong and independent' and to hell with any obligation to support men or children. Successful women still seek men who are MORE successful than they are! For feminism to work women would have to desire men of LOWER economic status than them and want to SUPPORT them in relationships AND via taxes and wealth redistribution to men. But very, very few women want that kind of arrangement. And to be fair it goes against nature.
So really the feminist ideal (being a selfish, materialist and corporate whore obsessed with money and power, and with no sense of social/ familial responsibility or duty to support others) is the very thing feminists (pretend) to be fighting against. Feminism is pure projection! Rich male CEO's are oppression, but rich female CEO's are empowerment!
"A woman shouldn't have to shrink to make a small man feel big"
Feminism defines all men as powerful oppressors of women, and all women as weak helpless victims of male power and dominance. Feminism (when taken at face value) is therefore a Male Power Fantasy! (men rule, women are ruled).
So feminism makes small men feel big. This is why so many 'beta males' chose to become male feminists. They like the identify that feminist ideology gives them. And they get to LARP at being powerful white knights rescuing women from the big bad 'Patriarchy' when they are really just a kind of underclass of simps being exploited by feminists who do not respect them and who are only interested in alpha males - the very males they pretend are so terrible!
"Egalitarianism is what we want, and we can stay single if a man tries to force anything else onto us."
I've never heard any feminist author or academic or activist openly advocate for men to be afforded equal rights to women or equal treatment, or equal access to resources, programs, healthcare etc. Have you? Can you give any examples?
"You being annoyed at 'women+state' just means that you're angry that women aren't as dependent on a husband, can be controlled as easily, and don't have to endure as much poor treatment."
Defining thoughtful analysis and criticism of feminism as 'being angry' is how feminists avoid engaging in productive debate. If all critics of feminism are just 'angry' this allows you to hand wave them away and not ever respond to the criticism or the wider issues - and certainly not the nuance.
Also it is a HUGE red flag of SOCIAL PRIVILAGE to hand wave your detractors away as simply being 'angry' (or whatever). Only the most privileged people in history have ever behaved like that.... or been allowed to get away with it.
"Women should not give up feminism just because a few rightwing men are pouting about finding it difficult to thrive in a world where women aren't hobbled."
Women, men and children should not be forced to endure social and economic collapse and a population crisis just because a tiny minority of feminist activists (and their corporate/ government sponsors) have decided that's what THEY want.
Feminist critics span all classes and both sexes. The fact that you choose to define your critics as right wing men proves you KNOW that right wing men are the LEAST respected category in society! It's a massive own goal.
Simply naming them as a group wins you the argument. This contradicts feminism's central claim that 'right win men' rule society and have all the power. If this were true 'right wing men' would enjoy TOP STATUS in society and anything they said would be UNASSAILABLE and it would be parroted by the media, academia, corporations, politicians and the UN.... but we both know they exact opposite is true. 'Right wing/ traditionalist men' are bottom of the social dominance hierarchy. Radical left wing feminists are at the top.
Even in so called 'trad', 'Christian' and 'right wing' circles most of the men are simps and most of the women are feminists. None of them dare to suggest women have any social/ familial obligations - or obligations to future generations. All of them tell men they must man up and support women. The last time women were burdened with the same kind of gender based social responsibilities that we place on men's shoulders was the 1800's. And women back then were much happier because they had a specific identity and a valuable (vital) function in society. Being 'free' to be a lifelong consumer and little else is actually a curse and why so many 'modern women' are suffering mental health, with left leaning progressive women being the the most heavily drugged up and in therapy.
What few traditional men and women there are have no social power. Nor do they WANT it! That's what being trad means. No ego, vanity or ambitions to gain power over others and go around telling them what to do!
In reality left wing feminist women carry all the clout. They decide what is socially acceptable and what policies should be implemented in society. Women have always had more social/ political power than men. Feminism denies this which is why society is so unbalanced at the moment.
The West is collapsing because feminists deny they have any power, yet they run all establishment institutions. Before feminism women acknowledged their social power and therefore had a sense of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Women kept other women in check from abusing their female power over men. Not anymore.
"We should stick with feminism. It has literally saved lives and given women a chance other than marriage, servitude and degradation."
I agree that feminism serves the interests of materialistic women who want to marry the state and not men (until the economy collapses) and benefit from positive discrimination and special treatment. It also serves all the power/ money hungry men in government, the UN, corporations etc who are happy to use 'women' to gain power and control. This is why they all promote feminism.
But feminism serves these people at the EXPENSE of the majority of men, women and children who do not want to live like that.
Love being lectured on the dangers of "women and the state" in a country where women aren't even free to terminate their rapist's pregnancies, in a world where women have been universally classified as chattel until less than a hundred years ago lol. If you were even a tiny bit capable of extending your oh so tender empathy beyond men, you'd realize how completely ridiculous you're being.
"Love being lectured on the dangers of "women and the state" in a country where women aren't even free to terminate their rapist's pregnancies"
You're argument makes no sense because you are implying the state = men. But women are the majority of voters. You also imply all women are pro abortion. But many women are pro life and would do anything to save the life you refer to. A life which you falsely claim only men want to save.
Treating men and women as monolithic classes 'goodies' and 'baddies' who all share the same views is ridiculous. And trying to play 'oppression olympics' with these dumbed down classifications is not a productive way to discuss (let alone solve) complex social issues.
But seeing as how you brought it up, men do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy whether it resulted from consensual sex or rape. In fact, US courts have forced underage male rape victims to pay child support to their rapists after reaching the age of 18. Men also do not even have the right to legally 'abort' an unwanted child (legal paternal surrender).
So even by your own metrics men are more oppressed than women, if you are going to play that game.
"...women have been universally classified as chattel until less than a hundred years ago lol."
This is the sort of feminist propaganda which used to be repeated by teenage 'bedroom youtube feminists' around 2014. But even they stopped claiming this after about 5 years of being debunked over and over and over and over again.
