Over on Married Man Sex Life, doucheblogger Athol Kay has provided the ladies with a helpful checklist of the things they need to do, or to be, or to do be do be do, to become the ultimate “red pill” girlfriend or wife. But the women he describes sound a lot less like Trinity from The Matrix than the robotified housewives from The Stepford Wives.
Mr. Kay’s list of demands is too long to quote in its entirety, but here are a few of the choicer items:
(4) Understands that there is a sexual marketplace, and that women have an earlier peak of sexual desirability than men do.
Presumably if she forgets this, her manospherian swain will happily neg her back to a properly less-positive assessment of her rapidly decaying beauty as a woman over the age of 14.
(13) Understands that divorce sucks and is more akin to getting treatment for cancer than having cosmetic surgery.
I sort of agree with this one, actually: for women married to Athol Kay’s followers, getting divorced would be a lot like removing a malignant tumor.
(14) Likes men in a general sense for who they are and what they do, rather than detesting all men in general and making an exception for the tiny few in her nuclear family.
(Huh. Project much?)
(15) Understands the risks both men and women take in having serious relationships, and is willing to negotiate ways to verify trustworthiness in each other. Sees doing this as evidence of true commitment rather than an insulting invasion of privacy.
I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about here. Lie detector tests? Waterboarding?
(20) Doesn’t keep the Red Pill a secret from those that need it.
That’s what we need, more women lecturing women on how terrible they are.
I’ve saved the best for last:
(3) Understands that what she does with her vagina always has some sort of consequence.
Seriously. Please think twice before tattooing Homer Simpson on you hoo-hah! (This has actually been done. You’ll have to look up the pictures yourself.)
In the comments, BlackCat adds a 21st item to the list:
(21) Understands that current society/public opinion, the vast majority of churches, and almost all laws, courts and government agencies dealing with families are all biased heavily against men, and that until the incentives and disincentives return to a more balanced state, men are completely justified in being gun-shy and avoiding commitment and other entanglements as much as possible.
Corollary to (21): Appreciates the men, especially informed (red pill) men, who are willing to take the chance at a relationship despite the above, and goes out of her way to prevent them from being taken advantage of, and to publicly denounce those who do take advantage of them.
So come on, gals, start lining up for your chance to jump through endless hoops for the chance to get with a dude who thinks he’s doing you a gigantic favor by even considering dating you in the first place!
While we’re at it, here’s my favorite scene from The Stepford Wives (the original 1975 version, of course), in which [SPOILER ALERT] Joanna, the new gal in Stepford, discovers that her friend Bobbie is no longer the free-spirited Women’s Libber she thought she knew.
What katz said, too. My ideal man would definitely love cats, but if a man prefers dogs that doesn’t make him a vile evil person who should be cast into the pit of damnation, it just makes him a man who may not necessarily be perfect for me.
By the way, is there a recognized class of “unabridged trolls,” who insist that anytime you quote something in anything other than its entirety, you’re woefully misrepresenting it?
Especially since there are no dogs down there.
@tteclod
1. Very descriptive username.
2. I’ll take your challenge! My “red pill man” would never use the phrase “red pill woman”, because he is neither delusional nor basing his twisted worldview on a cheesy 90s action flick. He also wouldn’t hate me. The end.
tteclod: His final remark is unbelievable. This list is directed at women (men don’t have vaginas, he says there is a sexual marketplace and women have to understand their place in it, etc.).
Moreover, large parts of this list are about lacking trust for one’s partner. For both sides to be tolerate it’s applicability (ignoring the non-gender neutral tenor of many of the postulates) would require each person to believe themselves to be utter untrustworthy. I don’t think, “negotiating to verify trustworthiness” is something he really means.
But I’ve read other parts of his blog. I don’t have to limit my understanding of his mindset to one list; with it’s pseudo-neutral weaseling.
His post on child-motivation… involves taking pleasure in being cruel to your kids.
Clean room = Mom’s special cupcakes / banana bread / muffins / doughnuts / whatever
Not clean room = watch your brothers eat mom’s special cupcakes / whatever
So…
2pm “Cleaning frenzy announced” Oven on. And get baking.
3pm Room check and reward.
330pm Slice for daddy… throw remainder in the trash. Ignore howling if they fail. Just let their tears nourish your spirit.
