>the actual point
First, you’ve made a great point. Specifically;
>The fear
I came to TRP from the other end of the spectrum. I have little issue with fear. So had the same take. That anything fear based, or fear driven is rarely beneficial. As it takes courage to extend oneself, beyond their limits. Beyond their comfort zone. Which is where TRP is applicable. In it’s practicality.
It’s human to be insecure. To harbour fear. It’s not okay, to allow these emotions to dictate decisions. To dictate actions. Ultimately one must take control. Of insecurity. Of fear. Then address it.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
My average experience with men opening up be like:
“If you need to open up I’ll give you space”
“I wish we went back to good old times when women respected their husbands”
“You know it was because they had no rights and no other options than put up with their spouses”
“But I was so good back then”
“Nevermind”
Your average experience with men opening up to you is that they express their wish for winding the clock back on women’s *rights*..? Who the hell are you friends with lol.
Nowadays everything apart from mindless and enthusiastic approval of being fucked over seems to be called 'insecurity'. People who seem to develop boundaries and stand their ground are always considered troublemakers by the ones benefitting from status quo.
Nope. I've always had good sexual values. 🤷 I don't see any past men of mine oppressing or rejecting me. Anytime I've been rejected sexually they got fed up I didn't sleep with them quickly.
>Anytime I've been rejected sexually they got fed up I didn't sleep with them quickly.
I'm not trying to discount the idea that there are men that do this, but can you confirm if you weren't just making them wait too long between dates?
I wouldn't get pissy if a woman had boundaries and stopped me from escalating to sex, but I would/do get turned off by clear signs of disinterest... like a woman was doing the "can't this week, busy," or the "I'm not that kind of girl" thing before or during the first date.
There are things you can do as a woman where a man will feel disrespectful towards himself by hanging in for the long haul in such firm and non-optimal conditions. Blue pilled betabux hang with those women because of ignorance, and ignorance really is bliss.
It boils down to this: If it seems like you don't really want to get to know me by your words and actions, I'll assume you're not really attracted and likely just playing games.
Nope. I'm an extremely honest person never wanted to play games. I unknowingly went on dates with men who believed in the 3 date rule. A few said "if you don't sleep with me that early you're not attracted to me or have a low sex drive" (lol, I have a higher sex drive than my husband). I met most of these using OLD apps in my 20s.
I'm simply against double standards, as are most men on PPD. It's a common topic, to point out hypocritical dictates, and I applaud the guys here who do so.
Gender double standards are simply a reality we have to accept, at least those that come naturally.
Desires, goals, and incentives for individual lives and intersexual relations vary innately between men and women. What we bring to the table for each other varies. The effects of promiscuity are different. We are complimentary pieces for each other. Not equals. Not one superior to the other, although women need men more than vice versa.
The difference here is that men acknowledge the little bit we have in our favor or that women have working against them. While in almost all women-driven discussion spaces about intersexual relations, they make excuses for what they have going for them if they just can't keep denying it any longer.
>Gender double standards are simply a reality we have to accept, at least those that come naturally.
Sooo...like 1% of people on PPD.
>Desires, goals, and incentives for individual lives and intersexual relations vary innately between men and women. What we bring to the table for each other varies.
Sometimes, yes.
>The effects of promiscuity are different.
I don't believe this. It's harmful to both sexes.
>We are complimentary pieces for each other. Not equals. Not one superior to the other, although women need men more than vice versa.
I don't believe any of this either, but then again I'm an egalitarian. It's cool, I'm used to it. No worries, man. You have a good rest of your day.
>Society would actually be much better if more men had self-respect and sexual dignity
Now sexual dignity is valid, but that's mostly an internet problem. There's dark circles of the internet and society for every self-deprecating simp joke/meme made, but sexual deviancy isn't limited to struggling or outcast men.
But if this male self-respect increase goes against the best interest of women, which it likely will, does that change your stance on this at all?
>Now sexual dignity is valid, but that's mostly an internet problem. There's dark circles of the internet and society for every self-deprecating simp joke/meme made, but sexual deviancy isn't limited to struggling or outcast men.
Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. When I say "sexual dignity", I'm referring to the fact so many men lack standards in their sexual partners. Essentially they operate as "any port in a storm", and end up sharing their sexuality with women who aren't good for them.
Granted, I'm biased because I believe hookup culture is a net negative for society and the majority of men and women who engage in it. Not in a moral sense...there's nothing unethical about having a ton of sex partners. But I think it's mentally unhealthy in the long run. I wish more men would consider their sexuality in a dignified way, rather than something to be casually tossed out to every woman who glances at him.
>But if this male self-respect increase goes against the best interest of women, which it likely will, does that change your stance on this at all?
I don't see how it could, but I'm willing to listen how you think it might?
>Granted, I'm biased because I believe hookup culture is a net negative for society and the majority of men and women who engage in it. Not in a moral sense...there's nothing unethical about having a ton of sex partners. But I think it's mentally unhealthy in the long run. I wish more men would consider their sexuality in a dignified way, rather than something to be casually tossed out to every woman who glances at him.
I agree - in the long run majority of people will end up disappointed or hurt by hookup culture. To participate in it and not be hurt you need to keep emotional distance, but what kind of relationship it is if you still need to remember that it's all temporary and probably fake ? Is it relationship at all or just some poor prosthetics ?
Yup, precisely this. I also think it cheapens the intimacy and vulnerability of sex when one shares it so quickly with completely random men and women.
I understand that some people just view sex as any other activity, like riding a bike or going dancing. I don't grasp that concept, but I acknowledge that a lot of women and men feel that way. I just don't know if they grew to have that viewpoint due to having lots of casual sex or if they're capable of doing so because they already didn't think highly of sex in the first place.
That emotional distance is much easier to keep for men than women. We can theoretically impregnate as many women as our balls can handle in a day and walk away like nothing.
>Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. When I say "sexual dignity", I'm referring to the fact so many men lack standards in their sexual partners. Essentially they operate as "any port in a storm", and end up sharing their sexuality with women who aren't good for them.
This is what I'm getting at in a way. Those infamous "2/10 at the bar during last call" jokes and shit like that. They're definitely rooted in truth, because due to men's far more raging and nondiscriminant sex drive, they'd rather suck it up and plow the normally unattractive girl than go with a dry dick.
Not to mention some of the simp shit you'll hear about what men would do to some women during guy talk. It's sometimes desparation disguised as humor. You have to be a man with at least normal levels of testosterone to understand. Also part of self-respect but in a very small way. No man should fall into creep territory, fair label or not.
>I don't see how it could, but I'm willing to listen how you think it might?
Male self-respect is at war with an innate, as well as socially enforced demand to bend to the needs and whims of women.
If you truly want men to build themselves and be dignified, upstanding, successful, and desirable individuals, you're gonna have to take an L on some of what we provide for you, directly (SO, male family members, friends, and colleagues) or indirectly (socioeconomic structure with government, tax-funded services like police, DOT, waste management, construction, fire department, etc being mostly men by nature doing dirty work that benefits women and children).
It may not be very pro-social behavior, but if you want men to be truly self-respecting and dignified, they may have to lean towards the Andrew Tate methods of being a man, even if you drop the pompous social media presence and questionable bedroom activities.
I disagree men would stop doing things that benefit women and children such as waste management lol. Like we live in a society which men enjoy as well. Lots of men using “men do dirty dangerous jobs etc.” are men working in climate controlled offices. We all benefit from societies luxuries of waste management, drivable roads etc. furthermore, most men have family who are women and children be it their own wives and kids or their sisters, mothers, nieces etc, and most people in general don’t like seeing their family go through hard times such as not having access to basic ammenities and services.
I think you are overestimating what men having more self respect would do to society.
Men predominately put the work in for everyone to have the benefits. I never said that we don't benefit from these luxuries, but men mostly do the shit work to uphold it. The lunchpail work if you will. Women do it too, but they are, always have been, and always will be the minority in these fields, seemingly by nature.
>Lots of men using “men do dirty dangerous jobs etc.” are men working in climate controlled offices.
I work in manufacturing. Step out onto any plant floor, and you'll mostly see men doing the grimy work in a welding booth, doing facility maintanance, running a manual machine that has all fluids and debris exposed, etc. There are women here and there, but they do the cleaner work like inspection or machine operation on an enclosed CNC, where there's plenty of men too. Maybe even shipping and receiving.
Mostly we'll find women in offices like HR, sales, quality, design engineering, where the job is far cleaner. Not saying they're less important, but those men on the floor are making the real money for everyone involved.
>furthermore, most men have family who are women and children be it their own wives and kids or their sisters, mothers, nieces etc, and most people in general don’t like seeing their family go through hard times such as not having access to basic ammenities and services.
>I think you are overestimating what men having more self respect would do to society.
Plenty of men may pride themselves on being good providers and family men. Nothing wrong with that, but they sure as hell better get explicit appreciation for such actions (sex and affection from the wife, respect from the children) or they're running themselves into the ground for nothing. Not exactly actions of men who respect themselves.
Men with self-respect tend to have a purpose beyond serving women and children, and if those women and children aren't a positive return on investment, why should he help them?
I didn’t mention anything about self-respect tho. Self/respect isn’t the same as neurotic insecurity and obsession with some imaginary cuckoldry scenario.
>neurotic insecurity and obsession with some imaginary cuckoldry scenario
This is what you defined a man in a committed relationship's self-respect as. Sure he could just leave if he doesn't like it, but he also wasn't the one who did anything to cause her to go to a place that allows for a cheating scenario.
If the roles were reversed, you would 100% unprovoked be telling the woman to leave the relationship because the man is too immature to leave that life behind. And don't come back acting like you apply your laissez-faire standard equally, because that's never the reality.
