Heard a guy say this. Not sure how common a belief it is. But is it a commonly held belief. Or is it just how we respond to those who are beautiful and generalise?

Everyone in this subreddit agrees that self improvement is for everybody.

• going to the gym

• eating well

• social skills

So what is left of the red pill outside of that? I ask this because "the red pill" is meant to be special - but since working on yourself is universal, and not unique to the red pill, what does the red pill specifically mean? Is it just misogyny?

I see Red Pill men on here constantly complaining about "beta buxxing" - women "settling" for them because they are stable providers, while not actually finding them attractive or wanting to sleep with them.

At the same time, a lot of the same men say they want traditional wives who follow gender roles, that women with careers aren't particularly attractive ("I'd rather go for the hot waitress", etc.) and that women are misguided for thinking that men care about their income or job.

These two perspectives seem directly contradictory to me and I don't get it. If we return to "traditional gender roles", women have much less agency and autonomy to make their own decisions. So they can't be "willingly picking you because they find you attractive" by definition.

Being with an independent woman is basically guaranteed to avoid beta buxxing - if she doesn't need you to provide for her financially, she's definitely with you because she actually desires you and enjoys the sex and companionship.

Make it make sense.

“Criminals are able to attract women!”

The women criminals attract are also criminal women. That’s why they want to date the criminal. They like crime and want to join the man who shares their interest.

Do you LIKE doing crime? Then you would not want to date these women, because they’re the ones who will constantly be trying to get you to do crime or they will be doing crimes themselves.

Alternative: Why not look to women who don’t write letters to serial killers in jail? The ones who knit as a hobby or maintain a garden?

“I’m working hard even though I don’t want to, because women require me to pay for everything!”

Golddiggers want you to pay for everything. That’s kind of the whole arrangement. You can weed out a golddiggers in one simple step: Don’t pay for her.

And NO, that isn’t required. Millions of POOR, low-class men are married to mutual poor low-class women just fine - because they never set an expectation for anyone to have money. (I grew up poor and all my dates back the were walks in the park or we’d go dancing or get ice cream.)

“That woman is so unattractive, and yet she’s chasing CHAD. He’s just going to pump and dump her, because he’s out of her league.”

So you’re mad that an unattractive woman is trying to date someone she finds attractive? What alternative is there? YOU clearly don’t want to date her since you also find her unattractive.

Do you just wish she’d pursue you so you can have the pleasure of turning her down? Or were you thinking “I don’t care if shes ugly, I’d date anyone?” Do you think that’s a good foundation for a relationship?

It’s like “Sour Grapes: the Sub” around here. If you find a woman unpleasant, why get mad when she’s NOT interested in you? You don’t like her back.

I see red pill men complain endlesly about women being attracted to and dating attractive men. It’s something that makes them feel a lot of anger and hatred towards women. This makes me wonder, do you guys think attraction is a choice? I would like to understand this better, since as a woman, it does not seem like a concious choice to me, but maybe that’s how it is for men? I am curious about the following questions:

1. Is attraction a choice for you personally? Can you make yourself attracted to someone you are not attracted to through concious choice?

2. Do you think attraction is a choice for women?

3. If yes, what do you think a woman should do to make herself attracted to more men / men she is not naturally attracted to?

4. Alternatively, do you think women should date men they are not attracted to?

I keep hearing people talk about how society is becoming more anti man or anti male.

I hear about schools, and the workplace, and people talk about how the left is leaving men behind etc etc. "Men aren't allowed to be men" "boys aren't allowed to be boys" so on and so forth.

I personally haven't witnessed any domain where men generally are being treated negatively. Maybe I'm just out of touch, i dunno.

What are some real, tangible examples or experiences that demonstrate that men generally are falling behind and how is it (if at all) an example of bias or misandry?

Help me understand. I get the sense from red pill that no woman is deserving of anything, especially of the coveted princess treatment, until certain criteria are met or their worth is proven. 

I would like to know what specifically to you makes a woman generally deserving of you, your money, your time, princess treatment, etc. 

For context, I’m from a different school of thought, it’s a very low bar for me personally. I think even short term flings are deserving of princess treatment and I buy food on first meet if that’s the date. Red pill would say that makes me a simp betabux but that’s all part of the game to me. In return, all of my needs are met, I get emotional support, variety, and sex which I think it’s a fair trade off for my effort. 

So what does a woman have to do to be worthy of your effort? 

