Reddit’s PurplePillDebate is a strange subreddit, a place where Red Pillers and Blue Pillers can discuss the alleged science of dating, though whenever I check it out I find it more filled with Black Pill incel types than with either Red or Blue Pillers.
That is certainly the case with a commenter called AltACCboyos, who set forth his decidedly Black (or at least deep grey) Pill take on dating and relationships in a post today with the title Men are basically treated as an employee in relation to women, most of the time.
His basic thesis: that men have to jump through so many hoops to win over the stubborn human female that pursuing women for dates and/or relationships becomes like a job they hate.
Like i see this all the time, men whenever single, dating, married, etc., if they want any form of interaction with the females that goes beyond platonic he has to sell a product, in this case himself, and this breeds a lot of doubt in me really.
What a burden it must be to continually have to be an actual likeable human being.
If men always have to provide something to ever be liked, or get their emotional needs taken care of, they are basically forced to work a second job that is becoming attractive to, mostly incredibly entitled, women, and this causes a lot of men to resent and hate on women in the same way they hate their bosses, and that is totally unhealthy.
What exactly are the horrible things these men have to do to become attractive to women? Don’t the women they’re interested in have to make a little bit of an effort to be attractive to men as well?
I believe the only exceptions is either when a man is totally/partially a MGTOW, or he has more options in the market than the girl, which is to say only the very top men do, thus the most of the time part of the title, otherwise men are basically used while dating.
Yeah I’m sure the MGTOWs are doing a bang-up job as part time Romeos.
IMO it becomes just a big wealth transfer and psychological torture, especially of the younger men, the older ones have a bit more capital to invest in women overall and they can just date younger women in need for some cash AKA become a daddy.
The whole sugar daddy/sugar baby thing is not anywhere as common as Black Pillers think, nor is it a sign of female advantage in the dating world. (The “employee” in this scenario, after all, is the younger woman, who has to keep “daddy” happy enough to keep signing the paychecks.) While men do tend to date younger women, they’re typically not younger by much. In North America the average age gap at first marriage is a little over two years.
Overall since i am young too, this is obviously a shit deal and the future seems to only get worse.
Have you considered that this might be because you’re 1) whiny as fuck and 2) you hate women? Most women don’t want to date whiny dudes who hate them like they hate their bosses.
This being PurplePillDebates, a handful of commenters challenged AltACCboyos’s logic, and the assumptions behind his logic. He accepted none of their advice.
To those who pointed out that women also contribute to relationships, he replied that
Women can get away with providing basically nothing but their presence and pussy, because there is a guy who will take the offer if you don’t so your demand become nil
I’m pretty sure that if you go around saying that all that women provide to a relationship is “presence and pussy,” you’re not going to get much, if any, of either.
In another comment he elaborated on this idea:
In relationships you have very little power in demanding anything from a woman since her power to leave is almost always stronger thus she can rightfully refuse any demands you make, and you can’t do much about it
In still another comment, he claimed that
women have little reason to actually compromise to your desires while you are at constant risk if you don’t.
Because if a man says no to a woman request, there is always another willing lad, there however is not always another willing lady for men.
AltACCboyos had a few defenders in the comments. Someone called HTML_Novice wrote:
Ever worked a job you didn’t like so you can have money to buy food? That’s what casually dating a girl you dislike is like
You need food to live. You can survive without access to vagina, especially when the vagina in question belongs to a woman you hate (and who probably knows you hate her).
SpicySinnersSandwich offered a similar take to HTML_Novice’s.
Men have to put up with completely obnoxious and horrible people just because they’re women and it’s the only choice they have.
The rebuttal to this claim, from someone called csn924, was a thing of beauty.
Those men CHOOSE to “put up with completely horrible and obnoxious people” because they see women as providers of sex first and people second, if at all. Hire a prostitute , invest in a sex doll, do the MGTOW thing, whatever, leave civilian women alone. You guys are infuriating, do you know how you sound when you complain about how shallow women are and then straight up announce that the only reason you put up with them is so you can get your dick wet? Dating someone you hate just so you can get laid once in awhile is fucking psychotic. Jesus Christ, you’re probably one of those guys that complain about how ditzy women are because they use their emotions to make decisions instead of logic. Meanwhile you’re following your dick around like it’s fucking gps.