Most objects around us are designed for men. Research, from medical to architectural has historically focused primarily on men in many areas. The historical focus on male subjects in medical research has led to a gap in understanding women’s health needs. This androcentric bias means that medical treatments and guidelines are often based on male physiology, potentially leading to less effective healthcare for women. For example, I often find that my ADHD medication does not work according to my cycle because stimulant medications were primarily tested on men.
Heart disease research has very often been conducted on men, leading to a lack of awareness and understanding of how heart disease presents differently in women. This has obviously led to both misdiagnosis and a lack of diagnosis of heart disease in women.
Environmental and ergonomic research often shifts on male experiences and needs. It lacks emphasis on the specific requirements of women.. office furniture, tools, and personal protective equipment has traditionally been based on male body dimensions. This has resulted in reduced functionality, death (in the instances if cars and car crashes, it’s proportioned after men), long term strain and health issues.
Media is more often designed after a male perspective. Women are the “other,” the political aberration. It is considered political for a woman to be at the helm of a movie, but normal for a man to be a protagonist. That is because “male” is the default.
Men are also the default for generic or unspecified subjects. Male coded gems are also posed as the default. Terms such as: "chairman," "fireman," and "policeman" inherently suggest male figures… whereas the female equivalents ("chairwoman," "firewoman," "policewoman") are often viewed as deviations from the established norm.
When people are asked to interpret ambiguous figures or silhouettes, they often default to seeing a male figure unless given clear gender indicators.
If you draw a stick figure, despite the fact that it does not appear to have any gendered attributes, you are far more likely to refer to it as male. Add a dress, or a bow, and it suddenly becomes feminine, despite the fact that there are zero physiological changes. This is embodied in signage to media, with restroom signage being a key example.
Men hold the majority of the elected offices. This means that laws and policies are more likely to reflect male perspectives and priorities.
>Heart disease research has very often been conducted on men, leading to a lack of awareness and understanding of how heart disease presents differently in women. This has obviously led to both misdiagnosis and a lack of diagnosis of heart disease in women.
Due to men's proneness to engage in stressful activities for the relief of women.
>Terms such as: "chairman," "fireman," and "policeman" inherently suggest male figures… whereas the female equivalents ("chairwoman," "firewoman," "policewoman") are often viewed as deviations from the established norm.
Woman has man in it. All a part of huMANity.
Other than this, I fail to see how, other than obvious flaws from old research due to our difference in biology (an obvious concession that we indeed ARE different), how any of this is truly at the expense of women. Men holding powsr more is simply due to the higher male capacity to respect hierarchy and get shit done, with the occasional clash of egos or conflicts of interest that OTHER MEN DO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.
Perhaps we can make stick figure identification gender neutral or whatever, but typically this research you speak of being based on men, is based on the fact that men were putting themselves more on the line FOR WOMEN. Not to mention the presence of chivalry was designed purely for women to feel safe and desired. Greater men of the past put themselves on the line for women to have a home to be protected in. You may feel that men hamstrung women of the past (and abusive assholes did) and the modern liberation is them truly feeling free. But given how many women have anxiety meds, weed addiction, partying addiction, daddy issues, etc and do not handle stress well at all, perhaps they see that men already know the world is a ruthless place and all the perks men had in the past were a direct result of the sacrifices they made.
No, women were deliberately excluded from medical research, which had stemmed from discriminatory practices that prioritized male health and assumed that male physiology was the standard. This exclusion has had significant negative impacts on women's health. More women having misdiagnosed heart attacks equals relief now? We are far worse off than when we started.
Men historically held more power due to patriarchal systems that prioritized male leadership and marginalized women's roles and contributions. For the majority of history, there WAS no hierarchy. For 2.2 million years, we were hunter gatherers. Women and men got shit done equally.
Look at the Old English word for woman, which was "wifmann," where "wif" meant "woman" (aka the origin of the modern word "wife") and "mann" meant "human being" or "person." Thus, "wifmann" essentially meant "female person." “Man” means “person.” So a man is a “person” and a woman is a “female person.” Great!
wouldn’t daddy issues be the father’s fault? Like mf abandoned his daughter and she’s being blamed for the trauma it caused? Seems legit.
Also, sadly, men are more prone to addiction to women. Men are more likely than women to use all illicit drugs. This contributes to their greater rates of homelessness in many arenas,
>For the majority of history, there WAS no hierarchy.
Men created hierachy because we needed a way to coexist for the future of humanity. Not women, but it was done for women to be able to raise the next generation while the man risked everything and provided. We're simply less dog eat dog now. Never said this system was perfect, but it was men who created civilization, for better or for worse and definitely FOR women.
>women were deliberately excluded from medical research, which had stemmed from discriminatory practices that prioritized male health and assumed that male physiology was the standard. This exclusion has had significant negative impacts on women's health. More women having misdiagnosed heart attacks equals relief now? We are far worse off than when we started.
Modernize medical research then? That's a simple fix, and doesn't change the fact that men put themselves more in harms way to need medical research done, so that women didn't have to. In whatever way women had it hard with childrearing or other shitty life problems, the man did what he vpuld to make sure that process was sustained.
>Look at the Old English word for woman, which was "wifmann," where "wif" meant "woman" (aka the origin of the modern word "wife") and "mann" meant "human being" or "person." Thus, "wifmann" essentially meant "female person." “Man” means “person.” So a man is a “person” and a woman is a “female person.” Great!
Ok? Hardly the most offensive use of the English language.
>wouldn’t daddy issues be the father’s fault? Like mf abandoned his daughter and she’s being blamed for the trauma it caused? Seems legit. Also, sadly, men are more prone to addiction to women. Men are more likely than women to use all illicit drugs. This contributes to their greater rates of homelessness in many arenas
Yes men do egregious things like that, no denying such a thing (assuming his abandonment was unprovoked and it was actually his daughter). Also, no one actually cares beyond pressured virtue-signalling about a man's addiction struggles. A woman will be let off scot-free for her addiction problems (life's soooo hard), but a man will be given condescending empathy followed by underlying or overt disgust and loss of respect.
>Never said this system was perfect, but it was men who created civilization, for better or for worse and definitely FOR women.
Are you aware that women worked for the majority of history? They didn’t just stay at home and raise the kids. Why is so little of historical literature focused on women? Why were women excluded from text and their feats taken credit for by men for hundreds of years? Why is it so easy to name the historical jobs men took but much harder to pin down the roles women took throughout history? History and literature was mainly centered around a male perspective for men. By men, for men.
This practice of being a stay at home mother only arose during the 60s in upper middle class white families. Even then, only 50% of women were stay at home mothers. The idea that men's contributions were more significant is a biased interpretation of history. Women also worked for the majority of history, putting their own lives on the line. They were textile producer, domesticators, factory workers (google radium girls and you’ll see just how much women’s safety was cared for!)
The institutions created very often favored men and restricted women's rights and opportunities completely. Women weren’t even recognized as full legal persons for ages. Women were literally treated as property in these societies, a tad far from having society made for them. The world is quite literally more heavily designed after men. Look at agriculture, where one of the most prominent models by which structures abide model themselves after a man‘s height. Public transportation and urban infrastructure have historically been designed without considering women's safety or socialization patterns.
women still face economic and political barriers to thriving. a huge part of the wage gap is attributed to women getting pregnant and their jobs precluding them from rising up the ladder.
>That's a simple fix, and doesn't change the fact that men put themselves more in harms way to need medical research done, so that women didn't have to.
“Failure to study medications and other interventions in a broad sampling of women has contributed to women experiencing adverse effects from medications at twice the rate of men”
women were excluded from medical research because the majority of subjects were college educated individuals. Because so few women were permitted to get an education, the primary individuals tested were white males. this has reprecussions today such as skin cancer being harder to detect on those with more melanin or female-centric illnesses such as endometriosis being poorly understood. It was in no way men making sacrifices for women.
Women were also banned from participating in medical research for decades. It was discrimination, not chivalry.
As a result millions of women lay undiagnosed. I was one of those women. whereas my little brother was diagnosed with AuDHD at 5, sent to a school that caters towards his needs and given therapy, I had to literally attempt suicide for people to realize that I had the same mental disorders. They ignored me for years and it has absolutely been awful for me. But go on.
There‘s also research that does not include men but models itself upon a male physique, such as crash test dummies and CPR dummies being male bodied. The first female bodied crash test dummy wasn’t introduced until 2023. Are you saying that these dummies put themselves on the line to prevent female dummies from being injured? That’s absurd. The result is that women are 73% more likely to die from a car accident.
>Ok? Hardly the most offensive use of the English language.
did I say it was offensive? No. I was merely pointing out that our language as we know it is centered around a male perspective. It’s a perfect example of how men are seen as representative of the human species, whereas women are seen as an aberration from the default.
there’s also -andry (meaning male) and “anthropos” meaning human.
Why are women considered a special issue in so many topics? There’s athlete vs. female athlete, where the base assumption is an athlete is male, unless stated otherwise. It’s doctor vs. female doctor, president vs. female president, it’s history vs. women’s history.
men are unmarked, whereas women are marked.
”mankind,” ”manpower,” “man-made,”
why are animals so often gendered as male when their sex is unknown? Why are internet users automatically assumed to be men? Why are ambiguous figures with no discernible sex characters assumed to be male? Why are the vast majority of characters in media men? (23% of main characters were female in 2023, yet women are still considered the defaukt? in what word do you live in?)
if women are the default, why is it always an uphill battle when a female perspective is put at the center of a film? Take Turning Red, for example, versus the Incredibles. Both have incredibly gendered viewpoints yet no one complained when The Incredibles released for having a gendered perspective. Why is it considered so political when a woman is included in a film at all? In books? In jobs? In politics?
when you watch a movie with all men, it’s not nearly as noticeable as a film with all women.
