The Red-Pill Right Swaps Chivalry for Misogyny – via TDB
“An investigation by The Daily Beast about the New Hampshire state representative who was secretly behind The Red Pill (“the web’s most popular online destination for pickup artistry and men’s rights activists”) got me thinking about how desperate and pathetic these men are…
… Although The Daily Beast’s article doesn’t directly mention the ties between this movement and the alt-right, they clearly exist. The internet misogynist (just like the white nationalist) is one of its strains. Anyone who has ever been attacked by them is keenly aware of the degree to which these guys fetishize “macho-ness,” precisely because they are so insecure in their own manliness. Does a secure person obsess about who is or is not being cuckolded?
Source: The Red-Pill Right Swaps Chivalry for Misogyny – The Daily Beast
Worth a read. Matt Lewis (rightfully) eviscerates this “movement” of reprobates and miscreants.
My Mazamet 
Good grief, I had no idea this ‘red pill’ business even existed. It doesn’t surprise me mind you, but the constant need to define how macho one is, how ‘alpha’ verges on the ridiculous, nay jumps over the verge and gets right into the ridiculous.
Interesting article Mr P, thank you.
– Esme shaking her head upon the Cloud
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sad little bunch they are
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me neither, Esme-pon-cloud. Makes you wonder /why/ they feel so insecure though, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think Steve’s theory points in the right direction. There’s always a sector of society that’s less adaptable.
LikeLike
Mmm…didn’t they say that about the Neanderthals as well?
Jokes aside, I agree with Steve, and the harder life becomes, the more entrenched that sense of entitlement will become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a crisis in masculinity here in the US and men are taking it badly … on the fringes. We are moving steadily away from a patriarchal society to a more egalitarian one. At the same time, previously privileged white males are seeing their foundations eroded. Male unemployment is huge, a terrible blow for the “bread winner” set. (So much for the effing GOP being the family values party.)
Most men just keep bumbling along as the world gets feminized (a good thing, I think). A few, though, set up websites … anonymously. As an Internet blatherer myself, I use my own name and my own location, if for no other reason that to keep my tongue in check.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“As an Internet blatherer myself, I use my own name and my own location…”
And that is the sign of a person who is comfortable within his own skin. I’d feel sorry for some of those men if they actually showed some real courage along with their misogyny.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not red-pill, I think it is essentially atheistic and the alpha-male rhetoric is absurd, but when Christian conservatives like Matt Lewis respond with “be a gentleman”, “man up” or “get out of your parents’ basement” they are not helping. The cultural world they imagine in which men are to be gentlemen and women are to be ladies has been dead for some time.
Thought experiment: what would the reaction be if Lewis’ next article were to lecture women – especially the feminist warthog bloggers on tumblr – on being more ladylike?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m probably not the best person to be asked because I personally do believe men should be gentlemanly and women should be ladylike. People get hung up on the words themselves, but the spirit of them is about being kind, courteous and maintaining a certain level of dignity. It’s holding the door open for the person behind you (independent of their gender), or giving up your seat if someone less able than you needs it. As for paying bills… my theory has always been that the wealthier/wealthiest in the group should pay if they can.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which is all well and good, but does not really answer my question.
Imagine if Lewis were to treat feminist women the way he is treating red-pill men: “you tumblr feminists would finally get a decent man if you dressed pretty and didn’t dye your hair blue.” or “it is a real crisis, all those unmarriable young women with their tattoos and women’s studies degrees.”
LikeLike
I take the 5th as I can see good arguments against blue hair and tattoos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As can I, but in defense of blue hair and tattoos; I don’t think those are the reasons anyone is unmarriable. I see women with pink hair, purple hair, tattoos, piercings, etc. who are married. So I don’t really think that’s the problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. I just think people need to be reasonable and accept that the more “niche” their choices are, the smaller the pool of people they’ll probably attract. Just like for selling a house it’s better to keep the colours neutral 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, PInky. Everyone’s so hung up on the etiquette of manners parodied in comedies that they forget the COMMON courtesy that used to be its foundation. Curiously, Christians seem to forget that the foundation of their religion is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Lucky for society that some of us atheist remember.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s exactly what I mean!
The term ladylike may have developed sexist connotations but the spirit is about going beyond what is “easy”.
Indeed, “The sick do not ask if the hand that smooths their pillow is pure, nor the dying care if the lips that touch their brow have known the kiss of sin.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a lovely quote, Pinky. Where’s it from?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar Wilde 🙂
LikeLike
Ah, of course. Insanely clever man. 🙂
LikeLike
“As for paying bills… my theory has always been that the wealthier/wealthiest in the group should pay if they can. ”
Yet time and time again, women will likely end a marriage is makes more than a man.
