Redpill & patriarchy for nerds

[SexyIncél]

I wrote this little guide in another thread. Dunno if anyone'll find it useful. Took me a while to learn it

---

What's redpill? A men's movement. Offers an alternative to mainstream disneyfied views on men's place in society, especially wrt women. Advises men how to succeed via competent individual performance

Example redpillers? Orion Taraban, Fresh&Fit, Alexander Grace, Casey Zander. (You may not like the clickbait titles, but they explain that too. If you don't like how Fresh&Fit speak to women, they're just as hard on men. Better hit by hard words, than hard reality)

What's patriarchy? Male heads of household (patriarchs) are the model of other social institutions. Like CEOs & heads-of-state, running everything like their households. Men are valued on performance, not by simply existing

How's redpill pro-patriarchy? Subtle underpinnings:

• 80+% of redpillers ground patriarchy in biology, claiming it's an unalterable primordial truth
• Exploits patriarchal & misandrist feminists. Particularly liberal feminism: pro-wageslavery, refuses to offer men compelling masculinities, focuses on the glass ceiling rather than scary basement (that haunts 80% of women)

Is redpill anti-feminist? Theoretically, no. In practice, yes — I don't know any who provide alternatives to patriarchy & hierarchy

Why's redpill useful? Helps you excel in patriarchy/wageslavery/etc. Counters real errors in pop feminism

Can the bluepill work? Sure, broke unattractive guys can sometimes get lovely gfs by simping. The world's probabilistic & full of clashing mechanisms. Different tools can work, so have a toolbelt

What's the blackpill? Women are attracted to static biological traits. Self-improvement won't work. Cope or die. (I suspect similarity to anorexics & body dysmorphics)

What about Andrew Tate? Masculinity icon who suffered & succeeded. Points out that most people are slaves. His solution: free yourself by being a more effective slave, not abolishing slavery. (Example of his appeal: a gf probably cheated on him before he got famous. Implication: if even he got cheated on, why should anyone else feel ashamed?)

Sources on alternatives to patriarchy? Rojava (video), bell hooks, Dawn of Everything

 

[funeraleveryday]

Spend your time doing something better

 

[SexyIncél]

Spend your time doing something better

And what's better? This is the philosophy (and unfortunately, politics) subforum, explain yourself

Sigh. My experience of the world:

• Do sophistry: make lifelong friends, get cultish ovary-poppin' groupies
• Do philosophy: "Hahahhah loooooser"

Reminds me of Konstantin Stanislavski's: "Beware your admirers! Make love to them, if it amuses you, but do not discuss art with them! Learn in time to listen to, to understand and love the bitter truth about yourselves! And get to know those who can tell it to you. It is with them that you should discuss art."

 

[sserafim]

What's "wrt"? Why do you think that patriarchy is the default mode? Do you think that one day there could be a matriarchy?

 

[Shrike]

This is all so very tiring. People circling a trap, I wish men could just escape the trap, but perhaps all men are elephants, I don't really know.

 

[SexyIncél]

What's "wrt"? Why do you think that patriarchy is the default mode? Do you think that one day there could be a matriarchy?

wrt = with respect to

Classic patriarchy (with the bearded guys & stuff) started in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago. With the rise of money & markets — and debt. The same money could both settle affairs of honor & buy prostitutes. Families would surrender the kids into debt slavery. Freaked people out. The male winners of the economic game, became obsessed with the sexual reputations of their mother/wife/sister/daughter

But it doesn't have to be that way. There's certainly been matriarchies. (Though not ones where women dominate most formal political positions.) As well as mixes where you couldn't really tell if they're patriarchal or matriarchal

Spoiler: Details & evidence

Classic patriarchy (with the bearded guys & stuff) started in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago. With the rise of money & markets — and debt. The same money could both settle affairs of honor & buy prostitutes. Freaked people out

"In the specific case of Mesopotamia, all of this took on a complicated relation to an explosion of debt that threatened to turn all human relations—and by extension, women's bodies—into potential commodities. At the same time, it created a horrified reaction on the part of the (male) winners of the economic game, who over time felt forced to go to greater and greater lengths to make clear that their women could in no sense be bought or sold."

So men of honor became obsessed with their mother/wife/sister/daughter's sexual reputations: "One historian who went through fifty years of police reports about knife-fights in nineteenth-century Ionia discovered that virtually every one of them began when one party publicly suggested that the other's wife or sister was a whore."

Certainly not a primordial default: "Readers of the Bible had always assumed that there was something primordial in all this; that this was simply the way desert people, and thus the earliest inhabitants of the Near East, had always behaved. This was why the translation of Sumerian, in the first half of the twentieth century, came as something of a shock."

---

Some societies have a mix — can't really tell if it's patriarchal or matriarchal:

"It may be, for instance, that men and women in a given society are not only expected to perform different sorts of work, but hold different opinions about why work (or what sorts of work) is important in the first place, and therefore feel they have a higher status; or perhaps that their respective roles are so different, it makes no sense to compare them. Many of the societies encountered by the French in North America fit this description. They could be seen as matriarchal from one perspective, patriarchal from another."

---

How about matriarchy? Well, let's nail down definitions

We're not talking about a gynarchy, where women hold most formal political positions. "Exceedingly rare in human history"

But matriarchy definitely existed: "the role of mothers in the household similarly becomes a model for, and economic basis of, female authority in other aspects of life (which doesn't necessarily imply dominance in a violent or exclusionary sense), where women as a result hold a preponderance of overall day-to-day power."

"Looked at this way, matriarchies are real enough. Kandiaronk himself arguably lived in one. In his day, Iroquoian-speaking groups such as the Wendat lived in towns that were made up of longhouses of five or six families. Each longhouse was run by a council of women – the men who lived there did not have a parallel council of their own – whose members controlled all the key stockpiles of clothing, tools and food. The political sphere in which Kandiaronk himself moved was perhaps the only one in Wendat society where women did not predominate, and even so there existed women's councils which held veto power over any decision of the male councils. On this definition, the Pueblo nations such as Hopi and Zuñi might also qualify as matriarchies, while the Minangkabau, a Muslim people of Sumatra, describe themselves as matriarchal for exactly the same reasons."

---

Sources:

• Graeber, "Debt: the First 5000 Years"
• Graeber & Wengrow: "The Dawn of Everything"

 

[sserafim]

wrt = with respect to

Classic patriarchy (with the bearded guys & stuff) started in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago. With the rise of money & markets — and debt. The same money could both settle affairs of honor & buy prostitutes. Families would surrender the kids into debt slavery. Freaked people out. The male winners of the economic game, became obsessed with the sexual reputations of their mother/wife/sister/daughter

But it doesn't have to be that way. There's certainly been matriarchies. (Though not ones where women dominate most formal political positions.) As well as mixes where you couldn't really tell if they're patriarchal or matriarchal

Spoiler: Details & evidence

Classic patriarchy (with the bearded guys & stuff) started in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago. With the rise of money & markets — and debt. The same money could both settle affairs of honor & buy prostitutes. Freaked people out

"In the specific case of Mesopotamia, all of this took on a complicated relation to an explosion of debt that threatened to turn all human relations—and by extension, women's bodies—into potential commodities. At the same time, it created a horrified reaction on the part of the (male) winners of the economic game, who over time felt forced to go to greater and greater lengths to make clear that their women could in no sense be bought or sold."

So men of honor became obsessed with their mother/wife/sister/daughter's sexual reputations: "One historian who went through fifty years of police reports about knife-fights in nineteenth-century Ionia discovered that virtually every one of them began when one party publicly suggested that the other's wife or sister was a whore."

Certainly not a primordial default: "Readers of the Bible had always assumed that there was something primordial in all this; that this was simply the way desert people, and thus the earliest inhabitants of the Near East, had always behaved. This was why the translation of Sumerian, in the first half of the twentieth century, came as something of a shock."

---

Some societies have a mix — can't really tell if it's patriarchal or matriarchal:

"It may be, for instance, that men and women in a given society are not only expected to perform different sorts of work, but hold different opinions about why work (or what sorts of work) is important in the first place, and therefore feel they have a higher status; or perhaps that their respective roles are so different, it makes no sense to compare them. Many of the societies encountered by the French in North America fit this description. They could be seen as matriarchal from one perspective, patriarchal from another."

---

How about matriarchy? Well, let's nail down definitions

We're not talking about a gynarchy, where women hold most formal political positions. "Exceedingly rare in human history"

But matriarchy definitely existed: "the role of mothers in the household similarly becomes a model for, and economic basis of, female authority in other aspects of life (which doesn't necessarily imply dominance in a violent or exclusionary sense), where women as a result hold a preponderance of overall day-to-day power."

"Looked at this way, matriarchies are real enough. Kandiaronk himself arguably lived in one. In his day, Iroquoian-speaking groups such as the Wendat lived in towns that were made up of longhouses of five or six families. Each longhouse was run by a council of women – the men who lived there did not have a parallel council of their own – whose members controlled all the key stockpiles of clothing, tools and food. The political sphere in which Kandiaronk himself moved was perhaps the only one in Wendat society where women did not predominate, and even so there existed women's councils which held veto power over any decision of the male councils. On this definition, the Pueblo nations such as Hopi and Zuñi might also qualify as matriarchies, while the Minangkabau, a Muslim people of Sumatra, describe themselves as matriarchal for exactly the same reasons."

---

Sources:

• Graeber, "Debt: the First 5000 Years"
• Graeber & Wengrow: "The Dawn of Everything"

Hmm, interesting. Why do you think so few women are in positions of power?

 

[SexyIncél]

Hmm, interesting. Why do you think so few women are in positions of power?

Do you mean nowadays? Culture can be seen as a bunch of movements that were more or less successful. Patriarchal men's movements were very successful & spread worldwide. Of course, there's generally also counter-movements, like women's movements

We can easily imagine how they work, because there's new examples nowadays that attempt to roll back gains made by women's movements. For example, Fresh & Fit's leader mentioned that women should only have half a vote

At least that's how I think about it; dunno the history of men's & women's movements

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

There's no patriarchy. The occult circles ruling everything. You are either born into these circles or you have so much money/political position that you get to interact with the outer layer.

 

[sserafim]

There's no patriarchy. The occult circles ruling everything. You are either born into these circles or you have so much money/political position that you get to interact with the outer layer.

Wdym?

 

[DarkRange55]

Wdym?

There is no Illuminati. Rich people run the world. The ways that society is controlled are very obvious.



I think thats an interesting idea that there could theoretically be different tiers to "illuminati" and information gets compartmentalized as you descend.

My dad's uncle for example is an old money billionaire. His whole family is like that. However, old families have already made it near impossible to compete, in fact they bought and rigged the system to make sure.

The Knights Templar existed a long time ago and had a lot of money, they were very powerful during the Crusades. They loaned a lot of money but loaning a lot of money got them a lot of enemies and the Vatican and a bunch of other people killed them all. They're gone.
A lot of the presidents were Freemasons but let me explain it this way - rich people run the world. All the presidents for the most part have been rich people. A lot of them just also just happen to be Freemasons because they are rich. Go to Bloomfield Hills. Maybe all the men in that city belong to the local country club. Does that mean the *country club* is running the affairs of the city? No! The people that are *in* the country *happen* to be in charge. But that doesn't mean that the *country club* is conspiring to rule over the city. It's the rich people, it's not the organizations they happen to belong to.

 

[DarkRange55]

Hmm, interesting. Why do you think so few women are in positions of power?

Not a direct answer, but the ruling powers that be always want to keep the masses divided. Religion, race, sex, gender, politics, sexuality, ethnicity, whatever. Divide and conquer. If they can keep the masses distracted by fighting with each other, it keeps the attention off the rich and powerful. Look at our media. Amazing amount of sheer propaganda coming out of Hollywood these days…

 

[Argo]

There's no patriarchy. The occult circles ruling everything. You are either born into these circles or you have so much money/political position that you get to interact with the outer layer.

Something in that ballpark roughly captures my intuitions about the world too, but the hardest parts of reality to understand are those we're most disconnected from. Imagine you had a lifetime to participate in elite circles of today(the kind that you can't even point to or call by name, because they're obscured from our view-- we only see the tip of an iceberg due to being that far from it), and then a thousand years to ponder the dynamics of it. That would leave us wide-eyed, and we'd look back on our current views the way we look back at our understanding of the world when we were small children. We don't have to know any specifics about reality to know that's probably true.

So... that's a big problem for all of us. All we can do is sorta guess about anything other than the most outward appearances. You can make very broad statements confidently, power dominates reality, for example(that's just easy, right? What else would? Whatever that is, that's power).

But saying more specific things, gets harder and harder.

A kind of axiom I've used to look at reality is "What if the opposite is true?" Some appearances in our world are just flipped around. X = Good ( Masked form of X= Bad). Y = True ( masked form of Y = Untrue, and sometimes even Opposite of Y = True). It seems more likely for someone to get closer to reality by playing with using these sorts of axioms, than if we just look at stuff and describe what we're seeing piece by piece(or collect pieces of others who've done the same).

So yeah on Patriarchy, I think that's possibly the mask that's currently operative because it protects the real structure of things, which is more likely a gendered ecosystem at the seats of power in the world. Women have tons of power at the top I would guess, because these will be the most sophisticated examples of the most evil traits in that gender that have shown up until now(just like the men at the top will be the most sophisticated examples of male evil). That's a lot of combined power and it's not at all clear how it all interacts. To think there's a clear cut patriarchy, is to either not recognize this possibility or have some solid answer in response. Men evolved to tend to express power overtly, while women tend to express it covertly, so it's just by nature going to be difficult to identify it in a gendered way by just looking alone. You can't go to Target every day or work there, and even reliably know a fact like: "What is the number 1 most stolen item at Target?" Just guess. Imagine you're a asking a worker there-- will they get it right? There's only one right answer and countless wrong ones.

I think the odds are good they'll get it wrong-- because they're merely human, and they just don't have access to the raw stats that all the cameras and inventory/crime data all Targets have access too-- their eyes by definition are just not good enough tools for the job and will most likely only produce a limited, biased, superficial answer. The answer is nail polish.