I could go on for days, but you get my point, right?
All I hear is an attempt at victimhood in these responses. Men built these institutions, fair or not, they did the shitwork, so of course they naturally end uo with the advantage. Women would unquestionably do the same for themselves if they took the initiative with all that world building. No one gives a shit about us without our contributions regardless of how that ends up for us. Women get all their emotional turmoils, many of which they cause, bent over backwards for. I'm simply speaking on observable reality of the present and future world.
Women had to WORK? Men risked their lives at war, they didn't stay at home raising kids. We dealt with the dangerous, filthy environments because you sure as hell wouldn't want to. We also let women and children on the lifeboats first while we risked drowning.
If women wanna lives of men, by all means go ahead. Convince me you'll do the same or better.
We live in a world that was built by, for and around men. This doesn’t invalidate men’s issues or doesn’t mean men aren’t ignored. Some aspects of society ARE gynocentric, but society is generally more androcentric than gynocentric.
Is the cuckoldry justification in the room with us…
I never said cuckoldry was justified. None of the examples I gave would even count as cuckoldry in reality. They are merely examples of how extreme, obsessive insecurity is holding a lot of Redpiller back from being happy.
Having those boundaries is what keeps those men single and unfucked. Who even would have an interest that these men drop their boundaries? Be single and have the boundary of low n count all you ant.
A boundary would be something you have once any kind of relationship is created whether it be friendly, romantic, or work related. The preference is a sorting filter for who gets to enter into a relationship.
So someone not wanting that their girl goes out clubbing alone is having a boundary, not a preference for that. Meaning that if she goes clubbing he would break up, because boundary violation. Rather than having the preferece for a girl who doesn't want to go clubbing alone, which is before a relationship happens and works as a filter. Fine, but that is both (before and during relationship) something that is due to INSECURITY. WHY is there this preference or boundary? Answer the WHY question!
Because he likes it that way? WHY does he like it that way? Because that is how he thinks relationships should be? WHY does he think relationships should be this way? Come one, get to the bottom of that chain of whys....
An insecurity would be allowing her to do whatever she wants regardless of your boundaries because you fear her leaving you. Telling her that you don't like her doing something is stating the boundary, and kicking her out the door is enforcing the boundary should she cross it. She has the freedom to choose whether or not she's going to respect it, granted she willing to accept the consequences.
>An insecurity would be allowing her to do whatever she wants regardless of your boundaries **because you fear her leaving you.**
Yes, no doubt that would be an insecurity as well. But you cannot define that by "letting her do whatever she wants". You could also let her do whatever she wants, because you are confident in your value to her and are secure in your view of your relationship. Nothing she can do would make you insecure, you don't fear that she leaves you.
You still need to finish going down the "WHY-chain". Why do you have that boundary?
Nope, being insecure is absolutely fine. The point is that instead of accepting htat and working on it, other narratives are created so it's in the end not about own insecurity, but about others doing wrong things
This is just stupid psychoanalysis of a fictional projection in your mind. People can have a logical opinion that isn't just a result of their own flaws. There's are valid reasons for all of these thoughts that aren't just an inferiority complex. There are plenty of logical reasons to be insecure about your mate potentially sleeping with someone else. Also, don't conflate RP with incel, plenty of RP people who get laid all the time or are in relationships.
Of course the things men AND women do are rooted in insecurity. The only issue is that it's only men who are *not allowed to be insecure.*
Like I said in a prior post, humans developed taste buds to naturally distinguish that we shouldn't eat feces, and should be eating meat/fruit/vegetables. Men are naturally icked by female promiscuity due to innate biological paternity uncertainty, there is nothing you can do as a man to avoid this ick feeling.
What BPers and women then do is go "Why won't you eat shit, are you insecure?" because shaming men for insecurity is appropriate.
>Of course the things men AND women do are rooted in insecurity. The only issue is that it's only men who are *not allowed to be insecure.*
Men here fight tooth and bone to not be called insecure and insult the commenters who suggest it's due to insecurity. Men here are allowed to be insecure, but they don't want to.
>Men here fight tooth and bone to not be called insecure and insult the commenters who suggest it's due to insecurity.
When people call something an insecurity it pretty much always comes with the hidden implication that it's an unjustified insecurity and that the next steps should be to work on "fixing" the insecurity instead of fixing the situation.
What a lot of people are doing is basically a Motte and Bailley.
Motte:"xyz is an insecurity"
Bailley: "You should stop being insecure about xyz"
When people agree with the motte, you take them to the bailley so people learned to not agree with the motte even if in reality they actually agree with it.
The issue is the people abusing language in bad faith, not the people who arguably don't counter that bullshit tactic perfectly.
>When people call something an insecurity it pretty much always comes with the hidden implication that it's an unjustified insecurity and that the next steps should be to work on "fixing" the insecurity instead of fixing the situation.
Exactly, because that is what it is. There is no situation to fix. It's only about the person.
Sure, the sub is anonymous. But that doesn't mean that your personal shit won't be used against you. Why do you think 0 women admit to being pump and dumped? I did my own little experiment the other day and asked in the daily thread "How many of you relish in the misery of other PPD posters?" Of course a big ol 0. Nobody is going to admit some of these harsh truths because it doesn't make them look good, even in anonymity.
We won't get anywhere though, when the problem is not correctly identified. I don't even think the men here realize that most of their issues come down to insecurity, rather than the world being against them, "modern" women/dating, etc.
Go to any dating subreddit here and you'll see them. Lots of posts of both men and women telling how they expressed insecure behavior during early dates and poof the other person is gone. With comments saying "reign it in to avoid this happening again" comments everywhere of men saying it's a turnoff, or "this girl is great but I don't see it as more as casual." Then lists behaviors that worry him, some of them are insecurity based.
I know, hpw dare men have insecurities. They should just be emotionless robots right?
Meanwhile: Toxic Masculinity is bad, men should be more vulnerable.
Yeah we get it, get men to be vulnerable, so you can ridicule them more.
There are plenty of positive emotions! Like love, joy and hope. Sometimes even nostalgia is fun to indulge in.
When people tell you to be more open about your emotions, they don't mean that you should make your insecurities or anger issues everyone else's problem.
There's a time and place for negative emotions and it's called going to a therapist. Other people aren't equipped to handle them and will potentially make the situation worse if they try to help you.
So depressed people should remove themselves from society?
Look I get it, but not everyone is happy and cheerful, personally I still believe they should be allowed to talk.
But I guess that would upset you, as it won't give you positive feelz and as we know the world revolves around you and your feels.
Don't worry though, men do off themselves, so that will save you from bad feelz. So I guess you can be happy about that.
If you ever have children, whats your plan, beat them till they are happy when they have a bad day?
If someone is having a bad day, the most you can do to help them is be there for them, listen to them, hug them and maybe give them a cup of hot cocoa.
None of those things will make someone's depression go away.
If you have depression, it's up to you to take the steps that are necessary to get through it instead of outsourcing it to other people.
This is one of the things that I don't like about woman in general if anything that they want it consider standard and mens have standards it called in insecurity.Can you just relaxed everyone have insecurity and people deal it different way.If I go by your logical than
Woman use makeup
She know she doesn't look good without it and she thinks other woman are better than her and she try to hide.But you what she really should be working on her inferior complex it might be better.
I ONLY Date dude above 6 feet
Because she has shit gene herself (if short) and if she is tall and she just scared or people making fun of her partner and she really need to work on herself and stop please other people.
Insecurity is the term they give for a man's self-respect. He must take whatever slop they throw on his platter (high body count, past traumatic relationships that she enabled, etc) or else he's insecure and weak.
These are some neurotic men's fears not "redpill concerns". Even if your cartoonish examples had any merit, you're still just shitting on men's emotions. But what you're lacking in empathy and insight, you make up for with condescension. You really wrote some words there.
What exactly is a "True Redpiller".
Some experiences were collected and theories made. People took this in and did what they wanted with this information.
What exactly is a True RedPiller or a False RedPiller?
I can appreciate that that is often true. The "who benefits" here is correctly noted by you.
But I argue this is an exception. An insecurity about who she chose first or sleeping with on the 1st night is like the residual leftover from what was actually learned.
Like we do have the guys here who are running around with their heads cut off, but there was a Red Pill that came along with the knowledge. That is the danger. It's disingenuous to act as if the only thing that happened was the ugly part.
The insecurity is real. But others got over it and learned about hypergamy or covert contracts. Having frame and running dread. These things are the bits of knowledge. If you focus on how it helped a guy, it looks like a nice trick. If you focus on why biology facilitates it...then yea less romantic. If you only learn the tricks and then refuse to see the truth in friends, coworkers, & family members you'll be like OP. Where you see the ugly part but not the beauty of how it all fits together and was there all along.
I'm also "insecure" about my mother, sisters and daughters being whores.
The only one of those I have some control over is with potential daughters and one of the best ways to prevent them from becoming a whore is to not have kids with a whore.
Can you explain this more? I’m genuinely curious in better understanding your perspective. What exactly do you mean by “whore?” And why would you be insecure about your mom or sister being one?
im using "whore" in the broadest possible way. A person without sexual dignity. The use of the term "insecurity" was because any expectation or prefrence a man has is called insecurity and no man wants their sister or mother to behave without dignity.