LikeLike
That article is horrendous.The closing bit about ‘not minding’ paying a bit more for women’s healthcare makes my blood boil – everything that is wrong with society that so many men can’t see. Women aren’t part of society, we are an optional add-on if you’re nice enough to mind us. When I think of ‘society’, I think of everyone. When some men of think of ‘society’, they think of themselves and people like them. This is the essence of the ‘patriarchal’ label – not necessarily a reason to be a ‘bitter feminist’ (grrrr, another idiotic part), but a reason to hammer on about the need for change and much, much deeper thinking about our assumptions.
As for the Red Pill sites, all the ones I know are courtesy of Insanitybytes, and they’re all Christians. Life’s confusing – we all get caught up in the confusion as young adults and teens, trying to reconcile what we’ve been conditioned to expect with whatever reality sends our way. I do feel kind of sorry for everyone caught up in this. US gender roles seem to be particularly toxic if the TV programmes about their high schools are in any way accurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s interesting. When he said *paying extra for women* i read it as men having a social debt to women. Could that not be what he means?
LikeLike
“Christian RedPill” is sort of like Liberation (Marxist) Theology, Christians borrowing ideas from a fundamentally atheist philosophy, which tends tonot work out very well.
RedPill started on the PUA forums of 4chan, where there was a lot of crossover with atheist discussions. The underlying thought relies a lot on Dawkinsesque “evolutionary biology”, Nietzsche, and lots of “dark triad” pop-psych.
LikeLike
Fascinating. So atheists invented misogyny? And this is based on evolutionary biology?
LikeLike
1) Of course not.
2) The arguments are based on pop evolutionary biology.
LikeLike
What’s pop evolutionary biology? Dawkins may appeal to a more mainstream audience but that doesn’t make his work any less respectable.
LikeLike
Using evolution to explain some human phenomena using the form of a just-so-story, making it arbitrary and unfalsifiable.
LikeLike
Yes, you said that the other day and it was as wrong then as it is now. There are certain implicit factors in evolution. Note that it’s not survival of the mediocre or of the weakest- it’s survival of the fittest. From there, and observation, there are many, many factors we can isolate and that cross not just culture, but even species.
The cuckold, the wicked step-parent, sibling rivalry- all verifiable. Nothing “just so” about them. They’re all techniques to “win” in the evolutionary game.
LikeLike
I can simultaneously argue that human males evolved to spread their seed far and wide so PUA is the preferred form of mating, and argue that monogamy evolved to ensure the survival of as many offspring as possible. Both are arbitrary just-so stories that presume we know much more about primitive humans than we really do.
LikeLike
You can make any of those arguments; but their validity still depends on how much supporting evidence you can bring to the table to prove your point(s).
Neither of your examples is in line with the concept of evolution. In your PUA example you choose one variable (reproduction) and ignore all the others. That’s why it’s arbitrary.
To build the argument coherently you’d have to ask what methods the “fittest” animals use to ensure reproduction. In lions brute strength counts for a great deal. That and they kill all other male lions once they take over a pride.
LikeLike
The available evidence about primitive humans and their circumstances over the course of their evolutionary history is nearly non-existent. It is simply not possible to look at behavior or trait X and tell us how it evolved, or even if evolution is the correct lens through which to analyze the phenomenon, without appealing to purely modern conjectures.
And since evolution is more about “survival of the survivors” than “of the fittest” it is not at all clear what evolved as a feature and what is a bug that was not bad enough to kill off the offspring of the originators.
LikeLike
You didn’t think that through, did you? We can identify evolutionary “techniques” from modern humans; modern viruses; modern organisms at large. There’s no need to go back in time.
All that takes is isolating a successful pattern that’s consistent. I’m sorry to say both the language and ideas you’re trying to peddle were fabricated by the Discovery institute about 5 years ago in an attempt to undermine the work of real scientists (like Dawkins and Coyne.) It’s smoke, mirrors and word play.
And just so we’re clear, in the grand scheme of things it’s not the least “fit” that survive. Precisely because the definition of fitness is variable in itself. The best genes to survive life in 1500’s Europe are different to those needed today. In either case the “fittest” were the ones who reproduced. That’s because we rationalise it all and make the fittest the elite. Sports, business, aristocracy: success is in itself the measure of value, capability and consequently respect and chances of reproduction. Just like other animals.
