Please or Register to create posts and topics.

"Feminized society": is it true men in the West are oppressed?

12

Something else I want to add from my observation: most women have naturally a better social and emotional intelligence than most men. So this is a have very important advantage for a social species such as ours. That is why such a website is such an important resource for men.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.
Transitioned

Hello Lucio.  I love your site and want to answer your question as respectfully, and thoughtfully, as I can.  Background: I’m an early adopter of red-pill thinking going back to the mid 1980’s and married with a lovely daughter.

The red pill itself is evidence of a gynocentric society and “female nature”.  Consider Lucio admitting he’s not “a big fan of it”.  The term “red pill” and “blue pill” refers to The Matrix paradigm where Neo is offered a choice to accept comfortable, but untrue, beliefs that will result in his oppression or to empower himself which will require painful personal growth and enlightenment.  After all, if enlightenment was easy and comfortable, wouldn’t most people be in a natural state of it?

There are costs to the red pill as Lucio has pointed out in his critique of it: To get treated better by (most!) women requires (most!) men to distance themselves emotionally from women including “disrespecting” them.  When we trust someone, we respect their capability to live up to their words and beliefs.  I appreciate Lucio’s philosophy of becoming a “leader” in society and that’s something I personally strive to live up to but it also requires being “the adult” in the room at times and acknowledging, if only to oneself, that the other person is fundamentally a child.  We don’t “trust” children.  That doesn’t mean we hate them.  (Imagine what I went through when my 4 year old was screaming in my ear as I comforted her and gently disciplined her.)

Note how I phrased it as (most!).  NAWALT applies in that there are women who don’t require this treatment, but they quickly get married and taken off the market so for all intents and purposes for (most) single men, they don’t apply.  If (most) women were the opposite, then BPT and/or rejecting TRP would be sufficient for (most) men to have satisfactory relationships with women and society.  About 30 years ago, there was a tipping point where most men were blue pill but getting by: Having a decent job and presenting women with attention and gifts and normal approaches would get the average man either married or nookie, depending upon which of those the woman wanted.  The nature of TRP encourages marriage avoidance since gynocentric society makes that expensive rather than an asset for men.  Like in The Matrix, BPT men tend to attack RPT men to gain a perceived advantage and status in society (“White Knights”)  Even back then, I went RP because I found BPT and social rewards to be insufficient for me.

Therefore, if men are increasingly attracted to TRP despite social condemnation including by BPT men, there has to be an essential truth to it.  (Most) men don’t go to the gym and endure boring and painful workouts for the fun of it, yes?

Yes, TRP has dangers but note that even in the community those are actively discussed as Lucio cited.  Since TRP advocates self-improvement sometimes to detriment (chasing after alpha status, a toxic masculinity trap), and self-empowerment, there is no rule that RPT excludes other methods of growth.  Entry into it merely acknowledges reality and movement to a next stage of personal and social evolution.  Finding out there’s a problem doesn’t, by itself, resolve it.  If that was the case, psychotherapists would go broke.  After all, I hang around the red pill community to both keep my wits sharp and to help other men just as you, a reasonably psychological healthy person, want to help others who are beginning their evolutionary journey.

When Lucio says he observes where women were “oppressed” and doesn’t see it against men, well, that’s actually “evidence”, of sorts, of BPT (I know that this can be a rabbit hole of rational delusion, but give me some leeway here).  The ability to observe that someone is oppressed and to conceptualize it illustrates that person is humanized by society.  It’s when people and society are incapable of seeing oppression and dismiss the (non-victims) as “whiners” or “privileged” and even mocks them that makes it both real and unreal.  It’s a psychological paradox (which is why psychology is a fascinating field.)  It doesn’t help that actual oppressors engage in gas lighting projection to claim they’re the ones being marginalized.

In western societies, the single greatest element of “privilege” is the right to have one’s most minor grievances and “oppression” recognized and to deflect criticism by accusing ones’ critics as “privileged”.  Feminism was the original form of modern “identity politics” going back to the suffragist movement.