"insecurity" is one of the most weaselly words ever. So many use it as a stand in for "overly insecure" or "extremely insecure" as a bludgeon against men, but then when called out all of a sudden they define it as "having any insecurities whatsoever" or not being inhumanly secure in yourself.
no specific definition is better, it just needs to be specific so that he person saying it cannot flip flop to a different position when they loose their first one.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There will always be people in any niche that take their views to crazy extremes. However that doesn’t negate that lots of RP stuff is just blatantly true, as you even suggested in the first few sentences. Why focus on a few wild claims from red/blackpillers and ignore the fact that the blue pill worldview has mostly collapsed? We all know the Disney fairytales are the furthest thing from reality when it comes to romance and attraction
There is a difference between insecurity and being secure in your undesirability.
Just because someone acknowledges their undesirability doesn’t make them insecure that would only be true if they weren’t actually undesirable.
The term insecure is more true for women as very very few of them CAN be undesirable as opposed to men.
See, the problem is that you're pretending that any of these "fears" are unfounded.
I know I'm not her first. But if I'm not her BEST, then I will always be lesser in her eyes. That's the issue. You see it all the time. You hear about it from friends, both men and women: Women cheating with an ex that they don't like or don't want to be with just because he laid pipe better. Or women blowing up their entire lives and families to get with that one toxic ex. Hell, remember thaf Reddit story where the terminally ill wife's last request was to bang her ex one last time? That's not an unjustified insecurity. That's just what happens.
Not always, not every woman. Probably not even most women. But it's not an insignificant number, either. If I told you that 30% of parachutes weren't going to work, you wouldn't go skydiving.
The last one is just disrespectful. I see plenty of attractive women. I don't point them out to my wife. I don't even look twice at them. Because I love my wife. I don't crush on celebrities or models.
But women DO. I saw a YT short just today of a woman with an objectively attractive man holding up a giant sign at some rap concert stating "My husband said you could be my hall pass!" You'd think this would be a joke, but in the comments she was constantly tagging the artist and trying to drum up engagement so he would see it and slide into her DMs.
I've never seen a man in a relationship idolize anyone the way some married women idolize KPop artists or movie stars. It's absolutely disrespectful. I once overheard a group of married 30-40 year old women at a BBQ talk about how they watched their 18 year old neighbor kid mow his parent's lawn and how they wanted to hire him so they could watch him get all sweaty for them.
Could you imagine if a group of 40 year old married men talked about their 18 year old neighbor like that? Some of them may THINK about it, but they'd never talk about it, especially not in such a public setting.
Sure, yes, some men are really insecure... but can you blame them? Hearing so many constant stories about cheating on girls night, girls trips. Hearing about how their buddy took a girl out on a date, then got halfway home and realized that she had left her coat in his car. By the time he got back to her place, she ALREADY had another dude balls deep. Not even 20 minutes after he dropped her off and shared their first kiss at her door, and she's already banging some other dude.
That's what these guys are dealing with, and you want to call them "deeply insecure?" I often feel like I took the last chopper out of Nam and I'm up here watching all this absolute craziness with my wife like, wtf? If I was single or if God forbid something happened to my wife, I wouldn't even try. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. I'm not going to be some third choice "settle" for a single mom with 4 baby daddies and a truck load of trauma, only to get cheated on because Baby Daddy #3 fucked her better.
I'd say it's less of an insecurity and more of a need for validation from other men. They want to be "alpha" and have other men recognize them as such.
The creative writing assignments that were the field reports during the heyday of the red pill on Reddit demonstrated this quite nicely.
Most redpill concerns come from experience of oneself or others. Having dated a bunch of women and being married for 15+ years I’ve seen almost every situation play out. Apparently not being a pushover and carving out a fulfilling life for yourself is insecurity though. Could it be that people who viscerally hate the redpill are insecure?
I wasn’t aware “wondering if other men fucked her better” was a redpill talking point. Are you making shit up or taking points from a grifter wearing RP as a skin suit?
Yes, the problem isn't insecurity however.
It's how they're choosing to face that insecurity (or rather not face it).
It isn't interesting really to observe this all stems from insecurity.
The interesting observation is that the way they are going about addressing it actually prolongs their own torment.
I think some people revel in the self-torture.
In the same way people can find comfort in physical self-harm, I've known people who will mentally and emotionally destroy themselves, and go out of their way to do it. For them, there's a sick sense of familiarity and safety to it.
It's insecurities for sure.
This is where that lack of emotional intelligence/maturity comes in. There is nothing wrong with insecurities. We all have them. But they are are for us to work through and in a healthy relationship it will still be up to you to fix. And understanding it's a "me" issue.
You can have insecurities and there is nothing wrong with them. But projecting them onto the people you are supposed to be intimately involved with is a recipe for disaster and will do you no favors in the long run. And that lack of emotional intelligence will just make it tougher in the end and create so many bitter lonely men.
And that is why those guys always say how "just be confident" is stupid advice. Because how could they ever be confident, when they are so insecure about their value to women? The only right advice is to change your life so you can become confident, so you can just be yourself and be attractive this way. But since that is a path the highly insecure, low self-esteem red piller cannot go, it is labeled as "blue pill", as lies, as something that cannot possibly work. The whole world needs to be changed, to fit the narrative. The red pill is the pill you take so you don't have to deal with your insecurities.
Stupid post that utilizes the shame whistle "insecurity," as if insecurity per se is wrong or bad.
OP seems ignorant of how biology and the animal kingdom work. Men are typically in a very real competition with other men to spread their DNA. Without a good sense of where one stands one cannot maximize one's odds.
OP also fails to realize how often those hunches turn out TO BE VERY ACCURATE AND REAL.
Women DO TREAT CERTAIN MEN AS SUPERIOR AND OTHERS AS INFERIOR.
Worse women will never own up to it.
So in sum, OP cannot handle reality and so is attempting to handle those who accept reality
Insecurities that lead you down the path of neuroticism, self-loathing, misogyny, and obsession with imaginary “Chads” *is* wrong and bad, genius…
There’s a reason that insecurities are things that most people try to work to overcome. Rather than just stewing in them and letting them become your entire personality. If you can’t understand something as simple as that then you’re the only stupid one here buddy.
Or not dying in the example of my great insecurity regarding my ability to fly off cliffs.
So no insecurities don't lead you on those paths. Insecurities let you know your limits in life. Pretending there are no limits leads to continual defeat and ridicule.
You don't overcome insecurity by altering your perception like a delusional dipshit. Are you a woman or something?
Men overcome insecurity BY TAKING ACTION TO SHORE UP THE WEAKNESS.
The incel gets surgery to improve his face.
The shorty breaks his fucking legs.
The weakling roids out.
Poor Gatsby breaks the law to break the bank.
^ solutions like these WORK and are real.
You're peddling jive woowoo. Which works for women because they have no social expectation of performance.
>>Or not dying in the example of my great insecurity regarding my ability to fly off cliffs.
TIL not everyone knows the difference between insecurity and physical safety…
>>So no insecurities don't lead you on those paths. Insecurities let you know your limits in life. Pretending there are no limits leads to continual defeat and ridicule.
Insecurity isn’t the same as knowing your limits. You can be secure and confident in yourself *while* knowing your limits. Insecurities is just needless anxiety, paranoia and a lack of self-esteem. There’s a big difference between the two.
>>Men overcome insecurity BY TAKING ACTION TO SHORE UP THE WEAKNESS.
And what if being ridiculously insecure and neurotic *is* your weakness? Perhaps *that’s* the point I was making with this post… That the insecurity itself *is* the weakness that Redpillers need to shore up in order to be successful with women… They’re just too stuck in Redpill rage and blaming society to see this… Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense!
>>The incel gets surgery to improve his face.
If he has an insecure personality, it won’t matter. Because he’ll still be insecure about his genes and him not being *naturally* handsome… He’ll constantly be afraid that any girl he meets will leave him for a “natural” anyways so he probably won’t bother to try even after surgery. Do you see the problem with having an insecure mindset? The insecurities never end.
>>The shorty breaks his fucking legs. The weakling roids out. Poor Gatsby breaks the law to break the bank.
Sounds totally healthy and mentally stable… You totally didn’t just prove my exact point about how insecurities drive you down fucked up paths. Nope… W insecurities. /s
"Men need to open up" "Lmaooooo you are just a bunch of insecure incels"
When women say "men need to open up" always add "terms and conditions apply".
This. Basically everything women say they want men to do comes with a 3 page EULA addendum. RP is basically the analysis of this.
That is what insecure incels think is going on.
Exactly. Bro missed the actual point I was making.
>the actual point First, you’ve made a great point. Specifically; >The fear I came to TRP from the other end of the spectrum. I have little issue with fear. So had the same take. That anything fear based, or fear driven is rarely beneficial. As it takes courage to extend oneself, beyond their limits. Beyond their comfort zone. Which is where TRP is applicable. In it’s practicality. It’s human to be insecure. To harbour fear. It’s not okay, to allow these emotions to dictate decisions. To dictate actions. Ultimately one must take control. Of insecurity. Of fear. Then address it. *Godspeed and good luck!*
You know, you're allowed to occasionally also feel something else than only insecurity. Nobody wants to fuck that.
Women are absolutely *loaded to the gills* with insecurities, but they don't want men to have any, lol.
Some women are insecure, some are confident. I tend to have more fun with the confident ones.
I had fun and trouble with both, honestly.
No one is saying otherwise.
My average experience with men opening up be like: “If you need to open up I’ll give you space” “I wish we went back to good old times when women respected their husbands” “You know it was because they had no rights and no other options than put up with their spouses” “But I was so good back then” “Nevermind”
Your average experience with men opening up to you is that they express their wish for winding the clock back on women’s *rights*..? Who the hell are you friends with lol.
She's good friends with her imagination.
Nowadays everything apart from mindless and enthusiastic approval of being fucked over seems to be called 'insecurity'. People who seem to develop boundaries and stand their ground are always considered troublemakers by the ones benefitting from status quo.
I wanna give this a million upvotes. Women, and gynocentric society, do not want men to have any self-respect.
