Problems with The Red Pill — Exposition

Posted on 2024-03-01 by Jack

What has happened to The Red Pill over the last 2 years?

Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill
Length: 1,250 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Introduction

Here begins our inquiry into the problems with The Red Pill.

The Manosphere has always been regarded as a dark, alternative sub-culture comprised of less-than-honorable men, and not without reason.  Profane topics are discussed in eye-watering detail and with philandering bluster.  Likewise, and despite its popularity over the last couple of years, the Red Pill has always had a bad reputation.  Its abject objective focus on women and the venal bawdiness of the essential subject matter have only served to enhance its sensationalism.

Therefore, social conservatives, feminists, religious firebrands, and others have condemned this subculture, as well as the philosophies and the suggested practices thereof as being degraded, m!sogyn!stic, seedy, and ‘toxic’, among other contemptuous descriptors.

Over the past 15 years or so, the feminist culture and the MGM has repeatedly attacked and attempted to undermine the Manosphere in an effort to discredit it and/or reduce its impact on young men and society at large.  However, this persecution only validated it and contributed to its growth. Eventually it became mainstream in 2020-2021, during the c00f l0ckd0wns.

The Red Pill 2.0

Since (and because) The Red Pill went mainstream, what we have now is a second-generation offshoot that looks and talks like its predecessor but is notably different in many respects.

What exactly has changed?

Before 2020 or so, the Red Pill 1.0 was rather pure in its philosophies and very impure in its morals.*  It had to be in order to withstand the scrutiny of its detractors and gain recognition as being true.  But ever since the Red Pill went mainstream (ca. 2020-2021), there’s been an inversion. Now, Red Pill ideas are everywhere, but it’s all watered down and compromised with cultural / gynocentric BS and grift.

Now that The Red Pill has emerged full force in mainstream culture and has gained widespread acceptance, its popularity among hubristic hacks and prosaic plebians is posing more salient risks and inflicting more casualties to the integrity of Red Pill lore than its historical government opposition ever did.

The fundamental masculine elements of self-advancement and life-discovery which were the motivating pillars of engagement, and the respectful appeal to reason that undergirded Red Pill discourse in the past, have been displaced and superseded by rancorous ribald reveling.  There is less emphasis on educating men towards an accurate understanding of nature and reality, and more emphasis on grift and graft.

As a consequence, The Red Pill is now taken somewhat less seriously and is often regarded as trite Bandersnatch, graphic entertainment, or a mediocre fad that will eventually pass, fade, or cycle out.

Dead Bedroom Dating said,

“The Internet Red Pill has been fully adopted and subverted, so nobody really knows what it means anymore.”

Bwana Simba wrote,

“Yeah, what is left of the Manosphere seems to be nothing but grifters eternally bitching about women.  The Passport Bros, uh, “phenomena” always struck me as just another con.  The rest of the Manosphere either retired (a la Dalrock) or went off to dissident politics…  Which has been mixed at best.”

Yes, The Red Pill 2.0 is NOT what The Red Pill 1.0 once was.  Perhaps it is because of these changes that The Red Pill has been the target of a fresh brigade of brickbats over the past year or so.

  • The PTB and their conservative / Churchian spokespersons have unleashed a new “Pity Men” narrative which explicitly condemns Red Pill influences.
  • There has been a series of strikes against TRP in the form of genuine objective criticism, mostly from Gen Z.
  • There are even voices within the Christian Manosphere that are calling out inconsistencies and false beliefs.

* Perhaps it is better to consider The Red Pill to be amoral.  What is done with that information is what makes it moral or not, although for most men, this is an afterthought.

A Road Map

This month, we’ll take a look at the condition and constitution of the current Red Pill sphere, as well as a few Red Pill concepts and interpretations that have strayed from the primacy of truth and the praxeology of reality.  We’ll sift the wisdom from the weeds and determine what went AWOL.

Here are a few of the topics that I have in mind right now.

  1. Even though there are many new Red Pill content producers, as time goes on, there are fewer men (1) who participated in the Classic Manosphere (ca. 2008-2018), (2) who are well versed in the original tenets of The Red Pill, and/or (3) who continue to guide and steer the ongoing discussions in the Men’s Sphere.  This problem, which I’ll call a Vacancy of Authority, will be addressed in the next post, The Old Guard has Retired (2024/3/4).
  2. Much of the original Classic Manosphere / Red Pill content has been deleted or meticulously scrubbed from the internet, and not much is being added to Red Pill lore to make it a continuous living work.  I’ll call this problem an Erasure of Credendum.
  3. As a result of (1) and (2), we now see many misinterpretations of Red Pill lore that are b@stardized, feminized, opinionated, or whitewashed, and others that have simply abandoned all dignity and have gone to the dogs.  I’ll call this problem a Degradation of Integrity.
  4. Best understood, The Red Pill is a collection of well-researched and documented information that gives insight into human nature, especially concerning mating, sex, and relationships, among other things.  This information has been pieced together to form several models of human behavior.  On the whole, The Red Pill is a peek into the abyss of the carnal nature of human beings.  As ugly as this may be, it cannot very well be dismissed as a pseudo-science, and yet we are hearing statements to this effect.  I’ll call this a Failure of Knowledge Transference.
  5. Why are Christians / Churchians uncomfortable with these scientific evo-psyche models as if they challenge the very core of their faith?  I’ll call this a Failure of Imagination.
  6. It has been said that The Red Pill unleashes the inner psychopath.  What’s up with that?  I’ll call this The Challenge of Transcending the Abyss.
  7. It has been recognized that The Manosphere / Red Pill is a pipeline to Alt-Right / Conservatism.  Lefties are therefore motivated to crimp The Red Pill as much as possible. How can we tell the difference between honest criticism and controlled opposition?  I’ll call this Political Malappropriation.
  8. It is generally recognized that The Red Pill vilifies women’s fleshly nature.  The descriptor ‘misogyny’ used to be an abundant slur applied to The Red Pill, but it has since been overused and is now less popular among Gen Z.  Even so, it is now quite fashionable and trendy to reveal the figurative nakedness of both men and women.  The church and culture ridicule the nakedness of men, while the producers of content that currently passes as Red Pill laugh at the nakedness of women.  Man bashing has been around for decades, but now S1ut shaming has once again appeared in full force.  Despite all the schoolmarm caution against m!sogyny, we are now seeing more of it than ever before and this is often passed off as Red Pill, thereby giving detractors undeserved satisfaction.  The practice of coopting RP truths to give offense is a problem I’ll call Weaponizing.

Upon reviewing the above list, readers might see how some of these issues are interrelated.  I expect more insights and topics to emerge as we wade into the mess of it.  If there is something that readers are particularly interested in, listed here or not, I’ll be sure to cover it.  Just leave a comment.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Communications, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Education, Fundamental Frame, Gynocentrism, Holding Frame, Manosphere, Media, Philosophy, Politics, Respect, Society, Teaching. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Problems with The Red Pill — Exposition

  1. Dead Bedroom Dating says:
    2024-03-01 at 5:36 pm

    “Much of the original Classic Manosphere / Red Pill content has been deleted or meticulously scrubbed from the internet, and not much is being added to Red Pill lore to make it a continuous living work.”

    I find it interesting that we have manuscripts transmitted through thousands of years, despite all the scribal editing, yet didn’t manage to preserve an original message from two decades ago.

    Seemingly copying by handwriting is superior to all technology the Western civilization invented. That should tell us something.

    The Hebrew bible survived mostly due to it being in a rather obscure language: Hebrew. Maybe the RP lore will survive when translated into Latin or Greek. Most people interested in erasing knowledge don’t know any languages other than English.

    “Why are Christians / Churchians uncomfortable with these scientific evo-psyche models as if they challenge the very core of their faith?”

    The RP is a unique frame of reference. It doesn’t sit above natural law (and the being who created them), but it sits well above self-appointed church authorities living in their own fantasy world. And this is what the PTB struggles with.

    They pretty much face the next “reformation” due to the invention of technology. The printing press brought the last one, and the digital age did bring the next one, despite all the flaws mentioned above.

    “The PTB and their conservative / Churchian spokespersons have unleashed a new “Pity Men” narrative which explicitly condemns Red Pill influences.”

    A bunch of peasants emigrated from Europe to a remote continent with a 1611 translation done by Roman Catholics and then sat on it for several centuries, developing their own theologies. JW and LDS couldn’t happen in Medieval Italy.

    Keeping their anti-intellectual spiel up is not possible in the digital age. Messages transmit globally and instantly. Being visited at the door by disciples with a tampered translation no longer does anything, I have a multitude of manuscripts and lexicons at my fingertips. This is a first in human history.

    “It has been recognized that The Manosphere / Red Pill is a pipeline to Alt-Right / Conservatism.”

    Outside the bubble of US domestic politics, this doesn’t mean anything. I have literally no way to vote for a president. All the propaganda aimed at US citizens masquerading as “Red Pill” is easily identifiable from the outside.

    OTOH, using my native language to discuss the RP immediately gets me into domestic crossfire (primarily about which current and future superpower your military impotent patch of the Earth’s crust aligns with), which is one of the reasons why I avoid using it on the Internet altogether and stick with English instead.

    “There has been a series of strikes against TRP in the form of genuine objective criticism, mostly from Gen Z.
    There are even voices within the Christian Manosphere that are calling out inconsistencies and false beliefs.”

    Most people think that the RP is about replacing one belief system with another one, then working out a new doctrine to prescribe new behavioral patterns and acquire a new identity. Identity (like “I am a Baptist”) is very important within American Individualism. But in my view, the RP has always just been about understanding frame. That was what the Matrix movie was about. You either “see” the matrix, or you don’t. (Please do not take it literally, it’s a metaphor to describe a concept.)

    The RP frame can be applied to anything in life, not just to dealing with women. It’s also noteworthy that the RP is a male-only frame as women are miraculously incapable of understanding the concept itself. Women only see its application to reality and then wonder about it.