His comments that women need to know their partner can dump them at any time are in keeping with that.
He doesn’t respect women as people.
Women however, if they don’t feel the sexual impulse for the guy orbiting them, still value them as potential chumps and back-up plans. They’re a sort of insurance strategy. You never know when you’re going to need a tire changed or someone else to buy you a cup of coffee. Or maybe lift a heavy object or something….
Which is of course why wives go ballistic when their husband is ever alone alone with another woman, because they know she’s into him and what the tune really is.
So all women are manipulative, and predatory.
So alleging his list, which is built in a way that the most egregious aspects don’t apply to men, is just a list for everyone to adhere to is ridiculous. Taking it as if it existed in a vacuum is stupid, esp. because he says elsewhere that men aren’t supposed to, “fall for fitness tests,” in short, when women doing the sorts of things he advocates men do, men need to override them.
As to the challenge… there is no “red pill man” because the basic premise is utter shite.
Telling us we are being unfair because we did neither of those things, is idiotic.
Did he twirl his mustache while typing that? Seriously, that’s like a parody of a cartoonish villain.
Haha you realize that other people can see the world not in terms of criminally misappropriated 1990s sci-fi references, right?
Is not being a manipulative shithead who spends all day every day playing control games with his wife and children less praisworthy or desirable than not being one?
Yes. Yes it is.
Thank you all for your responses.Some merit critique.
1. While it may be worthwhile to note of the source of the “red pill” list, such note constitutes an ad argumentum hominen argument, which I am sure you know to be a loggical fallacy.
2. It may be true that I am an “unabridged troll” according to the usual internet definition. It would not be because I “insist that anytime you quote something in anything other than its entirety, you’re woefully misrepresenting it.” Your argument is both a hasty generalization (anytime, anything) and a specific argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque. that is, my statement is not less credible because I am an “unabridged troll.”
3. My username is an anagram. That particular attack is formally called an abusive ad hominem argument. That’s like snickering at the name Dick Van Dyke.
Pecunium’s arguments are generally cogent, with some exceptions as noted above. Rather than nitpick, let me agree with you regarding your best points.
a. He may be a dick. That’s an argumentum ad hominem, but that doesn’t make it false.
b. His statements include generalizations, as does much of what many people say. [See, I just did it, too.]
c. The argumentum ad feminam is inflammatory. Still, it may be mirrored into a masculine equivalent such as penis for vagina.. Even if the physical equivalence is poor, the applicability to his statement is perhaps more apt for men than women. His address was to women, so he utilized gender specific language. Shame on him? Perhaps.
I’ll risk one last remark for you, Pecunium. I did not accuse anybody of being “unfair.” What I hoped to convey was that the critique stated was spurious. One might attack the “red pill” list proposed on many fronts, such as that it is based on an existential fallacy. That is, “All women disappoint, therefore there is one woman who disappoints.” Women who disappoint are just as (logically) fictive as flying pink elephants. This, I believe, is your argument, and an argument superior to the original post.
Whatever kind of troll you are, you are boring as hell.
But hey, he sure is “loggical”.
Wow. What a pompous jackass.*
* Note that this is not an ad hominem, it is a straight up insult. Learn the difference.
It really isn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.
Saying that you are attempting to see the world through the lens of a misinterpreted scifi reference isn’t a personal attack, it’s an accurate summary of the beliefs you’re professing.
Not to speak too much for Pecunium, but I’m pretty sure his argument is that woman are people, and their job isn’t as a group to “disappoint” or “not disappoint” because they’re not being paid to make your boner happy.
“Now, putting aside your clearly ridiculous assertion that women are people rather than boner-pleasing and sandwich-making appliances, let us discuss my dear friend’s post about whether or not the appliances in question are performing as they should, and if not how to make them do so.”
Tteclod, you’re defending abuse. That’s all that list is. It comes from someone who has advocated child abuse (and don’t ask for links, there are quotations right here on this page). So you can be as pompous as you like and throw the term ad hominem around as often as you want, it makes no difference. You’re defending abuse. That makes you as much scum as the proponent of the abuse.
Hey, anyone who’s been around a while: does this sound like an old troll trying to make a comeback? They haven’t trotted out the “I’m a doctor AND a lawyer AND blahblahblah” a la Pell yet, but I’m starting to wonder. Or is pomposity another of the communicable MRA diseases?
