Red Pill Primer for Boys

SunDance

Don't mean to spam this site for the red pill room, even though that is what I am doing.  Anyway, an excellent primer on the red pill by MMSL friend Ian Underwood. I was looking for a simple summary of red pill concepts and found this. It is a power point type format, which is pretty cool. Chapter 13 is not done yet, but everything else is. I thought the chapter on feminism was excellent. I did not know a lot of this. Also, I like the mention of relationship game and being a man, father, and provider as a meaningful strategy towards life. Usually red pill stuff seems to be a pump and dump strategy with ranting about how lame women are. 

It is pretty basic, but is gold and worth a look.  Not as comprehensive as Athol's books, but is a real quick read.

http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/p/the-red-pill-primer-for-boys.html

HildaCorners

I've read it too, and sent the link to my young teen son. [I'm doing my best to raise a Red Pill boy without a functional father.]

He's decided he isn't interested yet, but it's there when he is.

SunDance

@HildaCorners‌
Great idea!  I am going to also, although my boys are not interested yet. You know, it could be good timing if they read it.  And kudos for you in trying to raise a RP boy without a functional father.  You are definitely swimming against the tide.  That is to be respected.

Tiger_Lily

Interesting @SunDance‌, I had almost a complete opposite reaction.  Some good stuff in there, but I thought that the father and provider angle really got lost amid all the other stuff.  It's like he puts a lot more conviction into the negative stuff (like the chapter on feminism) than the positive.  If it's a primer for boys, and if we prefer them to be pro-marriage red-pill boys rather than PUAs, shouldn't there be more on the benefits of marriage?  

Husband3point0

I agree.  I'd like to see if he gets around to "how to choose a red pill wife" at some point, because that would finally close the loop.

SunDance

@Tiger_Lily‌
Well I can clearly see your point.  I was coming from the readings in the manosphere that pretty much blast marriage and providers are viewed as frustrated chumps. So I was pretty surprised to see marriage provider game mentioned.  He does put quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism, but there is quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism if you are a man. Feminist hate us.  If you are a women, why of course it rocks.

As a provider man, I do not see any benefit from marriage except for raising kids. I would be interested in knowing any.  Maybe if I was a receiver of benefits I would like it.

Katt

@SunDance said:

@Tiger_Lily‌
Well I can clearly see your point.  I was coming from the readings in the manosphere that pretty much blast marriage and providers are viewed as frustrated chumps. So I was pretty surprised to see marriage provider game mentioned.  He does put quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism, but there is quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism if you are a man. Feminist hate us.  If you are a women, why of course it rocks.

It largely depends on how you define feminism.  There is an extreme faction of feminism that truly hates men, but many more moderate factions that certainly do not. There is a woman-hating faction to the manosphere as well.   Extremists come in all stripes. I also disagree with the assertion that man-hating feminism "rocks" for women.  I am as insulted by the extreme wing of feminism as any man should be.  

As a provider man, I do not see any benefit from marriage except for raising kids. I would be interested in knowing any.  Maybe if I was a receiver of benefits I would like it.

There are plenty of benefits for men (and women) of a healthy, functional marriage.   

Monkeys_Uncle

SunDance said:

As a provider man, I do not see any benefit from marriage except for raising kids. I would be interested in knowing any. 

Generally speaking married couples live longer, are more healthy, happier, wealthier, and have more sex than single people.    

Athol_Kay

SunDance said:

@Tiger_Lily‌
Well I can clearly see your point.  I was coming from the readings in the manosphere that pretty much blast marriage and providers are viewed as frustrated chumps. So I was pretty surprised to see marriage provider game mentioned.  He does put quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism, but there is quite a bit of negative stuff in feminism if you are a man. Feminist hate us.  If you are a women, why of course it rocks.

As a provider man, I do not see any benefit from marriage except for raising kids. I would be interested in knowing any.  Maybe if I was a receiver of benefits I would like it.

The ugly truth is the manosphere can damage men for relationships, the same way being a Women's Studies major typically wrecks a woman for relationships. Ideological rage and hatred for the opposite sex makes for a shitty person to be married to.

Husband3point0

Until I see men in their 70s and 80s happy to hang around in the manosphere, it'll still remain a haven for angry young guys to work out their issues, in my mind anyway. 

However, @Katt‌ I'm going to take exception with the idea that you could possibly be 'as' insulted by radical feminism as someone like myself. I'm sure you're 'also' offended, but I'm not quite sure you could possibly grasp the depths of how it scarred some of us. Let's just say we're both pissed, but to a different degree. 

That said, I'm not sure how effective, productive or positive the "let's hate them back" strategy really is, especially in the long run. It might be the biggest irony of the entire movement -- it's based upon a huge frame fail by letting the misandrists draw you into theirs. 

Frank_London

I had pretty low expectations when I clicked on the link, but was pleasantly surprised.

That wasn't bad at all.

I agree that his take on feminism is a bit lop-sided. A lot of women say they are "feminists" but wouldn't agree with the thinking of, say Andrea Dworkin.

Katt

Husband2point1 said:

Until I see men in their 70s and 80s happy to hang around in the manosphere, it'll still remain a haven for angry young guys to work out their issues, in my mind anyway. 