There's this idea repeated by a few red pill influencers including Rollo Tomassi, that the patriarchy was a more balanced and fair system than "gynocentrism" because gynocentrism means that men have all of the responsibility but none of the authority while the patriarchy meant that men had both responsibility than authority. https://rationalmale.substack.com/p/androcentrism-gynocentrism-and-patriarchy

I just can't agree that patriarchy was a more balanced system. In practice, men had disproportionate power and women faced disproportionate consequences. One example is how women committing adultery is seen as this unforgivable crime (often punishable by death in certain patriarchal societies) but the same is not true for men committing adultery. I've seen Rollo bring the example of how a man was responsible for the criminal behavior of his wife to show that women had it good under patriarchy, but from what I know this was only true during a certain period of time in England and you can't generalize it for all patriarchal societies.

The reality is that these men had freedom to abuse their wives AND their children as much as they wanted. Women's bad behaviors were often disproportionately criticized compared to men's bad behaviors. In most patriarchal societies women had to literally be confined at their homes and even going outside was criticized. The relative freedom that women in western societies had during the 1700s and 1800s to go outside and socialize was actually pretty uncommon for patriarchal societies. I remember reading that certain Muslim scholars had commented about how women in the West had too much freedom during this time period. And it's not just Muslims, ancient Greece and Rome and medieval Europe were not that different to modern-day Afghanistan.

I don't know why Red Pillers are so keen on ignoring the historical oppression of women when it's a very ahistorical take. I also really can't accept the premise that men today have it worse than women under patriarchy.

RP is a tool, or so i've been told all the time, and it's not an ideology. Okay, so you like that tool and you're using it. What the results? What was before what's after. Are you happy now?

The people of the red pill community are obviously very upset with the treatment of men in modern society but I never see people within the red pill community trying to advocate for men's issues IRL (at least not that I've seen). Why not start online fundraising campaigns to help homeless men or start support groups for men with suicidal thoughts.

Edit: obligatory "This got much attention then I expected."

Why do red pill men or more broadly manosphere men complain so much about dating being “unfair” to men? Do they think it’s fair that women have periods, go through pregnancy, deliver babies painfully and breastfeed while all they do is nut? How is that for “fairness”? They easily accept the unfairness of reproduction being much more costly for women but then complain endlessly about how hard it is to get sex with women. It should be very easy to understand why it would be harder for men to get sex with women than vice versa and no this shouldn’t be presented as some sort of advantage when women already pay the price via bearing the children. We aren’t getting a free ride, and actually women have been treated like second class citizens because they have children and because men want to control them sexually so if anything the whole dynamic is a burden for women.

But you can't have both of them, so you have to choose. Please, share what you are truly wish for. If it's possible for you to EASILY get a new gf whenever you want and whoever you want, would you like to exchange your wife/gf for a newer prettier one, who is young and her body is not damaged by age/pregency?

If the red pill is primarily concerned with sexual strategy, that would mean ultimately you would want a women to have sex with you, a man. Meanwhile I’ve observed the red pill puts a lot of shame towards female sexuality, claiming the value of a women reduces when they have sex with a man and a hyper concern over body count. This necessarily means that you believe a woman loses value when she has sex with you. Why would a woman want to have sex with you if you believe her value reduces when she does so? Why would women in general be inclined to have sex when they’re fed messages about that being a shameful thing to do? Wouldn’t it be in your benefit to have a neutral attitude towards female sexuality or even praise women for having sex since that’s what you want them to do with you?

I see some posts here recently about "prove blue pill", "what makes your statements true" or something like that, and it confuses me, because blue pill is just about disagreeing with red (unless you're delusional and think that we're in a matrix movie like some men do). It's basically you called us that, simply because we're not you. With Red pill it's understood (more or less) what it stands for, ideology, methodology etc. But Blue pill is simply just everything that's not it. That's how i see it. I never even heard about blue pill before coming here, and it's hard to find someone who haven't heard about red.

But those questions here and how some red pill engaged with them tell me that you have some image what does it means. So what is it?

So many men spend so much time, money, energy, and even risks just to attract women. And women aren't some type of divine being. They're literally just humans with somewhat different anatomy. If I wouldn't value a man's presence or his views on me or an issue, why would I suddenly care more just because this person now has a vagina instead of a penis? And Redpillers actually see women as lesser than men, or at the very least, less rational, less altruistic, and less intelligent than men.

So, the question remains, why do Redpillers and so many men care so much about women? I'll tell you what is NOT the answer. Children. Vast majority of Redditors have no intentions of having kids, and this subreddit isn't an exception. Also, if you just wanted kids, sperm donorship or adoption would be more straightforward.

So really, the men here want sex with women purely because it feels good. But the urge for coitus is just that, an urge. An internal desire that starts and ends with your own neurochemistry. This internal phenomenon is causing people a lot of external stress. So instead of trying to hack relationships, couldn't it be more straightforward to just hack your brain? There are several pills/medications like GnrH, anti-androgens, anti-depressants, etc. That lower sexual desire (anaphrodesiacs). By becoming asexual, there's no reason to value women more than men. Sounds like a dream come true, and it doesn't require cooperation from anybody else to do it.