FINISH HIM!
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Putting aside the misogyny and dehumanization, this whole sentiment falls into what I call the “It sucks for everyone” category of anti-feminist objections.
Do some men get unfair treatment for whatever reason in custody disputes? Sure! World’s not perfect. Some women do too. The entire system in the United States for supporting families and healthy communities is shitty.
Women in kink communities who just want casual sex have at least the same problems, but really, far, far worse. It’s actually pretty decent if they just have someone to do ERP with or have casual sex with who may otherwise be somewhat unlikeable, rather than dealing with constant intrusive dick pics, men with poor boundary issues, etc.
Part of the failing that leads people into the manosphere is a failing to step back for a second and ask, “Is this truly a problem unique to me? Or just a problem that’s hard to solve for everyone?”
Ironically, when they put their reactionary politics hat on, they suddenly remember the objection that just because something sucks doesn’t mean there’s an actual effective, viable solution.
Hey David, I used to be a regular reader of your site back when you were covering the disgusting behavior of RooshV. Well, I recently found out that RooshV has a disciple who is now out there harming impoverished women in Eastern Europe using “techniques” he picked up on Rooshv’s forum. The man in question is a British YouTuber whose channel name is Bald and Bankrupt (real name Benjamin Rich); he has millions of subscribers.
Reddit sleuths have uncovered information that suggests that he narrowly managed to escape a gang rape charge in Britain. Currently, Bald’s claim to fame on YouTube is exploring Russia and former USSR countries. Under his guise as a travel vlogger, he befriends much younger local men and babushkas with the express purpose of getting closer to very young women in order to exploit and possibly rape them (a tactic he has allegedly described as “successful” on Roosh’s forums). Apparently, this creep has even written about his desire to take advantage of Syrian refugees. Given the current situation in Ukraine and the fact that he recently travelled there, I am concerned that this scumbag will find a way to harm the refugees as they flee from the conflict.
Anyway, I was wondering if you had any insight into this guy or any interest in picking up the story on your website. If anything, I just wish more people knew about his predatory nature so women know to be wary around him. It’s sad to see that RooshV not only had an impact on men, but men with millions of followers, money, and the ability to truly do damage to the young women he targets.
You can read more information about Bald’s connection to RooshV on this subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldAndBaldrDossier/comments/judnlm/is_bald_bankrupt_really_a_sex_tourist_and_a/
Torture? That’s bad. But I have some very, very good news for you. You don’t need to date! You don’t even need to have female acquaintances: just glare at them when you see them and they’ll go away. You might need to have female co-workers, but they’re not going to demand that you date them. If I’m wrong — and they do make that demand — see human resources immediately. They’ll put a stop to it.
Unlike me — I had to live for 18 years with a raging, self-pitying father who hated girls and women — you can walk away from torture.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a “blue Piller”? I’ve heard of Red Pill, but not blue. The Glossary doesn’t seem to cover it.
So, dating is hard for them?
They’d better not date at all! I really wouldn’t mind if men like them decided to remain single forever!
@Janipurr: Going by the wrongheaded Matrix-Allegory, blue pill means staying in the Matrix. So a blue piller would be someone who views women as people. Never mind that The Matrix was created by two trans women and the Red Pill is a reference to estrogen, which came in red pills at the time.
How is it they have not yet realised that dating is completely optional? They are not required to date women, if they dislike us this much – leave us alone!
I also laugh at the claim that women don’t have to bring anything but her presence and genitals to a relationship and don’t have to try to be attractive to men.
LOLs.
There are a lot of women in abusive relationships who will be happy when the news about how easy this is gets out.
As a woman, am I expected to provide health insurance and a 401k to my dates? Do I have to comply with OSHA requirements?
@Kat – I’m glad you were able to get out of that situation. Hope you’re doing much better now.
You shouldn’t go out with someone just because you think no one else will have you.
Some of the most casually cruel behaviour I’ve seen (albeit in my younger years, luckily MOST men appear to grow out of it) in relationships is the way men/boys behave to the women who fancy them, but who they resent because they aren’t good enough in their eyes and they can’t do better by their own shallow metrics. There’s also a self-hatred projected thing. “She likes me, she must be an idiot”.