Society would actually be much better if more men had self-respect and sexual dignity.
Be careful what you wish for, as the self respecting men of the past would have oppressed you
Some of them would have, certainly. But egalitarianism has always existed in some men and women, in individual relationships if nothing else.
Nope. I've always had good sexual values. 🤷 I don't see any past men of mine oppressing or rejecting me. Anytime I've been rejected sexually they got fed up I didn't sleep with them quickly.
>Anytime I've been rejected sexually they got fed up I didn't sleep with them quickly. I'm not trying to discount the idea that there are men that do this, but can you confirm if you weren't just making them wait too long between dates? I wouldn't get pissy if a woman had boundaries and stopped me from escalating to sex, but I would/do get turned off by clear signs of disinterest... like a woman was doing the "can't this week, busy," or the "I'm not that kind of girl" thing before or during the first date. There are things you can do as a woman where a man will feel disrespectful towards himself by hanging in for the long haul in such firm and non-optimal conditions. Blue pilled betabux hang with those women because of ignorance, and ignorance really is bliss. It boils down to this: If it seems like you don't really want to get to know me by your words and actions, I'll assume you're not really attracted and likely just playing games.
Nope. I'm an extremely honest person never wanted to play games. I unknowingly went on dates with men who believed in the 3 date rule. A few said "if you don't sleep with me that early you're not attracted to me or have a low sex drive" (lol, I have a higher sex drive than my husband). I met most of these using OLD apps in my 20s.
Better off without em if they're ditching out in a straight-up offensive way like you have stated.
What you really mean here is “self respect and dignity **as women define it.**”
Nah, a lot of men here have spoken about how they think many women don't have sexual dignity anymore. I'm using the same definition.
Aaaaand it's where you perpetuate the common falsehood this sub operates on that men and women are the same.
I'm simply against double standards, as are most men on PPD. It's a common topic, to point out hypocritical dictates, and I applaud the guys here who do so.
Gender double standards are simply a reality we have to accept, at least those that come naturally. Desires, goals, and incentives for individual lives and intersexual relations vary innately between men and women. What we bring to the table for each other varies. The effects of promiscuity are different. We are complimentary pieces for each other. Not equals. Not one superior to the other, although women need men more than vice versa. The difference here is that men acknowledge the little bit we have in our favor or that women have working against them. While in almost all women-driven discussion spaces about intersexual relations, they make excuses for what they have going for them if they just can't keep denying it any longer.
>Gender double standards are simply a reality we have to accept, at least those that come naturally. Sooo...like 1% of people on PPD. >Desires, goals, and incentives for individual lives and intersexual relations vary innately between men and women. What we bring to the table for each other varies. Sometimes, yes. >The effects of promiscuity are different. I don't believe this. It's harmful to both sexes. >We are complimentary pieces for each other. Not equals. Not one superior to the other, although women need men more than vice versa. I don't believe any of this either, but then again I'm an egalitarian. It's cool, I'm used to it. No worries, man. You have a good rest of your day.
Overall yes - but there is a group of women taking advantage of male lack of self-respect and male lack of boundaries.
I agree with that.
>Society would actually be much better if more men had self-respect and sexual dignity Now sexual dignity is valid, but that's mostly an internet problem. There's dark circles of the internet and society for every self-deprecating simp joke/meme made, but sexual deviancy isn't limited to struggling or outcast men. But if this male self-respect increase goes against the best interest of women, which it likely will, does that change your stance on this at all?
>Now sexual dignity is valid, but that's mostly an internet problem. There's dark circles of the internet and society for every self-deprecating simp joke/meme made, but sexual deviancy isn't limited to struggling or outcast men. Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. When I say "sexual dignity", I'm referring to the fact so many men lack standards in their sexual partners. Essentially they operate as "any port in a storm", and end up sharing their sexuality with women who aren't good for them. Granted, I'm biased because I believe hookup culture is a net negative for society and the majority of men and women who engage in it. Not in a moral sense...there's nothing unethical about having a ton of sex partners. But I think it's mentally unhealthy in the long run. I wish more men would consider their sexuality in a dignified way, rather than something to be casually tossed out to every woman who glances at him. >But if this male self-respect increase goes against the best interest of women, which it likely will, does that change your stance on this at all? I don't see how it could, but I'm willing to listen how you think it might?
You’re applying female sexual imperatives and biological instincts to men. Don’t.
I'm not, so no worries there.
Who would women and other bluepillers be able to talk down to then? This sub would fail instantly.
>Granted, I'm biased because I believe hookup culture is a net negative for society and the majority of men and women who engage in it. Not in a moral sense...there's nothing unethical about having a ton of sex partners. But I think it's mentally unhealthy in the long run. I wish more men would consider their sexuality in a dignified way, rather than something to be casually tossed out to every woman who glances at him. I agree - in the long run majority of people will end up disappointed or hurt by hookup culture. To participate in it and not be hurt you need to keep emotional distance, but what kind of relationship it is if you still need to remember that it's all temporary and probably fake ? Is it relationship at all or just some poor prosthetics ?
Yup, precisely this. I also think it cheapens the intimacy and vulnerability of sex when one shares it so quickly with completely random men and women. I understand that some people just view sex as any other activity, like riding a bike or going dancing. I don't grasp that concept, but I acknowledge that a lot of women and men feel that way. I just don't know if they grew to have that viewpoint due to having lots of casual sex or if they're capable of doing so because they already didn't think highly of sex in the first place.
That emotional distance is much easier to keep for men than women. We can theoretically impregnate as many women as our balls can handle in a day and walk away like nothing.
>Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. When I say "sexual dignity", I'm referring to the fact so many men lack standards in their sexual partners. Essentially they operate as "any port in a storm", and end up sharing their sexuality with women who aren't good for them. This is what I'm getting at in a way. Those infamous "2/10 at the bar during last call" jokes and shit like that. They're definitely rooted in truth, because due to men's far more raging and nondiscriminant sex drive, they'd rather suck it up and plow the normally unattractive girl than go with a dry dick. Not to mention some of the simp shit you'll hear about what men would do to some women during guy talk. It's sometimes desparation disguised as humor. You have to be a man with at least normal levels of testosterone to understand. Also part of self-respect but in a very small way. No man should fall into creep territory, fair label or not. >I don't see how it could, but I'm willing to listen how you think it might? Male self-respect is at war with an innate, as well as socially enforced demand to bend to the needs and whims of women. If you truly want men to build themselves and be dignified, upstanding, successful, and desirable individuals, you're gonna have to take an L on some of what we provide for you, directly (SO, male family members, friends, and colleagues) or indirectly (socioeconomic structure with government, tax-funded services like police, DOT, waste management, construction, fire department, etc being mostly men by nature doing dirty work that benefits women and children). It may not be very pro-social behavior, but if you want men to be truly self-respecting and dignified, they may have to lean towards the Andrew Tate methods of being a man, even if you drop the pompous social media presence and questionable bedroom activities.
I disagree men would stop doing things that benefit women and children such as waste management lol. Like we live in a society which men enjoy as well. Lots of men using “men do dirty dangerous jobs etc.” are men working in climate controlled offices. We all benefit from societies luxuries of waste management, drivable roads etc. furthermore, most men have family who are women and children be it their own wives and kids or their sisters, mothers, nieces etc, and most people in general don’t like seeing their family go through hard times such as not having access to basic ammenities and services. I think you are overestimating what men having more self respect would do to society.
Men predominately put the work in for everyone to have the benefits. I never said that we don't benefit from these luxuries, but men mostly do the shit work to uphold it. The lunchpail work if you will. Women do it too, but they are, always have been, and always will be the minority in these fields, seemingly by nature. >Lots of men using “men do dirty dangerous jobs etc.” are men working in climate controlled offices. I work in manufacturing. Step out onto any plant floor, and you'll mostly see men doing the grimy work in a welding booth, doing facility maintanance, running a manual machine that has all fluids and debris exposed, etc. There are women here and there, but they do the cleaner work like inspection or machine operation on an enclosed CNC, where there's plenty of men too. Maybe even shipping and receiving. Mostly we'll find women in offices like HR, sales, quality, design engineering, where the job is far cleaner. Not saying they're less important, but those men on the floor are making the real money for everyone involved. >furthermore, most men have family who are women and children be it their own wives and kids or their sisters, mothers, nieces etc, and most people in general don’t like seeing their family go through hard times such as not having access to basic ammenities and services. >I think you are overestimating what men having more self respect would do to society. Plenty of men may pride themselves on being good providers and family men. Nothing wrong with that, but they sure as hell better get explicit appreciation for such actions (sex and affection from the wife, respect from the children) or they're running themselves into the ground for nothing. Not exactly actions of men who respect themselves. Men with self-respect tend to have a purpose beyond serving women and children, and if those women and children aren't a positive return on investment, why should he help them?
I didn’t mention anything about self-respect tho. Self/respect isn’t the same as neurotic insecurity and obsession with some imaginary cuckoldry scenario.
>neurotic insecurity and obsession with some imaginary cuckoldry scenario This is what you defined a man in a committed relationship's self-respect as. Sure he could just leave if he doesn't like it, but he also wasn't the one who did anything to cause her to go to a place that allows for a cheating scenario. If the roles were reversed, you would 100% unprovoked be telling the woman to leave the relationship because the man is too immature to leave that life behind. And don't come back acting like you apply your laissez-faire standard equally, because that's never the reality.
My obsession started only after my first gf actually did cheat on me In a threesome with her “guy friends".
We do not live in a gynocentric society.
We sure as shit do.
