TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
New Old Top
Login or Register

581 - [TheRedPill] The Empress is Naked

[-] adam-l 67 Points 3 years ago

Thank you /u/redpillschool, for the review and the stickie.

It is truly an honor to get acknowledged by someone who's made such catalytic impact on the modern state of the War of the Sexes.

The book blog is TheEmpressIsNaked.wordpress.com, where you can check out some more excerpts, reader comments, and the contents.

There is no print version yet - but since you deem it useful for getting guys unplugged, I'll be working on it.

It has taken me three years to research and write the book - and this is in addition to being actively involved in (gender and other) politics for two decades. It is highly consolidated, and should give anyone a clear overview, as well as a deep understanding of the gender dynamics. Nonetheless, I've put a very low price tag because I want many men to read this - for the good of themselves, their fellow-men, their children, and society as a whole. If you guys fell it worthy, you can contribute by writing a review (even if it's only a couple of lines) on Amazon.

293 - [TheRedPill] The Female Hustle: Understanding Gold-Diggers, Prostitutes, and Female Sexual Strategies

[-] adam-l 62 Points 3 years ago

One of the absolute best articles I have read in here. Pragmatic, and free from moralistic wishful thinking.

Sticky this.

153 - [TheRedPill] [Open Discussion] What is the role of a red pill father in today's world?

[-] adam-l 54 Points 2 months ago

Putting aside the complexities of marriage...

You might as well have asked "Putting aside the lack of O2, how would you imagine life on Mars?"

But I get the idea. Let's suppose that you have a wife (or your child's mother) that is submissive, supports you, does not give you shit, and you are certain she won't someday kidnap your child or limit your interaction with it in any way.

What important roles do fathers fill that mothers cannot?

The father's role can be summarized in this: Showing the child how to interact with the world with a sense of security and adequacy.

Top priority for infants and small kids is to install into them a basic trust: "without risk there is no reward (pleasure)", as opposed to a basic mistrust of the world: "without risk there is no danger". This is accomplished by setting secure limits, within which the child can be free to explore. Women, by their opportunistic nature, cannot do that: they are prone to changing the "limits" based on their current emotional state, thus disorienting their children.

I will just note here that physical punishment, by its nature, breaks trust to the parent, and is the thing to do if you want to have scared kids, awed by the display of power. If a man finds a need to resort to physical punishment, it's a very clear indication that he has failed as a father anyway.

Setting limits also means pushing them. It's the father that has to have a sound judgement of where is enough. Mother has no clue, she's a child herself. Limit-setting, of course, has nothing to do with the caricature of the unyielding and unavailable traditional father. On the contrary, emotional availability is also a critical point for fathers.

Here's my controversial (so, valuable!) input: It's the father's, not the mother's role to acknowledge his child's feelings.

  • There is this notion that boys should be taught to ignore their feelings in order to accomplish things (i.e. their fear). This is probably the biggest bullshit traditionalism has offered the world. Every brave act you can remember doing and feel proud about, you were scared shitless, but decided that you had to do it anyway - and that's why you feel proud about it. If this feeling gets identified (and parental acknowledgement is the way to do it), you have a brave child. If not, you have either a crazy one, or a fool.

  • Mothers, being women, suffer from the incapacity to discern between what's objective, outside them, and subjective. Therefore, their "empathy" with the kid carries their own projections, expectations, fears. Motherly mirroring is a tool to sculpt their kids in ways that serve the mother's interests. It is the analog of a fat mother putting her thin daughter on diet, thereby instilling bulimia in her, as a way to externalize her (the mother's) problem, observe it, and try to solve it on someone else's expense.

So, empathic training, i.e. emotional training, is not disconnected from the external world, and is something that fathers have to do.

/u/Archwinger once wrote that what mothers are good at doing unattended is: taking care of the children for a limited period of time. I agree. That's it. All that's important, all growing and balance in the child's life comes from the father. A good mother is one that is keen on following the father's frame.

And finally, does today's cultural climate allow for this father to exist?

Supposing you find a mother that is dependable, I do believe there is ample opportunity for effecting fathering. Parents do play decisive role in where their children end up. TV, social media etc are big influences, but you do have about 12 years to instill the core of a sound psychology in your children.

416 - [TheRedPill] By the Time You've Had 'the talk', She's Already Packed and Planned Her Exit

[-] adam-l 52 Points 3 years ago

Getting "The Talk" from your girlfriend is actually great for you. Sure, you've lost her. You are perceived as beta, and are being shit-tested with nuclears. But it is a great reminder never to invest on a woman.

