Something I've noticed ever since I first listened to Jordan Peterson is he's careful with his words. I believe Peterson has a deeper understanding of female psychology than he dares pour into words. I see this segment of one of his latest videos as evidence:
Jordan Peterson - Men Can't Control Crazy Women
The message: Men need to defend themselves against women. To put it in JBP's words: "Men are going to need to stand up for themselves."
He's addressing the general political situation. But the general political situation, isn't merely political, isn't it? Political ideologies in modern times have intertwined with everyday life to an extent that I believe humans have never experienced as strongly as today.
We all know that the feminist movement, probably the most potentially dangerous and largest section of the current political climate, has infected present and past few generations enough so, that we can easily encounter atrocious examples of its psychological influences on women and men in our everyday lives. The ideology is based on false pretenses accepted as axioms with little to no actual scientific theory backing them. Like an epidemic, the ideology (which actually started out as a noble cause) accumulated several other ideas and ideologies, which have since integrated and evolved into what has become the main narrative of the modern social theater.
There exist too many examples of certain women - fallen too deep into feminist delusion - who will escalate situations to measures that I can not find any other word to describe with than "uncivil." These women will put up scenes you wouldn't believe, with different acts switching between the damsel in distress and independent woman. Many times they easily escalate to physical violence thinking nothing can possibly happen to them. And how true! They get away with most acts of violence, up until the point they meet a man who can actually stand up for himself or the victims suffering from the woman's upheaval. The chances of this happening is of course extremely rare.
The problem is: men let women escalate to such measures. Instead of needing to resolve to violent counter-measures, men should learn to detach problematic women from their sexuality, and learn to control out-of-hand situations with frame. This detachment, I believe, is the closest actual solution to what Peterson explains as the absence of an underlying threat of physical violence between two males in an argument. A man has to consciously, if he's not in an abundance of sexual gratification, put aside his urge to please the problematic woman. A man entering social situations deliberately neglecting his sexuality, can very easily learn how easily women can be controlled with assertive dominance (disproving exceptions are scarce). Successful acts of dominance will return back to sexuality, but that is a different matter, for a different conversation. Dominance does not need violence to be reassured or attained. But without exception, real dominance needs to be practiced and earned through self-improvement. It is much harder to attain than just achieving physical prowess and the ability to act violent at certain times.
These circumstances lead to another problem though. To this problem I don't believe there is a solution, or if there is one, I haven't the slightest clue what that could be. Take it this way: for all the eternity of our biological existence we have been organizing ourselves in hierarchies. In these hierarchies only a select few take the highest, or let's say high-enough positions. These positions are the most rewarding in many ways, but also, as mentioned before, the hardest and riskiest to earn. Only the leaders of organized hierarchies have a deep enough understanding of how to influence other members of the social structures. This understanding is partly how they reached their position, and partly how they hold on to it. If only this select few can actually influence people, how will the increasingly growing number of crazy women be tamed down, before it becomes too late?
connectalllthedots 6y ago
I wrote a blog post defending Peterson's 'disagreeable' comments from a left-leaning feminist perspective, for what its worth: https://solvealltheproblems.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/why-the-left-should-embrace-jordan-peterson/
0xdada 6y ago
Crazy women are powerless against strong male friendships and a male peer group that values male friendship.
If you have a social group where guys form a perimeter of bro's, with women who come and go from it, it creates a natural abundance mentality where crazy chicks can't get a toehold.
I see this happen to guys all the time. If you have guys who do not hold male friendship to be high virtue or value, you have guys who can be a woman's "friend," which makes the group vulnerable to a crazy women spinning him up with malicious gossip and enlisting him as a white knight to stir shit with individual group members that puts her at the center of it.
She doesn't care what the drama is, so long as she is in the middle of the excitement. A lot of seemingly "normal," women do this when they get bored.
Usually, a crazy chick will isolate a guy from his group, create some kind of drama that puts her in the middle of it, and then add people (women and white knights) to come to her "defence." With the outraged crowd assembled, she gives the ultimatum to the guy of conceding to whatever she wants (commitment, orbiter status, introductions to higher status groups, etc.) or face expulsion from the assembled group and potential white knight consequences.
From a TRP perspective, holding frame in the first place prevents you from getting sucked into a crazy lady orbit. If you see an orbiter following a girl around, he's not your friend, he might as well be a zombie.
Form strong male networks and make sure everyone understands preservation of the network is a valuable end in itself.
waldo888 6y ago
It's s common though especially as you get into your later twenties as your friendships take more time apart due to family and work commitments. Then its a fucking slippery slope, first couple years she can maintain the façade...three four years go by and the guy has started slideing down the slippery slope, by the time you get your friends together to finally say something....his balls are in her pocket....This shit is so common and its so fucking sad to watch your friends become total emasuladed fools. They aren't a man you can EVER trust in these situations and unless they wake the fuck up you are going to lose a friend or a family member...Cunts.
pellrid 6y ago
This is what should be promoted. Not bullshit relationships like what they feed men on television; Big Bang Theory, or some other shitty movie thing, or internet things.
I don't have the means to produce content like this anytime soon. I know there are some youtube channels with bodybuilders doing stuff, but that isn't enough.
What I'm trying to get across is: most people consume media like there's no tomorrow. What's in the mainstream is pretty much bowing down to the female imperative, which is becoming more and more disgusting. And I think one major part of the solution would be to bring back some of that old, a bit more traditional point of view into everyday life. Have a man take responsibility for his and his families lives, because that's what a man wants, have a woman make that man happy, by taking family matters into hand, tending to the man's house, etc. because that's what a woman wants. Women themselves actually love doing these sort of things, yet you can't say it's genetic, because you'll get scorned. And there are millions of examples of women just not caring enough for careers after trying at one. They resolve to family thinking, just when it's too late for them.
I think the last part became a bit of a rant, but I'm not going to do any editing, so I can get on with my life.
[deleted]
BreakingRed_ 6y ago
Most of us were that guy before TRP though, so the odds of finding a group that does it differently is slim. Also, the male-only groups I used to be usually started bending a knee to ANY pussy, because "having a girl with us is better than being a sausagefest", and there are still those thirsty enough who'd settle with having a perceived chance of fucking a crazy chick than no chance.