"If you were even a tiny bit capable of extending your oh so tender empathy beyond men, you'd realize how completely ridiculous you're being."
In the comment you have responded to I am making the case that feminism is harmful to women. Just because feminism defines women as powerless victims and men as all powerful oppressors of women does not mean feminist ideology is beneficial to women. Feminist ideology is based on false history, false psychology and a false threat narrative. As such it destroys the lives of feminists from the inside out. Mental health issues are most prevalent among progressive women, thanks in large part to feminist ideology.
You yourself claim the government is not on the side of women. But all governments promote feminist ideology. They put it into the school curriculum. You will be hard pressed to find a politician who is not pro-feminism. The same is true of all major corporations - they are all pro feminist too.
Have you ever stopped to think about this contradiction?
Male feminists are some of the most fanatical feminists out there. Men are hard wired to protect women and sacrifice themselves for women. Men also have to compete with each other to win women's approval, and feminism allows men to compete with other men with a narrative which claims all men are evil oppressors of women. This narrative allows male feminists to portray themselves like a superhero who is on women's side! The one good man in society!
What percentage of the state would you estimate has been composed of women in this country, going back to its founding?
Your weepy recitation of all the reasons it's so fucked up that a man isn't allowed to choose to abort a woman's pregnancy (and how men have worse reproductive restriction than women, as a result) is (a) the saddest and also funniest thing i've maybe ever seen, and (b)certainly makes clear just how deep your level of concern for their well-being is. For the record, control over another living creature is often called chattel, but don't let that stop you! There's a reason you only make these arguments facelessly on the internet, where your perspective is valued precisely for its cruelty and ignorance; namely, that in meatspace, claims like "every school and every country is dangerously feminist, actually" or "men should be allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy against her will" people will carefully back away from you while holding eye contact. I beseech you, dear goober, to touch grass.
Being obsessed with your prospective partner's body count doesn't make you discerning, it makes you a quivering, puritanical creep. You do know that we don't have to treat our masculinity as just performing a crude pantomime of whatever our grandfathers thought about the world, right? You could exercise creativity and agency instead of just uncritically hoovering up what a bunch of supplement salesmen sideshow freaks on the internet tell you to be.
It really must suck to be so deeply sex-obsessed while also remaining intentionally ignorant to the particulars of human sexuality (beyond what you heard the other boys saying in junior high, i guess). Anything but consider what the hard men who birthed you soft men knew: that you might be the reason no one will fuck you!
I think the red pill was helpful in reviving common sense about approaching women, as you explain. It’s the excessive bitterness and overwhelming desire to broaden the ideas to full-on political ideology that negates its virtues, which you also mention.
Girls like confident, competent, fun men. This includes young unmarried women as well as older married women. Don’t be sadsack loser or a bossy prick. Just be a pleasant strong man with something going on. It’s all rather Zen. 😑
"As you can see though, one part the manosphere gets right is a certain percentage of men are getting A LOT of action, with 28 percent having 15 or more sexual partners."
I almost forgot how much I enjoy hating the human race lmao. Good thing Hell exists.
I don’t think that follows. Most of the world can suck, but YOU can still live up to whats required.
I’m a young guy, and me and my wife were both zero pre-marital sexual partners. I was extremely lucky, but also dedicated to ideals even if the world was not.
Not envy, more like fear that they might be right and what I want to love truly doesn't exist. Learning about this side of the human condition was kind of a traumatizing moment for me, and I've become pretty aware of it.
A lot of the rise in divorce was led by the boomers. That generation really was a bunch of degenerates, men and women. I haven't gone into the stats but I've read from those who have and they say that when you factor out the boomers and their never ending cycle of divorce and remarriage that the divorce stats indicate that the divorce threat is much lower.
When it comes to marital infidelity, in my family and extended family it is the husband who behaves badly the overwhelming percent of the time. My mom was married (no kids, thank Heavens) before she met my dad. From what I learned from aunts and uncles who were there at the time, my mom's ex came home one day with books on open marriages and ethical non monogamy. Of course he was already doing non-ethical non monogamy. My sister's ex husband was a serial adulterer who refused to hold down a job. I was there and witnessed it myself. I had a roommate going through a divorce. He was unfaithful. I love him but that's the truth.
On my wife's side of the family. Her brother has been unfaithful to his wife for 10 years. Her sister had 2 ex husbands who were serially unfaithful. My niece and her long term boyfriend, he's not faithful and they aren't even married. From what I've witnessed, 100% of the time it has been the men who were unfaithful.
This isn't some blame it on the men thing. It is just pointing out that the biggest risk factor in most marriages is the husband's potential bad behavior. If you are faithful as a husband then your chances of having a bad outcome are decreased, a lot.
I was in the Mormon singles scene for nearly 20 years until I got married at age 37. I can tell you that the attractive girls who engaged in more "questionable" behavior ended up married with 3 or 4 kids and attractive the girls who were highly picky are now in their late 30's/ early 40's, still not married and many of them will end up up as spinsters. The slut might be out fooling around with some guy but the "good girl" is home reading Morning Glory Milk Farm. Which one would you rather have?
The people saying that women need to start approaching men are ridiculous. That's not how the world operates. Men need to be the one's who are doing the trying. One of the things that I hate is when red pilled content creators talk about how it is so hard for men to meet women and the odds are so heavily stacked against men. This is all true but framed horribly wrong. They make talking to a woman sound like going to Vegas and everytime a man gets rejected he loses a percentage of his retirement savings. The truth is a rejection is just a hit to your pride but has no real world downside outside of your head. It can be a lot of pride or no pride. I have male family and friends who are now in their mid 40's and pushing 50 who have never approached women or gave up years ago. They can't handle even basic rejections.
