Red Pill Documentary
- Thread starter Reason
- Start date
She was impressively sarcastic lol.
EDIT: Sarcasm might be the greatest rhetorical device in human history, I love it.
Happy Phantom
Well-known member
Make America sarcastic again- finally a leader I can believe in.
I finally got around to watching it last night. Yes it looks like there is some disparity in the legal system that works against men when it comes to paternity/adoption and dv. I wasn’t entirely convinced about several other areas, such as dangerous jobs. I don’t see significant social pressure on men to conform in that regard, and I think that even if such jobs are technically open to women, the roughneck culture within the workplace provides an entirely separate set of challenges not mentioned.
The Boko Haram stuff was interesting in terms of what gets the world’s attention.
This is entirely beside the point but did anyone else see the narrator’s self-recorded epiphanies as contrived?
The Boko Haram stuff was interesting in terms of what gets the world’s attention.
This is entirely beside the point but did anyone else see the narrator’s self-recorded epiphanies as contrived?
That was more about the whole general point that men die all the time, and if men really do control the world through patriarchy why do they repeatedly put themselves in positions to be killed? Also pointing out as with the Boko Haram situation that when women die it's a tragedy but when men die it's business as usual.
Like she went back and recorded those personal diaries after she was done or something like that? I could see that, I think it's just how she talks that makes everything she says sound contrived but yeah those videos felt odd and forced to me as well.
I'm a lady-ish entity and I think it's a tragedy when anyone dies. :{ But then again, as a kid, when a bee or wasp would get inside I couldn't stand to kill them, so instead I'd put a cup over them and slide a piece of paper underneath so I could release them safely outside while risking getting stung, so maybe my opinion doesn't count...
I have noticed that often there is more of a stir when, for instance, a girl goes missing, rather than a boy, but this certainly isn't always the case.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,507
- 247,311
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Are you implying that men are responsible for the bee depopulation problem???
:hmmm::fyou:
As far as the dangerous jobs point I acknowledge that but on the other hand, men are able to dictate that role for themselves as a whole. Now that doesn’t speak to examples where individual men are, say, subjected to forced conscription, however overall it was men who decided “we are more valuable than women in this role and therefore it will be ours exclusively”. Women have to fight as a group for the right to undertake the same burden, and here in the states we’re just scraping the surface of women having front line combat roles. Maybe the main point was that men have fixed preconceived gender roles too, but my point is that I think men built the box they are in while the box that women are in is more of a side-effect of that.
I’m just kind of thinking out loud here so please do challenge me on that if you disagree.
Of course.
Well watch some of Karen Straughan's videos they deal a lot with what we're talking about right now, basically it comes down to sociological roles- from a survivalist standpoint it's more important to keep women alive since they carry the babies, as opposed to men who can be disposed of in place of the mother because after impregnating her he is no longer needed even if he is massively useful. Now that we live in a society where we don't often have to defend ourselves from wild animals and there is a lot less of other dangers to contend with these attitudes are outdated and yet nonetheless remain. She goes into it in a lot more detail and with a lot more authority than I can so I refer you to her youtube channel.
Basically men didn't cast themselves in that role, evolutionary interests in survival did. Men didn't plan it that way it was just necessary for that era of our history.
Last year there was a news article on the deplorable stats on women's deaths when it comes to reporters and foreign correspondents. When looking into the stats from the cited source the numbers were roughly 80% men dying in the work field, yet it wasn't even mentioned in the news article.
I'd discard this as nothing more than click bait articles trying to make a headline, but these kind of articles are very common in Sweden.
I'd discard this as nothing more than click bait articles trying to make a headline, but these kind of articles are very common in Sweden.
@Sloe Djinn I basically already paraphrased the most important parts, but i'm linking a video if you want to dive a little deeper.
Happy Phantom
Well-known member
You should be a guest audience member on her show.
Ok I watched the video.
So ok I agree that evolution cast the mold for men being disposable, but my challenge to this is that while yes we are largely beyond this necessity in modern times, it is still males who have traditionally called the shots with regard to issues such as who is allowed to remain disposable. For example, back to allowing females on the battlefield, it is still males who are the primary ones in the administrative or authoritative roles that allow for things to change. With regard to disposability and the burning building / lifeboat example, men don't need to advocate for changes in law or established regulation to decline to save a woman who is in danger. There may be unfair social repercussions but it is still his right to choose. By contrast, women need to advocate for policy changes in order to challenge social conventions and put their lives on the line on the battle front alongside men. They can't just walk onto the battlefield without it being permitted and coordinated by a male-dominated administration. I also think about the documentary discussing how women would tend to shy away from the intense scrutiny and responsibility that it takes to be a politician, and how men are kind of painted in a noble light for their willingness to undertake the burden. There wasn't really (maybe I missed it?) any evidence to substantiate the assertion that women don't want/try to take these positions, but either way, just hearing about scandals involving sexual harassment in the senate etc makes it seem like quite an uphill battle on an additional level for any females who do enter the fray.
One point of confusion that I have is that KS identifies feminism in general as putting female interests above that of males. My understanding was that the umbrella of feminism promotes women achieving equality with men in all aspects of society. While I do agree that forms of extreme feminism (and I think this is where the term "feminisms" as @invisible mentioned is applicable) do not seek to promote equality but superiority, I am interested in her rationale or experience that leads her to identify feminism in general as pushing an idea of female superiority. In The Red Pill at the very end Cassie renounces her identification as a feminist, and I assume that it was done under the same rationale, but I didn't really see anything to substantiate that feminism inherently promotes the inequality that they both seem to rebuke.