    Which brings us to where the BP stems from: Men behaving like women. Males submitting to an inferior female frame. All contemporary problems of men result from that. That is where ancient manuscripts written in ancient languages help with identifying and ceasing the core malfunction: the absence of patriarchy.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
  2. Bardelys the Magnificent says:
    2024-03-01 at 9:01 pm

    The mandropshere began with two questions: how do I get her into bed, or how do I get/keep her married. Both problems have been solved for quite some time now. There is no new ground to discover. Since the advent of the smartphone/Tinder, the former has become anywhere from increasingly difficult to downright impossible, and until the laws change, the latter is too risky. So there’s simply nowhere for the mandropshere space to go. Like the incandescent light bulb, we have maxed out this technology.

    This created a power vacuum (as there is no way to gatekeep this community) that has been filled with the new types of people already mentioned. This is a feature, not a bug. There is no “center” holding the ‘sphere together, so it slowly unravels.

    The new problem is how to navigate the collapse that is coming in the West. Nobody has the answer, or can, so we all splinter off into our own cells. I find it slightly ironic that Gen Z is doing exactly what we say we wished we had done at their age: disregarding women and acquiring currency and focusing on themselves and their hobbies. I think we will find that, civilizationally, that is the wrong call as well, but that will be up to them to figure out and clean up, and a new mandropshere shall rise. Circle of life.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply
    • Jack says:
      2024-03-02 at 10:38 am

      BtM,

      “The Manosphere began with two questions: how do I get her into bed, or how do I get/keep her married. Both problems have been solved for quite some time now. There is no new ground to discover. […]”

      Your assessment is a very concise materialist reduction of TRP. But if packing P00n was all there was to TRP, then it would have died with the PUAs 6 years ago. A broader view of TRP recognizes that sex (a proxy for reproduction) is a strong carnal motivator — and the relative lack of access thereof for a growing number of men provided the incentive that drove men to do some hard digging, to face themselves, and to change their deeply embedded Blue Pill mental constructs of men, women, and the SMP. However, the ideas that were uncovered led to a rediscovery of a larger paradigm of truth that no one expected, especially from this source (the PUA scene). It became a metaphysical awakening on par with that depicted in The Matrix. It fractured the old construct of masculinity and even transformed the framework of what it means to be a man. It led many men to God, and/or to make drastically different choices in life. This fundamental element of truth is also what contributed to the increasing popularity of TRP, leading to its mainstream acceptance.

      The Christian Manosphere has recognized that this reawakening is not a coincidence nor even an act of God. Sex is intrinsically tied to Sanctification.  (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8) When you start messing around with sex, then you’ll eventually bump into issues related to Sanctification. When that happens, then you’re forced to make some difficult life decisions. This is what happened on a cultural level in the West.

      Part of the problem with TRP 2.0 is that it is regressing back to a materialist reduction of intersexual dynamics. It has lost the power to generate epiphanies that inspire men to introspect and reassess their lives. It has become more of a sacrilegious entertainment and less of a sanctifying self-assessment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2024-03-02 at 12:54 pm

        Nothing you said contradicted me at all. It started with pussy, and that problem was solved fairly quickly. Then it branched off in all different directions, as the energy had to dissipate somewhere. There’s no controlling where, when and how. You just restated that in greater detail.

        I will say something I’ve said before, and that is TRP had failure baked into the cake because it is at its core reactionary and not proactive. Perhaps that’s a product of our declining civilization and it shouldn’t be faulted for that, but the first ideology that gives young men answers that actually work on a grand scale and move their lives forward is going to dominate. Whether that ideology ends up being a moral one, let alone a net positive for humanity in the long run, remains to be seen. One thing for certain, it won’t come from what passes for the modern day “red pill”.

        Like

      • Jack says:
        2024-03-02 at 3:08 pm

        BtM,

        “Nothing you said contradicted me at all. It started with pussy, and that problem was solved fairly quickly.”

        It was not my intention to contradict anything you wrote, but only to point out the longitudinal significance of it all.

        “Then it branched off in all different directions, as the energy had to dissipate somewhere. There’s no controlling where, when, and how.”

        The way I look at it, men took from it what pertained most to themselves. Of course that looks different for each man. We can pool them into groups of similar values or interests if there is something more to be said regarding a group.

        “You just restated that in greater detail.”

        What you think is a “detail” is what I think is the greater significance.

        “TRP had failure baked into the cake because it is at its core reactionary and not proactive.”

        A couple things here.

        1. Saying that TRP is at its core reactionary and not proactive contradicts what I wrote in my last comment. If you said MGTOW or MRA or Passporting was reactionary then I would agree with you. But saying that about TRP discounts what I wrote about the significance of it.
        2. Something being reactionary doesn’t necessarily entail its failure. For example, most revolutions began as a reaction to a grievance that was not adequately addressed in a timely fashion. Some of those revolutions grew into a new culture or nation, while others went down in the history books. You may be right that the difference is whether the revolutionaries were proactive, but proactivity requires us to engage with others, work towards specific goals, and deal with problematic issues. But we don’t see this happening as much as we did with TRP 1.0. Instead, we are seeing a lot of Red Pill 2.0 proponents getting schmoozy and using the situation to their personal advantage, effectively short-circuiting a situation that would otherwise bring immense blessings.

        “…the first ideology that gives young men answers that actually work on a grand scale and move their lives forward is going to dominate. Whether that ideology ends up being a moral one, let alone a net positive for humanity in the long run, remains to be seen.”

        I agree with this. This is happening right here and now. Let’s do what we can to steer this ship in the right direction.

        “One thing for certain, it won’t come from what passes for the modern day “red pill”.”

        True, but you need to develop an internal locus of control. The Red Pill is what we make of it.

        Like

  3. Charlie says:
    2024-03-01 at 11:13 pm

    This is great! I’m looking forward to this month! These are great questions and topics and even the names you’ve given to each subtopic are right on the money. Now that the Manosphere has been diluted, this “meta”/historical perspective is even more helpful. You’ve hooked me for the month. 

    One specific topic I would like to see relates to The Erasure of Credendum. It would be great if you could list some of the core content summary diamonds that existed, and maybe even provide links to alternate ways to get some of them. For example some enterprising types are selling compendiums of old Chateau Heartiste stuff (if you’d consider that part of the Credendum), certain content was summarized by (good) secondary sources back in the day, certain content can be found on the wayback machine, some pdfs might exist somewhere, and some stuff surely could be recovered if anyone among us with the foresight to download some of the canon before it got purged could temporarily upload it. I am eager to download and print out some of the lost gold so I can a) remind myself of the best true pure RP 1.0 content; b) preserve it for posterity/sons/future uploading/future printout sharing. 

    Anyway, thank you for the preview of the next month. I’m looking forward to reading!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. Popeye says:
    2024-03-01 at 11:14 pm

    Sounds good! 

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. Oscar says:
    2024-03-02 at 6:48 am

    The biggest problem with the “Red Pill” is that it’s a solipsistic (although understandable) overreaction to feminism.

    Feminists said, “Man bad, woman good!” So, the Red Pill bros went, “Nuh-uh, woman bad, man good!”

    The truth is what the Bible says:

    Romans 3:10-18 (NKJV)

    10 As it is written:

    “There is none righteous, no, not one;
    11 There is none who understands;
    There is none who seeks after God.
    12 They have all turned aside;
    They have together become unprofitable;
    There is none who does good, no, not one.”
    13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
    With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
    “The poison of asps is under their lips”;
    14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
    15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
    17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
    18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

    The truth is that both men, and women are dirty rotten sinners in desperate need of grace and a savior. If you start from that truthful premise, then you have a shot at getting someplace good. But if you start from the feminists’ or the Red Pill bros’ false premises, then you’ll end up old, bitter, and lonely.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  6. ArchAngel says:
    2024-03-02 at 7:59 am

    I believe you got the idea that the Red Pill has been diluted from Rollo Tomassi. He popularized the idea in 2020 or 2021, with the publication of his Religion book. In reality, the Red Pill, as it exists today, is almost completely an invention of Tomassi’s — in other words, it is less diluted today than it ever was, and that is its biggest problem.

    The problem with the Red Pill is that Rollo Tomassi has deceived countless men into emulating his lifestyle using evolutionary psychology. It is normal human behavior to advise people to do as we did. On the other hand, people only approach us for advice when they want to follow our footsteps. People would never seek to imitate Rollo if his lifestyle didn’t turn out to be the one Darwin preordained for all men to live (or so he claims).

    To get rid of most of his nonsense requires a Wittgensteinian approach to evolutionary psychology, that great modern oracle. Once evo psych is exposed as a fraud, War Brides, Concepts of Love, Myth of the Good Girl, and much of his other nonsense can be discarded. I’ll try to write a post attacking evo psych this month.

    Like

    Reply
    • Info says:
      2024-03-02 at 9:02 am

      But if True. We simply have to reckon with it. The Red Pill and the Manosphere helped me come to terms with Biblical Sex Roles as Righteous and Good.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
    • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
      2024-03-02 at 11:39 am

      You reminded me of that being the latest work I actually read from an author considered part of the “manosphere” and three years after its publication I’m now engaged. Until you mentioned it I didn’t connect that to his work, but I probably should give him some credit.

      I have to review the source material again, but so far I can testify that he was probably right on mostly all accounts. The years before I have reviewed lots of absolutely useless material written by the subject of the book, until I dug into actual ancient wisdom written in actual ancient languages.

      Like

      Reply
    • Jack says:
      2024-03-02 at 1:07 pm

      ArchAngel,

      “Once evo psych is exposed as a fraud, War Brides, Concepts of Love, Myth of the Good Girl, and much of his other nonsense can be discarded.”

      Properly understood, evo psych models are just that — models. Models are scientific descriptions and explanations of real-world phenomena. Models are only useful for their ability to inspire critical thought or provide insights into reality. A model is outstanding if it can actually predict behavior. The value of a model is only as good as its usefulness, and its usefulness is only as good as the relative contextual correlations in the eyes of the contemplative observer who is sorting through his life. If a model doesn’t fit reality, or if it is misapplied, and/or disregarded altogether, it may render the model inaccurate, but it doesn’t revoke the usefulness of the model in the context for which it was devised. In this case, if a model is inaccurate or unuseful, then don’t use it.