On top of it they fail to notice the potential upside of success. The downside of rejection is a hit to your ego that can be as big or as small as you want it to be. The upside for success is the potential for a happy fulfilled family life with a wife who loves you and kids who think you are great. The black pillers never mention limited downside and unlimited upside.
I learned the red pill lessons on women back in the day and they helped a lot. I certainly used that wisdom to avoid making mistakes in my relationships. The value of the red pill is to help us make good decisions, not as a tool to inspire loserness.
Cheating almost always wrecks a marriage. I will say though that faithfulness is not enough, and a man needs to also "be the oak" and have his own passion and vision to be successful. I've seen too many nice guys get wrecked. Your general point stands though.
I had no qualms about approaching women. I got rejected a lot, but only a couple outright tried to humiliate me. The bigger problem is social events that created an easy atmosphere to meet people have dwindled. How many barn dances do you see? Are you willing to get fired for asking your coworker out on a date? How many social mixers exist now? Church groups? Once you leave college, it gets really tough.
The manosphere accomplished much of what it had to early on. Develop the ability to talk to women, stop arguing, exercise, don't expect your efforts to be appreciated. Like anything else, you need content now and a single self help book isn't though. So you post rage bait and open up the comment section. Then you immediately realize that you need a moderator...
You're arguing in favor of common sense, understanding research and its flaws, communicating without a sales pitch to sell a subscription; it just makes my head hurt imagining a world where these things are normal and the cultural aptitude supports this!
I have a feeling in the future we're going to see two things happen. The first is this entire vast array of material, from manosphere, red pill, virtue, stoicism, mgtow, tradition, etc, will a) birth a new masculine movement, because as you rightly write, there's a lot of junk and bunk in there, a lot of updating and making unnecessarily complex of old truisms, and b) academics will seize upon the post-2000, from the emergence of PKUs onwards, as the start of the cultural answer to feminism.
When people write PhDs they have to first read everything that's already been written on a subject before they can add their two cents to the pile. In much the same way, taken as a whole, that's what everything you wrote about touches on. And there's a lot more too lol. Unfortunately in today's world we're surrounded by capitalism and most people are trying to sell something, so, even if there's a lot of crap out there, and if it sells (ex. PKU), then it survives.
Let's hope something better emerges and becomes dominant.
One point I have to make, especially on the "Parental Custody Favors Women" is we don't know how much of that statistic is "Men who voluntarily gave up custodial rights" vs. "Men who fought for custody and lost". If we only include the men who fought for custody and lost, the figure would be a LOT more even. Most well intentioned men who ask for custody get it.
A couple guys I knew who went through divorce were told by lawyers not to go for equal custody because they were unlikely to get it and it made them look unreasonable. Insane but true. This was ten years ago though, and my understanding is courts are fairer now.
Even so, they would still be counted in the Parental Custody Favors Women statistic even if they didn't fight. Their lawyers told them not too. We don't know what would've happened if they pushed for equal custody. They might've been completely shot down or not. We just don't know.
The manosphere is at least partially a predictable response to the excesses of radical feminism, which is also rife with stereotypes and demonization of men. A strong counter movement was inevitable, given the conflict feminism has fomented. Red-pillers, like feminists, use convenient “facts” to create narratives that allow them to control relations between men and women.
You fellas are truly the biggest babies on earth. You'd rather tumble head first into an entire poisoned internet theory of gender peddled by open hucksters and sex pests than exercise even a modicum of grace for others or accountability for yourself. I absolutely refuse to believe that any of you actually believe the notion that men have things worse than women in this world, you're just incapable of emotional regulation and need to blame someone else for your mysterious inability to keep a woman.
Get a grip. I’m literally complaining about the red pill movement and its excesses. I just think it’s predictable, given the excesses of radical feminism.
I see you struggle with reading comprehension. I am, in fact not endorsing red pill thinking. I’m not red-pilled. From my first comment:
“Red-pillers, like feminists, use convenient “facts” to create narratives that allow them to control relations between men and women.”
See how “facts” is in quotes? See how I say they create narrative to control relationships? Does that sound like an endorsement? Does it look like I agree with them?
Pointing out that a counter-movement to radical feminism is predictable, does not mean I endorse the counter-movement, genius.
I'm always fascinated to encounter people so intellectually incoherent that they don't think the beliefs they freely express should be allowed to define them. Unable to form a stand-alone denunciation of toxic redpill culture without whatabouting those scary feminist bugaboos of yours? Sounds pretty noxious and woman-hating to me! Your distinction from andrew tate is one of degree and not of kind, however much you would like to pretend otherwise.
You can choose to be obstinate, even after I explained my position. I don’t have to frame my opinion in a way of you choosing. Your myopathy is not my problem.
This is fun. Do you want to go another pointless round where you claim to read my mind and refuse to read my text?
There is a lot of directional truth to the "misleading arguments".
For example - "Women with a high number of partners are more likely to divorce you".
A more accurate reading of that data would be women with a high number of partners are less likely to be marriage material. The adjustments and reddit comments don't make a lot of sense from the perspective of a man or a woman seeking a happy marriage. Excluding the singles is a slight of hand - of course they should be included as they failed to achieve a happy marriage.
As another example - "College Educated Women Pursue a Career Instead of Having Kids". This is not only technically true but the effect is large.
From the study you linked - "When women enroll in school, it suppresses their fertility." and "The effect is extremely large". They have a nice chart as well.
Think of education as extremely effective contraception.
Total fertility ends up only slightly reduced because eventually women stop taking the education contraceptive and can still sneak in 1-2 kids later in life.
Educated women basically shift child bearing later. This creates a lot of social and health problems.
If a man is in shape and successful in his fifties, the "cheating pool" increases dramatically as there are 30ish women who are still attracted to you. The fifty year-old wife, in contrast, sees her "cheating pool" shrink.
"For everyone else it is a risk but a manageable one."
Yes, the risk is overblown but I've unfortunately had friends where it became all too real.