This idea that all animals have impulses dictated by biology and evolution *except* humans is pure imbecility.
LikeLike
I am arguing against neither evolution nor the animal nature of man. I am pointing out that you cannot use the observation that species change over time as justification for your pet behaviors or favorite cultural practices.
LikeLike
We’re using different definitions of evolution. I’m not talking about the general theory of evolution. I’m talking about the biological impulses that propel behaviour. And even more so what role certain things play in our species. This is why I made a particular point of mentioning things that cross cultures and even species. Sibling rivalry is neither pet behaviour nor cultural practice. It applies to animals at large.
LikeLike
There is so.much.wrong. with the entire concept that rejection of women has radicalized these men. First of all, they’re not entitled to a woman. Women aren’t property to be purchased, they’re not chattel, they don’t owe men a date, or a kiss, or sex. It’s also true that men don’t owe that to women either. There are lots of women out there pining away for a man who feel rejected. Again, I say, you’re not owed a man.
Here in the U.S. men, white men in particular, seem to resent the fact that women have forgotten their place. We’re not submissive little flowers waiting to be picked. We don’t feel like men are doing us a favor in doing so.
The idea that one has to manipulate or put someone down(it doesn’t matter the sex/gender) to “score” should have the person in question looking in the mirror to find out what’s wrong. To fetishize that kind of emotional manipulation as somehow romantic is grossly misguided at the very least. Even if you do wind up with a mate, what are you getting? Someone who is at least as messed up as you are for putting up with that crap.
More and more, though, I’m seeing this kind of rhetoric from, not only Christian men, but men who claim to be progressive and atheist. Somehow, because women have had their comeuppance, it’s all their fault that men don’t have better skills or make more money. We’re not the competition. Women want the same things men want; a good life on our own terms. We’re not the enemy.
And don’t even get me started on that “why should men pay more for healthcare because women have lady bits” spiel. It’s ridiculous. That’s like asking why young people should pay a higher premium to help keep older people’s healthcare premiums down, or why I, personally, though I’ve never had any health problems to speak of should pay more in premiums because any other person ever has had a health problem. It’s a non-starter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Here in the U.S. men, white men in particular, seem to resent the fact that women have forgotten their place.”
I should have said some white men. But I am hearing more and more of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Black men on the other hand are models of empowering women that we can only aspire to imitate. Why, just the other day I was listening to 50 Cent and wishing I could be that enlightened.
And don’t get me started on the egalitarian qualities of Hispanic men, machismo is virtually unknown among them!
LikeLike
Is this seriously some kind of defense of white men? What is your point? That all men are pigs? You said it, not me. I don’t believe that, either. Which is why I added that I should have said some White men. But it is an increasing number.
I don’t listen to 50 Cent and I’m fairly certain if I did I’d be disgusted. BUT, I don’t hear Black men blaming Black women for displacing them. And I don’t hear Hispanic men blaming Hispanic women for displacing them. You’re not likely to hear that because Black and Hispanic women are among the lowest educated and lowest income earners.
I’m hearing more and more from White men that the reason they’re losing out in the workplace and at home is that White women have forgotten our place. We want careers, we want our own identities, we have ambition and that’s a blow to the Alpha Male ego. When Black women and Hispanic women start to catch up I expect we’ll hear that from those respective demographics as well.
LikeLike
Wha..? I’m agreeing with you!
You see, the reason you have never heard about black or hispanic misogyny isn’t because you are wearing ideological blinders, but because it does not exist! The reason you don’t hear minority women complaining isn’t because you don’t pay attention but because they have nothing to complain about!
You should go seek out some minority women and tell them all about how some white men said mean stuff on the internet. They will be horrified at the burden poor white ladies have to bear. It will be quite a shock to their sheltered, idyllic lives, but at least they will know how lucky they are.
LikeLike
The alt-right crowd doesn’t just target white women, they target all women and women’s rights as a whole.
LikeLike
Agreed. Wage inequality and women’s healthcare being prime examples of how this isn’t just some white men saying mean things on the internet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really am not sure where you got that from anything I said. If you’re really paying attention to what I said I’m acknowledging my own privilege. I get it, I’m better off than a lot of women. And I’d never say that minority women don’t have anything to complain about. That’s not what I said. At.all.
What I said was I don’t hear minority men blaming minority women for their station in life. That doesn’t mean they treat women well or that they’re not misogynistic and patriarchal. That’s not the argument we’re having though, is it? You’re creating a straw man and you know it.