      “I’ll try to write a post attacking evo psych this month.”

      Models stand on their own merit. Models are only discounted when a better model is devised. You’ll have to come up with a better model. Good luck with that. I think it might be a better strategy for you to take one of the following approaches.

      1. Show how evo psyche models compare to Biblical models. (This is a formidable writing project.)
      2. Point out specific claims that Rollo gets wrong, or which do not agree with Biblical precepts. (This is the one I would take.)
      3. Provide case studies and discuss how evo psyche models are misused and are misleading men. (Maybe this is what you are most concerned about.)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-02 at 7:18 pm

        Naturally the ancient scriptures are not intended as scientific codices offering scientific models. Westerners trying to read them with contemporary assumptions reach all kinds of erring conclusions. Those ideas are usually based on “that one book has all answers” fallacy purported by anti-intellectual fundagelicals, which already starts with the mistake that it is not just one single book, but a huge collection of manuscripts.

        So original research and meta research like Tomassi’s has it’s place, while we read in Ephesians 3:14-15:

        τουτου χαριν καμπτω τα γονατα μου προς τον πατερα εξ ου πασα πατρια εν ουρανοις και επι γης ονομαζεται

        You can only understand this writing, when you understand the argument that πατρια (family) comes from πατερα (father). This is not scientific reasoning, it is theology. The English translation simply doesn’t convey it, because “family” comes from Latin “familia”, which describes organisms sharing a similarity – like a fridge.

        Note how the pater has been removed from the Latin “paterfamilias” in English, while the NT Koine Greek is on point. That’s the kind of insight you get from researching ancient wisdom in its original language. Not scientific models of a flat earth featuring humans living with dinosaurs.

        Like

      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-03 at 5:32 am

        Fingers crossed on my HTML working.

        “A model is outstanding if it can actually predict behavior.”

        Tomassi’s work does not predict behavior. It is a large net that catches (and explains away) all behavior. That it does this is its greatest strength, and, according to him, proof that it works.

        “[I]t doesn’t revoke the usefulness of the model in the context for which it was devised.”

        This is another thing about his work. His most popular ideas lack practical usefulness, in spite of his insistence that they are praxeological. They are purely theoretical glosses to entice people to copy his lifestyle. The myth of the good girl, for instance, has no utility other than encouraging men to view every woman as a slut. It is not just impractical because it has no usefulness, it also cannot be observed or discovered in practice.

        “Models stand on their own merit. Models are only discounted when a better model is devised. You’ll have to come up with a better model.”

        This is wrong. You think Tomassi has come up with great, useful ideas, and I want to replace or improve them. On the contrary, the ideas I am attacking are nonsense in both content and structure; anything even resembling them is wrong and potentially harmful. (Not all Tomassi’s ideas are nonsense. The ones I will attack are.)

        “Provide case studies and discuss how evo psyche models are misused and are misleading men. (Maybe this is what you are most concerned about.)”

        Jack, evo psych is a nonsense conformist interpretation game: misleading people is the entire point.

        I will write that post to clarify my position.

        Like

      • Jack says:
        2024-03-03 at 6:37 am

        ArchAngel,

        “You think Tomassi has come up with great, useful ideas, and I want to replace or improve them.”

        I think evo psych behaviorism (what most of Tomassi’s work is about) offers some rather insightful models of the fleshly nature. We cannot replace or improve the fleshly nature. It will be hard to improve our understanding of the fleshly nature, but I support your goal of doing so.

        “Jack, evo psych is a nonsense conformist interpretation game: misleading people is the entire point.”

        I don’t know what you mean by “a nonsense conformist interpretation game”. The fleshly nature is real and it is important to understand it. The Christian approach to this is recognizing that there is a vast difference between the fleshly nature (what Tomassi describes) and God’s will for us. If that is not pointed out, then I can see how it could be misleading.

        Like

      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-04 at 12:05 am

        Jack,

        “I think evo psych behaviorism (what most of Tomassi’s work is about) offers some rather insightful models of the fleshly nature. We cannot replace or improve the fleshly nature.”

        This gets to the heart of it. He does not describe the ‘fleshy nature’ as you called it. He goes far beyond that by trying to explain it.

        A description would be factual, but an explanation never is. I am using the words description and explanation in a special sense here. To familiarize you with this sense, I can only use a multitude of examples:

        (1.) This quote.

        “Similarly, the way to any explanation of aesthetic value must be cut off. What is valuable in a Beethoven sonata? The sequence of the notes? The feeling Beethoven had when he was composing it? The state of mind produced by listening to it? ‘I would reply’, said Wittgenstein, ‘that whatever I was told, I would reject, and that not because the explanation was false but because it was an explanation’.”

        Ray Monk, in The Duty of Genius, on Ludwig Wittgenstein

        (2.) Giving explanations (or reasons) why extraordinarily intelligent men have trouble relating to women amounts to placing blame on either womankind or the geniuses themselves. These explanations have no factuality: they are just blame-placing. Here, as usual, it is best to stick to descriptions.

        (3.) If we describe a woman as beautiful, we must leave it at that. Whether she is beautiful or not is a description. Explaining that beauty is actually cues for fertility cannot be a fact. It is just a way of looking at the description.

        (4.) Joseph had a dream about sheaves. He described it, as recorded in the bible. To explain that it was a wish-fulfilment (as Freud did) is outside the realm of fact. It simply means the description can be considered that way, which Freud showed.

        (5.) If women do fall out of love faster than men, that is a description of something that happens. War Brides, the idea that this maybe-description, is explained by warring cavemen and a resulting natural disloyalty in women is an explanation. It is an attempt at being meta-factual. Unfortunately, since it is other than fact, it is false.

        (6.) Another quote.

        “There must not be anything hypothetical in our considerations. We must do away with all explanation, and description alone must take its place.”

        Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

        (7.) That grammatical slips happen is a description of everyday life. That these are manifestations of the unconscious is an explanation. It cannot be tested and has no truth value. It is just a way of speaking and thinking (because to think is to speak to yourself) about slips. It is a perspective, not a fact, although it claims to be.

        Epistemologically, fact is ultimate. It should not be made sense of by conforming it to something else: it just is. We must learn to leave it at that. Tomassi and evolutionary psychology don’t.

        I’ll think of clearer ways to state this.

        Like

    • Oscar says:
      2024-03-03 at 5:45 am

      “The problem with the Red Pill is that Rollo Tomassi has deceived countless men into emulating his lifestyle using evolutionary psychology.”

      I don’t understand what you mean by this. Hasn’t Rollo been married for 30 years? Isn’t that the opposite of what most Red Pill bros advocate?

      Like

      Reply
      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-03 at 6:25 am

        “I tend to promote the idea that Men should be sexually and emotionally non-exclusive until age 30, but this is a minimal suggestion. I think 35 may even serve better for Men.”

        The Rational Male: Dream Killers (2011/10/14)

        Rollo used to advise men to get married when he got married, at 35. More recently, he advises against marriage because he would never enter into the ‘unconscionable contract’ today, although today’s divorce laws also apply to him. The rest of the red pill gurus echo his more recent advice, however liberally. His close friend, Rian Stone, for instance, is in a common law marriage.

        [Jack: Quotation has been corrected.]

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 7:56 am

        Wouldn’t that mean that Rollo used to persuade men to emulate his lifestyle, but he doesn’t anymore? How long ago did he switch to telling men to not get married?

        Like

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-03 at 6:34 pm

        “Rollo used to advise men to get married when he got married, at 35. More recently, he advises against marriage because he would never enter into the ‘unconscionable contract’ today”

        The UMDA doesn’t really describe a marriage in the traditional sense. It describes a concept that was around since 1973, but has a name now: “G@y Marriage”. This is confirmed by the latter starting to enter the legal world.

        G@y Marriage has nothing to do with the concept of patria or paterfamilias at all, regardless of the sex and the number*) of the people involved in the legal contract.

        Conclusion: The common English term “marriage” lost all its original meaning. This process took several decades, but is finished now. Churchians speaking Christianese just haven’t noticed yet. When Rollo gives advice to common men, he is using common English and not Christianese. From that perspective his advice is sound.

        *) Some Western legislators now start looking into moving away from number two, so old women can have multiple “husbands” to support them.

        Like

      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-03 at 9:54 pm

        Jack,

        “[Jack: Quotation has been corrected.]“

        I was quoting the Rational Male book. If you have it, Dream Killers is on pg. 96, and he does add “relationally” to the ways men should be non-exclusive.

        Oscar,

        “Wouldn’t that mean that Rollo used to persuade men to emulate his lifestyle, but he doesn’t anymore?”

        Yes it does. In my original comment, instead of “It is normal human behavior to advise people to do as we did“, I should have typed “…to advise people to do as we would“. That expresses my intention better.

        My argument is that today’s Red Pill is characterized by men like Tomassi encouraging others to imitate their lifestyles by masking it as the inevitable and objective conclusion drawn from evolutionary psychology.

        The one time he suggested other men should emulate him without using evo psych, the backlash was terrible.

        I don’t want to overindulge in the psychological motivation fallacy (I’ve done that quite a lot already), so I’ll leave it at that. Any contributions I make this month will be aimed at refuting and exposing his ideas instead of discussing his psychological motivations for coming up with them.

        You should also know that I’m reading some Dave Ramsey books after seeing some of your old comments about him.

        (My theory is that you’re Dave Ramsey yourself, but don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 4:41 am

        I wish. Having a few-hundred-million dollar net worth would be pretty cool 😎

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 4:47 am

        By the way, I’m not arguing for or against evo-psych. I’m ambivalent on the subject. I don’t believe we evolved from other species, but it’s obvious that humans are extremely adaptable, and that we mostly adapt by changing our behavior.

        I look forward to your critique.

        Like

  7. Oscar says:
    2024-03-02 at 1:06 pm

    Off topic: don’t do this to your children.

    https://x.com/stillgray/status/1763613425803186547?s=20

    Like

    Reply
    • Info says:
      2024-03-02 at 9:22 pm

      Agreed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
      2024-03-02 at 9:25 pm

      My brother sends both of his kids to daycare. They probably spend as much time there as at home. It’s sad. The kids are having developmental problems and they can’t figure out why. They will never put two and two together.

