Red Pill ideology isn’t just hateful and misogynistic; it’s also a remarkably bleak way to look at the world, even for the men who supposedly benefit the most from taking “the red pill” — that is, the allegedly smooth players who boast about bedding so many women on “game” blogs.
Take, for example, what you might call the “spoiled milk” theory of marriage that’s sometimes trotted out on these blogs.
Since women reach their prime young, the theory goes, then rapidly lose their looks and their value after “hitting the wall” at the age or 25 or 30, it only makes sense to marry a woman when she’s young — so you get to have sex with her before she gets all old and hideous.
If you marry her later, this means that someone else has had her at her best — and you haven’t!
As the blogger at LaidNYC argues in a post titled “Don’t Marry Any Woman Older Than 25,”
If you meet your wife when she’s older than around 23 or 24:
You are eating someone else’s cold leftovers, then doing their dishes.
You are showing up to a party after everyone has left and cleaning up after them.
You are getting into a taxi and paying the fare of the person who got out before you.
You are taking the nearly expired milk to the grocery store counter and offering to pay double for it.
He goes on in this fashion for some time.
You are paying for someone’s credit card bill full of reckless spending and partying that you never got to enjoy. …
You are trying to unclog somebody else’s clogged toilet.
Ok, now that last one didn’t even make sense.
Anyway, after running out of metaphors, LaidNYC gets to his point:
A girl who refuses to get married young is offering a raw deal. She is vastly overvaluing her product, and undervaluing your time and money.
Marriage only makes sense for a man when a girl’s prime years of beauty and fertility are upfront payment for a lifetime of loving masculine support.
LaidNYC goes on to suggest that women who are too picky when they’re young will end up regretting it later:
Is it any wonder, then, that as females are delaying marriage longer, they are finding less willing men?
Youthful arrogance is the yellow brick road to spinsterhood.
But I want to go back to that previous bit:
Marriage only makes sense for a man when a girl’s prime years of beauty and fertility are upfront payment for a lifetime of loving masculine support.
Can you imagine a more depressing way to look at marriage? If you’re so twisted by your misogyny that you can’t see value in your wife after she hits the age of 30 or so, and stick with her only out of a sense of obligation because she fucked you when she was 25, well, dude, you deserve to be miserable. And I can only hope your wife leaves you for someone who can appreciate her in the here and now.
Misogynistic assholes are at least as good at making themselves miserable as they are at making things shitty for other people.
This? This attitude right here? This is why I only date men who are very sexually confident.
Life is too short to put up with kind of insecurity.
But that’s plain ol’ materialism, I dunno what, if that’s the case, the “ontological” is doing there except making it sound more smarter.
My cats have personalities. One of them is standoffish but appreciates a good pat now and again. The other is skittish but likes to be near people, Beloved in particular.
My MIL’s dogs have personalities. One of them is obnoxious. The other one is part blue heeler, and feels compelled to herd everything, and considers it his job to protect my MIL from such threats as the blender and Irish jigs.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it’s not worth anything.
Dude, stop bogarting that joint.
Which is why when those paintings by Picasso, Monet, and Matisse were stolen in Romania recently and then burned to ash, nobody gave a shit. OH WAIT.
It really isn’t.
Let me make a survey of all the crimes that didn’t happen.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but this particular woman was 50 lbs heavier, dealing with mental and physical problems and nowhere near as on-point, svelte and attractive as I am now at 30+. I mean it’s in the eye of the beholder and all, but I can’t help but think that when you say things like that you mean “young women who aren’t attractive aren’t even people and therefore aren’t worth talking about:.
@ Energomash
No, humanism and communism are not closely related. You can make a case for atheism and communism, though at the same time that logic firmly links catholicism and fascism.
Humanism =/= Atheism
drats “nowhere near as attractive at 25 as I am at 30+”. Stupid brain tricking me into thinking I wrote a complete sentence when clearly
What do these guys do when they run into a woman who looks vastly younger than her biological age? For example, my mother is in her 50s, but there are people who will swear up and down that she’s in her 40s or even late 30s. Is a woman still “spoiled milk” if she remains young-looking?
(I’m lucky that I inherited the young-looking gene(s), although right now all is does is attract pedophiles and get me side-eyed by bouncers.)
@Energomash
And the people who do treat others as lesser human beings? Like Nazis against PWD, Jews, Roma, gay people, and like a gazillion other different groups? Or the racist American WWII posters, depicting japanese people with freaking yellow skin and other racist caricatures and the japenese internment? You don’t think people valuing others as less for reasons like able-bodiedness, ethnicity, or race ever happens?
Or were you trying to argue something different. I’m being honest when I say I really can’t tell.
Though I’m gonna think Dvar said it better. Even if you don’t give people intrinsic value, you should see them all people equal to you.
@Hyena Girl
Well as ontological materialist i assume that all humans (and other species) want to live. Without this idea ethics would be useless.
So, just because someone doesn’t posses any intrisic value this is no excuse to kill other humans etc.
@Energomash
Do you think “person” is defined as “entity a man would have sex with?” o_O
Actually the fact that the other person will be percieved as more human instead of a uniformed opressor is why they train ministers and priests who work at prisons to be professional hostages. My minister had to trade himself in for the warden once. It’s known that the inmates are less likely to hurt someone who is not in a position of authority.
(and is this technically ‘begging the quetion?” I’m never sure if I’m using that phrase right)
@Energomash
Well then I’m sure we’ve all enjoyed your terribly pointless sidetrack from the topic. Would you care to address your original point?*
*Optionally feel free to go entirely off the rails and entertain us. The pickings are thin for the next yearly competition and someone stepping up their game would be nice.