Okay, I know that I’m mentally, like, 12, but I still snicker inside at the name Dick van Dyke. I recently got over “invagination” (common term in embryology and anatomy), but it took years.
And Clod. Listing off supposed logical fallacies doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look like a high school sophomore who just discovered the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Especially when a) you’ve misidentified said fallacies and b) you’re not actually engaged in an argument, especially a formal one.
Not to mention the illogicality of trying to force half the worlds population into doing what they do not wish to do. They want to trade long term contentment in for short term gratification. A human trait that has never served us well.
Why waste so much time and energy on this Clod?
Pecunium’s arguments are generally cogent, with some exceptions as noted above. Rather than nitpick, let me agree with you regarding your best points.
a. He may be a dick. That’s an argumentum ad hominem, but that doesn’t make it false.
clod… learn what ad hominem is. It doens’t mean I can’t insult him, it means I can’t pretend those insults can be used as if they were evidence to contradict his arguments. I didn’t do that, ergo no fallacy. I also don’t recall saying he was a dick, without support. I said he thinks being abusive to his kids is good parenting. I implied that someone who thinks it’s ok to abuse one person, will think such abuse of another is also ok. If it weren’t topical to the issue (that the list is abusive at it’s core), it might be ad hominem (if, e.g. we were talking about his stance on free silver). This conversation, however, is about how he advocates treating others, as such it’s on topic, and (again) not ad hominem.
b. His statements include generalizations, as does much of what many people say.
And you used that very generalisation (the last sentence, where he says, “90 percent of this applies to everyone” to handwave the aspects that didn’t apply to everyone. The entirety of his site is based on his having the secret understanding of women. Generalisations are his argument.
I’ll risk one last remark for you, Pecunium. I did not accuse anybody of being “unfair.” What I hoped to convey was that the critique stated was spurious. One might attack the “red pill” list proposed on many fronts, such as that it is based on an existential fallacy. That is, “All women disappoint, therefore there is one woman who disappoints.” Women who disappoint are just as (logically) fictive as flying pink elephants. This, I believe, is your argument, and an argument superior to the original post.
Is there a point in there? If there is the confused grammar, hazy antecedents and pretense of “deep meaning” have made it impossible to see.
My point was he is wrong in his arguments, because it’s not balanced in it’s effect. It’s a checklist for abusers.
You are supporting that checklist. You might want to think about that.
@Dvärghundspossen
“My only objection was with Stepford’s idea that it’s a GOOD thing that “love works in mysterious ways”. The fact that “love works in mysterious ways” means that there are also perfectly decent people who are lonely due to sheer bad luck, and that honestly sucks for them.”
Good point, I can see how genuinely good people with a lot of love to give may find the reality of love and attraction frustrating, but I was one of them for a long time and still wouldn’t change a thing. Why? Because through rejection, online dating, bad relationships, mediocre relationships, and times of no relationships, I learned a lot about what I wanted, what I needed, what would be good for me, and what really wouldn’t.
Six months ago I found love just while I was enjoying being single, having no ties and having just moved to a new city, and with a man who wasn’t my “type” at all. I learned even more there- that it’s true that you can find love when you’re not looking for it, and I surprised myself with the realisation that I don’t actually have a “type”- there’s no formula for attractiveness, sometimes you just fancy the pants off someone- and yes MRAs, I asked him out and took him to dinner, we do these things too you know, now feminism has allowed us to!
Two years earlier I asked out a guy who was very much “my type” and he said no. Would I have preferred him to have said a dishonest “yes” out of “gratitude” or obligation? No, because without any real connection, and attraction going both ways, we would have been unlikely to have a good time anyway. Alright, we could have had a good one-night stand but nothing more than that, and that wasn’t what I was looking for at the time.
The kind of relationship MRAs want must be like a one-life stand, a lifetime of masturbating into a living blow-up doll with no need to concern themselves with her feelings, and something they can obtain via a fool-proof strategy, with women’s consent being a purely logical response of “gratitude” for the attention. That’s no way to find love or any kind of meaningful relationship- I’d rather have the unpredictability and have some fun along the way, thanks.
@Thanks for elaborating, Stepford. I have nothing to add. 🙂