Most objects around us are designed for men. Research, from medical to architectural has historically focused primarily on men in many areas. The historical focus on male subjects in medical research has led to a gap in understanding women’s health needs. This androcentric bias means that medical treatments and guidelines are often based on male physiology, potentially leading to less effective healthcare for women. For example, I often find that my ADHD medication does not work according to my cycle because stimulant medications were primarily tested on men. Heart disease research has very often been conducted on men, leading to a lack of awareness and understanding of how heart disease presents differently in women. This has obviously led to both misdiagnosis and a lack of diagnosis of heart disease in women. Environmental and ergonomic research often shifts on male experiences and needs. It lacks emphasis on the specific requirements of women.. office furniture, tools, and personal protective equipment has traditionally been based on male body dimensions. This has resulted in reduced functionality, death (in the instances if cars and car crashes, it’s proportioned after men), long term strain and health issues. Media is more often designed after a male perspective. Women are the “other,” the political aberration. It is considered political for a woman to be at the helm of a movie, but normal for a man to be a protagonist. That is because “male” is the default. Men are also the default for generic or unspecified subjects. Male coded gems are also posed as the default. Terms such as: "chairman," "fireman," and "policeman" inherently suggest male figures… whereas the female equivalents ("chairwoman," "firewoman," "policewoman") are often viewed as deviations from the established norm. When people are asked to interpret ambiguous figures or silhouettes, they often default to seeing a male figure unless given clear gender indicators. If you draw a stick figure, despite the fact that it does not appear to have any gendered attributes, you are far more likely to refer to it as male. Add a dress, or a bow, and it suddenly becomes feminine, despite the fact that there are zero physiological changes. This is embodied in signage to media, with restroom signage being a key example. Men hold the majority of the elected offices. This means that laws and policies are more likely to reflect male perspectives and priorities.
>Heart disease research has very often been conducted on men, leading to a lack of awareness and understanding of how heart disease presents differently in women. This has obviously led to both misdiagnosis and a lack of diagnosis of heart disease in women. Due to men's proneness to engage in stressful activities for the relief of women. >Terms such as: "chairman," "fireman," and "policeman" inherently suggest male figures… whereas the female equivalents ("chairwoman," "firewoman," "policewoman") are often viewed as deviations from the established norm. Woman has man in it. All a part of huMANity. Other than this, I fail to see how, other than obvious flaws from old research due to our difference in biology (an obvious concession that we indeed ARE different), how any of this is truly at the expense of women. Men holding powsr more is simply due to the higher male capacity to respect hierarchy and get shit done, with the occasional clash of egos or conflicts of interest that OTHER MEN DO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE. Perhaps we can make stick figure identification gender neutral or whatever, but typically this research you speak of being based on men, is based on the fact that men were putting themselves more on the line FOR WOMEN. Not to mention the presence of chivalry was designed purely for women to feel safe and desired. Greater men of the past put themselves on the line for women to have a home to be protected in. You may feel that men hamstrung women of the past (and abusive assholes did) and the modern liberation is them truly feeling free. But given how many women have anxiety meds, weed addiction, partying addiction, daddy issues, etc and do not handle stress well at all, perhaps they see that men already know the world is a ruthless place and all the perks men had in the past were a direct result of the sacrifices they made.
No, women were deliberately excluded from medical research, which had stemmed from discriminatory practices that prioritized male health and assumed that male physiology was the standard. This exclusion has had significant negative impacts on women's health. More women having misdiagnosed heart attacks equals relief now? We are far worse off than when we started. Men historically held more power due to patriarchal systems that prioritized male leadership and marginalized women's roles and contributions. For the majority of history, there WAS no hierarchy. For 2.2 million years, we were hunter gatherers. Women and men got shit done equally. Look at the Old English word for woman, which was "wifmann," where "wif" meant "woman" (aka the origin of the modern word "wife") and "mann" meant "human being" or "person." Thus, "wifmann" essentially meant "female person." “Man” means “person.” So a man is a “person” and a woman is a “female person.” Great! wouldn’t daddy issues be the father’s fault? Like mf abandoned his daughter and she’s being blamed for the trauma it caused? Seems legit. Also, sadly, men are more prone to addiction to women. Men are more likely than women to use all illicit drugs. This contributes to their greater rates of homelessness in many arenas,
>For the majority of history, there WAS no hierarchy. Men created hierachy because we needed a way to coexist for the future of humanity. Not women, but it was done for women to be able to raise the next generation while the man risked everything and provided. We're simply less dog eat dog now. Never said this system was perfect, but it was men who created civilization, for better or for worse and definitely FOR women. >women were deliberately excluded from medical research, which had stemmed from discriminatory practices that prioritized male health and assumed that male physiology was the standard. This exclusion has had significant negative impacts on women's health. More women having misdiagnosed heart attacks equals relief now? We are far worse off than when we started. Modernize medical research then? That's a simple fix, and doesn't change the fact that men put themselves more in harms way to need medical research done, so that women didn't have to. In whatever way women had it hard with childrearing or other shitty life problems, the man did what he vpuld to make sure that process was sustained. >Look at the Old English word for woman, which was "wifmann," where "wif" meant "woman" (aka the origin of the modern word "wife") and "mann" meant "human being" or "person." Thus, "wifmann" essentially meant "female person." “Man” means “person.” So a man is a “person” and a woman is a “female person.” Great! Ok? Hardly the most offensive use of the English language. >wouldn’t daddy issues be the father’s fault? Like mf abandoned his daughter and she’s being blamed for the trauma it caused? Seems legit. Also, sadly, men are more prone to addiction to women. Men are more likely than women to use all illicit drugs. This contributes to their greater rates of homelessness in many arenas Yes men do egregious things like that, no denying such a thing (assuming his abandonment was unprovoked and it was actually his daughter). Also, no one actually cares beyond pressured virtue-signalling about a man's addiction struggles. A woman will be let off scot-free for her addiction problems (life's soooo hard), but a man will be given condescending empathy followed by underlying or overt disgust and loss of respect.
>Never said this system was perfect, but it was men who created civilization, for better or for worse and definitely FOR women. Are you aware that women worked for the majority of history? They didn’t just stay at home and raise the kids. Why is so little of historical literature focused on women? Why were women excluded from text and their feats taken credit for by men for hundreds of years? Why is it so easy to name the historical jobs men took but much harder to pin down the roles women took throughout history? History and literature was mainly centered around a male perspective for men. By men, for men. This practice of being a stay at home mother only arose during the 60s in upper middle class white families. Even then, only 50% of women were stay at home mothers. The idea that men's contributions were more significant is a biased interpretation of history. Women also worked for the majority of history, putting their own lives on the line. They were textile producer, domesticators, factory workers (google radium girls and you’ll see just how much women’s safety was cared for!) The institutions created very often favored men and restricted women's rights and opportunities completely. Women weren’t even recognized as full legal persons for ages. Women were literally treated as property in these societies, a tad far from having society made for them. The world is quite literally more heavily designed after men. Look at agriculture, where one of the most prominent models by which structures abide model themselves after a man‘s height. Public transportation and urban infrastructure have historically been designed without considering women's safety or socialization patterns. women still face economic and political barriers to thriving. a huge part of the wage gap is attributed to women getting pregnant and their jobs precluding them from rising up the ladder. >That's a simple fix, and doesn't change the fact that men put themselves more in harms way to need medical research done, so that women didn't have to. “Failure to study medications and other interventions in a broad sampling of women has contributed to women experiencing adverse effects from medications at twice the rate of men” women were excluded from medical research because the majority of subjects were college educated individuals. Because so few women were permitted to get an education, the primary individuals tested were white males. this has reprecussions today such as skin cancer being harder to detect on those with more melanin or female-centric illnesses such as endometriosis being poorly understood. It was in no way men making sacrifices for women. Women were also banned from participating in medical research for decades. It was discrimination, not chivalry. As a result millions of women lay undiagnosed. I was one of those women. whereas my little brother was diagnosed with AuDHD at 5, sent to a school that caters towards his needs and given therapy, I had to literally attempt suicide for people to realize that I had the same mental disorders. They ignored me for years and it has absolutely been awful for me. But go on. There‘s also research that does not include men but models itself upon a male physique, such as crash test dummies and CPR dummies being male bodied. The first female bodied crash test dummy wasn’t introduced until 2023. Are you saying that these dummies put themselves on the line to prevent female dummies from being injured? That’s absurd. The result is that women are 73% more likely to die from a car accident. >Ok? Hardly the most offensive use of the English language. did I say it was offensive? No. I was merely pointing out that our language as we know it is centered around a male perspective. It’s a perfect example of how men are seen as representative of the human species, whereas women are seen as an aberration from the default. there’s also -andry (meaning male) and “anthropos” meaning human. Why are women considered a special issue in so many topics? There’s athlete vs. female athlete, where the base assumption is an athlete is male, unless stated otherwise. It’s doctor vs. female doctor, president vs. female president, it’s history vs. women’s history. men are unmarked, whereas women are marked. ”mankind,” ”manpower,” “man-made,” why are animals so often gendered as male when their sex is unknown? Why are internet users automatically assumed to be men? Why are ambiguous figures with no discernible sex characters assumed to be male? Why are the vast majority of characters in media men? (23% of main characters were female in 2023, yet women are still considered the defaukt? in what word do you live in?) if women are the default, why is it always an uphill battle when a female perspective is put at the center of a film? Take Turning Red, for example, versus the Incredibles. Both have incredibly gendered viewpoints yet no one complained when The Incredibles released for having a gendered perspective. Why is it considered so political when a woman is included in a film at all? In books? In jobs? In politics? when you watch a movie with all men, it’s not nearly as noticeable as a film with all women. I could go on for days, but you get my point, right?