There certainly is oppression against men in non-feminized societies but it’s ubiquitous and even reasonable: Men who are poor or lack the ability to earn a living or defend themselves may be picked on by other men or dismissed by women.  One of the best privileges (young) women have, in nearly all societies, is easy access to have a family.  If she’s unattractive or poor, she may need to put more work in but (most) young men have to literally earn or retain a family.  One of the primary tenets of feminism was that family itself was a form of oppression to women which, see gas lighting above, allowed women to take something that’s a privilege and recast it as oppression.  It’s amusing that biological clock tickers who bought into this rationalization find themselves unable to have a relationship because they’ve pushed men away from “oppressing” them with love and children.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Kellvo on August 13, 2020, 11:59 pm

Do you think men are being oppressed, or somewhat antagonized in many Western countries?

This is a tough question to answer. The reason for this is because oppression lies on a spectrum between mild devaluation and total annihilation, and there are an infinite number of gray states in between. These states vary on the personal scale and on the degree of awareness and intensity that they are expressed. But, as a defined group, are men, especially masculine men, generally on the oppression scale? Yes. How far? A tougher question to answer, but I will attempt to pin it down by comparing this to other examples of oppression below:

Kellvo's Scale of Oppression:

(Personal opinion may vary)

0 - No oppression.

10 - Mild oppression; preference for others over target group, some distrust for said group, but with little to no intentionally harmful action (Examples - Early Feminism, more self-improvement based or isolationist Red Pill philosophy, more benign nationalists; many are here in regards to at least one group).

25 - Mild to moderate oppression; some discrimination towards target group, often indirect or covert (neglect, mistreatment, disrespect, etc.). Early signs of dehumanization ('[X] is/are trash'; comparison to animals or objects; always/never statements). General 'Us vs. Them' mentality and win/lose worldview in regards to target group; often consciously or subconsciously considers their group superior compared to the target group (Examples - Most third-wave feminists, many Red Pill men, more extreme nationalists).

50 - Serious oppression; general, intentional devaluation and mistreatment of a target group, but with generally non-lethal ends. Active, consistent dehumanization of target group; supremacist rhetoric becomes common, and severe violence (physical, emotional, financial, reputational, etc.) is considered an option (Examples - SJWs, many deeper areas of the Alt Right; In general, where a group is treated as second-class citizens (but still citizens) or where there is widespread but either sporadic or not very intense oppression).

75 - Widespread, severe and consistent oppression with severe impediment to target group's lifestyle; non-direct extermination (extreme negligence, denial of basic resources, sterilization, etc.), sporadic killings, active and malicious intent towards a target group, generally considered subhuman (Example - Jim Crow Era).

100 - Intentional extermination and/or enslavement of a target group on a mass scale (Example - The Holocaust).

So applying this scale, where are we? This depends on the individual people and the average state of the culture involved. In the United States however, I estimate the average oppression of men to be somewhere between 25 and 50. On the individual level, there are varying perspectives on men I noticed among women - Many I've seen may prefer their own group, but treat me well, especially as long as I show masculine qualities. However, I have noticed quite a few women being actively standoffish, cold, bitter, or otherwise 'odd' as well.

I've noticed a positive correlation between the femininity of a woman and how well she treats men (and people) in general. For example, I noticed no Asian woman giving off covert aggression signs; conversely, I have had many of my harshest battles with very masculine, overtly feminist women. I also suspect older women, especially mothers, are lower on the scale in general, as I noticed covert and overt aggression from them much less often.

On the society level, we can definitely see widespread dehumanization of men in commercials and conversation, 'Us vs. Them' and Win/Lose policies towards men supported on a wide scale and frequent intended power grabs by women on both the individual man-woman and collective societal scale. Violence towards men is usually not actively promoted - however, it is often passively permitted, and non-physical forms of violence such as emotional abuse, reputational slander and financial ruin (made infamous by false accusations and 'divorce rape') are often overlooked at best.