So, she is leaving you, and you will be lonely. Big fucking deal. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, feel lucky. See it this way: if this didn't happen now, imagine her as the mother of your children, doing the exact same thing, while taking your kids away too. See how lucky you are now?

There is nothing like hard, cold experience to hammer a counter-intuitive reality into your brain. Will she ever respect you again, see you as "alpha", get tingles from you? Maybe. Maybe not. She has done you a great service, though: she has irrevocably shown you that she can never be the mother of your children. She has forever lost that "right", that prospect. (Don't be an idiot, though, never tell her that.) She is not to be invested into - no woman is.

Many a "natural alpha" end up domesticated beta providers, because, being "alpha", never had the chance to see this side of woman's fickleness early enough. You had that chance. Be grateful.

-Adam

Bonus for married guys: Dread Game from a female psychologist: How to prevent a divorce - The Last Resort Technique

422 - [TheRedPill] The Friendship Myth

[-] adam-l 50 Points about a year ago

forged by ... manly behavior

This.

Friendship, or as a famed psychologist prefers to put it, buddyship, is forged in common struggle. Most men, at least in the West, don't do any struggle at all - let alone a common one. As many have commented, it is quite unlikely to find a buddy from "hobbies". You need to care about smthg, and get deeply involved - and find other common minded people. Again, most people today don't really care about anything, they just live their life in a haze.

327 - [TheRedPill] All Women Lie About Rape - PART ONE

[-] adam-l 45 Points 2 years ago

There is the case of men, generally, protecting women. But this is not the whole picture - and I believe it is not the main picture, either. It is the elite protecting women. (Btw, I hate the term "the elite", because it has positive, kind of wondrous connotations, while they are essentially a distillation of the world's greatest scum).

So if one man decides to stop playing along, that's no problem. He'd probably run into one chivalrous white knight, maybe two, or three, brave protectors of woman, before the police comes. But if, say, as few as 10 men decide to stop playing along collectively, there is nothing to stop them, even in a big city center, other than the organized use of force by the state.

Allow me to use two paragraphs from my book.

The degree of protection provided by the ruling class to women is highlighted in the following historical example, cited by feminist Silvia Federici, where this protection is negated. Around the 14th-15th century, the constant uprisings and the militancy of the lower classes had come to threaten the power of the ruling class. It was the “golden age of the European proletariat” which led to the abolition of serfdom. Naturally, the first thing demanded by the poor men when they were to leave poverty behind, was sex. They were no longer willing to remain celibate while the ruling class enjoyed all the women, either as wives or as “maids”. A sexual outlet was initially afforded them through the “institutionalization of prostitution, implemented through the opening of municipal brothels soon proliferating throughout Europe”. But this was not enough. In France and in Venice, under the obsessive fear of the rich against popular uprisings, and due to their belief that “if the poor gained the upper hand they would take their wives and hold them in common”, “the municipal authorities practically decriminalized rape, provided the victims were women of the lower class”. As a result,

“the gang-rape of proletarian women became a common practice which the perpetrators would carry out openly and loudly at night, in groups of two to fifteen, breaking into their victims' homes, or dragging their victims through the streets, without any attempt to hide or disguise themselves. Those who engaged in these “sports” were young journeymen or domestic servants, and the penniless sons of well-to-do families, while the women targeted were poor girls, working as maids or washerwomen, of whom it was rumored that they were “kept” by their masters... On average half of the town male youth, at some point, engaged in these assaults, which Rossiaud describes as a form of class protest, a means for proletarian men – who were forced to postpone marriage for many years because of their economic conditions – to get back 'their own,' and take revenge against the rich.”

Now, a point that is beginning to emerge in evolutionary psychology, is that resources was probably not the most important thing that individual men provided to women. It probably was protection. So, the overturning of the pre-historic balance of the sexes started to happen by the time the "elite" could organize such state structures that would provide women with free protection - using the taxes on men's labor to sustain the forces responsible for it.

This is a very critical point in the gender dynamics. As an example, take war: it is a higher level of conflict between countries, and its results (e.g. land occupation) cannot be resolved by economic means alone, since the economic means correspond to a lower level of conflict. Similarly, there is a centralization of the use of legalized violence, in the hands of the "elite", and they use it to provide protection to women. This unbalances the gender dynamics, and there can be no balancing it with other means - other than abolishing the "elite" 's power.