I’m going to asume he puts sex workers in a different category than “civilian women” because he sees them as some time of elite squad.
So when women put in the effort to provide this “liking” and “taking care of emotional needs”, that’s women being “basically forced to work a second job” too, right?
As always for manospherians, anything that men want women to do for them is viewed as completely reasonable and perfectly aligned with a (properly constituted) woman’s innate nature. Anything that women want men to do for THEM, on the other hand, is automatically an outrageous imposition and intolerable exploitation for which women should be endlessly blamed.
So great to see a rebuttal!
If the majority of people in the Manosphere had their way, much of what this whining person says could be applied in a gender swap: Almost all of the pronouns can be exchanged to the other side of the spectrum and it would be a manosphere paradise.
@Jellybean: That’s the hidden reality of pretty much every bigot’s worldview. They’re trying to disguise, to themselves and everyone else, that they just viscerally don’t respect the group they want to treat differently. As Tim Wise has pointed out, even the most vicious anti-POC racist has had countless crappy white romantic partners, bosses, friends, teachers, etc. But they didn’t extrapolate to the entire group from those individuals.
I have a shocking truth for this guy. Some bosses…wait for it…are women.
O/T
I like that the phrase “go after” is sufficiently nebulous that it doesn’t meet the legal test for incitement.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/insulate-britain-court-legal-protest-charge-b2062852.html
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Thanks, Buttercup. Yes, I’m doing much better. I still feel the effects of the trauma. But I’m lucky enough to be able to trade a pretty much nonstop barrage of jokes (funny or dorky) with my boyfriend every day.
So being a decent human being is a very tough job for them, instead of a state of being.
Noted.
Also, apparently they’re terrible employees who probably deserve every bit of exasperation they get from their bosses, who would appreciate it if they just quit whining and did the work.
And they probably wouldn’t pay prostitutes the going amount either.
@Alan: well said. Other people in court are probably waiting around to hear about cases that will affect their/their children’s lives directly, as in this week, and haven’t got time to worry about getting the case rescheduled and more time off work and whatnot.
@ gss ex-noob
Yeah. That quote is from a much longer interview. I went on about available defences like necessity and lawful excuse. But my main point was that the courts are the wrong target. We expect judges to follow the law as set down by parliament. They’re meant to be detached and impartial and leave their own personal ideologies at the door. If we allow them to ignore laws they don’t approve of, or think aren’t well thought out, all well and good; until you get populist judges playing to the daily mail gallery.
But my principal objection is the effect on other court staff and users. The Freemen on the Land lot cause enough hassle without people (whose underlying cause I support) adding to that.
Among women, or at least feminist women, there is an acknowledgement that you don’t need a partner to be happy or to prove yourself. It’s okay to be single, your personal worth shouldn’t be tied to your partner, learning to be happy while single is not only possible but necessary, these are common feminist talking points. “Amatonormativity” is the technical word for the assumption that everybody is seeking a relationship and thus if you are single for too long you are a failure, or you are doomed to unhappiness and meaninglessness. It seems a lot of this manosphere rhetoric, which ironically includes MGTOW, sometimes ESPECIALLY MGTOW, comes from Amatonormativity. There is no male equivalent of the feminist “being single is okay” rhetoric, nothing that targets the root of amatonormativity.
They’re angry because they feel they are being deprived of something essential, not just sex, though it is hard to name that “something essential” without revealing the absurdity of it.
While I do think men (and women) are infact entitled to the pursuit of happiness and meaning, there is of course a problem with the belief that that path goes through the vagina.
@Alan: And you end up with the US Supreme Court and such.
I was once observing in the lowest court here, and some extreeeeemely entitled woman was wasting everyone’s time saying she shouldn’t have to pay her parking ticket which she got for parking in a handicapped space. Mind you, there’s 2-3 stages you have to go through before you even get to a court on that, as I learned from Exhibits A-D.