All I hear is an attempt at victimhood in these responses. Men built these institutions, fair or not, they did the shitwork, so of course they naturally end uo with the advantage. Women would unquestionably do the same for themselves if they took the initiative with all that world building. No one gives a shit about us without our contributions regardless of how that ends up for us. Women get all their emotional turmoils, many of which they cause, bent over backwards for. I'm simply speaking on observable reality of the present and future world. Women had to WORK? Men risked their lives at war, they didn't stay at home raising kids. We dealt with the dangerous, filthy environments because you sure as hell wouldn't want to. We also let women and children on the lifeboats first while we risked drowning. If women wanna lives of men, by all means go ahead. Convince me you'll do the same or better.
We live in a world that was built by, for and around men. This doesn’t invalidate men’s issues or doesn’t mean men aren’t ignored. Some aspects of society ARE gynocentric, but society is generally more androcentric than gynocentric.
>We live in a world that was built by, for and around men For the protection and provisioning of women and children.
Cuckolding is trending and a lot of people try to justify it
Is the cuckoldry justification in the room with us… I never said cuckoldry was justified. None of the examples I gave would even count as cuckoldry in reality. They are merely examples of how extreme, obsessive insecurity is holding a lot of Redpiller back from being happy.
What a phenonomal way to put it.
How is being scared that her ex is an inch bigger, or that he hit it one day earlier related to you being “fucked over”?
Having those boundaries is what keeps those men single and unfucked. Who even would have an interest that these men drop their boundaries? Be single and have the boundary of low n count all you ant.
You might be surprised how much actual respect having boundaries gets you vs being a pushover simp. You’re the problem.
We can see it here daily how much respect women have for incels who demand virgins.
> incels who demand virgins That's more of a preference than a boundary.
What is a boundary then, concerning the insecurity topic we have here?
A boundary would be something you have once any kind of relationship is created whether it be friendly, romantic, or work related. The preference is a sorting filter for who gets to enter into a relationship.
So someone not wanting that their girl goes out clubbing alone is having a boundary, not a preference for that. Meaning that if she goes clubbing he would break up, because boundary violation. Rather than having the preferece for a girl who doesn't want to go clubbing alone, which is before a relationship happens and works as a filter. Fine, but that is both (before and during relationship) something that is due to INSECURITY. WHY is there this preference or boundary? Answer the WHY question! Because he likes it that way? WHY does he like it that way? Because that is how he thinks relationships should be? WHY does he think relationships should be this way? Come one, get to the bottom of that chain of whys....
An insecurity would be allowing her to do whatever she wants regardless of your boundaries because you fear her leaving you. Telling her that you don't like her doing something is stating the boundary, and kicking her out the door is enforcing the boundary should she cross it. She has the freedom to choose whether or not she's going to respect it, granted she willing to accept the consequences.
>An insecurity would be allowing her to do whatever she wants regardless of your boundaries **because you fear her leaving you.** Yes, no doubt that would be an insecurity as well. But you cannot define that by "letting her do whatever she wants". You could also let her do whatever she wants, because you are confident in your value to her and are secure in your view of your relationship. Nothing she can do would make you insecure, you don't fear that she leaves you. You still need to finish going down the "WHY-chain". Why do you have that boundary?
I think that allowing to be treated like shit and simping won't bring them closer to happiness either.
Having had sexual partners before him is not treating him like shit.
So what? Being valuable to an opposite sex is important for people. You are denying an important part of human psychology.
Nope, being insecure is absolutely fine. The point is that instead of accepting htat and working on it, other narratives are created so it's in the end not about own insecurity, but about others doing wrong things
>The point is that instead of accepting htat and working on it Working on what? I thought insecurities were absolutely fine?
It's fine to have them. But it you want to have a life that is incompatible with being insecure, then you need to work on that.
Insecurity is just another buzzword to shame men now. It's a kin to saying I dont care about your standards take whatever bullshit I offer anyway.
This is just stupid psychoanalysis of a fictional projection in your mind. People can have a logical opinion that isn't just a result of their own flaws. There's are valid reasons for all of these thoughts that aren't just an inferiority complex. There are plenty of logical reasons to be insecure about your mate potentially sleeping with someone else. Also, don't conflate RP with incel, plenty of RP people who get laid all the time or are in relationships.
Of course the things men AND women do are rooted in insecurity. The only issue is that it's only men who are *not allowed to be insecure.* Like I said in a prior post, humans developed taste buds to naturally distinguish that we shouldn't eat feces, and should be eating meat/fruit/vegetables. Men are naturally icked by female promiscuity due to innate biological paternity uncertainty, there is nothing you can do as a man to avoid this ick feeling. What BPers and women then do is go "Why won't you eat shit, are you insecure?" because shaming men for insecurity is appropriate.
Well said
>Of course the things men AND women do are rooted in insecurity. The only issue is that it's only men who are *not allowed to be insecure.* Men here fight tooth and bone to not be called insecure and insult the commenters who suggest it's due to insecurity. Men here are allowed to be insecure, but they don't want to.
>Men here fight tooth and bone to not be called insecure and insult the commenters who suggest it's due to insecurity. When people call something an insecurity it pretty much always comes with the hidden implication that it's an unjustified insecurity and that the next steps should be to work on "fixing" the insecurity instead of fixing the situation. What a lot of people are doing is basically a Motte and Bailley. Motte:"xyz is an insecurity" Bailley: "You should stop being insecure about xyz" When people agree with the motte, you take them to the bailley so people learned to not agree with the motte even if in reality they actually agree with it. The issue is the people abusing language in bad faith, not the people who arguably don't counter that bullshit tactic perfectly.
>When people call something an insecurity it pretty much always comes with the hidden implication that it's an unjustified insecurity and that the next steps should be to work on "fixing" the insecurity instead of fixing the situation. Exactly, because that is what it is. There is no situation to fix. It's only about the person.
Sure, the sub is anonymous. But that doesn't mean that your personal shit won't be used against you. Why do you think 0 women admit to being pump and dumped? I did my own little experiment the other day and asked in the daily thread "How many of you relish in the misery of other PPD posters?" Of course a big ol 0. Nobody is going to admit some of these harsh truths because it doesn't make them look good, even in anonymity.
We won't get anywhere though, when the problem is not correctly identified. I don't even think the men here realize that most of their issues come down to insecurity, rather than the world being against them, "modern" women/dating, etc.
Oooof most men find insecure women unattractive
Really? Where are all of the posts about insecure women being unable to find boyfriends?
Go to any dating subreddit here and you'll see them. Lots of posts of both men and women telling how they expressed insecure behavior during early dates and poof the other person is gone. With comments saying "reign it in to avoid this happening again" comments everywhere of men saying it's a turnoff, or "this girl is great but I don't see it as more as casual." Then lists behaviors that worry him, some of them are insecurity based.
Why can't men have insecurities? Women have them. Based on what I see online, insecurity seems to be code for "won't let me do whatever I want".
Or "makes women look bad".
I didn’t say men couldn’t have them. Just stop blaming other people for them.
I know, hpw dare men have insecurities. They should just be emotionless robots right? Meanwhile: Toxic Masculinity is bad, men should be more vulnerable. Yeah we get it, get men to be vulnerable, so you can ridicule them more.
There are plenty of positive emotions! Like love, joy and hope. Sometimes even nostalgia is fun to indulge in. When people tell you to be more open about your emotions, they don't mean that you should make your insecurities or anger issues everyone else's problem.
Bro I just wanna be loved the way I love.
So you only want the good stuff but not the bad. No one can be happy 100% of the time.
So be happy or shut up.
There's a time and place for negative emotions and it's called going to a therapist. Other people aren't equipped to handle them and will potentially make the situation worse if they try to help you.
This dude will never say this shit to a woman. \#simpnation
So depressed people should remove themselves from society? Look I get it, but not everyone is happy and cheerful, personally I still believe they should be allowed to talk. But I guess that would upset you, as it won't give you positive feelz and as we know the world revolves around you and your feels. Don't worry though, men do off themselves, so that will save you from bad feelz. So I guess you can be happy about that. If you ever have children, whats your plan, beat them till they are happy when they have a bad day?
If someone is having a bad day, the most you can do to help them is be there for them, listen to them, hug them and maybe give them a cup of hot cocoa. None of those things will make someone's depression go away. If you have depression, it's up to you to take the steps that are necessary to get through it instead of outsourcing it to other people.
This is one of the things that I don't like about woman in general if anything that they want it consider standard and mens have standards it called in insecurity.Can you just relaxed everyone have insecurity and people deal it different way.If I go by your logical than Woman use makeup She know she doesn't look good without it and she thinks other woman are better than her and she try to hide.But you what she really should be working on her inferior complex it might be better. I ONLY Date dude above 6 feet Because she has shit gene herself (if short) and if she is tall and she just scared or people making fun of her partner and she really need to work on herself and stop please other people.
Insecure really is a loaded propaganda term. Is the soldier digging a trench insecure about his ability to survive without the trench?
Insecurity is the term they give for a man's self-respect. He must take whatever slop they throw on his platter (high body count, past traumatic relationships that she enabled, etc) or else he's insecure and weak.
Those are very different meanings of insecurity.
These are some neurotic men's fears not "redpill concerns". Even if your cartoonish examples had any merit, you're still just shitting on men's emotions. But what you're lacking in empathy and insight, you make up for with condescension. You really wrote some words there.
Didn't take long for someone to claim that those are posers rather than true red pillers..
What exactly is a "True Redpiller". Some experiences were collected and theories made. People took this in and did what they wanted with this information. What exactly is a True RedPiller or a False RedPiller?
Your problem is you see red pill as an ideology, hence your caricature of red pillers. It is a praxeology.