"A more accurate reading of that data would be women with a high number of partners are less likely to be marriage material. "
That's a good counter, and I'll have to see if there are stats breaking that down.
"From the study you linked - "When women enroll in school, it suppresses their fertility." and "The effect is extremely large". They have a nice chart as well."
When they're actually in school, yes. But most are done by their early twenties. The average age of marriage is now thirty, which means there is a 6-8 year gap where college educated women are not getting married and also likely not having kids. One could argue this is because of student loans, getting established, or waiting for higher-status men, but more likely it's simply the deterioration of classic institutions that pair-bonded in favor of lousier substitutes, like the internet.
Good use of facts. You might even persuade some men with that method.
My takeaway is that there is no Red Pill, only Black. Unless we want to live as PUAs, men are just screwed. It’s game over - unless we restore The Patriarchy. Or total economic collapse, or the Caliphate, restore it for us.
I strongly doubt that men end up cheating more than women in practice. They may want to, they probably would if they could, but the average man has far fewer sexual opportunities than the average woman.
The problem with the data on this is that it’s all self-reporting. Women tend to under report their sexual encounters, where men almost always exaggerate.
Women tend to also have much more narrow, contextual definitions of what constitutes infidelity. A woman absolutely will tell herself it didn’t REALLY count because she had no strong feelings for the guy, and only sucked his dick once while drunk.
Re: Cock carousel & Cheating I think the women numbers are going to be higher than reported. In part because lies and in part because women say certain circumstances mean it 'doesn't count' quite often. And that men are more focused on truth here (or exaggerating) because it's so hard to get a girl to give you her phone number, as opposed to a girl who gives a handy or bj because she was in the mood and doesn't count it as a liaison.
Secondly I blame Baby Boomers. Men are just 'quiet quitting/lie flat' because the system is so messed up. So much of redpill is about survival against a grinding system.
Just a theory, but I think the primary audience for the manosphere influencers is terminally online men who want to hear their own bitterness reflected back to them. Those who are not tied to a screen in lieu of getting on with life may be blissfully unaware of these subterranean debates.
"Men playing by the rules weren’t getting what they wanted."
A crucial point you missed was that men 'playing by the rules' were also not giving women what they wanted either.
Today it is still generally assumed that successful men (financially, sexually or in terms of social status) must be successful at the expense of women. But this because everyone has been brainwashed by feminism which has redefined the dynamic between men and women from win- win (complimentary) to win - lose (direct competition).
The reality is there is a shortage of successful, strong, capable, masculine men and the biggest complaints about this are coming from women. The manosphere/ red pill is helping men throw all of that feminist garbage in the trash and go back to being men again.... something which will benefit women and children and society as a whole.
The other part you missed was that most of the complaints coming from the red pill / MGTOW communities are not so much about women per se, but rather the destructive and dangerous combo of women + the state.
As the saying goes, "three's a crowd" and you can understand why men are pissed that most women have already married the government, making authentic relationships with women almost impossible. The equivalent would be every man having his own personal live-in escort and women having to just accept this as part of the deal when dating or marrying men.
Also most women of the 'modern women' variety just repeat government slogans and talking points. Men feel like they are dating the government, when they really just want to date a woman.
Redpill spaces (reddit etc) were some of the first to start deconstructing feminism in a serious way (like 15+ years ago) and this ongoing project is helping both men AND women avoid catastrophic life choices.
The fact that men learning how to be masculine and successful again, and able to win women's affections (ie please women), is still seen as a terrible thing shows just how much more feminism we have to dismantle.
Eventually we will go back to understanding that for men to be successful (in everyday life and with women) is also a boon for women too. Because women don't actually gain anything from a society full of unsuccessful, unhappy, misguided, frustrated men who have been gaslit by a lifetime of feminist propaganda.
And as more women also ditch the feminism and re-embrace their true nature as well this also benefits men too.
The whole win-lose (oppressor-oppressed) narrative is completely toxic and false. Men and women both benefit from each other's success. Feminism's claim that men can only be successful at the expense of women is a lie which has almost destroyed civilisation. It's important to free ourselves from this toxic lie. And if men's way of exposing the toxic lies of feminism is a bit coarse and impolite at times, so be it!
No, redpill is in no way beneficial for women. It's degrading to women and wants a woman to shrink herself so that the man's ego can be boosted as 'leader'. A woman shouldn't have to shrink to make a small man feel big. Egalitarianism is what we want, and we can stay single if a man tries to force anything else onto us.
You being annoyed at 'women+state' just means that you're angry that women aren't as dependent on a husband, can be controlled as easily, and don't have to endure as much poor treatment.
Women should not give up feminism just because a few rightwing men are pouting about finding it difficult to thrive in a world where women aren't hobbled. We should stick with feminism. It has literally saved lives and given women a chance other than marriage, servitude and degradation.
"No, redpill is in no way beneficial for women."
You speak as if 'women' are a monolithic group who share the same goals and ambitions. I do agree that plenty of women benefit from feminism (both financially and in terms of social power and dominance) and the redpill is a threat to their grift.
But feminism's most fierce critics have always been women - going right back to the women who opposed the first wave/ suffragettes. These women, who argued against the claims of their feminist peers, were the original 'redpill' movement.
Over a century later, feminism's most harsh critics continue to be women, not men. Feminism has very little to do with men. Men's criticisms and objections are mild compered to women's because men (even most so called 'redpill' men) have a tendency to be simps and white knights ..... a trait that feminists have mercilessly exploited for the last 150 years!
"It's degrading to women and wants a woman to shrink herself so that the man's ego can be boosted as 'leader'."
Feminism's concept of a leader is just someone with social and political clout. But a true leader is someone who puts everyone else's needs above their own and acts in service to them. These selfless qualities are rare and demanding and the reason why we have always celebrated male leadership and male self sacrifice (heroic, dutiful, resourceful, capable men).