The only reason I'd say we haven't passed the 50 yet on a society scale is because there is a considerable percentage of the population that does not support this; there is a big backlash in this country against more extreme feminist and left influences which among other things, for better or for worse drove Donald Trump's ascension into the presidency. Combined with a strong semi-mainstream Red Pill influence in the United States and a rising men-centric counterculture, the most extreme examples of oppression have been made harder to be made palatable to the mainstream population with SJWs and extreme feminists being ridiculed by even moderates and less extreme left people in many online spaces.

With that said, more subtle means of oppression are still going strong; the court of public opinion generally favors the woman, marriage is notoriously unfavorable to men, and between an overwhelmingly female education system and fatherless homes many boys face an uphill battle becoming men, which ultimately ends up harming everyone. And while I don't think the average woman hates men, she definitely distrusts them, and history shows that it only takes a small percentage of a population on either side to greatly change the fate of a much larger group of people. History also shows that the pendulum of oppression can rapidly swing from one side to the other, that violence begets violence, and that more moderate, sensible minds tend to get caught in the crossfire, so be careful out there and read between the lines... and that goes for me as well.

Do you think the me-too action a type of severe violence reputationally?

Quote from John Freeman on August 15, 2020, 5:59 am

Something else I want to add from my observation: most women have naturally a better social and emotional intelligence than most men. So this is a have very important advantage for a social species such as ours. That is why such a website is such an important resource for men.

 

Quote from polishknight on March 26, 2021, 3:52 pm

Hello Lucio.  I love your site and want to answer your question as respectfully, and thoughtfully, as I can.  Background: I’m an early adopter of red-pill thinking going back to the mid 1980’s and married with a lovely daughter.

The red pill itself is evidence of a gynocentric society and “female nature”.  Consider Lucio admitting he’s not “a big fan of it”.  The term “red pill” and “blue pill” refers to The Matrix paradigm where Neo is offered a choice to accept comfortable, but untrue, beliefs that will result in his oppression or to empower himself which will require painful personal growth and enlightenment.  After all, if enlightenment was easy and comfortable, wouldn’t most people be in a natural state of it?

There are costs to the red pill as Lucio has pointed out in his critique of it: To get treated better by (most!) women requires (most!) men to distance themselves emotionally from women including “disrespecting” them.  When we trust someone, we respect their capability to live up to their words and beliefs.  I appreciate Lucio’s philosophy of becoming a “leader” in society and that’s something I personally strive to live up to but it also requires being “the adult” in the room at times and acknowledging, if only to oneself, that the other person is fundamentally a child.  We don’t “trust” children.  That doesn’t mean we hate them.  (Imagine what I went through when my 4 year old was screaming in my ear as I comforted her and gently disciplined her.)

Note how I phrased it as (most!).  NAWALT applies in that there are women who don’t require this treatment, but they quickly get married and taken off the market so for all intents and purposes for (most) single men, they don’t apply.  If (most) women were the opposite, then BPT and/or rejecting TRP would be sufficient for (most) men to have satisfactory relationships with women and society.  About 30 years ago, there was a tipping point where most men were blue pill but getting by: Having a decent job and presenting women with attention and gifts and normal approaches would get the average man either married or nookie, depending upon which of those the woman wanted.  The nature of TRP encourages marriage avoidance since gynocentric society makes that expensive rather than an asset for men.  Like in The Matrix, BPT men tend to attack RPT men to gain a perceived advantage and status in society (“White Knights”)  Even back then, I went RP because I found BPT and social rewards to be insufficient for me.

Therefore, if men are increasingly attracted to TRP despite social condemnation including by BPT men, there has to be an essential truth to it.  (Most) men don’t go to the gym and endure boring and painful workouts for the fun of it, yes?