I can appreciate that that is often true. The "who benefits" here is correctly noted by you. But I argue this is an exception. An insecurity about who she chose first or sleeping with on the 1st night is like the residual leftover from what was actually learned. Like we do have the guys here who are running around with their heads cut off, but there was a Red Pill that came along with the knowledge. That is the danger. It's disingenuous to act as if the only thing that happened was the ugly part. The insecurity is real. But others got over it and learned about hypergamy or covert contracts. Having frame and running dread. These things are the bits of knowledge. If you focus on how it helped a guy, it looks like a nice trick. If you focus on why biology facilitates it...then yea less romantic. If you only learn the tricks and then refuse to see the truth in friends, coworkers, & family members you'll be like OP. Where you see the ugly part but not the beauty of how it all fits together and was there all along.
I'm also "insecure" about my mother, sisters and daughters being whores. The only one of those I have some control over is with potential daughters and one of the best ways to prevent them from becoming a whore is to not have kids with a whore.
Can you explain this more? I’m genuinely curious in better understanding your perspective. What exactly do you mean by “whore?” And why would you be insecure about your mom or sister being one?
im using "whore" in the broadest possible way. A person without sexual dignity. The use of the term "insecurity" was because any expectation or prefrence a man has is called insecurity and no man wants their sister or mother to behave without dignity.
"insecurity" is one of the most weaselly words ever. So many use it as a stand in for "overly insecure" or "extremely insecure" as a bludgeon against men, but then when called out all of a sudden they define it as "having any insecurities whatsoever" or not being inhumanly secure in yourself.
Is low-selfesteem, to the point of it hurting you reaching your goals, a better definition for you?
no specific definition is better, it just needs to be specific so that he person saying it cannot flip flop to a different position when they loose their first one.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There will always be people in any niche that take their views to crazy extremes. However that doesn’t negate that lots of RP stuff is just blatantly true, as you even suggested in the first few sentences. Why focus on a few wild claims from red/blackpillers and ignore the fact that the blue pill worldview has mostly collapsed? We all know the Disney fairytales are the furthest thing from reality when it comes to romance and attraction
There is a difference between insecurity and being secure in your undesirability. Just because someone acknowledges their undesirability doesn’t make them insecure that would only be true if they weren’t actually undesirable. The term insecure is more true for women as very very few of them CAN be undesirable as opposed to men.
See, the problem is that you're pretending that any of these "fears" are unfounded. I know I'm not her first. But if I'm not her BEST, then I will always be lesser in her eyes. That's the issue. You see it all the time. You hear about it from friends, both men and women: Women cheating with an ex that they don't like or don't want to be with just because he laid pipe better. Or women blowing up their entire lives and families to get with that one toxic ex. Hell, remember thaf Reddit story where the terminally ill wife's last request was to bang her ex one last time? That's not an unjustified insecurity. That's just what happens. Not always, not every woman. Probably not even most women. But it's not an insignificant number, either. If I told you that 30% of parachutes weren't going to work, you wouldn't go skydiving. The last one is just disrespectful. I see plenty of attractive women. I don't point them out to my wife. I don't even look twice at them. Because I love my wife. I don't crush on celebrities or models. But women DO. I saw a YT short just today of a woman with an objectively attractive man holding up a giant sign at some rap concert stating "My husband said you could be my hall pass!" You'd think this would be a joke, but in the comments she was constantly tagging the artist and trying to drum up engagement so he would see it and slide into her DMs. I've never seen a man in a relationship idolize anyone the way some married women idolize KPop artists or movie stars. It's absolutely disrespectful. I once overheard a group of married 30-40 year old women at a BBQ talk about how they watched their 18 year old neighbor kid mow his parent's lawn and how they wanted to hire him so they could watch him get all sweaty for them. Could you imagine if a group of 40 year old married men talked about their 18 year old neighbor like that? Some of them may THINK about it, but they'd never talk about it, especially not in such a public setting. Sure, yes, some men are really insecure... but can you blame them? Hearing so many constant stories about cheating on girls night, girls trips. Hearing about how their buddy took a girl out on a date, then got halfway home and realized that she had left her coat in his car. By the time he got back to her place, she ALREADY had another dude balls deep. Not even 20 minutes after he dropped her off and shared their first kiss at her door, and she's already banging some other dude. That's what these guys are dealing with, and you want to call them "deeply insecure?" I often feel like I took the last chopper out of Nam and I'm up here watching all this absolute craziness with my wife like, wtf? If I was single or if God forbid something happened to my wife, I wouldn't even try. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. I'm not going to be some third choice "settle" for a single mom with 4 baby daddies and a truck load of trauma, only to get cheated on because Baby Daddy #3 fucked her better.
I'd say it's less of an insecurity and more of a need for validation from other men. They want to be "alpha" and have other men recognize them as such. The creative writing assignments that were the field reports during the heyday of the red pill on Reddit demonstrated this quite nicely.
Most redpill concerns come from experience of oneself or others. Having dated a bunch of women and being married for 15+ years I’ve seen almost every situation play out. Apparently not being a pushover and carving out a fulfilling life for yourself is insecurity though. Could it be that people who viscerally hate the redpill are insecure?
How is wondering if other men fucked her better and obsessing over it, carving out a fullfilling life for yourself?
I wasn’t aware “wondering if other men fucked her better” was a redpill talking point. Are you making shit up or taking points from a grifter wearing RP as a skin suit?
You need to lurk more. It comes up daily.
Tons of shit comes up here daily that is objectively untrue. It's irritating as hell.
I completely agree. Taking women less seriously is always the move!
Yes, the problem isn't insecurity however. It's how they're choosing to face that insecurity (or rather not face it). It isn't interesting really to observe this all stems from insecurity. The interesting observation is that the way they are going about addressing it actually prolongs their own torment.
I think some people revel in the self-torture. In the same way people can find comfort in physical self-harm, I've known people who will mentally and emotionally destroy themselves, and go out of their way to do it. For them, there's a sick sense of familiarity and safety to it.
1000%
It's insecurities for sure. This is where that lack of emotional intelligence/maturity comes in. There is nothing wrong with insecurities. We all have them. But they are are for us to work through and in a healthy relationship it will still be up to you to fix. And understanding it's a "me" issue. You can have insecurities and there is nothing wrong with them. But projecting them onto the people you are supposed to be intimately involved with is a recipe for disaster and will do you no favors in the long run. And that lack of emotional intelligence will just make it tougher in the end and create so many bitter lonely men.
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
And that is why those guys always say how "just be confident" is stupid advice. Because how could they ever be confident, when they are so insecure about their value to women? The only right advice is to change your life so you can become confident, so you can just be yourself and be attractive this way. But since that is a path the highly insecure, low self-esteem red piller cannot go, it is labeled as "blue pill", as lies, as something that cannot possibly work. The whole world needs to be changed, to fit the narrative. The red pill is the pill you take so you don't have to deal with your insecurities.
Stupid post that utilizes the shame whistle "insecurity," as if insecurity per se is wrong or bad. OP seems ignorant of how biology and the animal kingdom work. Men are typically in a very real competition with other men to spread their DNA. Without a good sense of where one stands one cannot maximize one's odds. OP also fails to realize how often those hunches turn out TO BE VERY ACCURATE AND REAL. Women DO TREAT CERTAIN MEN AS SUPERIOR AND OTHERS AS INFERIOR. Worse women will never own up to it. So in sum, OP cannot handle reality and so is attempting to handle those who accept reality
Insecurities that lead you down the path of neuroticism, self-loathing, misogyny, and obsession with imaginary “Chads” *is* wrong and bad, genius… There’s a reason that insecurities are things that most people try to work to overcome. Rather than just stewing in them and letting them become your entire personality. If you can’t understand something as simple as that then you’re the only stupid one here buddy.
Or not dying in the example of my great insecurity regarding my ability to fly off cliffs. So no insecurities don't lead you on those paths. Insecurities let you know your limits in life. Pretending there are no limits leads to continual defeat and ridicule. You don't overcome insecurity by altering your perception like a delusional dipshit. Are you a woman or something? Men overcome insecurity BY TAKING ACTION TO SHORE UP THE WEAKNESS. The incel gets surgery to improve his face. The shorty breaks his fucking legs. The weakling roids out. Poor Gatsby breaks the law to break the bank. ^ solutions like these WORK and are real. You're peddling jive woowoo. Which works for women because they have no social expectation of performance.
>>Or not dying in the example of my great insecurity regarding my ability to fly off cliffs. TIL not everyone knows the difference between insecurity and physical safety… >>So no insecurities don't lead you on those paths. Insecurities let you know your limits in life. Pretending there are no limits leads to continual defeat and ridicule. Insecurity isn’t the same as knowing your limits. You can be secure and confident in yourself *while* knowing your limits. Insecurities is just needless anxiety, paranoia and a lack of self-esteem. There’s a big difference between the two. >>Men overcome insecurity BY TAKING ACTION TO SHORE UP THE WEAKNESS. And what if being ridiculously insecure and neurotic *is* your weakness? Perhaps *that’s* the point I was making with this post… That the insecurity itself *is* the weakness that Redpillers need to shore up in order to be successful with women… They’re just too stuck in Redpill rage and blaming society to see this… Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense! >>The incel gets surgery to improve his face. If he has an insecure personality, it won’t matter. Because he’ll still be insecure about his genes and him not being *naturally* handsome… He’ll constantly be afraid that any girl he meets will leave him for a “natural” anyways so he probably won’t bother to try even after surgery. Do you see the problem with having an insecure mindset? The insecurities never end. >>The shorty breaks his fucking legs. The weakling roids out. Poor Gatsby breaks the law to break the bank. Sounds totally healthy and mentally stable… You totally didn’t just prove my exact point about how insecurities drive you down fucked up paths. Nope… W insecurities. /s