Feminists also demand male self sacrifice ("he for she") but they ALSO define men as 'toxic' and 'the enemy' and they do all they can to undermine and marginalise men and make them impotent. This is like demanding horses carry you everywhere, while simultaneously beating them, starving them and breaking their legs (and their spirit).
Men have put up with this terrible treatment by feminists for a century and maintained their loyalty and service to women ('he for she'), but now they are finally deciding it's not worth the effort and they are walking away in droves. It's amazing they have not done this sooner.
Feminists have responded by further aligning themselves with the state (essentially creating a harem with the state), but of course the state makes no money and cannot offer women anything of real value. The state only knows how to confiscate money from men and redistribute it to women (keeping most of it for themselves of course). The state recently injected all women with a toxic potion which has caused 15 million deaths worldwide, an epidemic of stillbirths/ miscarriage/ pregnancy complications and which may have sterilised the majority of people born after 2021 to vaxxed mothers. The state is no ally to women!
So feminists have dug themselves (and all of society) into a giant hole by partnering up with the state, and being seduced by all that 'free stuff' in the short term.
On balance only men actually pay taxes (men are net contributors, women are net consumers of tax spending). So as men continue to walk away from women and 'The System' (and give up even trying to be successful because there is no longer any incentive) the system will collapse. Feminists have no plan for this inevitability.
Before feminism took over our culture women were smart enough to support men and provide men with incentives to fulfil their masculine role, which in turn benefited women and children. There was a mutual exchange of support and sacrifice from both sexes to each other. Men served women, women served men. And both served the needs of CHILDREN.
Feminism then demanded women usurp men's role and status in society BUT WITHOUT the equivalent obligations that came with those roles. A successful woman (in feminism's terms) is successful ONLY for her own self gratification and material wealth. She is 'strong and independent' and to hell with any obligation to support men or children. Successful women still seek men who are MORE successful than they are! For feminism to work women would have to desire men of LOWER economic status than them and want to SUPPORT them in relationships AND via taxes and wealth redistribution to men. But very, very few women want that kind of arrangement. And to be fair it goes against nature.
So really the feminist ideal (being a selfish, materialist and corporate whore obsessed with money and power, and with no sense of social/ familial responsibility or duty to support others) is the very thing feminists (pretend) to be fighting against. Feminism is pure projection! Rich male CEO's are oppression, but rich female CEO's are empowerment!
"A woman shouldn't have to shrink to make a small man feel big"
Feminism defines all men as powerful oppressors of women, and all women as weak helpless victims of male power and dominance. Feminism (when taken at face value) is therefore a Male Power Fantasy! (men rule, women are ruled).
So feminism makes small men feel big. This is why so many 'beta males' chose to become male feminists. They like the identify that feminist ideology gives them. And they get to LARP at being powerful white knights rescuing women from the big bad 'Patriarchy' when they are really just a kind of underclass of simps being exploited by feminists who do not respect them and who are only interested in alpha males - the very males they pretend are so terrible!
"Egalitarianism is what we want, and we can stay single if a man tries to force anything else onto us."
I've never heard any feminist author or academic or activist openly advocate for men to be afforded equal rights to women or equal treatment, or equal access to resources, programs, healthcare etc. Have you? Can you give any examples?
"You being annoyed at 'women+state' just means that you're angry that women aren't as dependent on a husband, can be controlled as easily, and don't have to endure as much poor treatment."
Defining thoughtful analysis and criticism of feminism as 'being angry' is how feminists avoid engaging in productive debate. If all critics of feminism are just 'angry' this allows you to hand wave them away and not ever respond to the criticism or the wider issues - and certainly not the nuance.
Also it is a HUGE red flag of SOCIAL PRIVILAGE to hand wave your detractors away as simply being 'angry' (or whatever). Only the most privileged people in history have ever behaved like that.... or been allowed to get away with it.
"Women should not give up feminism just because a few rightwing men are pouting about finding it difficult to thrive in a world where women aren't hobbled."
Women, men and children should not be forced to endure social and economic collapse and a population crisis just because a tiny minority of feminist activists (and their corporate/ government sponsors) have decided that's what THEY want.
Feminist critics span all classes and both sexes. The fact that you choose to define your critics as right wing men proves you KNOW that right wing men are the LEAST respected category in society! It's a massive own goal.
Simply naming them as a group wins you the argument. This contradicts feminism's central claim that 'right win men' rule society and have all the power. If this were true 'right wing men' would enjoy TOP STATUS in society and anything they said would be UNASSAILABLE and it would be parroted by the media, academia, corporations, politicians and the UN.... but we both know they exact opposite is true. 'Right wing/ traditionalist men' are bottom of the social dominance hierarchy. Radical left wing feminists are at the top.
Even in so called 'trad', 'Christian' and 'right wing' circles most of the men are simps and most of the women are feminists. None of them dare to suggest women have any social/ familial obligations - or obligations to future generations. All of them tell men they must man up and support women. The last time women were burdened with the same kind of gender based social responsibilities that we place on men's shoulders was the 1800's. And women back then were much happier because they had a specific identity and a valuable (vital) function in society. Being 'free' to be a lifelong consumer and little else is actually a curse and why so many 'modern women' are suffering mental health, with left leaning progressive women being the the most heavily drugged up and in therapy.
What few traditional men and women there are have no social power. Nor do they WANT it! That's what being trad means. No ego, vanity or ambitions to gain power over others and go around telling them what to do!
In reality left wing feminist women carry all the clout. They decide what is socially acceptable and what policies should be implemented in society. Women have always had more social/ political power than men. Feminism denies this which is why society is so unbalanced at the moment.
The West is collapsing because feminists deny they have any power, yet they run all establishment institutions. Before feminism women acknowledged their social power and therefore had a sense of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Women kept other women in check from abusing their female power over men. Not anymore.
"We should stick with feminism. It has literally saved lives and given women a chance other than marriage, servitude and degradation."