228 - [TheRedPill] Thugs exist because women fuck thugs

[-] adam-l 32 Points 3 years ago

Your post suggests (if not outright declares) that men are indeed violent and aggressive, and that this has been hardwired in their bio-psychology. This opinion capitulates to the feminist propaganda, which you denounce. I wouldn't have a problem with what you write if you limited the explanation of why we observe more aggression in men to the pressure due to women's preference for dominance. But to accept that violence and aggression has become a biological trait, is not scientifically valid.

What you have missed is that the degree of violence that we have come to accept as normal for humans, as well as the female domination on the sexual marketplace, is a recent development, counting not millions, but 10,000 or maximum 20,000 years. This time frame is too short for basic psychological traits to change. For instance, no serious scientist supports that after only 10,000 years humans have adapted to monogamy. Why would we support that men have biologically adapted to higher levels of violence?

There is, of course, capacity for violence and aggression in men. In women too. But we must have in mind that during the human evolutionary period, when humans lived in closely knit tribes of 50-150 persons, violence and aggression was discouraged, and, due to the tight social control, was a losing strategy.

The fact that it has become normal in the past few thousand years, is a testament to how un-human the female reproductive strategy is, when left unchecked.

So, don't accept and don't reproduce female propaganda. Men are kind, loving, honorable, insightful creatures. They only become violent and power-lusting jerks (and not all of them) in an environment where females are free and protected to implement their reproductive strategy.

-Adam

60 - [TheRedPill] Musings On The Fiasco Of "Affluenza Boy"

[-] adam-l 30 Points 3 years ago

I've been considering writing a piece about how much of what is though to be "female" nature, is in fact the nature of the privileged.

  • No sense of honor

  • High psychopathy

  • Greediness

  • etc.

Hypergamy aside, I'd estimate that "female" traits are roughly speaking about 80% due to their dominant social position and only about 20% due to their biology.

445 - [TheRedPill] Vasalgel Donation Pledge

[-] adam-l 30 Points 3 years ago

Men's Rights stickied it too.

Nice to see TRP and Men's Rights joining efforts in this!

228 - [TheRedPill] She's Your Woman Not Your Friend

[-] adam-l 30 Points 3 years ago

Also, a friend is someone who is really glad you banged that new hot girl. Would your woman ever do that?

581 - [TheRedPill] The Empress is Naked

[-] adam-l 26 Points 3 years ago

Validation matters. Get as much internally as you can, but structure positive interactions to avoid social isolation. Weekly poker game, or music session. Happy Hour with the guys. Stroke each other actively because it won't happen passively.

Sage advice.

Meet up with four friends, twice a week, to keep mentally healthy, found Robin Dunbar.

581 - [TheRedPill] The Empress is Naked

[-] adam-l 26 Points 3 years ago

Male homosexuality was one thing in ancient Athens. More important, though, were brothels.

Athens was perhaps unique in the ancient world, because they had managed to get female sexuality checked. Here's how:

Athenian Democracy as an Exception

According to Claudine Leduc, a feminist who studied ancient Athens, “Women were the chief victims of the invention of democracy”362.

“Leduc makes the very interesting point that it was in the more socially conservative city-states, such as Sparta and Gortyn, that women could be citizens and own property in their own right;... In Athens, which was socially more innovative and inclusive with respect to male foreigners, the locus of citizenship remained the (male-headed) household, and women passed from father's to husband's household, treated not so much like chattels as like children.”363

The superior social position of the woman in the authoritarian regime of Sparta, compared to Athenian democracy, is not a paradox. Athenian democracy was the victory of the free citizens against the oligarchy. Since women always had special relationships with the ruling class, restricting the power of the aristocracy and restricting the power of women went hand in hand. This does not mean that the position of women in Athens was worse than the position of men, it just was not so blatantly better, as in Sparta.

As shown above, women's power is based in their sexual superiority and their control over reproduction. Athenian democracy targeted these two areas. Of all the measures taken by Solon, who is considered the founder of Athenian democracy, perhaps the most important was that he filled Athens with good and cheap brothels.