Yes, TRP has dangers but note that even in the community those are actively discussed as Lucio cited.  Since TRP advocates self-improvement sometimes to detriment (chasing after alpha status, a toxic masculinity trap), and self-empowerment, there is no rule that RPT excludes other methods of growth.  Entry into it merely acknowledges reality and movement to a next stage of personal and social evolution.  Finding out there’s a problem doesn’t, by itself, resolve it.  If that was the case, psychotherapists would go broke.  After all, I hang around the red pill community to both keep my wits sharp and to help other men just as you, a reasonably psychological healthy person, want to help others who are beginning their evolutionary journey.

When Lucio says he observes where women were “oppressed” and doesn’t see it against men, well, that’s actually “evidence”, of sorts, of BPT (I know that this can be a rabbit hole of rational delusion, but give me some leeway here).  The ability to observe that someone is oppressed and to conceptualize it illustrates that person is humanized by society.  It’s when people and society are incapable of seeing oppression and dismiss the (non-victims) as “whiners” or “privileged” and even mocks them that makes it both real and unreal.  It’s a psychological paradox (which is why psychology is a fascinating field.)  It doesn’t help that actual oppressors engage in gas lighting projection to claim they’re the ones being marginalized.

In western societies, the single greatest element of “privilege” is the right to have one’s most minor grievances and “oppression” recognized and to deflect criticism by accusing ones’ critics as “privileged”.  Feminism was the original form of modern “identity politics” going back to the suffragist movement.

There certainly is oppression against men in non-feminized societies but it’s ubiquitous and even reasonable: Men who are poor or lack the ability to earn a living or defend themselves may be picked on by other men or dismissed by women.  One of the best privileges (young) women have, in nearly all societies, is easy access to have a family.  If she’s unattractive or poor, she may need to put more work in but (most) young men have to literally earn or retain a family.  One of the primary tenets of feminism was that family itself was a form of oppression to women which, see gas lighting above, allowed women to take something that’s a privilege and recast it as oppression.  It’s amusing that biological clock tickers who bought into this rationalization find themselves unable to have a relationship because they’ve pushed men away from “oppressing” them with love and children.

Red pill is a huge umbrella term for a huge community. Not every sub-community shares the same value. However, there are some shared core values:

  1. The society, social media, movie, and tv shows are promoting the blue-pill, provider style beta male
  2. If the male take the leadership role in a relationship, it will be better
  3. Women play games, and some of them are win-lose ones

There are also a lot of misunderstandings regarding red-pill. For one example, people may believe that red-pill male are angry haters. However, it is clear that the anger phase is only the initial phase of taking red-pill.

Many red-pill male even have the mindset or believe that most women are really nice to them, which is in fact the truth.

Lucio actually agree with the three common values mentioned above, so it might not be too wrong to say that his thoughts include a mild form of redpill.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.
Transitioned

Yes some RP guys do get stuck at anger.  One of the better posts at sosuave was the seven stages of the red pill.

Most eventually learn the nature of women and how to come to win win relationships. And you ll find at those moderate red pill sites most of the senior posters are married or in other LTRs.

Evolutionary biology explains why women play politics so viciously.  In their core programming it feels literally like life or death to them.

The argument that this is losers whining us also a blanket statement and so untrue.  Men actually created and maintain civilization so we re a bit busy to all be sitting around whining.  When a third wave feminist posts another angry diatribe from her phone she s doing it on tech designed by men using science discovere by men.  And that the top 10% of men get way more than the top ten of women is an RP idea.  Doesn't help the 90.

In terms of personal experience I had a friend who had a false claim of violence made against him and his wife who came into the relationship with nothing ended up getting what she wanted the apartment in town.

I've also worked in government a few times and for example we had a lady at our team get together say she thought women were better managers and all the guys went along with it or were silent.  It's in their eyes many disagreed but nobody would speak up that is a culture of intimidation.

I d say female shenanigans in the workplace created a large portion of the membership here.

 

Lucio Buffalmano and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmanoselffriend

I haven't replied to this thread so far, but I wanted to say a big thank to eveyrone for sharing their thoughts, it was very helpful.