      His house is paid for, and being in the military he makes enough to keep the wife at home. His sole (and I mean sole) determinant on where to live after retirement is the property taxes. The wife can’t stay home with the kids because he’s putting her through med school, even though she has no desire or aptitude for it. The reason? Pay. At the root, their God is money. Many such cases.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-02 at 9:42 pm

        If he’s putting his wife through med school, then more than likely he’s doing it for a much deeper reason other than wanting to torment and exhaust his wife. Personally, I would love my wife to be hardworking and highly educated, preferrably artistic as well.

        That being said, however, I do agree that it is wrong for children to be separated from their parents, especially at such a young age, though I don’t know how old the children are exactly since you didn’t mention that. But really, the children should have both their mother and their father in their lives, not just their mom being the only one who raises them while the dad is away all the time working himself to death – because that’s exactly the concept that those “Christian” fundamentalists keep propagating.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 3:18 am

        “But really, the children should have both their mother and their father in their lives, not just their mom being the only one who raises them while the dad is away all the time working himself to death…”

        You know how you accomplish that? Exactly like I told you before. As a man, you start training for a good career (this doesn’t necessarily mean college) starting in your teens. You avoid debt. You marry a young woman who also has marketable skills and has avoided debt. The two of you then set up your life so that you can base your household budget on the husband’s income alone. If the wife earns an income at the start of the marriage, then you save and/or invest it all.

        When you start having children, she quits work and stays home with the kids while you work your normal 8-hour/day job (this is not “working himself to death”) that your budget was based on the whole time.

        Then, when at least one of the kids is old enough to drive, she can go back to work if that’s what both of you want.

        What you don’t do, is put your children in daycare, or government schools, just so your wife can make money.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 3:28 am

        I’m not saying anything against your concept, which seems fairly reasonable. What I’m speaking against is, well, the idea that the husband should work himself to death. Not saying that you say that, you don’t, but some fundamentalists DO indeed propagate that concept.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 4:04 am

        Yeah, I read the quote you posted from Lori Alexander about a husband working 2 or 3 jobs. That’s not sustainable. It’s a short-term solution to pay off debt, or to start a business (working your main job while growing your side-hustle).

        If she meant it that way, then she’s right. If she meant it as a long-term solution, then she’s wrong.

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 4:57 am

        Given female nature, I’m afraid she most likely DID mean it as a long-term solution. Though to be exact, the quote wasn’t directly from her, but from a Twitter of a certain “Pastor Daniel”.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 5:39 am

        I try to not put words in other people’s mouths. It’s an irritating habit. Unless I see a statement from Lori saying that a husband should work 2 or 3 jobs for life, I’m not going to assume she meant it that way.

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 11:34 am

        Well, I am going to assume she meant it that way since it’s just a manifestation of (though in this case mostly restrained) female nature. I’m speaking from both my own and my brothers in Christ’s personal experiences with all kinds of women and girls.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2024-03-03 at 1:19 am

        “Personally, I would love my wife to be hardworking and highly educated, preferrably artistic as well.”

        You mean you want your woman to be able to make money. Got it. That’s always what that means. Be honest and say it.

        The problem is she is not these things. And I misspoke, it is not med school, but nursing school she is doing. She does not have the intelligence, work ethic or stress tolerance for the job. Nor does she have the desire, seeing as she has failed several classes and tests and now has two pre-school children. Truth be told, he doesn’t have the horsepower to do the job he has, but he won’t step down because he’s too close to retirement and the pay is too good. Like I said, this is all being done for money. But it’s ok because “conservative values”, which just means they love mammon while pretending to love God. The kids will suffer the most. Many such cases. Sad.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 1:34 am

        “You mean you want your woman to be able to make money. Got it. That’s always what that means. Be honest and say it.”

        I’m honestly kind of confused by what exactly you meant by this statement. Are you trying to say that it’s wrong for me to desire such a wife?

        “The problem is she is not these things. And I misspoke, it is not med school, but nursing school she is doing. She does not have the intelligence, work ethic, or stress tolerance for the job. Nor does she have the desire, seeing as she has failed several classes and tests and now has two pre-school children. Truth be told, he doesn’t have the horsepower to do the job he has, but he won’t step down because he’s too close to retirement and the pay is too good. Like I said, this is all being done for money. But it’s ok because “conservative values”, which just means they love mammon while pretending to love God. The kids will suffer the most. Many such cases. Sad.”

        Well, if that’s the case, then I’m afraid there’s not much that can be done about this, as these hardships are hardwired in the wife’s treacherous heart. Very few women generally speaking have denied their sinful nature, the vast majority embraces it and lives according to their treacherous heart, especially in today’s world.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 2:17 am

        “The reason? Pay. At the root, their God is money. Many such cases.”

        Yep. That’s pretty much it. People sacrifice their children at the altar of Mammon.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2024-03-04 at 1:18 am

        “Are you trying to say that it’s wrong for me to desire such a wife?”

        Yes, because those are not the necessary traits of a good wife. Those are nice-to-haves. Secondary, or even tertiary. Her first job is wife and mother, which naturally leaves little time for worldly success. That you want your wife to be a wordly success means you love mammon and hate her natural role.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-04 at 1:28 am

        @Bardelys the Magnificent,

        “Yes, because those are not the necessary traits of a good wife. Those are nice-to-haves. Secondary, or even tertiary. Her first job is wife and mother, which naturally leaves little time for worldly success. That you want your wife to be a wordly success means you love mammon and hate her natural role.”

        No no NO.

        I swear I do NOT love mammon by any means and may God annihilate me if I do!!

        I literally did not indicate anything like that in my comment. I never, I repeat, NEVER said a single f_ck!ng word about wanting a wife to be a “worldly success”, and yet you’re accusing me of doing so.

        All I said was that I want my wife to be hardworking and educated. HOW is that the same thing as wanting a careerist wife?? If you read my other comments, you would know that that’s NOT what I desire by any means!!

        I understand that not every man may want the same type of wife that I do, and I respect that fully. But do you seriously think it’s sinful for me to want a wife that will help me with my things?

        Sorry for the perhaps overly-emotional nature of this reply, but I really hate when someone is accusing me of things and saying things I never said and saying I think something that I really don’t.

        Like

      • Jack says:
        2024-03-04 at 7:43 am

        CG,

        “I want my wife to be hardworking and educated. HOW is that the same thing as wanting a careerist wife??”

        Educated implies having a purpose of pursuing a specific career that would require an education. Perhaps you mean to say that you want a woman who is diligent, relatively high quality in character (intelligent, agentic, etc.), and fully capable of being a good helper.

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-04 at 8:44 am

        Well, that just seems like synonyms to me. Though I understand that those specific words may have a negative connotation with the people of the RedPill community, and so preferrably a different rhetoric should be used instead to avoid a misunderstanding.

        Sorry for any potential inconvenience.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 12:20 pm

        I never, I repeat, NEVER said a single f_ck!ng word about wanting a wife to be a “worldly success”, and yet you’re accusing me of doing so.

        Clearly you dislike having someone else’s words put in your mouth. Maybe you should think about how that made you feel the next time you’re about to put your words in someone else’s mouth.

        Like

      • thedeti says:
        2024-03-13 at 12:09 am

        “…nursing school she is doing. She does not have the intelligence, work ethic or stress tolerance for the job. Nor does she have the desire, seeing as she has failed several classes and tests and now has two pre-school children.”

        Your brother is setting himself up for divorce. He’ll put her through school, she’ll get a job making her own money and working around men who are objectively more attractive than he is. She’ll divorce him inside of 5 years.

        Like

    • Oscar says:
      2024-03-03 at 3:35 am

      One of the more common lies that gets thrown around the manosphere is that it’s impossible for any man to support a family on his income alone, unless he’s in the top 1% of income earners.

      That’s not just a lie, it’s a stupid lie, in that one would have to be stupid to fall for it. The numbers are public, after all.

      According to the Social Security Administration, the top 1% of earners made $819,324 or more in 2021. Obviously, it doesn’t take anywhere near that much to support a family, since millions of people are doing it on far less.

      Another stupid lie is that a man needs a college degree to support a family. Again, the numbers are public. I work in the power industry, so I’ll use that as an example.

      My local utility is advertising a journeyman lineman position for $55.39/hour. That’s a gross pay of $115,211.20/year. And that’s in rural northern Idaho/eastern Washington. Any reasonable person can live VERY comfortably on that pay around here.

      Lineman’s training only takes 15 weeks and about $22k. At that point, you start making about $70k as an apprentice lineman. Then it takes about 2 years on the job to become a journeyman lineman. That means a young man can graduate high school at 18, train as a lineman, and by 22 or 23 make a 6-figure income, and be ready to support a family.

      I just noticed that another one of my clients is hiring a journeyman lineman for $57.31/hour ($119,204.80/year) plus a $15k sign-on bonus.

      Depending on the career field he chooses, a young man can be better prepared to support a family earlier if he doesn’t go to college.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 5:11 am

        As I said here before, I like writing stories. Not professionally as of now, but it may turn into professional writing for money. In that case, my highly-educated, artistic wife could work from home as an illustrator for my stories, so the question of “working vs staying at home” would be resolved.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 5:31 am

        If you’re not making a profit from writing, then writing is a hobby. If you’re not making enough to support yourself by writing, then it’s a side-hustle. Either way, you need an actual job until you can support your family through writing.

        As for your potential future wife, if she’s artistic, then she doesn’t need a college degree. Art degrees are a scam. If a person has the talent and the passion to make art, then the way they cultivate their talent is by making art. You don’t need college for that.

        You’re aiming at an extremely narrow target. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but the vast majority of people who try what you want to accomplish fail. I wish you luck.

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 9:35 am

        Well, the type of wife that I want is already extremely rare and almost impossible to find in the first place, so this kind of renders this irrelevant.