TunedtoPerfection 6y ago
Yup, this is what my ex started to do when I wouldn't agree to instantly move out after I broke it off with her. Created a bunch of bullshit drama with all connected friends to get victim status and consoled. Made me into basically the devil incarnate and her the virgin Mary. Problem was I bounced out 2 weeks into her forming her posse. After I left and went no contact everyone started to wonder why the "most abusive boyfriend she ever had" would just leave like that no contact. Usually abusers hold one to validation sources as long as they can. Now one by one I get the facebook messages from those same white knights trying to rekindle a friendship.
This type of behavior is rampant when groups of men treat groups of women as better. My whole last living situation, in hindsight, was horrid. The women would drink extremely excessively on their husbands of other guys dime, get very confrontational sometimes to violence, start drama to get consoled. The single ones would just ramp up the married and in relationship ones about all the shit their SO wasn't doing for them. Every gathering had 2 weeks of drama that followed it, usually overlapping with the last weeks drama. It was just one big circle jerk for the women to get validation. The men as fake alpha as they wanted to seem, just beta bitches that took it left right and center.
As for me, I look back and now know I should have left a year ago when I started to see it happening. Life and learn
pellrid 6y ago
A great example of how women getting increasingly crazy are running about.
Good luck and good work with your future ventures.
Ruhkov 6y ago
Lmao. This. Same thing happened to me. I was no angel but I didn't air my dirty laundry for everyone to see and I didn't twist events or words to win support. I also left no contact with everyone turned against me and I wish I left sooner. Every other person in a similar situation should not make the same mistake and leave before any crazy shit happens.
kelvin_condensate 6y ago
The utility of such networks is unwarranted if you have proper frame. The only utility such a network provides is given to a 'friend' that doesn't appreciate your efforts. They will fight you every step of the way while you waste time trying to convince them to move on from a girl that they 'love.'
Men don't form pseudo-networks with other men to protect themselves from crazy bitches. Men form friendships with other men because we are capable of discussing things beyond that of which can exist among male-females.
pellrid 6y ago
He's talking about a solution to the problem I asked about.
You have to agree with the point, that he's making. If men value their companionship with other men too much to care for ill-mannered female behavior, the exact issue of women trying to catch attention - no matter the kind - will be taken from them.
majorbollocks 6y ago
So much THIS! I even had a chick who wants my dick tell me how her orbiter has been trying to cockblock me for the past year or so by spreading rumors about me. Of course what he didn't realise is that by being a bitch, it actually lowers her attraction to him.
Plus it's all for nothing because the girl in question was talking about how he's "one of those guys who expects something in return for being nice".
To top it off she asked me to invite the dude over, and when he came over she chastised him in front of me and then proceeded to let me fondle her boobs in front of him.
Lesson 1: Betas are women in men's clothing. Lesson 2: Never EVER let women see you as a weakling. Cause by all that is holy they will fucking punish you for it..
pellrid 6y ago
Women are frustrating sometimes, but they're really just harmless, and can be handled easily. I love the analogy we use: they're just children. Because you really can't take children seriously, neither can you take a woman's fit seriously.
The lowest of the lowest betas are the ones that fucking make me lose my mind. It's best to leave them be, or bite them where everyone can see, so they go home and do some keyboard karate somewhere on the internet, and imagine your ass getting kicked. This way at least they get the fuck out of my way.
empatheticapathetic 6y ago
Show me such male groups. I've been searching for them my entire life only to be constantly disappointed.
[deleted] 6y ago
I'm with you there. Many guys I befriend are willing to give up their lives at the sniff of a pussy, even a not so cute pussy.
0xdada 6y ago
Male groups form around things that have a physical hierarchy of skill and a bar of minimum investment. Women can do these things, but since the hierarchy is based on valuable skills that contribute to the group, not relationships, and they aren't glamorized, they drop off fast in majority male groups.
The reason it sounds like a bunch of old white dude stuff is that our forefathers invented it all to get away from our wives.
empatheticapathetic 6y ago
I'll get into one of these. It's always been musicians circle for me but we're all older, don't give a fuck anymore and most of them are in LTRs.
FirstNamesMusic 6y ago
Join a sports team. Usually some of guys there like that. Though as I get older more betas are coming in. Maybe it's culture idk
empatheticapathetic 6y ago
Yeah that's a good idea tbh. Not my usual circle
7thAnvil 6y ago
You have to build your own male group. I have a core of 3 fully red pilled friends - friends I introduced to TRP - I also have 4 or 5 more or less purple pilled second tier friends. Although the purples are well aware the we never ever compete against each other for female attention - and we won't let females interfere with our friendship. It takes time but it is SO worth it. Just one red pilled friend and I can dominate most social situations. All three of us together and we are almost unstoppable - it's like we suck all of the female attention out of the room and into ourselves. It's super powerful. Build those friendships over the long haul gentlemen.
empatheticapathetic 6y ago
I've built many friendships over my life but unfortunately they've all revealed themselves to be blue/purple pillers over time. As much as I thought one or two might be red, they're all snakes in the end. No honour or dignity. It's a life lesson.
ThrowFader 6y ago
Don't tolerate the presence of blue pill shit in your inner circle. Purple pill meh.
Lone wolf if you have to, but build your friend circle with similar interest and world view people. If you can't find such, stay committed to yourself. You don't need friends you are a man.
BreakingRed_ 6y ago
Even if you go strictly utilitarian you need them to network.
ThrowFader 6y ago
Indeed, but blue pill should never be around you intimately.
They say your closest friends reveal who you are.
[deleted]
Ruhkov 6y ago
lmao who the fuck is downvoting this you petty pussy
I agree with what you're saying but having female friends is not a bad thing. Just because you have a friend who is friends with a chick doesn't make him a zombie but the orbiter status could very well lead to some drama depending on his mental state.
[deleted]
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
It didn't start out as a noble cause.
At a time when women had to be supported by men in order to further their own genetic interests, women cried out for freedom in the workplace, and freedom from the "oppression" of marriage.
At least this is what we're told.
Here's the reality:
It's called feminism, not equalism. The clue is in the name, right there in front of you.
Over the next 100 years feminism came to be the constant "more for women" under a pretence of equality. But it was only equality of outcome, and only in areas that benefitted women. In other words - guaranteed stem jobs, but with no equivalent guarantees for men in areas where the female had the most privilege.