Quote from polishknight on March 26, 2021, 3:52 pm

Hello Lucio.  I love your site and want to answer your question as respectfully, and thoughtfully, as I can.  Background: I’m an early adopter of red-pill thinking going back to the mid 1980’s and married with a lovely daughter.

The red pill itself is evidence of a gynocentric society and “female nature”.  Consider Lucio admitting he’s not “a big fan of it”.  The term “red pill” and “blue pill” refers to The Matrix paradigm where Neo is offered a choice to accept comfortable, but untrue, beliefs that will result in his oppression or to empower himself which will require painful personal growth and enlightenment.  After all, if enlightenment was easy and comfortable, wouldn’t most people be in a natural state of it?

There are costs to the red pill as Lucio has pointed out in his critique of it: To get treated better by (most!) women requires (most!) men to distance themselves emotionally from women including “disrespecting” them.  When we trust someone, we respect their capability to live up to their words and beliefs.  I appreciate Lucio’s philosophy of becoming a “leader” in society and that’s something I personally strive to live up to but it also requires being “the adult” in the room at times and acknowledging, if only to oneself, that the other person is fundamentally a child.  We don’t “trust” children.  That doesn’t mean we hate them.  (Imagine what I went through when my 4 year old was screaming in my ear as I comforted her and gently disciplined her.)

Note how I phrased it as (most!).  NAWALT applies in that there are women who don’t require this treatment, but they quickly get married and taken off the market so for all intents and purposes for (most) single men, they don’t apply.  If (most) women were the opposite, then BPT and/or rejecting TRP would be sufficient for (most) men to have satisfactory relationships with women and society.  About 30 years ago, there was a tipping point where most men were blue pill but getting by: Having a decent job and presenting women with attention and gifts and normal approaches would get the average man either married or nookie, depending upon which of those the woman wanted.  The nature of TRP encourages marriage avoidance since gynocentric society makes that expensive rather than an asset for men.  Like in The Matrix, BPT men tend to attack RPT men to gain a perceived advantage and status in society (“White Knights”)  Even back then, I went RP because I found BPT and social rewards to be insufficient for me.

Therefore, if men are increasingly attracted to TRP despite social condemnation including by BPT men, there has to be an essential truth to it.  (Most) men don’t go to the gym and endure boring and painful workouts for the fun of it, yes?

Yes, TRP has dangers but note that even in the community those are actively discussed as Lucio cited.  Since TRP advocates self-improvement sometimes to detriment (chasing after alpha status, a toxic masculinity trap), and self-empowerment, there is no rule that RPT excludes other methods of growth.  Entry into it merely acknowledges reality and movement to a next stage of personal and social evolution.  Finding out there’s a problem doesn’t, by itself, resolve it.  If that was the case, psychotherapists would go broke.  After all, I hang around the red pill community to both keep my wits sharp and to help other men just as you, a reasonably psychological healthy person, want to help others who are beginning their evolutionary journey.

When Lucio says he observes where women were “oppressed” and doesn’t see it against men, well, that’s actually “evidence”, of sorts, of BPT (I know that this can be a rabbit hole of rational delusion, but give me some leeway here).  The ability to observe that someone is oppressed and to conceptualize it illustrates that person is humanized by society.  It’s when people and society are incapable of seeing oppression and dismiss the (non-victims) as “whiners” or “privileged” and even mocks them that makes it both real and unreal.  It’s a psychological paradox (which is why psychology is a fascinating field.)  It doesn’t help that actual oppressors engage in gas lighting projection to claim they’re the ones being marginalized.

In western societies, the single greatest element of “privilege” is the right to have one’s most minor grievances and “oppression” recognized and to deflect criticism by accusing ones’ critics as “privileged”.  Feminism was the original form of modern “identity politics” going back to the suffragist movement.