        To be honest, I’ve kind of given up the thought of finding a wife in this world in the first place, but it doesn’t really matter, since this world will end soon anyway.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 9:25 am

        Let’s add some more numbers to the discussion of supporting a family on one income.

        According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the USA was $74,580.00 in 2022. That’s household income, not personal income. That means it includes single income, and dual income families.

        That means that if a man makes $75k, he can support a family at a lever higher than that of half of American families – all by himself.

        Some will say that $75k is unrealistic. That’s false. One of my clients (a utility company) is advertising an apprentice lineman position for $34.39/hour. That’s $71,531.20/year. And that’s an apprentice fresh out of lineman’s training. Even if he pays for training with a loan, he can pay off the $22k for training his first year at work, then start saving up for a house his second year on the job. By his third year on the job, if he gets his journeyman’s qualification, he can start making over $100k/year.

        If a young man starts on that path right after high school, he could be 22, or 23 with a nice truck, a fat down payment on a house, and growing 401k. He’s more than ready to support a family on his own.

        But he’d be better off economically with a wife who earns money, right?

        Probably not.

        If his wife works, they’ll eat out more often. In a recent survey by Fourth (a hospitality company), 56% of respondents said they eat out 2-3 times per week. That gets very expensive very quickly.

        Then there’s daycare. According to Care.com, on average American families who use daycare spend 24% of their household income on it.

        When you account for all the additional expenses, the wife who earns money outside the home rarely adds much net income to the household.

        Then you have to take into account the detrimental effects that daycare and constant eating out has on the kids, and the parents. Why do you think childhood obesity rates have skyrocketed since the mid-70s?

        Why are depression rates getting worse?

        I think it’s due in part to the increase in single-mother, and dual-income families. Kids get dropped off at daycare, spend all day with a constantly revolving succession of paid strangers, then get picked up by their stressed out, frazzled parent(s) who stop by McDonald’s for a high-calorie facsimile of a meal on their way home. All for a negligible increase in net income.

        Men who want to be good fathers can avoid all of this destruction by training early for a good-paying career, and marrying women who actually want to raise their own kids.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-04 at 3:18 pm

        Men who want to be good fathers can avoid all of this destruction by training early for a good-paying career,

        No man serving in someone else’s household is going to have successful offspring. It has been this way since all of human history.

        A man is either free having his own enterprise or he is a slave raising someone else’s “kids”. That’s it.

        Western debt-slaves like chasing idols like “education”, “good-paying” and “career” pretending they are free. They submit to lies.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 11:47 pm

        Meanwhile, in reality, 80% of millionaires became millionaires by investing in their company’s 401k.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:
        2024-03-04 at 10:08 pm

        For those who are interested in employment as a utility lineman, here is the lineman pay by state,

        https://www.linemancentral.com/lineman-pay-by-state

        It seems the pay, on average, is much lower than that being offered by the utility in Oscar’s area. But with some overtime, no doubt the pay can easily reach six figures.

        I knew a lineman for the telephone company who attended my church. He described all the c*ap the management pulled to make his working life difficult. When his son asked about following in his father’s footsteps and becoming a lineman, his reply was basically a firm, “NO.” His son went on to train as an airplane mechanic / technician. The thinking was it couldn’t be worse than working for the telephone company.

        With any job, its good to know someone who actually does the work before pursuing that type of work.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jax says:
        2024-03-06 at 7:39 am

        I find myself wishing that I had pursued a trade instead of going to college for five years (bullsh_t, more sh_t) for Computer Science. I have a vague understanding of how a computer even works; at least with a trade I could feel like I’m really mastering my craft.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Chris D says:
    2024-03-02 at 10:56 pm

    Greetings, I need some emotional help.

    I discovered the Red Pill, specifically Heartiste.

    I came across this article of his. https://web.archive.org/web/20170224001854/http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/why-do-conservatives-sanctify-women/

    The way he describes what women can do, what they have done to him, enthusiastically. Is this all women? Is it all in the end a matter of power, status and sex? Is there no higher virtue?

    This whole thing scares me. I know I shouldn’t pedestalize women, but are we all so mmoral and capable of sin? I feel like I am in an abyss of meaning.

    I’d like to hear your thoughts.

    Like

    Reply
    • Costan Grigorij says:
      2024-03-03 at 12:28 am

      All women are like that naturally, according to their treacherous heart. But women can freely choose to deny their wicked, manipulative, Lawless nature, and instead embrace godliness and positive, courageous, moral, manly (the Proverbs 31 woman is called andreia, or literally “manly” in the Septuagint) virtues.

      Like

      Reply
    • ArchAngel says:
      2024-03-03 at 6:00 am

      Chris,

      Yours is a hard comment to reply to.

      It is important you remove women from the pedestal, but, contrary to what Roissy and Rollo may imply, women do choose to act poorly. This is the balance: women and men are both capable of immense evil, and if we are being honest, most people indulge themselves.

      Mainstream conservatives interpret every sin women commit as men’s fault. When women indulge themselves (through promiscuity, sex work, divorce etc.), they blame men and create a ministry to cure ‘men’s problem’. For each new vice women take up, they demand men learn a corresponding virtue, hence things like Promise Keepers.

      Roissy and Rollo absolve women of moral responsibility by pretending they don’t have free will. Women, like hurricanes, don’t have a choice but to be evil, they claim. Since they don’t have a choice they are no more evil than the hurricane. In this respect, Rollo and Roissy are the extreme opposite of the conservative position.

      They are both wrong because they rely on interpreting women’s behavior as conforming to their ideologies. Instead they should just observe women behaving. If they did that, it would be easy to deduce that women can freely choose to do good or evil. Walk up to a woman and ask her to do something good and then something evil: she can easily do either (even in sexual matters) because she is free.

      So, to answer your question, don’t hold a view of women as more virtuous than men, but don’t be deceived into the evo psych belief that they are prostitutes for the highest genetic bidder. Hopefully this month’s theme will help you some more.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-03 at 8:04 am

        Yeah, so like I said previously…

        … the main problem with the Red Pill is that it’s a solipsistic overreaction to feminism. Red Pill bros lack the self awareness to see that they’re doing the same thing that feminists do in reverse. Feminists say, “Man bad, woman good.” Red Pill bros say, “Woman bad, man good.”

        Both are wrong.

        The truth is that we’re all sinners in desperate need of grace and a savior.

        Like

      • Info says:
        2024-03-03 at 9:59 pm

        To be saved. To be baptized in the Holy Spirit. And in the process of Sanctification. Everyone needs it.

        And as is evident God is allowing the sinfulness of women to be played out. Only God belongs on said Pedestal.

        This problem is centuries in progress allowed to metastasize. It really sucks that God didn’t deal with the problem early. But God has his purpose of allowing it to get so bad.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-03 at 11:02 pm

        Oscar,

        “the main problem with the Red Pill is that it’s a solipsistic overreaction to feminism … Feminists say, “Man bad, woman good.”  Red Pill bros say, “Woman bad, man good.“

        Logically, that isn’t actually a problem. It is possible for them to be correct, even if they are counter-feminists. You’re veering toward the golden mean fallacy (argument for moderation).

        A more serious problem is the way both camps arrive at the dichotomies you noted: by interpreting reality as confirming their outlook.

        Feminists insist that there is a lot more r@pe than is reported, it’s just that no one ever reports it. Don’t bother asking them how they know how many r@pes people don’t report: they’re too busy interpreting reality.

        Some Red Pill celebrities (I’m no longer sure what else to call them) tell you that women are more valuable than men, in spite of son preference, female inf@nt!c!de, widow burning, and lower demand for women sl@ves in the trans-Atlantic sl@ve trade. (The opposite situation existed for Saharan and trans-Saharan sl@ves.) Don’t bother asking them whether value isn’t subjective, whether it isn’t up to the one conferring it; they’re too busy making interpretations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-04 at 9:50 am

        “You’re veering toward the golden mean fallacy (argument for moderation).”

        No, dude. You’re grossly misinterpreting what I stated. I stated that both men and women are dirty rotten sinners in desperate need of grace and a savior.

        1. There’s nothing moderate about that statement.
        2. It’s true.

        Like

    • Jack says:
      2024-03-03 at 6:03 am

      Hi Chris,

      Welcome to Σ Frame, one of the few blogs of the Christian Manosphere.

      “The way he describes what women can do, what they have done to him, enthusiastically. Is this all women?”

      What Heartiste’s post describes is the feral, unredeemed, unregenerated nature of women. Yes, some women are like that, full throttle, and I believe all women are capable of behaving that way. Yes, women are very skilled in hiding it and pretending to be more moral than they really are. Men who realize this about women from first-hand experience become Red Pilled in a hurry. The main reason why The Red Pill has become a cultural phenomenon is because the downwind effects of the Sexual Revolution have permitted and even rewarded this kind of behavior in women.

      “Is it all in the end a matter of power, status, and sex?”

      In the flesh, yes. Once you understand this, then you’ll have a better appreciation for what the Bible refers to as the fleshly nature (Romans 5-8). Some people are more controlled by their fleshly nature than others. In general, women are weaker in the flesh than men (1 Peter 3:7).

      “Is there no higher virtue?”

      It is by the grace of God that we are not all so depraved. Most people can sense these desires within themselves, understand the consequences of giving the flesh free reign, and thus make an effort to keep themselves in check. Some people lack any conscience in this regard. Some people like to test those boundaries and see how much they can get away with.

      “This whole thing scares me.”

      It should if you have a conscience. Sorry… but you can be thankful that you have a conscience.

      “I know I shouldn’t pedestalize women, but are we all so immoral and capable of sin?”

      Yes. See Romans 3:23. Facing this truth about human nature is a necessary precursor for having true faith in Christ. Unfortunately, some people need to have an OMG! experience before they’re able or willing to face the reality of Romans 3:23.

      “I feel like I am in an abyss of meaning.”

      Yes, it feels that way. But actually, you are on the cusp of knowing God. You are faced with the choice of trusting in Christ to help you deal with all this, or else succumb to hopelessness and despair. The prescription is to read your Bible, pray, and stay in fellowship with other believers. Keep hanging around here if you don’t have a good church to attend.