Sexual equality being the greatest lie of all. "Don't slut shame us and you'll have more sex", is simply to enable her AF/BB strategy. Keep quiet about her fucking Chad, so that billy beta is more likely to marry her. Most men have seen a DECREASE in sex over the last few decades as women increasingly fuck the top 10% at the expense of the rest.
Women have an inbuilt victim complex, which is why they have complained about oppression throughout the generations. Why do they have this complex? Simple, men have white knight protective instincts. Women have evolved (genetically and socially) to take advantage of male protective instincts to further her goals. The lie of the patriarchy is used to get men on side to battle other men under the guise of progress ("don't be a dinosaur, get with the times billy and protect me from the oppression of not having a top 1% stem job").
Yes, walk away. It's that simple. The first sniff of crazy, you walk.
It happens gradually. Nip it off in the bud. Don't think "it's not that bad". She's crazier than she seems, always. LEARN TO WALK AWAY FROM CRAZY.
No matter how good the sex is.
pellrid 6y ago
Yeah, feminism did start out as an aim to let women work and vote, and other basic rights, which I agree with happening. Let women have those rights, not every woman wants to have children and families. A minority, but still an existing portion. Also, countries having these rights for women tend to do much better economically than countries that don't. I'm thinking there's a connection.
But true, feminism rapidly began evolving into the monstrosity you described in your comment.
Walking away does not solve the problem. She will go on and terrorize someone else for the sake of it. Not until she gets some form of retribution. That's why I think the situation has to be taken under control.
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Feminism is, and always has been, a female supremacy movement.
You've been brainwashed. This is like trickle-down economics. Benefit women and men benefit too!
Look, I'm all in favour of equal rights. Equal rights for everyone. Women get more rights every year, men's rights stay the same or go backwards.
The law courts are anti-male. The "family courts" are anti-male. College is anti-male. Women get so-called positive discrimination at every stage.
Men are relentlessly attacked and criticised in the media. Open up any major news site, and you'll see women complaining about men - based on the flimsiest of evidence. There is never any criticism of women in general or of female behaviour. Anything that a woman does wrong is held up as a rare example, and a man is usually blamed anyway.
You can't control it though. You cannot enact any retribution against her and have her care or change. She'll just blame you and claim victimhood. And her friends and the law will be on her side.
pellrid 6y ago
I agree it has been that way and still is. But not in the first instance. The first was to gain economical equality. Nothing else. They didn't yet talk about other "equalities." They never talked about wanting to go to war with men. So in a way, of course it never was real equality. But who the fuck wants women in combat anyways, or to do work that endangers their lives? When men see a woman genuinely suffering, they instinctively feel the need to help her. This distracts them from their priorities, it can fuck up an entire mission for example. Nobody really wants them to join the dangerous workforce, even when it's brought up as a point to argue some issues.
There was a time the issue was women wanted to work if they needed to, and wanted to have a say in politics. - You can question how well that has turned out. I think for a time it worked well, back when family still meant a thing. Today, maybe there are things to consider about voting rights, or rather the surroundings.
My line of thinking isn't "benefit women and men benefit too," I'm strictly speaking of the economic benefits of having women in the workplace. Many women are excellent workers, businesswomen, etc. What these women are doing, is actually benefiting the economy and thus society as a whole. You can't disregard that work as meaningless. I understand there's another side to this coin - and that many women enjoy benefits of government provided bullshit workplaces that do not benefit anyone in any way at all (actually causes harm). But that's part of a problem we're trying to address here, aren't we?
And to your last paragraph: She can't claim victimhood if she is generally treated that way. I understand that what you're saying is the present situation. And that's the exact thing I'm trying to discuss. There needs to be a way to educate average ranking men, that women cannot act this way just because they're women.
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Economic equality.... while being supported by men. They never dissolved the marriage contract, they demanded workplace equality. But never started to offer to pay on dates. No sexual equality. No parental equality.
Can you see that demanding equality in one area only, while denying men equality in any other area, is nothing more than an unequal power play?
Women got their workplace equal pay.... and STILL complain about it. They still push the 77 cents on the dollar myth. Obama famously made a speech that included it.
Men 20-25 are paid LESS than women. This is seen as a positive result, not a problem.
Noone, which is why the equality thing doesn't add up.
As always, it's equality with special treatment. They demand pay as equals, but don't face the same dangers.
They're getting the best of both worlds... equality AND special treatment. And men get it in the neck both ways: prejudiced against AND criticised. We are harder working and more productive than women, yet the benefits of that go to women. Both in the workplace and outside it. Because "equality".
Up to a point. They're overpaid for their work output though. Women are less productive (research The Productivity Gap), get paid more (young people) or the same (everyone else). They have more job security.
Noone has said that, not sure where this is coming from.
Yes, there should be a way to tell most men the reality of the world, that paying will cost them not benefit them, and not to let women get away with all this stuff.
It's called The Red Pill, and the world hates us.
The world hates us for one very simple specific reason: men and women alike support and defend women and their mating strategies - regardless of morality.
nofilmynofucky 6y ago
true words man. The 2 most sexually satisfying partners I've had were also 2 of the absolute worst head cases I've ever met
[deleted] 6y ago
Just in case some lurker is jumping past this comment cause it is long, fucking read it. For every 1 man actually accepting "It's not that bad. It will be fine" is going to fuck you over and has to be hardcore avoided there are atleast 20 men going to be complaing about not having listened to the truth provided by MattyAnon after they were screwed over REALLY FUCKING BAD.
Ruhkov 6y ago
To be fair... women were little more than chattal in western society for a good long time. Widows were fucked. Contemporary middle eastern and eastern women enjoyed much more protections under the law and for a while it was limited to being guaranteed protection by a male head of household. In medieval courts women didnply their wiles but everyone was politicking in the same way. Contemporary eastern women enjoyed the most protections. Feminism was about equality. This shouldn't be forgotten. After all, we're after the truth.
The issue is what equality are women asking for today. The issue is that while it's nice to stand for equality, men have very legitimate concerns which are overlooked and come second to issues that pertain to women specifically, rendering the feminist label only thinly about equality and de facto for women only. Where is the debilitating and ptsd causing sexism? I don't know if it exists in our society. I see plenty of support and empathy for girls and women. I don't see the same support and empathy for boys and men.