Her reason for not paying? She’s her. She drives a Mercedes. She was dropping off a donation at a local charity. Never mind that there was a Polaroid photo of her car, in the clearly-marked space, AND she was in the damn picture! Her entire “defense” was that she’s so special she should be allowed to park anywhere. However, between the officer who wrote the ticket and took the excellent picture testifying, plus the previous paperwork and the Polaroid, His Honor was unimpressed. She was gobsmacked that there were consequences for her actions ($250, plus the fees she paid along the way, and interest charged if she didn’t pay up tout suite, and non-renewal of her license plate if she hadn’t paid by the time that came due). I swear the bailiff and court reporter rolled their eyes — I sure did.
She was also greatly annoyed that she had to follow 2 other cases. The important case was an older woman trying to get an eviction order to get the sheriff’s office to remove her drug dealing abusive adult son from the house and get a restraining order (Granted, thankfully). The other case was adjusting the visitation rights for a minor child, and the father (probably an MRA) who wanted more custody didn’t bother to show up in court for the second time, so the mother who’d taken off work again won that one.
I can only imagine how much more fraught it would have been for restraining order woman and visitation mom if there’d been protesters shutting down the court. And this judge only did parking/speeding tickets, evictions, and small bits of family law, so protesting against him isn’t going to help the environment or change the government. Hassling the “meter maid” who wrote the righteous ticket in support of disabled people won’t help anything, and Ms. Mercedes would just get whinier. I’m sure it’s the same way across the pond.
@ gss ex-noob
Yeah.
This book was quite an influence on me back in the day.
https://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/book/the-politics-of-the-judiciary/
So I’m very much a fan of judges keeping their own politics out of decision making. Even if I would agree with them. See for example this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jan/16/claredyer
So I’m glad that the selection process for judges is reasonably impartial, and the govt don’t have a say in it. Independence of the judiciary is vital to safeguarding the law. Of course, rather like academic tenure, that could lead to problems getting rid of a dodgy judge. Although in practice, if a judge ever does go off piste, the system is set up so they can be pressured (by their fellow judges) to quietly step down and take up gardening. Or they’ll just get banished to the chancery division where they can’t do much harm.
But I hate it when the govt targets judges (and lawyers) as ‘enemies of the people’ when they’re just doing their jobs. It is their role to apply the law as set out by parliament.
If parliament thinks the judges are interpreting it wrong, then they can legislate to make that clearer. But a lot of the time politicians just want judge to do their dirty work. They know it would be politically damaging to be blatant about draconian laws. So they make the laws look reasonable, with various checks and balances, and tests that have to be satisfied in coming to a conclusion.
Then if a judge comes to a cruel conclusion, but one that parliament wants, they can say ‘well that was a court that decided that, not us.” But when the judges actually apply the law properly then politicians can say they’re out of touch. It’s a way politicians can play to both the progressive and populist galleries simultaneously.
But it’s the day to day disruption of the courts that most bothers me. That affects real people directly. Court proceedings are already traumatic; and there’s so much delay in the system (underfunding of course). The last thing someone wants in a desperate situation where they just want a crisis resolved, is people cluttering up the scarce resources and causing a scene. It’s selfish and egotistical.
“There is no male equivalent of the feminist “being single is okay” rhetoric, nothing that targets the root of amatonormativity.”
I don’t know. I was single for ten years, and I was pretty much fine with it. Then I met my wife, and I was suddenly not single any more. I didn’t give a thought to what other people might think of my singleness.
@Dave: I don’t think the argument is that there’s no men who are okay with being single; many men obviously are. Quantum’s point is that women, due to social pressures to be in a relationship to seek out meaning, have had to craft as a community a counter-narrative that suggests that they can don’t have to be defined by a relationship. But for men, if they fall victim to the same kind of pressure or have the same kind of desire to have a relationship (and, yes, this is of course granting this incel attitude a lot by assuming any good faith in wanting a relationship rather than just being angry that they don’t have a punching bag that will make them meals), there’s not as much of a cultural narrative to lock onto. And I think this is probably true. In my (obviously anecdotal, non-scientifically-gathered) experience, I’d say that I see more women having anxieties about relationships and how others perceive them if they are single or if their family unit is not perfectly knitted up, but they’re therefore also able to be a little more vocal about it, whereas it’s just not something a lot of men have the language for.
Add in a default position of privilege and cultural values that place competition and aggression and individualism as values for men and one can see the resentments expressed by the OT’s commenters emerging pretty organically.
A single man, huh? Isn’t there a word for that? Right. Bachelor.