“At some point during his career, Solon perceives that too many married men are plunging heedlessly into too many adulterous liaisons with questionable characters of either sex – it’s not the adultery that bothers him, it’s the heedlessness – which seems to be causing family chaos. The antidote to chaos is order, and that’s just what Solon creates in the extramarital universe. Deciding that domestic life would improve if men’s needs for casual sex could be met cleanly, safely, efficiently, and without fuss, he develops a network of whorehouses stocked with male and female slaves, known as concubines. Although Solon’s brainstorm may or may not improve Athenian family life, the brothel business soon becomes an indispensable accessory to sexual life. It suits the Athenian government, which profits from men’s patronage. It suits the patrons, who can be good citizens and please themselves at the same time. And because it simplifies – clarifies – men’s relations with women, it suits the prevailing aesthetic. What is current practice for the Israelites would be anathema for the Athenians, with their apparent distaste for emotional and domestic sturm und drang. Multiple bedmates, definitely; multiple wives, no way.

… If it works half as well as it sounds, the Athenians win the gold medal for wife control in the Western Olympics, twenty-five centuries running. Among the champions is Demosthenes, the orator who famously summarizes the code about two hundred years after Solon establishes prostitution: “We keep hetaera for our delight, concubines for the daily needs of our bodies, wives so that we may breed legitimate children and have faithful housekeepers.”

Maybe this is why the men of Athens are so productive. With their sexual needs identified, compartmentalized, and fulfilled by a dedicated service team assigned to each one, they can be laser-focused on the work that turns the classical age into a golden one.”364

Women didn't have it so bad in Athens: they had a dowry, protection, and if they wanted they could be educated and live an independent life as heterae. “As long ago as ancient Athens it is possible to find cases in which men, but not women, were put on trial and punished for adultery.”365 As was always the case in historic societies, it was just easier to live a life free from responsibilitiy.

The waiver on the part of women of adult personhood was related with the wide-spread homosexual relations of the ancient world. There were not so many real women to fall in love with, so the only real persons available were other men.

The notion that women were “victims of democracy” can only be understood as an anachronism, as the view of a modern bourgeois, for whom “oppression” seems a bigger problem than hunger and war – precisely because she has never come close to either. It was infinitely preferable to be a woman in Athens than a man in Sparta, where you were a soldier from 7 to 60, i.e. practically all your life. “[S]o crass was the contrast between the “Spartan” life of men and the luxurious ways of women that Aristotle blamed it for the city's decline”366. In fact it was better to be a woman in Athens than a man in Athens too, as the male “privileges” and civic participation were paid for with the obligation to go to war, which was not a rare occurrence, a thing which feminist historians tend to forget or deem an irrelevant detail.

And, of course, if we extend our discussion to the tens of thousands of slaves on whom the economy was based and who numerically outnumbered the free citizens367, the advantage of being a woman becomes glaring: instead of working in the Laurium mines368, were life was brutal and short, you worked in the house, and you often became the mother of your owner's child, with all the privileges this entailed.

It is tempting to say that women were so much “victims of democracy” as were aristocrats – that is, as much as they should be. In reality, both of them were much less so.

186 - [TheRedPill] The Thing You Really Want

[-] adam-l 25 Points 7 months ago

Getting to the point where you have girls lusting after you is necessary, for a man. Whether it is sufficient, i.e. it makes you feel fulfilled, is another issue.

For some men, it is sufficient. I tend to think these are mostly men with a power lust, which is essentially a chronic feeling of powerlessness.

(Hopefully) more often, when you do get enough female passion, you start focusing on other things. It allows you to become creative - and puts you on the road to self-actualization. I don't know if the word sounds too vague or undefined or something, but, ultimately, there is no escaping it: that is man's deepest motive, to realize the full of his potential.

155 - [TheRedPill] Alpha vs Beta sex: their evolutionary origins. A very disturbing theory.

[-] adam-l 23 Points 3 months ago

Get friends for intimacy. Women are for fucking.

327 - [TheRedPill] All Women Lie About Rape - PART ONE

[-] adam-l 23 Points 2 years ago

This is an astute observation. She wouldn't need a gun, either. A pepper spray, or a blade, or a bat, or even a good stone, would do. Since the invention of weapons, hundreds of thousands of years ago, women are not defenseless.

It is true that men have a greater strength, that allows them to hurt women. My personal opinion is that exactly this, the need to be able to physically overwhelm women, is what made men stronger in the first place, evolutionary speaking - and not fighting bears.

Nevertheless, it is not men's strength, that women are afraid of, per se. It is their propensity to "say fuck it" and snap. For women it is a completely incomprehensible behavior. Women would never do it - because they never needed to. No woman was ever desperate for sex ("sex" in general, since sex with a particular high-value man is another issue). They are totally oblivious to the state of mind that a continuous social scorn, along with a chronic sex deprivation, creates in a man.

Load More