Beyond that, yes, if you can't maintain your frame and cool with a female and it's getting out of hand, you should walk away. Leave. Dont sacrifice your mental health. Don't look back. Things are stacked against you and you will get raped. Don't stick your dick in crazy.
[deleted] 6y ago
To be fair? I’ll rather be the widow than the working class guy sent to die in wars. If you weren’t a land owning male you had no right to vote either, your life is seen as more worthless than a woman’s. The system wasn’t perfect for women but it damn well benefited them. If you had a time travel machine and went back 150 years and told a woman she needs to be strong and independent and go work in a coal mine she would’ve laughed in your face.
Ruhkov 6y ago
You know I think you're right.
[deleted] 6y ago
No, it always was about getting a better deal for women. Equality achieved through improving the life of women. But never did they look a second at changing advantages they had - or disadvantages which they haven't had.
pellrid 6y ago
It was. But the first time they wanted it better for themselves, is actually what could be called equality.
The problem is they, unlike the way men do, always want it better for themselves, so they never hopped off that ride.
[deleted] 6y ago
Also no. It was about getting a better deal. It was going towards equality, but they didn't do it for equality AT ALL. Or where wanted the feminists from the first generation go to war? It might have moved it towards a more equal ground, but it never was about equality. Equality always was the justificationpellrid 6y ago
I realize that I have replied to you in another of your comments.
But here too. I'm agreeing with you, and you argue with me? What's up dude?
[deleted] 6y ago
Gonna be honest i kinda misread your comment there. So yeah, that one was my bad.
Ruhkov 6y ago
Okay. I don't want to get drawn into semantics here. But sure, it was about getting a better deal for women until they reached equality with men. The distinction I was trying to add is that today the issue is what does more equality for women look like? Like what the fuck was Emma Watson asking for in front of the UN? I don't know the answer to that and I see inequality for men.
[deleted] 6y ago
I get your point, but your very belief is wrong from the start. It always was and is "Get a better deal for women". Equallity was a justification to influence men. If equallity is achieved, make the deal even better and better and better. They won't stop. Their ideology isn't rational. They create problems where there are none to keep going. Equallity is a justification, not their goal.
Ruhkov 6y ago
I don't think we disagree. I think my point is that it's time the feminist movement put its money where its mouth is with the equality label and that they should be championing the inequality that males face in the system or admit that their movement is only for women and not men and women. I think women are already at the point where "equality is achieved" so I really don't understand what more they're asking for at this point.
A quick point to rage about.. legit the one of the reasonings that feminism is for both genders is that feminism seeks to free boys from the masculine expectations of society like what the fuck is that delusional shit. I don't share the feminist hate that the right wing and rpers have but this pisses me off to no end, I've legit gotten into arguments with women about it. Like they don't want to address divorce rape but they're concerned with telling boys it's okay to cry and be effeminate. What the fuck is wrong with that shit? Does no one in their own movement think that there's something seriously warped in those priorities? If I had a son and anyone tried free him from the masculine expectations oh boy would there be some serious fucking words going down. Like a bull in a china shop. Even if my son were flaming homo or trans-whatever I'd love him and be cool as hell with him but never would I let anyone teach my son to reject masculinity during adolescence.
[deleted] 6y ago
Wrong person to discuss this point with. For me the strongest man to be is actually free from masculine expectation. He is free from ALL BUT HIS OWN expectations. He falls, hurts his knee, cries like a bitch, gets up, spits on the ground, continues running.
The feminists however only seek to replace masculine expectations with their expectations of how men should be. They replace the chains, they aint freeing any man.
Ruhkov 6y ago
Interesting. See to me what you described is the masculine expectation. Captain of his own ship.
Your second part is literally how it comes across. How are people not outraged by that shit? Won't acknowledge divorce rape as a primary issue but our boys are gonna be effeminized? I really hope I understand that wrong. Maybe some feminist or bp can enlighten me because I sure as fuck don't get it. Man do I wish the dems would be fucking outraged at that... maybe the reps wouldn't be wiping the floor with them if they were.
[deleted] 6y ago
Stages of grief, friend. You are between denial and bagaining right now. Also got something to feed your anger just a little more:
https://youtu.be/XUUy-8IUzH0
And to me the masculine expectation for the example i gave before would exclude the crying part. It would be the tough guy who represses feelings and does his job without questions or complaint. The "captain of your own ship" is more the expectation of the big brother type guy who wishes you the best.
wolf__larsen 6y ago
"Women were not oppressed - they chose en-masse to marry in order to guarantee male support while they spent decades raising children - a necessity 100 years ago. More men died in pits, farming accidents and wars than women did during childbirth. Men put more into the marriage than women did. Women got lifetime support. Women were not oppressed - they exchanged their reproductive value for male support value."
Ridiculous, this is shit on this subreddit I can't stand. Definition of oppression, "unjust treatment or control." 100 years ago, women are not able to vote in national elections. A group of people not being able to vote in a democracy is unjust control. This is very simple. Your historically blind, reductionist approach towards women is something that I cannot stand in this subreddit. Granted I've read a lot of enlightening things here, but this is lazy and ignorant male superiority bullshit, not born of logic, but out of manipulative emotion.
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Compare this to today:
Women have 51% of the voting power and literally do not give a fuck about men.
At least men have quite a lot of care towards women. The reverse is not the case. Hence the decline in the state of marriage, divorce courts, sexual assault law, Title IX, etc etc. combined with the "positive discrimination" getting women into STEM jobs regardless of merit.
I think you're talking about a different post to mine, because you're going off on a tangeant here.
wolf__larsen 6y ago
First of, we are not talking about now, we are talking about history. You are the one who brought up the idea that "women were not oppressed", I brought up the fact that not allowing someone in a democracy to vote is oppression. Done.
As for the rest of what you just posted, there is truth to all of that, but you are ignoring the point I brought up. Beyond getting your history wrong, and then moving right along to the beliefs you already hold as if history doesn't matter, it also concerns me that your point that didn't address any of the arguments I made gets 9 points while mine gets 2. Shows how uncritical most of you are, just looking for validation to beliefs you already hold.
I guess I assumed, especially since this was regarding Jordan Peterson, there would be some intellectual integrity here instead of confirmation-seekers.