Just because minority women have it worse doesn’t mean this isn’t a problem or that I can’t point out that it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He enjoys using these rhetorical devices that are really intended to mislead the reader. A bit like O’Reilly saying that *yes slaves built the White House but they were well fed*.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Teasing aside, there is nothing wrong with complaining about something that bothers you, and nothing wrong with caring more about your social circle than someone else’s.
It does create a certain myopia however, as when you complain “that white men in particular resent women…” which is false: white men are not particularly misogynistic compared to nonwhite men, in fact very much less so. You adjusted it to say “some white men” but the “particular” was still to emphasize whiteness, so it was still absurd.
If you have never heard minority men blaming women for their misfortunes you are not listening.
LikeLike
We’re talking about a specific group responsible for specific actions. And most in said group are white.
LikeLike
But her comment was not about “particular white men”, but “white men in particular”.
LikeLike
She corrected and added the word “some”.
LikeLike
Which would render the “white” meaningless unless she meant white men in particular.
LikeLike
Is the Breitbart brigade Black or Hispanic? This post refers to them.
LikeLike
I don’t read Breitbart but Andrew B was white. I doubt their staff can be any whiter than the Washington Post’s.
The article you linked was actually about an atheist blogger… just sayin.
LikeLike
I don’t see books written or entire websites dedicated to minority women being the downfall and misfortune of minority men. So while they may blame their mothers or their significant others for their personal misfortunes I don’t hear them blaming minority women for their entire race of men being downtrodden. Do you not see the difference in what I’m saying?
I am seeing, in particular, more and more white men blaming white women, and women in general, for the fact that they don’t seem as privileged as they think they should be. Not, just their ex. Not just their mother. Not just their own personal situation. Minority men have never been privileged enough to perceive themselves as losing their place in society to minority women. So while they blame minority women for their problems, the problems they blame them for are different.
Some white men are blaming women for *all* their problems; why they can’t find a wife, why they can’t find a good job, why they can’t get laid, etc. And it’s not individual women, it’s *all* women. This is a relatively new phenomenon since women, white women in particular, have only in recent history gained some level of equality. *I say white women in particular because we are more privileged(not legally, but culturally) than minority women. Regardless of the legality, minority women still struggle far more than white women to attain equality.
LikeLike
That makes a little more sense but it sounds to me like you are conflating different movements. The guy in the article was a PUA / atheist troll, which is a pretty common type on message boards, but it would not be correct to conflate atheist trolls with PUAs. It also isn’t correct to conflate PUAs with white since so many of them are not.
I’ve often heard black men complain about black women as generally being selfish and disloyal.
LikeLike
The guy mentioned in the article may be an atheist troll but the article wasn’t about *that* guy or atheist trolls. The article was about the connection that exists between Red Pill type websites and the alt-right movement. It’s hard to deny the white maleness of the alt-right movement.
LikeLike
Alt-right and RedPill overlap, but are not the same thing. I don’t identify Alt-right, I just find many of the criticisms paint with too broad a brush. I do think you can make a stronger case for a certain kind of atheism and RedPill being ideologically linked, as well as a certain kind of atheism and alt-right racism being linked, Richard Spencer style.
But really that jab about the troll was me just trying to irritate our host.
LikeLike
I don’t think the article nor myself ever stated that RedPill and Alt-right are the same thing. Generalizing tends to paint with a rather broad brush anytime it’s done, however there is some truth underlying most stereotypes. I’m not sure what being atheist or Christian has to do with it. Religious affiliation or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether a person identifies as Alt-right. You could possibly make that argument as regards PUA’s simply because Christians aren’t supposed to be out there just picking up women. Presumably they’re looking for a wife/helpmate(though that hasn’t stopped many a [married]man who identifies as Christian from picking up women). That doesn’t lessen the amount of misogyny. In other words, yeah, some characteristics overlap, but they aren’t the same thing. A connection, not an identical ideology.
Just as you think a stronger case could be made for a link between a certain kind of atheism and alt-right racism and misogyny having a connection, I think a link could be made between a certain kind of atheism, a certain kind of Christianity(or any other religion), and alt-right racism and misogyny. These certain kinds people are given to the extremism out of which flows racism and misogyny.
I think it depends on where you live as to what your opinion might be, too. I live in South Georgia. I, personally, know one other person who identifies as atheist. All the other people I know identify with some form of Christianity or Catholicism. Many of these people(mostly Protestant Christians) are also both racist and misogynistic. Though many of them would also say they don’t identify as Alt-right the language and behavior is the same. They love some Milo Yiannapoulos and Richard Spencer. But they aren’t Alt-right.