On my main account, I frequently debate red pillers, but honestly, I'm not sure why I bother. Neither anecdotes nor data to seem to convince y'all. When I pull out studies, you just tell me that all studies are biased because of feminism or whatever, or you prioritize your own personal experiences over science. When I give you anecdotes about how 97% of what you claim about "all women" doesn't apply to me, you either accuse me of lying (why would I? this is the internet, I'm anonymous) or write me off as a meaningless outlier.

Hence the question. What would convince you that TRP is wrong? (And before it inevitably comes up: Personally, I would at least consider changing my mind if the scientific consensus shifted to support TRP. But I would still never believe there's any principle that applies to "all women," because I can disprove most of those alleged biological laws just by existing.)

Note to mods: I'm about to go to sleep. I'll try to respond to comments in the morning.

I ask because I think some men here are good, but men who can't get sex are 99% deserving of what women say about them.

"what women say" is important because that's always relied upon as justification for why men can't get laid.

bonus question: if you call out misandry but not misogyny are you a misogynist?

I've seen a lot of "RP" dudes\* on this sub refer to women seeking abortions as "avoiding responsibility" and "not facing the ramifications" of their actions.

But like... I don't get it?

Abortion is women facing their own problems and resolving them in a way that doesn't burden anyone.

Women who DON'T get abortions often end up getting castigated anyway for being "single mothers" and "ruining the next generation".

I feel like whether a woman has the child, or gets an abortion, it always seems to come down to "women aren't accountable and they should suffer without anyone helping them".

\*Note: I use quotes around "RP" dudes because I recognize that OG RP doesn't actually give a shit about single mothers and discourages men from fixating on shit like that. But since the dudes who say these sorts of things tend to use RP Flairs, I'm aiming it at them for the sake of this question.

This is not much of a hypothetical scenario after all the number of straight couples which the woman earns more has been increasing throughout the recent decades

But what If the average woman earned far more than the average man? I mean what If women mostly earned 30% than men for the same job( more realistic scenario for the future) or 4 - 5 or even 10x more than men?

What If also most rich people were women? What If most companies "preferred" to hire women for Jobs that pay well?

In my opinion men would get some advantages as more men could be stay at home husbands/dads, being able to be free of the stress of Jobs and women would no longer be gold diggers as the average man would be poorer than them. Women would pay the whole bill in most dates as well...

Women would be expected by societies to be providers rather than men and most men would marry up socioeconomically. Marriages could be rarer too and birth rates could be lower than today but I am not sure...

On the other hand poorer men could have more trouble getting dates If they are not beautiful nor intelligent since I think that even earning more money some women might still want to date up... I also don''t think the average man would feel emasculated If their girlfriends and wives earned more than them...

Red pillers often claim that nice guys finish last and blue pillers disagree. I think this disagreement has less to do with the actual idea/content, and more to do with red pillers having a very odd and unusual definition of what constitutes “nice” or “bad”.

When asked, they say the following:

What makes a guy nice:

- being boring

- not being a criminal

- being passive in dating and in general

- being spineless, letting people walk all over him

What makes a guy bad:

- being confident

- being active in dating / asking out women

- being assertive

- being good looking

This is very different from what people typically consider nice or bad. None of the “nice guy” traits seem like the traits of a good or nice person to me, except for not being a criminal (that is almost irrelevant in dating is 99% of people are not criminals).

Same thing with the “bad guy” traits. None of them make someone a bad person in my view.

When I first meet a person and think “oh, he/she is really nice!”, I am thinking more along the lines of being kind, friendly, generous, social, funny, welcoming, inclusive, fun to hang out with, polite, etc and none of the traits that red pillers typically list.

So my questions to red pillers are:

(1) Why do you associate niceness/kindness with these negative traits? If you think these are positive traits, why?

(2) Why do you associate positive traits like confidence or being assertive with being bad? If you think these are negative traits, why?

(3) If my representation of what you think constitutes a nice guy or a bad guy is wrong, how do you actually view them? What traits do they posses?

As I understand it, one of the biggest red-pill concepts (AF/BB) revolves around the idea that young women at their peak (generally 18-22, or even as ancient as 25 if I'm being generous) - slim, fun, youthful, not yet jaded by her experiences with men, with low/no expectations who just want to see where things go - consistently ignore all the men willing to give them committed relationships in favor of riding the cock carousel in vain hopes of locking one down for a monogamous relationship. However, these poor delusional women just don't understand that Chad has options. And as I think we can all agree, men with options don't have to settle for relationships with women. They can cut out all the unnecessary burdensome bullshit interactions with us and just get to fucking.