SovereignSoul76 6y ago
"A group of people not being able to vote in a democracy is unjust control. This is very simple. Your historically blind..."
How simple is it? Like as simple as the difference between 'your' & 'you're'?
I'll put this in terms you'll understand: YOUR an idiot.
wolf__larsen 6y ago
You are an idiot, because my full sentence is "Your historically blind, reductionist approach towards women is something that I cannot stand in this subreddit," which is not incorrect use of the word "your."
"You're" means you are, while "your" is used for ownership. I am saying it is HIS "historically blind, reductionist approach," ownership.
This is why it's too bad most men are discouraged from reading, thanks to feminist takeovers of the public school system, we get people like you who blindly subscribe to an ideology and bring up an incorrect debate on grammar instead of actually challenging my ideas. So sad.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] 6y ago
[deleted]
wolf__larsen 6y ago
Ha, logic is "concern trolling" on this thread? If you're not willing to test the flexibility of your ideology then don't subscribe to one.
Aktiv8r 6y ago
Non- landowning males didn't vote either, which was the majority of men, so you can fuck right off with that logic. And the death rate for men was always much higher than women even during child birth before modern medicine. And you have the gull to call us historically blind. Laughable
wolf__larsen 6y ago
1870, non-white men and freed slaves are guaranteed the right to vote. This is 50 years before women were able to vote FYI. Besides the point though, how does that prove my point wrong? It only proves that women AND non-landowning men and minorities were ALL oppressed. Do you understand how a democracy works? It is pretty simple. Everyone has the right to vote, because your vote is your worth in society. This doesn't seem like a big deal now, with lazy millennials not caring about political office, but believe me 100 years ago it was the mark of an individual's freedom. Your voting was your voice, as things were much more localized around the turn of the century. It was actually a huge initiation for boys becoming men to take part in local politics. Why do you think all these different groups, including non-landowning men, fought for the right to vote? Simply because it'd be nice? You ever hear the term no taxation without representation?
I don't understand how bringing up the death rate disproves that not allowing someone to vote in a democracy is oppression. You are getting sidetracked, focus man.
Aktiv8r 6y ago
Do you understand that this is a democratic republic? You are mixing your dates, too. "Taxation without representation" happened before the republic was built here, so it doesn't fit your narrative in this context. Rights were assigned when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, none of which included a vote for every person. Hell, naturalization didn't even cover everyone until the 20th century, they picked one group every 50 years or so and allowed them to become citizens. I'm not saying that was the right course of action, but I don't even remember what we were talking about at this point. Lol
wolf__larsen 6y ago
Taxation without representation originated as you said, but has lived on to be a motto for how democratic political systems work. I’ll help you focus, we were talking about whether or not being unable to vote in a democratic country is oppression. I have yet to be convinced by any of you that being stripped of this right is not oppression.
Aktiv8r 6y ago
There wasn't a democracy (I use that word lightly here, this is where you are confused I think, we are not a pure democracy) here until the American Revolution. They revolted then built a system designed for land owners to vote on the issues of the day. At the time, only land owners were paying any taxes, through sales and purchases of goods and the use of services to facilitate that. They were the only ones with the money to tax. So disallowing the people who were not taxed from voting is not taxation without representation. There was no taxation on them in the first place. At least, that was the logic at the time. You defined oppression as "unjust treatment and control" but that begs the question on what "unjust" is and who is defining it. What is just for one person may be unjust to another, even within the same group. It sounds like you are hesitant to say some things like "women's brains do not work like a man's" or "better people should be treated better" which are natural things to think. Would you consider taking away a violent felons right to own a gun oppression? That is control in a very literal sense but a necessary action to take against people who commit wrongs against the public of a civilization. I would consider women having the right to vote without having mandatory conscription an oppression of men. What say you about that?
wolf__larsen 6y ago
I'm not talking about pre-revolution times and I understand where the phrase "taxation without representation" came from. Let's focus on the time period we were discussing originally, largely the time prior to women getting the right to vote, late 19th and early 20th century. At this time women are becoming more independent, beginning to get jobs at a much more rapid rate and live on their own.
This independence of women, culminated in the Temperance Movement, was largely due to the disrepair that many farm families (some 70% of the population around 1900) found themselves in, a key factor in this is male alcoholism, undiagnosed at the time. Liquor was being produced more and began taking the place of beer, which was typically drank midday out on the field. Many men continued to drink this new alcohol as they had beer, and ended up creating many problems for their families, whether as abuse or diminishing their economic status by less work productivity or gambling, etc.
Regardless, women find themselves in this independent position, which means they are more and more paying taxes, yet not able to vote. This is taxation without representation. This is oppression.
"It sounds like you are hesitant to say some things like "women's brains do not work like a man's" Arguing whether or not being taxed in a democracy and not being able to vote is oppression has nothing to do with this. It sounds like you're ignoring the points I'm raising to find out if I'm "in" your little boys club. Neuroscience clearly shows differences in the brains of men and women. Not relevant here.
"I would consider women having the right to vote without having mandatory conscription an oppression of men." Dude have you seen the push from the leftists for women serving in the military, particularly in active duty? Women WANT this, they wish it was equal. I don't know why, but they do. And there's tons of backlash because many believe (as I've seen on here) that women don't have what it takes to be on the frontlines, yet you want them to be? You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't necessarily think it is oppression on men, because I agree with some of the hesitancy for having gender equality when it comes to defense of this country. We have physical differences, women have babies, men don't. Seems like if women go through childbirth then men naturally will have to do shitty things too that women are off the hook from, since it's more important that they have an intimate bond with the baby than for the man. Logically, sending women to war so the dad can stay home and raise the kid is just really backwards.
Aktiv8r 6y ago
And what was women's fix for the alcohol problem? Convenient that you left that out... As soon as they got the right to vote they instituted prohibition, granted I'm sure bunches of little beta dudes fell in line with them, like always. And that caused the greatest crime wave this country has ever seen and it didn't even stop people from drinking themselves into early graves. All that does is prove the point that women are fucking retarded when it comes to politics and how it effects everyday life. Suffrage was done incorrectly and we are paying for it everyday. I don't know how to fix that shit.