@Falconer:
Oops, block quote monster! The following was MY text: Well, I believe as well that art has no intrinsic value, but that doesn’t mean that it’s completely subjective or not real. The point is merely that a Picasso painting’s value is a social construct.
One may further argue that all values, even the value of human beings, human rights and all that stuff are social constructs, something we have invented rather than something that’s just there independent of our thoughts and emotions on the matter. That doesn’t necessarily make human value subjective or unreal or arbitrary, it just means that we don’t have any value that was put into us by God, or that there’s some metaphysical “stuff” called “value”, but that value is something we create ourselves.
This is not a particularly strange idea (although I’m not saying you all gotta agree with it, obviously). The thing is, it’s got nothing to do with what feminists mean when they talk about objectification. That’s why I suspect Ergomash looked something up on Wikipedia about metaethics, or maybe even took one semester of philosophy at a university (but understood the metaethics part pretty badly), and now mistakenly tries to use what little knowledge zie has on that matter to bash feminists who protest against the objectification of women.
Fixed that for you.
A person can value more than one trait of a valuable thing. I can say you have value as a human being, and then I can say that I further value you as a person who makes me happy. There are also multiple definitions of “value”. Diamonds have a market value determined by the jewelry industry, a value in dollar amounts. They also have value as a symbol of love, an emotional value. They also have value as a cutting edge, an industrial value.
Because of the different meanings and implications that are packed into a word like “hate”. I hate spiders. Ugh, they creep me the fuck out. Also, spiders are useful as pest control. I don’t hate that spiders exist. I don’t wish them to wink out of existence. They have value. I also fucking hate them and wish they would never be on the walls of my bedroom, or that they would never build their webs in places I would like to walk through.
It takes a certain amount of self-centeredness to believe that because you hate someone or something, that its very existence must be hated as well. There was a girl I hated in college. She and I were straight up enemies and she did a lot of pretty fucked up things to me for reasons I never really understood, and I did some fucked up things to her in retaliation. We hated each other. But she’s not worthless, and I don’t hate that she exists. She has people in her life who love her and I respect and value that.
Um, yes? Most of us manage to not steal shit from people even though there’s zero chance of getting caught. We do this because we have empathy for the human beings around us. Whereas on the other hand, many of us steal from companies with impunity (pirating media for example) and feel not a whit of guilt because we don’t consider those companies to be people.
I don’t know what an ontological materialist is, but I’m an atheist and believe that humans have intrinsic value. My belief in the value of human beings stems largely from my belief that we have one life, and when it’s done it’s done, so a human’s life is immeasurably precious.
@deniseeliza
Very well put.
Near as I can tell, it’s also an attempt avoid the materialism != consumerism discussion.
Exactly. And social constructs are real, inasmuch as they have a real impact on people and people’s lives. A thing doesn’t need to be physical to be real. Emotions are real. Thoughts are real. Language is real. And social constructs are real.
RE: Energomash
So what? He has a point.
No he doesn’t.
Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn about that?
No they’re not. Your personal taste does not equal objective truth.
I am an atheist / ontological materialist so i believe humans do not posses any intrisic values.
I am an atheist, and I pity you.
How can you hate someones personality and at the same time not hate him as human?
Easy. I find you personally abhorrent, but I still don’t want you to suffer. Liking someone isn’t the same as VALUING them.
Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime? I don’t think so.
It’s stopped me.
You strike me as new to this game. Why don’t you go get out of your Earnest New Recruit stage, get your head out of your ass, and walk around the earth a bit?
Seriously, how many people here are getting Baby’s First Philosophy Class from this guy? Boring as hell. Dude, if you want to masturbate over philosophy, go do it somewhere else. We’re here to mock misogyny, not listen to your soapboxing.
In other news, I’m sure everyone else here would be happy to know that my husband is getting more gorgeous every year. I look immensely forward to getting old, wrinkly, and cantankerous with him.
ALSO HEY KATZ I POSTED YOUR WRITEATHON STORY!
I didn’t know how to define the vibe I was getting until you posted this. Perfect.
Yes!
Now encompass in your mind that… THERE ARE OTHER OBSERVERS, DUDE!
Like, whoa!
Subject, not object!
Mind, blown!
Seriously, this is some pretty basic stuff.
…
Baby’s First Dictionary?
On another topic related to this ridiculous post, since when are PUA’s all excited about being fathers? The “fertility fascination”, if you will. I mean, I know the MRA’s think of their children as property & wail about having their things taken away during a divorce (kids, money, house all seem to go in the same sentence about what they’ve lost), but at no time have I ever heard them wax hopeful about pending fatherhood and their blissful home life.
Is it that they see kids as a way to keep the wife corralled at home and out of reach of other men? There’s never a thread on reddit about “found a hot 20 y/o babe to marry- going apt hunting for place with nursery- so stoked!”, or “yo, my slammin’ 24 y/o wife is due with second kid ASAP- need new stroller- who has deets?”, “yo- got my masculine caretaker hat on bros- taking twins to pediatrician then grocery shoppin to spend my man money. I am ALPHA”. This just never happens, so why the fertility fetish?
“Did the thought that this other person is human as well ever really stopped anyone from commiting a crime?”
So Gitmo and Abu Gharib are more pecunium’s field of knowledge, but yes, seeing the person // people you’re committing a crime against (in those cases torture) is definitely a precursor to committing said crime. If, on the other hand, you see them as fully human, with the same right you have, you don’t just go along with the torture — maybe that means just not participating, out of fear for your job/safety/whatever, maybe that means speaking out against torture once you’re out of the military (pecunium knows he gives me the warm fuzzies for this).
Go google Stanford Prison Experiment and get back to us on the roll dehumanization plays in institutional violence.
I think someone left a freshman psychology survey text in the frat house again.