.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this the point where I have to explain the difference between incidence and causality *again*?
Alt-right and red-pill promote the *same* anti woman ideology. Hence the overlap is not incidental.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Although The Daily Beast’s article doesn’t directly mention the ties between this movement and the alt-right, they clearly exist.”
Lifted directly from the article. It’s not just *my* observation.
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
In an interview, Christopher Hitches was asked:
Interviewer: “Do you think that without religion, the struggle would come to an end?”
Hitchens: “No. Men used religion to own women. However, the impulse to own women would be there if they believed in god or not. […] Men need women and they don’t like the fact that they need them.”
That’s not very reassuring, and helps explain why the problem of equality is still prevalent in the 21st century. I read that article this morning on FB and was disgusted, but not surprised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Animals will use any means at their reach to exert power over other animals. That’s both foundational and something we must at the same time learn to counter. In fact, understanding the impulse exists is necessary to accepting this is an issue that must be tackled. If anything, the article proves that 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, and well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Subbing to see where this goes 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
To expected places, I imagine 😀
LikeLike
I know I shouldn’t say this but…there is something fundamentally wrong with both men and women in the US. Gross generalisation but : the men all want to be John Wayne, and the women all want to be Barbarella.
I used the image of Barbarella on purpose because she was supposed to be this long-haired, BLOND, drop dead gorgeous, ball-breaking female superhero type character.
Both sexes are stuck in cookie cutter stereotypes that they can’t seem to escape. No wonder they’re at each other’s throats. 😦
LikeLike
I can’t say I agreed with everything in that article, but I am always happy to see more conservatives speak against some of the crazy MRA stuff.
I feel more pity than anger at those type of guys nowadays. Their worldview is so sad and distorted. Many MRAs seriously think that all women secretely hate men and that all men are oppressed by society in general.
The worst part is that they have some good points about skewed parental rights and issues with men’s health (like suicide rates) buried in all their rants, but they seem unable to get those points across without blaming all women for it (or blaming other men as being traitors).
The same goes for some of the radical feminists out there. I’ve encountered some that see those of us that love and care for men as traitors. A few see all men as enemies (I even encountered one that saw homosexual men as worse because they’re men that fall in love with men, when they “clearly” should have a more “superior” woman by their side to give life meaning. :-$ )
The crazy MRAs and the crazy fringe of feminism actually share the same worldview and deserve each other. They both think that everyone belonging to the other gender is out to get them, and they both consider more moderate viewpoints from someone of the same gender as a betrayal.
I feel like putting them on a small island and letting them duke it out, then maybe the rest of us can get some peace. 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I liked about it was the implication of being courteous (even though he put it in sexist terms.) The thing is courtesy on its own is such an easy and straightforward solution to so much in the world.
LikeLike
Courtesy (as in actually helping people with their problems) is always nice though the article certainly shouldn’t have been as sexist about it. Women can and should be just as courteous as men after all.
Working at a hospital, I see pretty much all my colleagues opening doors for each other and showing patients where to go. And working at a hospital means my colleagues are almost exclusively women (the doctors, nurses, bioengineers, cleaners, secretaries and most of the IT people are women, even the electrician fixing the lights recently was a woman).
I actually wish we got more men here, but anyway, my point is that women open doors just as much as men do, if not more.
I’ve opened the door for a lot of men before, I don’t see why I shouldn’t.
I really don’t like all the forms of what people call courtesy though. “Courtesy” as in store clerks being falsely polite and constantly being in my face asking if I need help is a surefire way to get me to avoid that store in the future. In my eyes, politeness is people leaving me the heck alone. It’s probably partly caused by my asocial nature and partly by my Norwegian upbringing (we hate false politenesss over here which is what makes many tourists consider us rude, but we’re just being honest).
And to mention something else that often comes up in debates about “gentlemen”:
I always pay my part of the bill on a date. I don’t see why I shouldn’t do that either, even though it makes some guys uncomfortable and makes them feel less “gentlemanly”. Insisting on paying the bill for a girl you’re dating isn’t courtesy to me but rather shows that the guy is incapable of being with an independent woman.
I earn more money than the guys I date anyway, so why shouldn’t I pay my own bill?
But then, I grew up in a family of strong women so my perception of it is biased.
For instance, I have an aunt that pays her own husband allowance (she controls their shared economy, pays all the bills and gives him what he needs otherwise). 🙂
But I’m getting off topic again, which might be considered discourteous. 😛
.
LikeLike