I wasn't talking about voluntary service in the military. I'm talking conscription. I have never heard a feminist say that "women should be included in the draft." People think that because the draft hasn't been instituted, it's not a problem. It will happen again, otherwise the conscription system would have been abolished, there's a reason it's still hanging out in the shadows. I don't want them on the frontlines, per say. I want fucking consistency between the sexes. Woman just one day having a right to vote is not consistent with what men are required to do to gain access to the vote. Taxation is not the only gate needed to pass through for this privilege.
I'm done with this feminist nonsense. Good day.
wolf__larsen 6y ago
"I'm done with this feminist nonsense. Good day." - Indication of a radical is one who ascribes centrists to the "other side." I've not brought any feminist rhetoric into the conversation, just historical facts.
Blame the women for prohibition? Many states had passed state prohibition by the time of the Civil War. You honestly think women had that much sway in the mid 19th century? No, it was mostly religious idealism, and again a response to rampant alcoholism. No one can logically defend prohibition (which you are assuming I am because I pointed out what it was responding to?), but that doesn't mean SOME solution wasn't necessary. Blame the women though, that way you don't have to look at the complexity of the issues. Typical millennium male.
Why are you talking about conscription? Because your grandfather served in Vietnam? Conscription hasn't effected anyone in 50 years, and this is your biggest concern? It literally has no effect on you, except in "what if" scenarios.
You also mentioned nothing about how women are more equipped to stay home and raise children (I can hear feminists cringing right now, but according to you I am one of them), don't you think this should be taken into consideration when talking of female conscription? I'm not against the idea, but the diversity between the sexes makes it much more complicated than you're making it out to be.
sadomasochrist 6y ago
I absolute 100.00% agree with everything he's saying. And ultimately, his point here is not a red pill point per say. He's making a great observation of why you need an internal locus of control.
This is why I'm certain he's destined for a harsh and unpleasant unplugging. He understands the mechanisms we know all too well and he's literally a year or two away from realizing the train has left and that the modern family is on its deathbed.
I also think he touched on a great point. It is useless and impossible to reason with women, because they are not rational, though not to be confused with illogical. Women are just as logical as men.
He posits that the solution to the problem will be enforcement on the female side, but also points out while pervasive, that women who are doing things with their lives are too busy to be sucked into that garbage.
So while we are seeing widespread and substantial changes that are damaging women as a group, some women are just too interested in themselves or their desire to have a family to care to go too far down that path.
So I suppose from a systematic observation level, this will have its own limiter built in. But it does seem that the "normal" types will be the minority.
But to be clear, I am not endorsing a LTR orientation trying to find these women. Pointless, because even those women are still innately the same CC types inside, and they'll show you with time anyways.
Just debating the surface level point that the insanity we're seeing at a cultural level does have a limiter.
But again, the most interesting point is that he recognizes you'll never red pill a woman, because the actual archetypical resolution framework does not work between women.
I independently discovered this when I realized "hey, why the fuck am I arguing with a woman in a car I'm driving?"
Knowing damn well if it was my best friend, I'd be telling him to find a ride or grabbing a tire iron.
Because we all operate in a totally different universe. I've said this before.
Just imagine she's Tiger Woods. Why does she care about resolving things in an amicable manner? She can always just find the next groupie.
It's perpetuated adolescent behavior.
But the solution was discarded in the 60s.
I don't honestly believe men beat the shit out of their wives in the 50s. But I believe that understanding that men have between eachother was present with men and women in the 50s. That there was a line and that no one crossed those lines unless they were willing to fight.
The removal of that and infantilizing of women may not have a resolution, therefor, as I've stated before, the male response will need to either be apathy (MGTOW) or dishonesty (Russian Response).
cellphon 6y ago
Please elaborate on the Russian response
sadomasochrist 6y ago
Disregard LTRs, drink vodka.
Basically what happened in urban black communities when black women entered open hypergamy. Treat all women as disposable targets and eschew any and all responsibilities (accepting AF).
I don't think American white men are going to react substantially different than those two groups.
And given the recent hit to the middle class in the last decade, this could happen sooner rather than later.
[deleted] 6y ago
The white knight imperative has been deeply embedded in all of us. Maybe even injected into our marrow at birth or something. The same drive that would move you to interfere with a man punching a woman on the street, also compels you to not kick her out of your car or tell her to grab a tire iron. This is the problem. I don't know that there's an answer aside from utter sexual nihilsm.
sadomasochrist 6y ago
I mean once you understand women you have no problem ejecting them. It's DHV anyways.
One can only hope they post about it on facebook and what not.
"This guy has SMV SO HIGH, he wouldn't put up with my shit! He straight up AMOG'd me!"
kelvin_condensate 6y ago
That is an obvious biological result of which is the only reason why humanity is not currently extinct. Modern society removes the utility of such a thing, though.
kelvin_condensate 6y ago
Women aren't "just as logical" as men. Logical thinking and reasoning are synonymous, so I fail to understand how you think one can both be unreasonable yet logical.
In a way, women are reasonable under their emotional framework, but there is no way in hell you could ever consider them logical.
sadomasochrist 6y ago
You've actually reiterated my point within your reply. They will reach the logical conclusion of their emotional needs.
That is logical, but irrational.
Think about it this way, the polar opposite of someone bound by their emotion is someone who is autistic.
So the exact opposite isn't exactly great.
It's just that they tilt towards what they're feeling.
You can't be too solipsistic here, it's not helpful.
RustyTainte 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIOY2ezMy9A
Reminded me the bit Bill Burr did on not hitting women.
pellrid 6y ago
I really like how comedians like him can point out the ridiculousness of trivial issues to the average consumer-type person.
wolf__larsen 6y ago
Reminds me of this Bill Hicks revelation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_1VmC_P2Nc
JamesSkepp 6y ago
In short - yes, we did.
First we allowed the "women worship" (regardless if it's origin is purely from "shes beautiful outside, she must be beautiful inside, hence she has no bad character traits/behaviours" or if we simply wanted for women to be like that as a contrast to our own immorality) to push the boundaries what a woman can do and not face consequences - b/c woman FEELING bad must mean that someone did something to her and not that she should feel bad b/c she is at fault.
Secondly we allowed ourselves to become complacent in the understanding of sexual strategies. We went, for centuries!, wit the simplistic explanation of "oh well, that's what women do" which kept us in the dark, while women slowly expanded their feminine power over the society (b/c of the first reason).