I agree that feminism serves the interests of materialistic women who want to marry the state and not men (until the economy collapses) and benefit from positive discrimination and special treatment. It also serves all the power/ money hungry men in government, the UN, corporations etc who are happy to use 'women' to gain power and control. This is why they all promote feminism.
But feminism serves these people at the EXPENSE of the majority of men, women and children who do not want to live like that.
Love being lectured on the dangers of "women and the state" in a country where women aren't even free to terminate their rapist's pregnancies, in a world where women have been universally classified as chattel until less than a hundred years ago lol. If you were even a tiny bit capable of extending your oh so tender empathy beyond men, you'd realize how completely ridiculous you're being.
"Love being lectured on the dangers of "women and the state" in a country where women aren't even free to terminate their rapist's pregnancies"
You're argument makes no sense because you are implying the state = men. But women are the majority of voters. You also imply all women are pro abortion. But many women are pro life and would do anything to save the life you refer to. A life which you falsely claim only men want to save.
Treating men and women as monolithic classes 'goodies' and 'baddies' who all share the same views is ridiculous. And trying to play 'oppression olympics' with these dumbed down classifications is not a productive way to discuss (let alone solve) complex social issues.
But seeing as how you brought it up, men do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy whether it resulted from consensual sex or rape. In fact, US courts have forced underage male rape victims to pay child support to their rapists after reaching the age of 18. Men also do not even have the right to legally 'abort' an unwanted child (legal paternal surrender).
So even by your own metrics men are more oppressed than women, if you are going to play that game.
"...women have been universally classified as chattel until less than a hundred years ago lol."
This is the sort of feminist propaganda which used to be repeated by teenage 'bedroom youtube feminists' around 2014. But even they stopped claiming this after about 5 years of being debunked over and over and over and over again.
"If you were even a tiny bit capable of extending your oh so tender empathy beyond men, you'd realize how completely ridiculous you're being."
In the comment you have responded to I am making the case that feminism is harmful to women. Just because feminism defines women as powerless victims and men as all powerful oppressors of women does not mean feminist ideology is beneficial to women. Feminist ideology is based on false history, false psychology and a false threat narrative. As such it destroys the lives of feminists from the inside out. Mental health issues are most prevalent among progressive women, thanks in large part to feminist ideology.
You yourself claim the government is not on the side of women. But all governments promote feminist ideology. They put it into the school curriculum. You will be hard pressed to find a politician who is not pro-feminism. The same is true of all major corporations - they are all pro feminist too.
Have you ever stopped to think about this contradiction?
Male feminists are some of the most fanatical feminists out there. Men are hard wired to protect women and sacrifice themselves for women. Men also have to compete with each other to win women's approval, and feminism allows men to compete with other men with a narrative which claims all men are evil oppressors of women. This narrative allows male feminists to portray themselves like a superhero who is on women's side! The one good man in society!
What percentage of the state would you estimate has been composed of women in this country, going back to its founding?
Your weepy recitation of all the reasons it's so fucked up that a man isn't allowed to choose to abort a woman's pregnancy (and how men have worse reproductive restriction than women, as a result) is (a) the saddest and also funniest thing i've maybe ever seen, and (b)certainly makes clear just how deep your level of concern for their well-being is. For the record, control over another living creature is often called chattel, but don't let that stop you! There's a reason you only make these arguments facelessly on the internet, where your perspective is valued precisely for its cruelty and ignorance; namely, that in meatspace, claims like "every school and every country is dangerously feminist, actually" or "men should be allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy against her will" people will carefully back away from you while holding eye contact. I beseech you, dear goober, to touch grass.
"Also, body count doesn’t seem to really effect their marital happiness."
It would effect mine, tho.
"Sorry guys, that girl whoring it up in college is just as likely as the “nice girl” to have a happy marriage."
Depends on if she marries a simp.
Being obsessed with your prospective partner's body count doesn't make you discerning, it makes you a quivering, puritanical creep. You do know that we don't have to treat our masculinity as just performing a crude pantomime of whatever our grandfathers thought about the world, right? You could exercise creativity and agency instead of just uncritically hoovering up what a bunch of supplement salesmen sideshow freaks on the internet tell you to be.
If you want to eat someone else's already-chewed and spit out steak that's your business.
It's ok though because all yall are just taking yourselves out of the bloodline.
It really must suck to be so deeply sex-obsessed while also remaining intentionally ignorant to the particulars of human sexuality (beyond what you heard the other boys saying in junior high, i guess). Anything but consider what the hard men who birthed you soft men knew: that you might be the reason no one will fuck you!
Showing your age with this one
Get off my lawn.
That’s “Get off my lawn, SONNY” 😁
I think the red pill was helpful in reviving common sense about approaching women, as you explain. It’s the excessive bitterness and overwhelming desire to broaden the ideas to full-on political ideology that negates its virtues, which you also mention.
Girls like confident, competent, fun men. This includes young unmarried women as well as older married women. Don’t be sadsack loser or a bossy prick. Just be a pleasant strong man with something going on. It’s all rather Zen. 😑
"As you can see though, one part the manosphere gets right is a certain percentage of men are getting A LOT of action, with 28 percent having 15 or more sexual partners."
I almost forgot how much I enjoy hating the human race lmao. Good thing Hell exists.
I'm assuming this is in jest, as we all hold hope even the most debauched of people repent and see Heaven.
It is not. This kind of thing really bothers me, and I'm aware that I'm an uncommon case in that respect.
This is probably spergy of me to say a month late, but don’t forget that Christ died for those guys. It is not ours to say he was wrong.
He did. I’m just really, really bothered at how they basically molest ideals that I once thought were the most beautiful things in the world.
Of course, I’ve learned from that basic reality (they never existed to begin with), but it still hurts.
I don’t think that follows. Most of the world can suck, but YOU can still live up to whats required.