      God has used The Red Pill experience to expose the works of the flesh and thereby bring many men to faith. God brought you to this point, and He will lead you through.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Chris D says:
        2024-03-03 at 6:37 am

        Thank you. I am mostly trying to get over my shock/distress over reading what I cannot deny, that we are all depraved in some sense, that I may be afraid of this new reality.

        I know it is weird to get disturbed at random posts from a player from 14 years ago, but I have been far too sensitive of a man. I hope you understand. I think I do need god in my life.

        Heartiste’s hedonism and nihilism, the one that breaks down human bonds, that ruins people, is dangerous. I hate it. I want nothing to do with it, and seeing his depravity angers me. Just reading his description makes me feel pain.

        I will read more of your writings. I do need hope on my life.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Info says:
        2024-03-03 at 10:07 pm

        @Chris D

        While Salvation involves a Honeymoon period so that we may become more firmly rooted in faith. As the Holy Spirit works in you. You will be better able to see in detail the stains of your own sin. As the Pure light of God increases. So the contrast is made evident.

        You will also see more and more the true Nature of Sin. It’s ugliness. It’s corruption. A root cause of all the world’s problems even when said problems aren’t directly caused by sin. If you see it in yourself then surely it exists in others.

        Blindness, deafness. Even needing to wear glasses to see with Perfect 20/20 vision. Are evidence of the entropy sin has introduced to our Cosmos (Romans 8:18-23) which falls far short of the ideal that our bodies could be. Far better than the Ancient Greeks imagined the Olympian Gods to be.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Info says:
        2024-03-03 at 10:13 pm

        @Chris D

        And the more you know the true nature of evil. The more deeply you should rely on God. To look at his Cross where sin is forgiven. Where evil is turned into Good. And where your old self is Crucified with Jesus so that as a New Man you are raised with him.

        The death and resurrection of Jesus is the negation and destruction of your own evil in him.

        The Cross is located on the Skull of Golgotha. A sword stabbed into the skull. Defeating Death.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
      2024-03-03 at 5:47 pm

      “This whole thing scares me.”

      Do you shoot guns? Do they scare you? Deadly things aren’t they? Pointing the wrong direction, BAM, someone is dead. They scare women, that’s for sure. Temperance Movement, Prohibition, Suffrage, Gun Control — One thing comes to another: When women have the vote, guns in the hands of righteous are gone, sooner or later and only criminals possess them.

      That’s the central problem with modern men: They behave like women and are no longer used to and capable of handling “scary” things and beings — women included.

      The ‘women are harmless’ narrative comes with suffrage. Guess for what reason.

      Like

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-03 at 10:24 pm

        “When women have the vote, guns in the hands of righteous are gone, sooner or later and only criminals possess them.”

        It’s not because women have a right to vote, but because they have a treacherous heart that ALWAYS conspires against man no matter what he allows (or not allows) her to do. The same goes for children’s treacherous heart which conspires against their parents and man’s treacherous heart which conspires against God.

        Even if all women were forbidden from doing anything other than being “barefoot and pregnant” 24/7, they would STILL act like this in their heart. The solution is not to take away all the rights of all women, even those that denied their treacherous heart, but to properly raise them and bar only those that embrace their wicked heart instead of denying it.

        The only alternative to this solution is to just destroy and annihilate all women from existence.

        Like

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-04 at 4:49 am

        Women’s suffrage leads to gun control. Gun control (not specifically, but in a general sense) leads to men no longer able to handle women. Women in power make societies so safe and cozy that men lose all opportunities to experience danger.

        Result: Contemporary men so are afraid of scary stuff, that they choose to cage women behind a pixelated screen. That’s pretty much the result of the Black Pill.

        Let me expand a little on my metaphor: A young man gets red-pilled and figures out that having a woman in your bedroom is like having a loaded gun in your bedroom.

        Depending on the man himself this message can produce very different reactions: Some guy well trained in gun safety will feel safer now: After all having a loaded gun next to him while sleeping is great for home defense. While another guy who doesn’t now anything about handling scary gear will fear for his life now, just fumbling a little and BAM, he might be fatally wounded.

        The core message for men is: An adult man needs to be able to handle scary stuff. That’s part of masculinity and that’s what most TRP material is about. Then he is able to handle women.

        Like

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
      2024-03-04 at 5:53 am

      Relevant sermon just dropped:

      Like

      Reply
    • thedeti says:
      2024-03-05 at 1:24 am

      I know I shouldn’t pedestalize women, but are we all so mmoral and capable of sin?

      No, you should not pedestalize women. Yes, we are all that immoral and capable of sin. Women especially.

      A woman who is sexually attracted to a man will let that man do just about anything he wants to do to her. She will do the nastiest, most depraved things, lap it all up, and beg him for more.

      Yes, women are immoral and capable of sin. You have to see it to believe it. I believe absolutely every word of what Roissy wrote there. Every word. I’ve seen it. Too many men have reported it.

      If there’s anyone who should not be on a pedestal, it’s women.  

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      • ArchAngel says:
        2024-03-05 at 7:44 pm

        “A woman who is sexually attracted to a man will let that man do just about anything he wants to do to her. She will do the nastiest, most depraved things, lap it all up, and beg him for more.”

        Ironically, this hardline Red Pill stance is one of the most Blue Pill things you can believe. Your over-the-top stance still views female sexuality as innocent and reactive.

        The mistake you’re making is the same one Roissy makes: you think the woman doesn’t want to have sex with the man she is attracted to. Therefore, she “lets“ him do whatever he wants “to” her, after his attractiveness overcomes her inhibitions. You imagine the woman is passive because you believe women never want to have sex, and only the blackest of magics could possibly arouse a woman.

        Like I already said, the women who cheat on their husbands are not under a spell, as much as that may hurt Roissy’s ego. He has no power over them; they are evil of their own accord.

        Hard as it is for some to believe, women being horny is a common phenomenon. It’s not like seeing Hailey’s comet or anything. Many women watch and read porn to cope with their libidos and the ones PUAs pick up in bars are there to pick up a man themselves. They are not innocent women who are the victims of an irresistible super-attractive man.

        All I can say about the “women are asexual until they run into Übermensch” belief is:

        Like

      • Jack says:
        2024-03-06 at 9:33 am

        AA,

        “Hard as it is for some to believe, women being horny is a common phenomenon.”

        Lexet and I have written about this before — that women are even more horny than men are, but only under certain conditions that the majority of men never witness. It is to women’s advantage to hide this and to let men believe that they’re less sexual than men are. Men who are aware of it are incentivized to play along with this deception. It is difficult for men who have never been the focus of a woman’s feral desire to believe it, and if they ever get a glimpse of it, the immediate reaction is to condemn the woman as bad / depraved / sinful / etc., when in fact, that’s just how they are. OTOH, in some ways, being left in the dark is an act of mercy to men who will never be the recipient of a woman’s sexual desire. The fact that this has become well-known is largely responsible for the Black Pill.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. feeriker says:
    2024-03-03 at 6:16 pm

    “[B]ecause “conservative values” … just means they love mammon while pretending to love God.”

    I wish I could argue that this is untrue, but I would sound like a fooking fool if I did. 

    Parents, including CHRISTIAN parents, routinely sacrifice their children’s wellbeing in the pursuit of mammon. And of course they justify it by claiming that it’s all “for the children’s benefit.”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • Info says:
      2024-03-03 at 10:09 pm

      Material riches are no use without the Inheritance of Spiritual Riches. That equip children with the Wisdom, character and skills to be God’s children in a fallen world.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
      2024-03-04 at 1:35 am

      In the OT, God showed favor to His people by granting them wordly things: riches, land, kingdoms, victories in battle, honors, etc. Our blessings after Christ came are very different, but many Christians, most notably Protestants, still believe this idea that if you are faithful, God will give you nice things as a reward (there’s a reason it’s called the Protestant work ethic). But even modern Catholics have fallen victim to this, with the idea of “vocation”. Of course, vocation always means “job” or “career”, so instead of reminding women that their main vocation will be wife and mother, daughters often come home and say, “I have discerned my vocation to be (insert job here)” and the fathers and priests go along with it.

      The truth is, even the most devout Christians are scared to death of allowing a man to take care of their daughters. Better make sure princess can support herself, “just in case”. It’s this fear that gets installed into their daughters and eventually wrecks the marriage. Look up the phenomenon of the emergency abuse duffle bag to see how insidiously evil this is.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-04 at 2:09 am

        So what are you suggesting? That women should be barred from any kind of work or education? Because that wouldn’t solve any of these problems or hardships, because they come from the woman’s treacherous heart.

        Even if women were banned from doing anything other than being “barefoot and pregnant” 24/7, they would STILL have the same treacherous heart they do now.

        So the only reasonable solution is to raise your wives properly so that whatever they do, they do for their husbands for their glory, not for the systemic Beast.

        And before you accuse me again of “loving mammon and hating a woman’s natural role”, please keep in mind that I love a woman’s natural role, not hate it as you (with due respect falsely) claimed.

        But I just don’t believe that the only thing that a wife should do is birthing babies, cook and clean, though obviously, all of these are important things and I would never even in a dream dare to say that they aren’t.

        The Proverbs 31 woman is said to be hardworking and earning money, not as a careerist, but as a loving wife of her husband.

        But based on this latest comment of yours, I assume that you’re probably going to reply that Proverbs 31 is irrelevant to us since P31 is an OT text, not a NT one.

        Like

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-04 at 3:10 pm

        Even if women were banned from doing anything other than being “barefoot and pregnant” 24/7, they would STILL have the same treacherous heart they do now.

        The typical American Evangelical seeks a theological solution for worldly problems, stemming from the unscientific idea that that one book has all the answers. In the NT theology marriage is supposed to be something strictly limited to this αἰών and irrelevant in the next (leading some Christian reformers to dropping it altogether).

        RP men understand that empirical science (observation, theory, testing) is the tool to solve the issues limited to this world and this life. And the RP provides exactly that. The manosphere has pretty much figured out that keeping women busy is the solution to all kinds of relationship issues arising from idle woman hands (including temperance, feminism, suffrage, abortion).

