u/Pitiful-Purple-7459

out of boredom, I actually read into What red pill actually is. I went in with the criticisms fully loaded. manipulative, destructive, deceives women. Instead I found something that confused me.

Red pill advice essentially tells men to work on themselves signal that they have options, act unbothered, don't be too available, project confidence. Be a man who prioritizes his own interest before another

The criticism I accepted without examining is that this tricks women. But tricks them into what? If someone tells you through their entire presentation that they are not going to prioritize you ,how are they deceiving you? Objectively these are warning signs, Not deception. The red flags are right there and some women are like....I want that.

Women have been given this exact playbook , themselves with often say if you like a guy a lot Make him work for sex. Don't text back too fast. Don't seem too available. Don't do wife activities for a boyfriend. The function is essentially the same.

But what I notice is this.What is healthy might not make you horny.That's the thesis as plainly as I can state it. Attraction and compatibility are partially separate systems that don't always agree with each other. In both directions. In both genders.

So is the red pill manipulation, not in any traditional sense. Nobody is lying about being a good man They are presenting themselves as the man that you are attracted to and that's the most honest thing possible.

Two people splitting responsibilities, showing up consistently, paying bills, cooking, cleaning, going out sometimes. Added* basic romance and connection.that's not the bare minimum as an insult. That's the foundation of something stable. You can be genuinely happy there and there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that a lot of women have romanticized something else entirely. If you want a man who thinks about you nonstop, puts you first in everything, and bends his own stability around your happiness that's not a good man. That's codependency and anxious attachment.

The man who orbits you completely, who sacrifices his own peace for yours, who makes your emotional state the center of his existence is not love but obsession.

Meanwhile the secure man , consistent, has his own life, shows up without drama, communicates clearly, doesn't sacrifice himself ,gets called bare minimum or "not that into her." He doesn't produce the emotional intensity that anxious attachment produces, so he doesn't feel like love. But he's the healthy one. Secure attachment has better outcomes than anxious attachment on every measurable dimension. Women are filtering him out and calling it standards.

Women aren't doing anything spectacular on their end either. The average woman today does less in a household than women did twenty or thirty years ago. Can barely show up on time to a date. Can express emotions but can't always process or communicate them productively. That's fine, nobody needs to be exceptional all the time But if the bare minimum is being treated like an insult, it should at least be applied consistently.

I'll give you a concrete example. A female friend of mine feels like I don't contribute enough to our friendship because she calls me more than I call her. What she's not accounting for is that ninety percent of her calls are new problems she needs to process. Ninety-five percent of mine are just to connect or share good news. She's measuring volume. I'm bringing different content. She defined the metric, wins on her own metric, and calls it evidence I'm not invested.

So in summary women need to stop romanticizing unhealthy attachment styles and stop looking for a Romeo and Juliet for getting that both of them died at the end

I posted a question on r/AskFeminists recently: "can you consider yourself a feminist if you hate men?" The answers were responses to different questions entirely. "You can hate individuals and still work toward their liberation." "I hate snakes but advocate for their protection." "Do you have to like someone to advocate for their fair treatment." All easier questions, all with yes answers, none of them the one I asked.

Most men can recall the everyday version: the compliment heard as criticism, the neutral question heard as accusation, the mild disagreement heard as bigotry. Or a simple statement as answered as if it was a different question all along

But on this subreddit what's interesting is even when men correct The other person's interpretation it's still not taken.

The thing is Men on this sub are not shy. If a man wants to say something hostile, he says it openly, and women in the comments respond to what was actually said. The reinterpretive layer doesn't operate on the genuinely hostile statements. It operates on the neutral ones. The neutral ones get read as worse than they are.

So the question isn't "why do women misunderstand men." It's why the misunderstanding, when it happens in this direction, consistently shifts toward a more hostile reading than the input contained.

This is a genuine question, not bait.

I’ve heard many people define feminism as equality between genders, or at least as a movement rooted in fairness and social progress. But I’ve also met people who openly express hatred toward men while still identifying as feminists.

So I’m curious where people draw the line. Is feminism simply advocacy for women regardless of personal feelings toward men, or does hatred toward men contradict the philosophy itself?

I’m not asking whether anger toward men can exist for understandable reasons. I’m specifically asking whether hatred of men is compatible with feminism philosophically.

Something I've noticed across everything I've written on here: women are deeply resistant to doing the right thing when the wrong thing feels right.I wrote that women shouldn't date known cheaters. Women defended dating them, or said men deserve a chance.

I wrote that women should stay away from frat parties if frat parties are as dangerous as everyone says. The response was "why can't men just be better."

I said that if you want a traditional household, you have to be a traditional partner yourself. I got accused of thinking women are obligated to sleep with me.

Three different topics, same pattern: deflect, reframe, end up the victim.

Women are a spectrum, not a monolith, but this trait shows up across the whole spectrum. It's why almost every conversation eventually lands on "we're not obligated to date you, or fuck you," or "stop victim blaming" because connecting their own choices to the outcomes those choices produce is the one move that isn't on the table.

This is where the "victim blaming" accusation actually comes from. If a man cheats on his wife and gets caught, is he not partly the cause of his own outcome? If someone buys a car they can't afford with the numbers right in front of them, are they really a victim of the dealership? No. The first offender is the person who set the situation up. At best, a lot of people become co-sponsors of their own victimization and because they can't come to grips with that, they keep walking into the next version of the same situation.

Acknowledging discernment would mean acknowledging that "I felt like it was right" and "it was right" are two different sentences. A lot of women have built their entire worldview on those being the same sentence.

So when men point out the pattern, it can't be received as information. It has to be reframed as an attack . jealousy, misogyny, hate, because if it's information, it has to be processed, and processing it threatens the whole framework. Easier to shoot the messenger than rebuild the map.

None of this means women have no real grievances or that men are blameless in every scenario. It means that in a lot of the situations women complain loudest about, the first offender,the one who made the call that everything else followed from, is the woman herself