I’m a young guy, and me and my wife were both zero pre-marital sexual partners. I was extremely lucky, but also dedicated to ideals even if the world was not.
Also, I hope with all sincerity that St. Joseph blesses you and your marriage.
That’s entirely sensible! Still, you admitted your own luck.
I trust neither myself to be that lucky nor any woman on Earth to be what that would imply.
Nope 🌝
This reeks of envy more than it does righteous indignation tbh. Would suggest a second look at what’s really driving this reaction.
Not envy, more like fear that they might be right and what I want to love truly doesn't exist. Learning about this side of the human condition was kind of a traumatizing moment for me, and I've become pretty aware of it.
A lot of the rise in divorce was led by the boomers. That generation really was a bunch of degenerates, men and women. I haven't gone into the stats but I've read from those who have and they say that when you factor out the boomers and their never ending cycle of divorce and remarriage that the divorce stats indicate that the divorce threat is much lower.
When it comes to marital infidelity, in my family and extended family it is the husband who behaves badly the overwhelming percent of the time. My mom was married (no kids, thank Heavens) before she met my dad. From what I learned from aunts and uncles who were there at the time, my mom's ex came home one day with books on open marriages and ethical non monogamy. Of course he was already doing non-ethical non monogamy. My sister's ex husband was a serial adulterer who refused to hold down a job. I was there and witnessed it myself. I had a roommate going through a divorce. He was unfaithful. I love him but that's the truth.
On my wife's side of the family. Her brother has been unfaithful to his wife for 10 years. Her sister had 2 ex husbands who were serially unfaithful. My niece and her long term boyfriend, he's not faithful and they aren't even married. From what I've witnessed, 100% of the time it has been the men who were unfaithful.
This isn't some blame it on the men thing. It is just pointing out that the biggest risk factor in most marriages is the husband's potential bad behavior. If you are faithful as a husband then your chances of having a bad outcome are decreased, a lot.
I was in the Mormon singles scene for nearly 20 years until I got married at age 37. I can tell you that the attractive girls who engaged in more "questionable" behavior ended up married with 3 or 4 kids and attractive the girls who were highly picky are now in their late 30's/ early 40's, still not married and many of them will end up up as spinsters. The slut might be out fooling around with some guy but the "good girl" is home reading Morning Glory Milk Farm. Which one would you rather have?
The people saying that women need to start approaching men are ridiculous. That's not how the world operates. Men need to be the one's who are doing the trying. One of the things that I hate is when red pilled content creators talk about how it is so hard for men to meet women and the odds are so heavily stacked against men. This is all true but framed horribly wrong. They make talking to a woman sound like going to Vegas and everytime a man gets rejected he loses a percentage of his retirement savings. The truth is a rejection is just a hit to your pride but has no real world downside outside of your head. It can be a lot of pride or no pride. I have male family and friends who are now in their mid 40's and pushing 50 who have never approached women or gave up years ago. They can't handle even basic rejections.
On top of it they fail to notice the potential upside of success. The downside of rejection is a hit to your ego that can be as big or as small as you want it to be. The upside for success is the potential for a happy fulfilled family life with a wife who loves you and kids who think you are great. The black pillers never mention limited downside and unlimited upside.
I learned the red pill lessons on women back in the day and they helped a lot. I certainly used that wisdom to avoid making mistakes in my relationships. The value of the red pill is to help us make good decisions, not as a tool to inspire loserness.
Cheating almost always wrecks a marriage. I will say though that faithfulness is not enough, and a man needs to also "be the oak" and have his own passion and vision to be successful. I've seen too many nice guys get wrecked. Your general point stands though.
I had no qualms about approaching women. I got rejected a lot, but only a couple outright tried to humiliate me. The bigger problem is social events that created an easy atmosphere to meet people have dwindled. How many barn dances do you see? Are you willing to get fired for asking your coworker out on a date? How many social mixers exist now? Church groups? Once you leave college, it gets really tough.
The manosphere accomplished much of what it had to early on. Develop the ability to talk to women, stop arguing, exercise, don't expect your efforts to be appreciated. Like anything else, you need content now and a single self help book isn't though. So you post rage bait and open up the comment section. Then you immediately realize that you need a moderator...
Heh.
You're arguing in favor of common sense, understanding research and its flaws, communicating without a sales pitch to sell a subscription; it just makes my head hurt imagining a world where these things are normal and the cultural aptitude supports this!
I have a feeling in the future we're going to see two things happen. The first is this entire vast array of material, from manosphere, red pill, virtue, stoicism, mgtow, tradition, etc, will a) birth a new masculine movement, because as you rightly write, there's a lot of junk and bunk in there, a lot of updating and making unnecessarily complex of old truisms, and b) academics will seize upon the post-2000, from the emergence of PKUs onwards, as the start of the cultural answer to feminism.
When people write PhDs they have to first read everything that's already been written on a subject before they can add their two cents to the pile. In much the same way, taken as a whole, that's what everything you wrote about touches on. And there's a lot more too lol. Unfortunately in today's world we're surrounded by capitalism and most people are trying to sell something, so, even if there's a lot of crap out there, and if it sells (ex. PKU), then it survives.
Let's hope something better emerges and becomes dominant.
The "every man should seek a paternity test" take I see now and then has always been good for a laugh.
Shakespeare's paranoid Leontes in The Winter's Tale was ahead of his time:
And many a man there is, even at this present,
Now while I speak this, holds his wife by th’ arm,
That little thinks she has been sluic’d in ’s absence,
And his pond fish’d by his next neighbour, by
Sir Smile, his neighbour.
One point I have to make, especially on the "Parental Custody Favors Women" is we don't know how much of that statistic is "Men who voluntarily gave up custodial rights" vs. "Men who fought for custody and lost". If we only include the men who fought for custody and lost, the figure would be a LOT more even. Most well intentioned men who ask for custody get it.