That being said, it was not b/c we were stupid or something like that. We behaved like this b/c we evolved like this. Our brains treat women and what they say like we treat men. This is why we we'r not able to see that women are different - b/c we were treating them as men. We used a hammer, but we should have been using a scalpel.
I agree with you, I somewhat disagree with Peterson.
You are right, b/c controlling with "frame" is actually camouflaged controlling with "your status in the pack". This is still primal thing, and therefore "status in the pack" still translates "biologically" as a threat of violence (since violence in the pack was almost always exercised top-down).
The solution: "more frame". And "more frame" is directly tied to "be more alpha". Get big, get loud, know what you're talking about, and know what you want. It's not a magic wand that will allow you to always achieve desired outcome, it's more like "this usually works, and if it doesn't try another approach".
This is exactly the same reason why I disagree with Peterson. He says that the implicit, underlying threat of violence exists only in male-male interactions. That's not true. I think it's "mostly" in the m-m interactions and not "only" in them. The thing is, I'm pretty sure males, over the course of our civilization developing, agreed to treat male-to-female violence as unacceptable, and not that we evolved to not be violent towards females.
The m-to-f threat of violence is not directly tied to "agree or I will smack you in the mouth" but it's more tied to "agree or I will rape you and then smack you in the mouth". This is something most docile BP males would kill you for (even for verbalizing that it is possible, let alone that you're willing to exercise it), and most women, being used to the docile BSs would find extremely shocking, probably akin to blasphemy.
Unfortunately, they have partial understanding. Take a look at Clinton/Trump race. Clinton had access to massive amounts of political and media support, yet she failed to play on the most basic instincts Trump played on. She lost support not gained it. She failed to adjust her marketing strategy up until the very end. Whatever she wrote about that in her book is just partial information b/c she had access to probably daily statistics of what works and what doesn't, she had at least 3 agencies working for her, she had all the liberal media producers with years of experience to help her, yet she didn't act on the data she had. That shows lack of understanding.
Same goes for Trump. Watch the latest Joe Rogan with Ban Shapiro. Shapiro says, in short, that Trump supporters think their God-Saviour had some grand plan from day one. Turns out he didn't and it was as much planned as it was just improvised on the spot to play on the sentiments of Americans. Clearly his camp knew the rules better then Hillary's camp.
Disciple_of_Libertas 6y ago
Could you expand on this some more? Was that the way that m-f relationships operated back in the primordial days?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
I don't think there were relationships as we understand them now, more like the current guy at the top of alpha pyramid got the most of the females pregnant and that's it for a year or longer.
As for the actual violence, even in primates, not to mention mammals, the m-f violence exists to this day. It's not as brutal or common as the m-m one, and it doesn't need to be since in most species of mammals the male is bigger than the female (and a lot of that violence is only symbolic to establish hierarchy - "agree or else...")
From my experience women do feel fear of me getting physically aggressive with them (in both sexual way and in the "i can kill you with my hands" way), I know for a fact that they do feel vulnerable in the presence of alphas (anecdotal evidence, my own observations, talking with women). So, since the they do feel the fear, this means it's instinctual reaction to possible danger. This means they HAD to have some "physically aggressive male" experiences as gender during our evolution that made them that way.
For sex starved primitive men to engage in rape-like behaviours didn't took much when they got angry or pumped up or take over a weaker tribe (which was apparently the thing too)? Consider the fact that for the majority of our evolution, even for long time during our civilized times, we humans didn't know what sex was about and for sure didn't have a concept of consent.
Also, don't take the "agree" part to literally, I was mostly using this in the context of the OP and Peterson talking about having an argument, not in the sense of "prehistoric men used violence to get women to agree with them".
Disciple_of_Libertas 6y ago
Interesting take. I agree that concepts such as consent and relationships probably did not exist at all back then. I can only wonder what sexual relations were like in "pre-Ancient" cultures (as in before we have written record from people's such as the Greeks). Thanks for elaborating.
Ruhkov 6y ago
From my readings there are actually still tribes in Africa today that anthropologists believe exhibit the same social behaviors of pre-ancient humans. Lots of conjecture on how closely actually resembled what is was like because there's no way to know but tribes have been living in isolation still to this day. There's no idea of marriage. Men and women enter a relationship. They sleep together and fuck. They have an argument. They break up. They find other mates. Rinse and repeat. Simple as that. Google it.
As far as the sex starved primitive man? The tribe unit would raid the rival tribe for resources and women. The captured women would be integrated into the new tribe. That's how it worked. Makes sense doesn't it?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Yes and no. Some ideas are based on still existing tribes, some are based on what archeologists could extrapolate from the dig sites.
0xdada 6y ago
Holy shit, I just noticed that DJP is talking to Camille Paglia. This is like crossing the streams. She's been out of the game for a couple of decades or so, but if she's back in the discussion, any remaining intellectual foundation for 3rd wave feminism will be completely destroyed.
pellrid 6y ago
I haven't really heard about her before. I'll check out what she has to say.
Ruhkov 6y ago
Your post is interesting. I'd like to turn it on its head though and ask a few questions.
Can men control crazy men?
Can women control crazy men?
Also... is this guy saying if a dude organized against him and called him a nazi he would go out and physically fight him? I don't know...
pellrid 6y ago
I'll give it a shot, but I haven't put enough thought into this yet.
I think crazy when used for a man, means something different. I'm not sure what, but it doesn't feel like I'd visualize the same thing for the word crazy, when I think of a man, or I think of a woman. But I think the answer is: no. You can teach men to understand what's wrong with their character, or rather if you'd try going about it, you'd need to show that man why your way of thinking is more beneficial for him.
You definitely can't control him, but you can help him.
Interesting question, and I think the answer is: yes and no. Men can fall in love. I know that I can, even though I don't ever want to. So I think some types may fall in love with a woman, and try to become a "better" man for her sake. I think some types, could just be crazy enough to fall in love and not care about her thoughts, or some would simply not fall in love.