There certainly is oppression against men in non-feminized societies but it’s ubiquitous and even reasonable: Men who are poor or lack the ability to earn a living or defend themselves may be picked on by other men or dismissed by women.  One of the best privileges (young) women have, in nearly all societies, is easy access to have a family.  If she’s unattractive or poor, she may need to put more work in but (most) young men have to literally earn or retain a family.  One of the primary tenets of feminism was that family itself was a form of oppression to women which, see gas lighting above, allowed women to take something that’s a privilege and recast it as oppression.  It’s amusing that biological clock tickers who bought into this rationalization find themselves unable to have a relationship because they’ve pushed men away from “oppressing” them with love and children.

Great post, Polishknight!
I largely agree with you.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Great post, Transitioned.

This part here:

Quote from Transitioned on March 27, 2021, 1:05 am

Men actually created and maintain civilization (...)  When a third wave feminist posts another angry diatribe from her phone she s doing it on tech designed by men using science discovere by men.

That's as politically incorrect, as it is true.

There is a twist though: one of the major reasons why men advanced civilization is because of women.
If there weren't women, probably most men wouldn't be nearly as driven.

There is post on that one:

This is not to deny the basic truth: men still created most of civilization.
Any attack or covert attack on men as a whole is not only stupid and gratuitous aggression, but also ill-conceived for failing to see and appreciate that basic truth.

ZenDancer has reacted to this post.
ZenDancer
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

"If there weren't women, probably most men wouldn't be nearly as driven."

That's Camille Paglia's argument (she probably got it from somewhere else) and there's some sense to it, but I have a broader view that transcends gender politics.  I have a narrative goes: Dog Civilization versus Cat Civilization.

Dog civilization was more egalitarian but poorer.  Dogs helped nomadic cultures hunt and protect themselves (cheap burglar alarms).  They could run along as the nomads moved from place to place.  People were poor, but equal.  Assets were few so wealth inequality was moot.  Denying nookie to the beta males would undermine their willingness to contribute to the collective.  "Noble Savage" living is all very romanticized and good except with humans living on the edge of starvation, raids to grab supplies to get through the winter (and heck, grab some of the women too) was common.  It was a tough life but fair(er).

When humans were settled in large numbers with agrarian economies, there was enough food to go for years to attract mice, hence the cats.  Cat Civilization meant that an average peasant could enjoy a life longer and more comfortable than that of a noble savage, but with much less freedom.  The entire structure of the civilization was founded to protect the wealth concentration of the rulers which is why government is so inefficient.  An inefficient state with multiple layers of bureaucracy and rigid command-control thinking is superior, to the elites, than a more dynamic one where they have to justify their status just like everyone else in dog culture.

The goal of the elites then is to disempower men as much as possible while still getting as much as they can out of them.  It's much like today which is surprising in that men are individually treated as disposable, and even with contempt (such as in the film "Falling Down") but yet as individuals, they cannot stand up to the massive social order and institutions.

You Can't Fight City Hall.

The largest threat to Cat Civilization is either collapse from within but more likely threats from exterior forces or a combination of the two.  To keep the serfs motivated, they had to have women as well as a share of other creature comforts.  There was a period of time when it wasn't 90:10 like on the dating apps but rather 1000:1 where nearly all the women were in harems but that quickly collapsed as the men in those cultures were so dominated that they didn't keep those civilizations going.  History repeats itself, eh?

There's a reason why the phrase "women and children first" has a catchy tune to it.  Feminists love it when the lifeboats are lowered but women and children were regarded as assets of the men who provided and protected them whether in cat or dog civilization.  Social status mattered greatly moreso in dog civilization since small tribes and clans allowed the women more political voice.  In Cat Civilization, except for a brief 200 year period in western liberal cultures, women largely had to follow along with what men said just as the children did.  If the men failed to provide, her and the children's ability to find someone else to support them was limited.

So it was a combination of men in the elite power structure that determined what happened with civilization while normal beta men were motivated to protect their women and children, but the women and children didn't have much say in how that went.

Note that most progress in civilization has occurred in the past 500 years as ordinary men got more rights up to the 19th century and therefore were motivated to work to join the middle class, a relatively new concept.

selffriend has reacted to this post.
selffriend
12