        Barefoot and pregnant is one way to keep a woman busy. Recent scientific findings also confirm that unlike men women’s cognitive development stops at reaching puberty, but matures further by pregnancy.

        In the NT Paul adds that keeping women pregnant is the preferred way to sanctify them. Note how he is strictly writing about the fate of women’s souls, not about everyday life.

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-04 at 6:34 pm

        “Barefoot and pregnant is one way to keep a woman busy.”

        Indeed, but my point is that it’s not the only way. A woman can help her husband with economic activity, if he wants her to do so. But obviously, you cannot force her to do so, like God doesn’t force people to believe in Him.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2024-03-04 at 3:53 am

        “So what are you suggesting? That women should be barred from any kind of work or education?”

        You’re either being deliberately obtuse, or you’re not tall enough for this ride.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2024-03-04 at 2:51 pm

        In the OT, God showed favor to His people by granting them wordly things: riches, land, kingdoms, victories in battle, honors, etc.

        Correctly read the Hebrew bible describes wives and heirs as the favors provided by יהוה.

        but many Christians, most notably Protestants, still believe this idea that if you are faithful, God will give you nice things as a reward (there’s a reason it’s called the Protestant work ethic).

        Americans believe this, but it is not a Protestant belief, as it works-based.Fundamentalists.

        The American tradition of men qualifying to the father of the bride stems from this.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:
        2024-03-12 at 3:47 am

        DBD,

        “The manosphere has pretty much figured out that keeping women busy is the solution to all kinds of relationship issues arising from idle woman hands (including temperance, feminism, suffrage, abortion).

        Barefoot and pregnant is one way to keep a woman busy. Recent scientific findings also confirm that unlike men women’s cognitive development stops at reaching puberty, but matures further by pregnancy.

        In the NT Paul adds that keeping women pregnant is the preferred way to sanctify them. Note how he is strictly writing about the fate of women’s souls, not about everyday life.”

        There is a reason that Paul wrote 1 Tim 5:13. Idle women get caught up in the emotions that come with drama, whether it is naturally occurring or manufactured. AWALT.

        RP theory addresses at least some of the reasons why Paul wrote that women are saved through childbirth. There is the scientific aspect of neurological development of course, but for many women the first time they consider another human more than themselves is when they hold their first child. Baby numero uno is often how the first fissures appear in a woman’s foundation of solipsism. That baby is often the first human life that a woman is responsible for and that certainly can change people for the better.

        Like

    • jvangeld says:
      2024-03-12 at 3:07 am

      It’s the foolish and worldly talk:

      Cane Caldo: Foolish and Worldly Talk, by Okrahead (2019/4/1)

      Like

      Reply
  10. feeriker says:
    2024-03-04 at 2:58 am

    “The truth is, even the most devout Christians are scared to death of allowing a man to take care of their daughters.”

    I don’t think “scared” is the applicable adjective here as much as “loath.”

    The prevailing attitude across the English-speaking western world is that being a parent is a burden, a punishment, almost a two-decade-long prison sentence, with time added to the sentence for each child you create. How else does one explain the eagerness of parents to offload their offspring into public schools, daycare centers, activities, or anything else that gets them out of the house and out of the parents’ hair?

    Given this attitude, is it any wonder that fathers recoil at the thought of taking care of their adult daughters (or children of either sex)?  Most parents pretty much start counting the days from their child’s birth to the day when they can be on their own, out of the house, and no longer Mommy and/or Daddy’s problem. Dad would be perfectly fine with little princess becoming on OnlyFans slore as long as she was making enough money at it to support herself without having to come to him for help. It’s the same reason they don’t give princess any guidance or support in finding a decent husband. First of all, it takes too much effort. Second, neither Mommy nor Daddy is likely to know what “good husband material” looks like. Third, every day princess lives under his roof is one more day Daddy has to be responsible for her. This is why he’s perfectly fine with her shacking up with the first scumbag who will have her. “She’s grown now and can figure it out for herself. No longer my problem.”

    And yes, this attitude is just as common among “Christian” parents as among non-believers.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • Costan Grigorij says:
      2024-03-04 at 3:03 am

      “Given this attitude, is it any wonder that fathers recoil at the thought of taking care of their adult daughters?”

      What exactly does it mean to “take care of your adult daughters” in this context?

      I agree that raising your daughter to become a “career woman” who uses her abilities for the system is definitely bad, but raising her to be an infantile completely incapable of any actual work is just as bad. (I’m not saying that’s what you meant in this comment.)

      Like

      Reply
      • feeriker says:
        2024-03-04 at 3:27 am

        It’s admittedly a “gray area,” but I would define “taking care” of adult daughters as giving them proactive guidance and encouragement toward finding a suitable Christian husband. At the same time, this would include “filtering” any men she shows romantic interest in.  Not in the sense of being an intimidating bully towards would-be suitors who sets impossible standards that he himself can’t meet, but of giving counsel on the pros and cons of the man’s character. Ultimately it will be her decision, but for any woman raised by a conscientious father, having his blessing for her union would be an essential step.

        As far as work goes, by all means a daughter should work to earn her own money, but if she’s making a conscious effort to be a good candidate Christian wife, Dad should make sure that she’s never in a position of having to compromise her morals for economic reasons (e.g., she starts an OnlyFans page, or finds herself living on the street because she has no other way to support herself).

        Liked by 1 person

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
      2024-03-04 at 4:16 am

      It’s true that that attitude exists (I was given similar treatment, although not that extreme. My parents didn’t resent having me) but there is a parallel idea that fathers expect prospective son-in-laws to clear hurdles the father himself could not clear at his age. Daddy Dearest is not going to marry off Princess to a man if all he can do is put a modest apartment over her head. Princess is going to be “taken care of”, which means a 3/2 with acreage in a nice neighborhood with good schools, a car under warranty and many other nice things, at bare minimum. If a prospective suitor cannot do so, it’s better for her to stay home, or to “support herself”, which always includes a subsidy from Daddy Dearest. And if there are no suitable young men who can do this, then they better start stepping up, bucko!

      This attitude robs all three parties: the young men get blackpilled as they know they have no chance unless they are extreme outliers (or they say “screw it” and go the P&D route), Princess becomes accustomed to her hypergamous filter rather than learning to conquer it, and the father becomes incapable of feeling anything but contempt for the young men who are interested in his daughter. None of these lead to successful marriages.

      We have to expect that if we want to marry our daughters off young, the men they marry are not going to come to you a complete package. They will struggle. This is ok and natural. You’re robbing the young couple of one of the great gifts of marriage: bonding through struggles. It is not a tragedy not to have a “soft life”. This is not our permanent home. At the core, these people love mammon above all else and do not trust God that He will provide for the young couple.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-04 at 4:28 am

        “You’re either being deliberately obtuse, or you’re not tall enough for this ride.”

        I apologize if I said anything insulting. I guess I unfortunately lack your experience.

        Like

  11. feeriker says:
    2024-03-04 at 5:11 am

    “We have to expect that if we want to marry our daughters off young, the men they marry are not going to come to you a complete package. They will struggle. This is ok and natural. You’re robbing the young couple of one of the great gifts of marriage: bonding through struggles. It is not a tragedy not to have a “soft life”. This is not our permanent home. At the core, these people love mammon above all else and do not trust God that He will provide for the young couple.”

    Given that Daddy isn’t even interested in helping his own flesh and blood, it stands to reason that he would find the idea of helping and encouraging a man not related to him laughable, at best, and obscene, at worst.

    When Scott used to post hereabouts, he mentioned on more than one occasion how, when he and Mychael were trying to advance the concept of courtship, the two of them would be more than happy to help any of their newlywed children and their spouses to get on their feet to the best of their ability to do so. Sadly, this attitude, which was the norm prior to about a century ago, is now almost unheard of. Such is the malignantly selfish nature of our contemporary society.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  12. Bwana Simba says:
    2024-03-04 at 7:18 am

    Archangel posted about the Red Pill fallacies on women being preferred over men even in ancient times. This is one of the biggest problems and flaws in both Game and Red Pill and the old Manosphere. They always kept going to the “women are more natural” Anglo belief and women in all societies were more valued or venerated. But that doesn’t make sense. If this is women in their natural state, then their natural state is to mutilate themselves, whore themselves, sacrifice their children to demons, and then allow said demons to possess themselves (mental illness, drug abuse). That is an even better argument against the state of nature than the stories of Eve and Pandora.

    Likewise, the belief that whores were never stoned, witches never burned, and women always had the halo effect. Except, Islamic countries are proof against (“Islam is right about women”), the Chinese daughter infanticide is proof against, the gang r@pes that occur in India and Africa are proof against, and the far more rough and tumble sections of Eastern Europe (look up Russian men slapping women mis behaving) and South America are proof against. The game theory that “women have intrinsic value” has been badly disproven in modern society.

    This is not to say that game and PUA and other parts of the old Manosphere were completely wrong. But I think part of the problem was that these ideas, the Red Pill, began in the ’80s and were a byproduct of Generation X growing up. Virtually all of the old pickup artists were Gen X and I believe they were describing their own culture and upbringing and generational values without realizing it. So now that the Gen X way of life is gone completely these ideas don’t hold up because they were actually byproducts of those time. What we see now in the dating marketplace is progress having torn down what little traditionalism remained and left zombies and demons behind.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • Jack says:
      2024-03-04 at 11:29 am

      Arch Angel, Bwana Simba,

      “Archangel posted about the Red Pill fallacies on women being preferred over men even in ancient times. This is one of the biggest problems and flaws in both Game and Red Pill and the old Manosphere.”

      The way I understand it, the Red Pill observes that the idea that women are more valued than men is a characteristic of Western culture, especially in the Anglosphere, and points out that this is essentially pedestalization in most cases. The idea that “Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap” explains the motives of the P_ssy Pass.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Bwana Simba says:
        2024-03-04 at 11:57 am

        If true only as pointed out to the West, especially Anglo countries, then true. But I have seen it claimed of all peoples and time periods. The pussy pass was the phrase I couldn’t recall.