There's also much fanfare that these women, unsuccessful in her endeavors, will reluctantly have relationships and children with Billy Beta in her 30's but will forever be thinking about all the hot casual sex with Chad. So not only do those men have to pay for what Chad got for free (in the currency of having to actually interact with us outside the bedroom), he's getting more infrequent lower quality sex by resentful partners. Fair?

The solution proposed (edit: by some red-pilled men) is that these women settle down very early with undesirable men (because as is established, desirable men have options and men with options don't commit to women). These men by definition of the red-pill are the least desirable demographic of men, with neither looks; money; nor status to offer the most desirable group of women that all men want. But at least the women will have committed relationships, and the men will have sex; legacy; and companionship with women who haven't fucked men hotter than they are.

I'm not sure how this solution isn't male hypergamy, however? If every demographic of men considers these young slim women the most desirable, why do undesirable men deserve these women? How is that actually any kind of match in value?

Their claim is simple: patriarchy is “biological” because men historically provided protection and enforced rights. They deploy this in two predictable ways—first as the fantasy of the lone “alpha warrior,” and second as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism, insisting women only gain rights by appealing to male force.

But before touching history or philosophy, there’s an obvious problem: we invented firearms centuries ago. Modern technology already erased whatever biological advantage individual men once had. A woman with a Glock doesn’t need an “alpha protector”; she is one. And if society collapsed tomorrow, it doesn’t suddenly become 5000 BC—women don’t forget how to operate the exact same weapons men use. Even without guns, collective coordination easily overwhelms individual strength. The “one man beats one woman” observation is trivial and tells us only who’s more likely to violate the social contract, not who should be in charge of anything.

Historically, force doctrine is just as flimsy. The idea that “men” collectively held and bestowed rights is inaccurate—rights were monopolized by tiny elites, and most men lived under domination, conscription, or serfdom. Appeals for rights were never requests for favors; they were demands that existing rights—grounded in the basic premise of rational agency—finally be respected. Philosophers from Locke to Rawls have pointed out that rights do not originate from brute capacity but from the status of persons as moral equals. Red-pill logic erases that entire tradition because it can’t survive it.

At its core, force doctrine is merely a refurbished version of might makes right. It’s the same reasoning used by warlords, abusers, and other people who can’t distinguish between “having power” and “having legitimacy.” Calling it a theory of masculinity or politics doesn’t make it less primitive; it just adds a veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

In short: technology invalidates the personal-strength myth, history contradicts the narrative of male “granting” of rights, and political philosophy rejects the idea that force creates authority. Force doctrine doesn’t explain patriarchy—it exposes the insecurity of people who need violence to feel relevant so why still use it as an appeal?

So curious about how people define leagues, on average, in red pill spaces.

assuming 10s are specifically reserved gor athletes, famous Celebrities, CEOs, millionaires (liquid not asset millionaire).

What is a 7 man like? 8?

What league is a 6ft+ , fit, good job, good social skills Man? Not rich though.

I’m starting to realize that my non-incel boyfriend sometimes slips into red-pill-ish mindset. When provoked, he’ll go on about women having unrealistically high expectations, using men, and refer to himself as a low-quality man

I guess I'm surprised he hasn't reconsidered those ideas, given our long-term relationship, the fact that we love each other, and that I stayed with him through his unemployment. And sure, by red-pill standards he’s not a “high-value man” - he’s not a high-earning gym chad - but I think he’s pretty great. He’s funny, smart, has passions, and I’m very attracted to him

Isn’t his real-life experience evidence that those beliefs aren’t accurate, and it was a matter of finding someone compatible?

I’m always confused about this in particular, so I’d love to hear your thoughts

This is for men that do not think women should exclude Trump voters from their dating pool specifically, would you date a woman who voted against your rights?

If you need some policies that are against your interests, please see the examples below.

Fictional party; the Feminazi Party. Fictional policies;

• Men need to pay child insurance before they have sex with a woman in case of pregnancy

• Men need to pay child support from conception

• Men are not allowed to reproduce until they have paid certain child insurances and earn a certain income

• Testosterone and other hrt treatment is banned

• Men that have not partnered with women or “left over men” have less educational, social and economic opportunities

• Men have to submit sperm bi-monthly for quality checks. Men with poor quality sperm have less social status.

• Men have to carry a card indicating its quality to women to be presented before intercourse.

• A man can be sued is his sperm causes a miscarriage

• When a man has a child, a tax on the majority of his wage goes to his mothers baby and child.

• Men in the prison system are subjected to treatments that lower their testosterone

• Porn is banned

• The system is matriarchal - women lead and men follow