A couple guys I knew who went through divorce were told by lawyers not to go for equal custody because they were unlikely to get it and it made them look unreasonable. Insane but true. This was ten years ago though, and my understanding is courts are fairer now.
Even so, they would still be counted in the Parental Custody Favors Women statistic even if they didn't fight. Their lawyers told them not too. We don't know what would've happened if they pushed for equal custody. They might've been completely shot down or not. We just don't know.
True.
The manosphere is at least partially a predictable response to the excesses of radical feminism, which is also rife with stereotypes and demonization of men. A strong counter movement was inevitable, given the conflict feminism has fomented. Red-pillers, like feminists, use convenient “facts” to create narratives that allow them to control relations between men and women.
You fellas are truly the biggest babies on earth. You'd rather tumble head first into an entire poisoned internet theory of gender peddled by open hucksters and sex pests than exercise even a modicum of grace for others or accountability for yourself. I absolutely refuse to believe that any of you actually believe the notion that men have things worse than women in this world, you're just incapable of emotional regulation and need to blame someone else for your mysterious inability to keep a woman.
Get a grip. I’m literally complaining about the red pill movement and its excesses. I just think it’s predictable, given the excesses of radical feminism.
"The red-pillers are excessive, but also they're right about everything" you know exactly what you're doing, bud.
I see you struggle with reading comprehension. I am, in fact not endorsing red pill thinking. I’m not red-pilled. From my first comment:
“Red-pillers, like feminists, use convenient “facts” to create narratives that allow them to control relations between men and women.”
See how “facts” is in quotes? See how I say they create narrative to control relationships? Does that sound like an endorsement? Does it look like I agree with them?
Pointing out that a counter-movement to radical feminism is predictable, does not mean I endorse the counter-movement, genius.
I'm always fascinated to encounter people so intellectually incoherent that they don't think the beliefs they freely express should be allowed to define them. Unable to form a stand-alone denunciation of toxic redpill culture without whatabouting those scary feminist bugaboos of yours? Sounds pretty noxious and woman-hating to me! Your distinction from andrew tate is one of degree and not of kind, however much you would like to pretend otherwise.
You can choose to be obstinate, even after I explained my position. I don’t have to frame my opinion in a way of you choosing. Your myopathy is not my problem.
This is fun. Do you want to go another pointless round where you claim to read my mind and refuse to read my text?
There is a lot of directional truth to the "misleading arguments".
For example - "Women with a high number of partners are more likely to divorce you".
A more accurate reading of that data would be women with a high number of partners are less likely to be marriage material. The adjustments and reddit comments don't make a lot of sense from the perspective of a man or a woman seeking a happy marriage. Excluding the singles is a slight of hand - of course they should be included as they failed to achieve a happy marriage.
As another example - "College Educated Women Pursue a Career Instead of Having Kids". This is not only technically true but the effect is large.
From the study you linked - "When women enroll in school, it suppresses their fertility." and "The effect is extremely large". They have a nice chart as well.
Think of education as extremely effective contraception.
Total fertility ends up only slightly reduced because eventually women stop taking the education contraceptive and can still sneak in 1-2 kids later in life.
Educated women basically shift child bearing later. This creates a lot of social and health problems.
In addition I don't think this bit is true:
"Infidelity among females is uncommon in marriage. Males, as would be expected, have more affairs, even in modern times."
A more accurate reading of the data would be old men >=50 are very likely to cheat on their wives. I.e. Boomers are gross.
For everyone else it is a risk but a manageable one.
If a man is in shape and successful in his fifties, the "cheating pool" increases dramatically as there are 30ish women who are still attracted to you. The fifty year-old wife, in contrast, sees her "cheating pool" shrink.
"For everyone else it is a risk but a manageable one."
Yes, the risk is overblown but I've unfortunately had friends where it became all too real.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"A more accurate reading of that data would be women with a high number of partners are less likely to be marriage material. "
That's a good counter, and I'll have to see if there are stats breaking that down.
"From the study you linked - "When women enroll in school, it suppresses their fertility." and "The effect is extremely large". They have a nice chart as well."
When they're actually in school, yes. But most are done by their early twenties. The average age of marriage is now thirty, which means there is a 6-8 year gap where college educated women are not getting married and also likely not having kids. One could argue this is because of student loans, getting established, or waiting for higher-status men, but more likely it's simply the deterioration of classic institutions that pair-bonded in favor of lousier substitutes, like the internet.
Good use of facts. You might even persuade some men with that method.
My takeaway is that there is no Red Pill, only Black. Unless we want to live as PUAs, men are just screwed. It’s game over - unless we restore The Patriarchy. Or total economic collapse, or the Caliphate, restore it for us.
Not black-pilled, but the terrain has definitely become more unhospitable. The grifters making bank monetizing male misery isn't helping matters.
I strongly doubt that men end up cheating more than women in practice. They may want to, they probably would if they could, but the average man has far fewer sexual opportunities than the average woman.
The problem with the data on this is that it’s all self-reporting. Women tend to under report their sexual encounters, where men almost always exaggerate.
Women tend to also have much more narrow, contextual definitions of what constitutes infidelity. A woman absolutely will tell herself it didn’t REALLY count because she had no strong feelings for the guy, and only sucked his dick once while drunk.
Re: Cock carousel & Cheating I think the women numbers are going to be higher than reported. In part because lies and in part because women say certain circumstances mean it 'doesn't count' quite often. And that men are more focused on truth here (or exaggerating) because it's so hard to get a girl to give you her phone number, as opposed to a girl who gives a handy or bj because she was in the mood and doesn't count it as a liaison.
Secondly I blame Baby Boomers. Men are just 'quiet quitting/lie flat' because the system is so messed up. So much of redpill is about survival against a grinding system.
Just a theory, but I think the primary audience for the manosphere influencers is terminally online men who want to hear their own bitterness reflected back to them. Those who are not tied to a screen in lieu of getting on with life may be blissfully unaware of these subterranean debates.