        Like

    • Costan Grigorij says:
      2024-03-12 at 6:09 am

      “If this is women in their natural state, then their natural state is to mutilate themselves, whore themselves, sacrifice their children to demons, and then allow said demons to possess themselves (mental illness, drug abuse). That is an even better argument against the state of nature than the stories of Eve and Pandora.”

      Well, women only have value when they are beloved, loving wives, obedient to both God and man’s Law. Otherwise, they are just Lawless sw!nes worthy of nothing but annihilation.

      But women are not naturally loving, on the contrary, as you wrote yourself, they have a natural tendency to do those things, for it is hardwired in their deceitful hearts.

      Like

      Reply
  13. Costan Grigorij says:
    2024-03-12 at 6:05 am

    @RPA

    There is a reason that Paul wrote 1 Tim 5:13. Idle women get caught up in the emotions that come with drama, whether it is naturally occurring or manufactured. AWALT.

    RP theory addresses at least some of the reasons why Paul wrote that women are saved through childbirth. There is the scientific aspect of neurological development of course, but for many women the first time they consider another human more than themselves is when they hold their first child. Baby numero uno is often how the first fissures appear in a woman’s foundation of solipsism. That baby is often the first human life that a woman is responsible for and that certainly can change people for the better.

    Well, woman was created first and foremost to be a wife and helper, not a mother. But with children and motherhood, a woman can experience what it’s like when her progeny does not listen to her and betrays her love. Which is exactly the same thing she does to man and what man does to God.

    Like

    Reply
    • Oscar says:
      2024-03-12 at 1:28 pm

      What was God’s first commandment to humanity?

      Like

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-12 at 2:40 pm

        Command, or Divine blessing? Because if you’re referring to God saying “be fruitful and multiply” in Genesis 1, that was God blessing mankind as stated in that verse. You can take it as a commandment I suppose, but definitely not in the sense of “Thou shall have babies every year, or I will annihilate you in the lake of fire.” Not saying that’s what you meant of course.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-12 at 3:18 pm

        “You can take it as a commandment I suppose, but definitely not in the sense of “Thou shall have babies every year, or I will annihilate you in the lake of fire.”

        Seriously? Come on, man.

        Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

        Genesis 1:28

        If God tells people to do something, then it’s obviously a commandment. Yes, God blessed them, but He also told them to do several things.

        1. Be fruitful and multiply.
        2. Fill the earth and subdue it.
        3. Have dominion…

        God’s first commandment to humanity was “be fruitful and multiply”. Obviously, being fruitful and multiplying requires men to be fathers and women to be mothers. This isn’t complicated.

        Equally obviously, if a woman is to be a mother, then she needs to be a wife and helper first. Things work better that way. But obviously motherhood was important enough to God that he made it part of His first commandment to humanity.

        Like

    • surfdumb says:
      2024-03-12 at 9:20 pm

      Being a strong empowered career woman wasn’t an option for Eve. Mothering was going to be part of being a helper, but I can see CG’s perspective making sense, that being a helper to the husband is a higher, or more important part of the role.

      We are to go and make disciples, or multiply, as a believer, but I do think there is a Mary > Martha aspect to loving Jesus primarily, then multiplying.

      It’s an academic issue, but was interesting to think about. Practically, young dudes will look for both, a helper who wants to multiply. I suppose if she was infertile, then it shows why being a helper to the husband is elevated.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-12 at 9:49 pm

        I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this comment, so to speak.

        My perspective, quite simply, is that the wife being a helper for her husband includes many, many other activities other than just cooking, cleaning and birthing children, though to not be misunderstood, these things by themselves are of great importance.

        But these things are not the ONLY activities that a wife can / should do as a helper. The wife can use her education and job skills for the benefit of her husband and family as well.

        In short, I’m not speaking against the importance of motherhood by any means, I’m only against the fundamentalist notion that “the wife should stay home no matter what”, as this notion is neither biblical nor practical.

        With that being said, however, it needs to be stressed that a young couple with small children will, obviously, have basically no time for basically any other things, and therefore when the children are little, it is better for the wife to stay at home with the small children (or at least work from home), but only until they get older enough.

        An example from my own family:

        One of my uncles and his wife are both engineers. Since they have two small children, the wife (who has an engineer’s degree, or diploma in my country) currently stays at home with the children, while my uncle goes to work. (He has a fairly relaxed job time. I believe he goes there at like 11:00 so he can afford quite a bit of sleep.)

        Once the children are old enough (currently they are I believe 5 and 2, respectively) to go to school, however, his wife may use her engineer’s degree for a job that will supplement my uncle’s income. Since they can very well manage to make it so that she goes to work in the noon hours while the children are in school, then I honestly don’t see anything wrong about it.

        Hopefully this example from my family illustrates what I mean.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-13 at 11:28 am

        “Once the children are old enough (currently they are I believe 5 and 2, respectively) to go to school, however, his wife may use her engineer’s degree for a job that will supplement my uncle’s income.”

        You inadvertently provided an example of why Western countries are committing demographic suicide.

        Your aunt and uncle didn’t multiply. They barely managed to replace themselves…. theoretically. If anything happens to either of the children, they won’t even have managed that. Once your aunt returns to work, she won’t have time for any more children.

        By the way, how many siblings do you have?

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-13 at 2:13 pm

        “You inadvertently provided an example of why Western countries are committing demographic suicide.

        Your aunt and uncle didn’t multiply. They barely managed to replace themselves…. theoretically. If anything happens to either of the children, they won’t even have managed that. Once your aunt returns to work, she won’t have time for any more children.”

        I’m not going to argue and instead, I’m just going to humbly ask, what do you suggest they should do?

        Like

      • Costan Grigorij says:
        2024-03-13 at 2:39 pm

        One thing I forgot to mention is that they actually plan on having at least one more child from what I’ve heard. Additionally, she may just simply work from home until all children (both the ones they have now and the ones yet to be born) are old enough, which seems to correspond to the example that you yourself once told me about Suzy marrying Steve, having 3 children in her early-to-mid 20s “as a normal human being” (like you said) and staying at home temporarily until her age of 40, when the children are old enough.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-14 at 12:03 am

        Now you’re changing the story, which seems awfully convenient.

        Like

      • Oscar says:
        2024-03-13 at 10:45 am

        “I can see CG’s perspective making sense, that being a helper to the husband is a higher, or more important part of the role.”

        The two are inseparable.

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:
      2024-03-12 at 10:07 pm

      CG,

      Oscar is spot on with the purpose of women. Being her husband’s help and bearing him children are inseparable. Children are what she helps him with. Even consummating the marriage involves the act of procreating.

      Like

      Reply
  14. surfdumb says:
    2024-03-12 at 10:42 pm

    Hah, that’s funny, now that you replied CG with specifics I disagree. I thought you meant being a helper by helping him by doing domestic duties and by vigorously maturing and being supportive to him.

    It sounds like you are dismissing that and focusing on the wife working. Your example works for you, but I think it unwise (I’m in the minority with this view) and would ask the uncle to better state his vision. Sounds too much like a lifestyle is the goal to me with a wife chomping at the bit to get rid of the troublesome kids so she can start raking in travel / house / college funds.

    I’ve seen it in too many foreign-born couples here. Always a reason, but the wife is back in the work force asap, at the youngest being 4 or so. That engineer job she gets comes at the expense of another man trying to support his wife or to get money to help the church.

    You call it being helpful. I call it greed… Tomato / tomatoes.

    There is so much Titus 2 work and family help needed that I think the value of the money is dirty and cheap compared with the hard messy work of growing. So many lonely crazy young women, but the Aunt will be in a cube choosing a fancy wardrobe, maybe having a work bible study to “help” the women.

    Like

    Reply
    • Costan Grigorij says:
      2024-03-12 at 11:18 pm

      “It sounds like you are dismissing that and focusing on the wife working.”

      No I’m not, I literally said that in my reply to you. 😀

      “I’ve seen it in too many foreign-born couples here. Always a reason, but the wife is back in the work force asap, at the youngest being 4 or so. That engineer job she gets comes at the expense of another man trying to support his wife or to get money to help the church.

      You call it being helpful. I call it greed… Tomato / tomatoes.

      There is so much Titus 2 work and family help needed that I think the value of the money is dirty and cheap compared with the hard messy work of growing. So many lonely crazy young women, but the Aunt will be in a cube choosing a fancy wardrobe, maybe having a work bible study to “help” the women.”

      Yeah, I understand what you mean, but these examples are NOT what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a wife working withing a reasonable boundary so that it only benefits her husband and family. You on the other hand mention examples of “wives” entirely dismissing their families for pursuing worldly gain, which is obviously not a good thing. That’s not what I meant though.

      “…doing domestic duties and by vigorously maturing and being supportive to him…”

      Domestic duties don’t take THAT much time when well-organized, especially nowadays. An example from my very own family, my mother was (and still is) a doctor, secifically a pediatrist. She has been doing this job for her entire life and it has never conflicted with her motherly role. She always had enough time to cook for us, clean, wash, and to be with us as our wife and mother, etc. etc. Also, her medical skills have always been a great benefit for us, as when me or my sister or my dad were sick / injured, she would use her skills to help us immensely.

      As for being supportive, my mom was indeed just that to my dad, they have been married for 20+ years now, and though their relationship faced hardships, they still assuredly love each other.

      So in short, if the wife insists on working despite having 4-year-old children, then THAT is, indeed as you said, a sign of greediness.

      But, if she can use her education and skills to supplement her husband’s income once the children are old and responsible enough, then I don’t see how on Earth can this be wrong.

      But I understand that you may have a different experience than I with my own parents’ dynamic, or that things may work quite differently in your country. As the popular internet saying goes, your mileage may vary.

      Like

      Reply

  15. Pingback: "It's a Military Term" - Derek L. Ramsey

  16. Pingback: Misappropriated Models | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Misinterpreted Models | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Misunderstood Models | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Misapplied Models | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: A Failure of Knowledge Transference in Practical Applications | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Connecting the Dots | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: The Absence of Actionable Knowledge — Part 1 | Σ Frame

Leave a comment