As for the nazi thing. No, he isn't even implying it. He's saying that he could debate that man, and because men have an understanding that goes deep into the subconscious level to avoid physical escalation, because the risk is higher than the potential reward, they will discuss terms they disagree on. They will resolve to... debating. Unlike when you argue with a woman, she will never listen to what logical arguments carry with them, she only cares about herself, so she will argue in that manner. Women only try to find instances where their arguments can't find opposition, so they can have things their way. Just look at videos, where SJW women argue rational, thinking men. The men just can't win.
*edited for syntax
Ruhkov 6y ago
Okay now I understand his point. He's saying at some level men will self-regulate and women don't do this because in her interactions there was never a threat of things getting physical if she were crazy enough.
I think the only time one person can control another is if they have power over them. This can be with the threat of physical violence, as Mr. Peterson claims he has the power of over men but not women, or any other form of manipulation such as the promise of reward, threat of punishment, disparate amount of knowledge, group shaming, etc. Women have killed and beat men, as well as the other way around. Put another way, I can out crazy the craziest bitch. I think he's making a mistake with his rationalization and is a hair away from giving that bitch ammo to accuse him of threatening her physically. I'd be surprised if she didn't. As a dude, if I were that chick and he said that to me, I'd rake him over the coals for calling me out to fight. He's just intellectualizing his desire to punch that chick in her mouth. He sounds pathetic to me.
PremixedBox 6y ago
Feminism was designed by the Frankfurt School in the 20s and 30s. It is nothing short of Communism and should be treated as such. Both seek to destroy the nuclear family, destroy western pride (i.e. nationalism), eradicate morals/ethics, and bring down the economy (wage gap myth). Don't believe that any part of Feminism is good or okay. Because once you accept one level, eventually you'll accept all of it. Look at what the four goals of Communist subversion are, and compare that to today and what Feminism has done to Western society.
[deleted]
samurai96 6y ago
Lol why not just convert to Islam and beat the shit out of them?
Jk lol
scissor_me_timbers00 6y ago
Thank you so much for throwing in that video of the bitch in the car. That fired up my disgust for shitty female behavior for the rest of the week.
pellrid 6y ago
Hey, glad I could help ;) I suggest you get a bit angry over it and lift heavy weights with a little contact sports on the side.
0signal0 6y ago
JP is to red pillers what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is to the average Redditor who thinks he's an intellectual because he follows "I fucking love science" on Facebook.
[deleted]
kriggly 6y ago
I agree that when two males are talking, the idea that things could get physical is underlying the sense of respect between two men. Since men can NEVER get physical with a woman, no harsh disagreement can be had.
I think his example of the woman who is comparing him to a Nazi publicly is a poor example. If a male was doing this, he couldn't go find that person and get physical with him. There seems to be a disconnect there between his original point and this one.
pellrid 6y ago
You're not the only commenter to think Peterson thinks of going over there and starting physical violence. The implications of a man being able to stand up for himself, even in dire situations, is what leads other men to respect boundaries when in a debate. The behavioral demonstrations of being capable of harm are in itself enough to keep the argument between two men civil.
Think about it this way: on the internet you constantly see insults being made. Insults you would not dare say to another person in a real world argument. You know you'd get your ass into a fight for it. And what's funny is before the internet these types of insults could be transmitted through letters, open letters, newspaper articles, etc. So this shows the stark difference between actual person-to-person communication, and other indirect forms of communication.
*edited for better understanding and I am also adding what I wrote to the other commenter who asked the same question
[deleted] 6y ago
From the skeptic community which is mainly bashing Feminism a few of them seem to be hardcore knowledgable on The Red Pill, whilst never clearly stating it. Sargon of Akkard (think of him whatever you want, who cares?) for example made a video on his side channel about a polish politican being savage as fuck in regards to "political correct talking". He was fully happy with this guy, showed him to his viewerbase, refering to his stuff as "Dropping the Red Pills".
This is not about complimenting or telling people to check it out. It is about explaining that there ARE a bunch of smart people who fully went TRP, but will not admit to it due to it being a bad move for their reputation.
pellrid 6y ago
TRP is becoming a sub-cultural phenomenon, yes. But believe it or not, people who can actually think have existed before this subreddit's existence. TRP is a huge source of such knowledge condensed into one place, which is why it's great.
Another thing: the term "red pill" is used a lot amongst 4chan board users and people of the right. I think the majority of users on the message board have no idea of this reddit's existence.
[deleted] 6y ago
Delusion-levels are over 9000.
It's named after the knowledge it collects, so... duh!
pellrid 6y ago
What?
Did you just take my previous comment as a personal insult? I'm asking because by the way you're responding to me looks like it.
Care to elaborate on my delusion?
[deleted] 6y ago
Internet culture is weird, but it is there. 9gag idiots know 4chan, 4chan knows 9gag. Both of them just as well know what reddit is. Actually beliving the majority of 4chan wouldn't know what reddit is, is delusional.
pellrid 6y ago
Okay, this one is my bad. Subreddit*.
But still, knowing what reddit is, doesn't mean they know TRP, I don't know if this is what we're arguing, but I'm going to make this my point.
[deleted] 6y ago
Then agree. Most people don't know about TRP. That is true.
notonlyplace 6y ago
Easier said than done, in fact even in blue pill society they say men shouldn't be pushovers or put a woman on a pedestal and yet they do just that.
There is no magical point in which you can be a women's Alpha, that isn't an ideal weight you can lift, or money you can make, it comes with having principles for one's self.
This is why Alpha's come in all shapes in sizes, some or physically weak, some or physically strong, some make a lot of money some or homeless, tying women into ones self-improvement is a huge mistake as women shouldn't be your main life's goal.
To be honest, I don't fucking care, I have better things to do with my life to bare some weird ass burden
pellrid 6y ago
All alphas have a very specific set of common traits. A sort of confidence in the craft(s) they earn their status with. These can be proficiency in some competitive field, or psychological dominance, etc.
It's not everyone's task to care. I myself see it as something that could potentially collapse the entire system we call western society. That to me is enough of a threat to care about it. I like living in the west. Making money, the culture, the women, our languages; I'd hate to see it all fall apart.
PoopyPartyPants 6y ago
How can the men at the top stop this you ask? First of all, why would they want to stop it in the first place? Does it even affect them? DJP said the men at the top are separate from the rest of the heirarchy.
pellrid 6y ago
My question isn't directed to the men at the top,. Most won't care anyway. I only care because I see it as a potential threat to my well-being sometime in the future.