I was having some difficulty following what she was saying (around 3:55) when she was talking about how in more "backwards" societies, women had severe restrictions upon their agency and freedom in the name of protecting them. My understanding of her counterpoint was that: "While this may be the case, if I were male soldier on the battlefield I might rather be a sexual object than a disposable object." However I think that kind of side-stepped the fact that being prized as a sexual/reproductive object does not equate to such "possessions" being immune from abuse or disposablility should they step out of line.
Still mulling it over, but these are my initial thoughts.
Additionally: I do not disagree that men get the short end of the stick in certain areas, however I don't understand why feminism in general is painted as adversarial or detrimental to men's rights. Feminism is a good thing imo and should not be construed with female supremacy.
Last edited:
To quote myself from the beginning of the thread
In Sweden feminism has been, and still is to a lot of people, an impeccable concept and movement. But when we examine it there are things that can be questioned. For instance there is active discrimination against men to balance out the working fields gender quota, and many people aren't even aware this is happening. And even then it is stigmatized to even talk about.
I can't say I endorse the affirmative action approach (quotas) either. I also agree that being very vocal about men's rights can subject a person to negative stigma, especially in a time when (and I'm also limiting this response to Western society as you have) there is a wave of women standing up against sexual harassment and assault in places like the film industry and the political arena. It is difficult for men not to sound whiny in comparison, even when bringing valid concerns to the table.
Can you elaborate on your distinction between rights being equal but coexisting with inequalities? I see progress being made but I'm not sure I agree that rights are equal at this point.
Edit: And even if feminists advocated for quotas, I do not think that implementing a crappy tool invalidates the goal of promoting equality of rights that (to my knowledge) feminism endorses.
Last edited:
@Sloe Djinn
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me so I'll just try to elaborate on my thoughts. Please clarify if I'm missing your question.
I'm a firm believer that we should all have equal rights and equal opportunities. In a legal sense. This means that I don't think it's a feasible approach to solve inequality and discrimination by making legal discrimination. The most obvious problem with this is that it creates new inequality and discrimination against the counter-part. In this case men with better merits losing out on job opportunities to women solely based on gender.
So what about coexisting with inequalities?
I think there are differences in how men and women function. I have no problem with us examining what in this is biology and what is social construct. Regardless I think these are indicative of why we have these discriminations, but also why men and women go for different jobs, careers and life choices. I think in this regard everyone should be allowed to pursuit whatever goals they want. This should also be on equal terms.
On an off note however I do think the notion that everything is social construct is wrong.
edit:
I absolutely agree.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me so I'll just try to elaborate on my thoughts. Please clarify if I'm missing your question.
I'm a firm believer that we should all have equal rights and equal opportunities. In a legal sense. This means that I don't think it's a feasible approach to solve inequality and discrimination by making legal discrimination. The most obvious problem with this is that it creates new inequality and discrimination against the counter-part. In this case men with better merits losing out on job opportunities to women solely based on gender.
So what about coexisting with inequalities?
I think there are differences in how men and women function. I have no problem with us examining what in this is biology and what is social construct. Regardless I think these are indicative of why we have these discriminations, but also why men and women go for different jobs, careers and life choices. I think in this regard everyone should be allowed to pursuit whatever goals they want. This should also be on equal terms.
On an off note however I do think the notion that everything is social construct is wrong.
edit:
I absolutely agree.
Last edited:
Right, and they're operating off of the notion that it is their duty (I don't think I have to make the argument that a lot of traditionalists wind up in the army do I? Even if they're not traditionalists this kind of thinking is omnipresent, but I digress) to sacrifice themselves to protect women.
There has been, in fact, a push to include women in the military for quite a number of years. I haven't served in the military, but most of my friends joined right out of high school and based on their estimation of life in the military things like race, gender and sexual orientation disappear in combat and usually before then even. The U.S. military has allowed women in for many years now and several of them have become officers, some of them high-ranking. Promotions are meritocratic however, and also with not as many women joining as men there will be few female officers and few female soldiers.
To choose between dying and having their manhood invalidated by sacrificing a woman to die in their place thus making them cowards in the eyes of society? Yes, they technically had that choice.
Probably should volunteer in greater numbers to fix that.
Other than the fact that seeking high-ranking corporate positions or positions on the national stage of politics is something that men do more statistically speaking? Jeanette Rankin was the first Female Congressional member back in like the 1910s I want to say- and since then women have had plenty of opportunity to run for office and yet they don't. The sexual harassment is a problem, though no doubt about that but it's already a lot of work to go through for a job where- man or woman pretty much everyone has a reason to be upset with you and there is little time for being a mother or a father or even just for yourself.
You haven't seen the multitude of feminists who came out against the red pill without having seen the film and began claiming it supported rape and that the movement (as one feminist gender studies professor put it) was all about men having the right to sleep with women whenever they want to without them being able to object. Now as someone who has seen the film, you know that's a lie- they're lying to the public and marginalizing men's issues- that's not helping both sexes that's only helping themselves. Additionally, think of how many laws feminists have managed to pass and yet in Canada, if you poke holes in the condom to trick a woman into having a kid you go to jail (thanks to feminists changing the laws) but if you trick a man into having a baby as a woman not only do you not go to jail the poor bastard still has to pay child support. Isn't it odd how they were able to change one law but not another?
Ancient Rome had courts, right? You couldn't murder your wife without standing trial because you were violating the law but if you died whilst fighting for the empire that was nothing to worry about. As a woman you might be marginalized because of your gender but being marginalized is marginally better than being dead.
Last edited: