Quote: (03-31-2019 09:00 AM)questor70 Wrote:
Quote: (03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:
I bet there are plenty of opinions that you would express here on this forum that you would not express at work or in the company of certain friends or family members
There's a difference between simply keeping your mouth shut in the wrong social context and pretending to be something you're not. I don't, let's say, pretend to be a male feminist. If someone pushes my back up against the wall I'm going to at least allude to my red-pill ideas about women. You have to lead an authentic life.
You only have to keep your mouth shut because red-pill ideas are far less socially acceptable than feminist ideas; I doubt there are many male feminists out there who feel the need to keep their views silent. You might not be pretending but you're still
conforming, albeit passively. In the same way that atheists in conservative societies have to conform by remaining silent about their views on religion.
Also it's just not practical to be completely authentic in some situations. I was once asked in a job interview 'why do you value diversity and inclusion, and what should a manager do to improve diversity and inclusion in the workplace?' There's no acceptable red-pilled answer to that question.
Quote: (03-31-2019 09:00 AM)questor70 Wrote:
Quote: (03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:
I don't know if religion is necessary to maintain healthy gender relations in such societies, but there seems to be a correlation there.
I would agree with that. But I think there are ways to apply checks and balances onto women outside of religion--either fighting fire with fire (Game) or boycotting (MGTOW).
This is why just about every thread complaining about women here tends to split into two camps: those who blame women and those who blame men for enabling women.
That's an interesting point. It would be great if game or MGTOW could fix the situation without the need for religion. I'm not so optimistic, for a few reasons:
- The majority of men who go down the MGTOW path seem to be those who are mostly invisible to women anyway. To get women to care about being 'boycotted', you would need to persuade the top 10-20% of men who are doing well in the current environment to eschew women, which would be very challenging to say the least.
- Males are programmed to seek out and inseminate females. It's unlikely that meaningful numbers of men (provided they have healthy levels of testosterone) will ever be convinced of the need to reject their libido and go MGTOW - they're probably more likely to embrace homosexuality than chastity.
- Since women care more about social attention than sex, focusing on the former is probably a much more effective route to changing their behaviour. Men should definitely stop acting so thirsty on dating apps and social media, giving their time and attention in return for nothing, while helping to make the objects of their attention ever more toxic. Abstaining from social media and apps could be construed as a form of 'MGTOW'. Sadly, I just don't think most men have the willpower to do this.
- Game is normally used to obtain casual sex. Increased promiscuity is not going to solve many social problems (other than reducing incel rage); on the contrary, it makes many of these problems a lot worse.
- 'Relationship game', the least studied aspect of game, can be used to improve the quality and increase the longevity of long-term relationships. It has potential to reduce divorce rates and increase family formation. But I wonder how many men have the skill to learn it or the stamina to keep at it for a long duration of time. It also seems unlikely that the majority of men will ever have access to the requisite knowledge, since it's hidden away in corners of the internet characterised by fringe politics, and written in books whose authors are described as rapists by mainstream news sources.