However, @Katt‌ I'm going to take exception with the idea that you could possibly be 'as' insulted by radical feminism as someone like myself. I'm sure you're 'also' offended, but I'm not quite sure you could possibly grasp the depths of how it scarred some of us. Let's just say we're both pissed, but to a different degree. 

I didn't say I was as damaged by it as some men have been, I said I find it equally insulting.   How dare you tell me how insulted I am ???   Some of the people I respect and admire most are men (my husband, my dad...) and directing blind hatred at them based on their plumbing bothers me.  And extreme feminism is damaging to women as well as men; perhaps to a lesser degree, but it really benefits no one.   It asks women to deny their deepest desires, suggests they are weak if they don't fit the extreme feminist mold, etc.  


That said, I'm not sure how effective, productive or positive the "let's hate them back" strategy really is, especially in the long run. It might be the biggest irony of the entire movement -- it's based upon a huge frame fail by letting the misandrists draw you into theirs.

True!

Tiger_Lily

Resentment is corrosive, whether it's feminist resentment of men or the manosphere's resentment of women.

Coming back to the ostensible purpose of the primer, though: if it's aimed at boys - presumably teenagers - then it's more important to set positive expectations of normal, healthy gender relations than to drag them into this polemic before their time.  

That's where I see the primer failing: it's value-neutral between marriage and playing the field, and I seriously doubt that it's truly possible to be value-neutral on this subject: if you don't teach that marriage is the preferred outcome but only one of many equally valid choices (and a "bad deal," at that), then what teenager would ever aspire to it?  What do they care that it's best for raising children when they are still mostly children themselves?  

Frank_London

I don't think it's teaching people to be resentful; it seems like a sincere attempt to convey information about women and how the sexes interact, in a very non-PC way.

HildaCorners

Keep in mind the primer for boys is a work in progress. We're reading an incomplete book, still in need of edits.

Ironwood does make it clear that Single Game and Married Game are very different strategies. I expect he has more to say about proper mate selection if one is playing Married Game.

Some men want to be free agents, being a PUA and competing for the highest N. Others want to be group leaders and have 127 kids to carry their awesome through the generations. Different men, different strategies.

As far as the radical feminism goes, this is a bee in Ironwood's bonnet. But, when college girls routinely talk about "dismantling the patriarchy", boys need to know. Just as they need to know about what "consent" really means (the next, still unwritten chapter)

never_again

I agree with the concept of marriage and prefer monogamy.  However, current divorce law in most (not all) jurisdictions has twisted the original "contract" to instead be reduced to a single agreement - the day a man marries, he automatically gives up at least half his "value".  Call it misogyny or whatever, but studies show that men tend to bring more financially to relationships.

Until that is balanced, men who have been burned will remain angry.  Just as women don't want to be only a sex object, men don't want to be only a trust fund.  I think that is the root of the anger in the manosphere.  

JesusMarimba

What you wrote:

Tiger_Lily said:

That's where I see the primer failing: it's value-neutral between marriage and playing the field, and I seriously doubt that it's truly possible to be value-neutral on this subject: if you don't teach that marriage is the preferred outcome but only one of many equally valid choices (and a "bad deal," at that), then what teenager would ever aspire to it?  What do they care that it's best for raising children when they are still mostly children themselves?  

What I read:

Tiger_Lily said:

That's where I see the primer failing women: it's value-neutral between marriage and playing the field, and I seriously doubt that it's truly possible to be value-neutral on this subject: if you don't teach that marriage is the preferred outcome but only one of many equally valid choices (and a "bad deal," at that), then what teenager would ever aspire to it?  What do they care that it's best for raising children when they are still mostly children themselves?  

Tiger_Lily

That's funny, I've never been accused of feminism before . Oh well, this is really not my fight, I'm just thinking how to raise my boys & they haven't met any college feminists yet.  I'll be watching the primer updates though - good point @HildaCorners‌.

HildaCorners

never_again said:

I agree with the concept of marriage and prefer monogamy.  However, current divorce law in most (not all) jurisdictions has twisted the original "contract" to instead be reduced to a single agreement - the day a man marries, he automatically gives up at least half his "value".  Call it misogyny or whatever, but studies show that men tend to bring more financially to relationships.
 

Most people who marry don't pay any atention to divorce law.Maybe they should, but they rarely do. "It will never happen to us" and all that.

There are, and always will be, men who want to be fathers, and men who want a life long relationship. [There also have been, and always will be, women who don't want kids or a LTR.]

Marriage is fundamentally a religious contract, one that the government has made into a legal contract as well. Different religions define marriage a little differently ... in some, the man gives up nothing, in others, almost everything. Given the changes in relationships that have been happening lately (gay marriage, polyamory), I can see the government getting out of the marriage business in my lifetime — but that's still science fiction.

Summary: the majority of human adults will want to pair bond, regardless of legal consequences. The role of MMSL is to make those pair bonds work well.

dalef

His blog has a post on wife selection, so I'm sure he'll include that in the primer.

never_again

@HildaCorners, perhaps that's where the manosphere should concentrate its efforts.  My simple advice to young men now is "do not marry", because there's currently nothing you can do within a marriage that you can't do outside of it.  

However, I also expect they will marry anyway, for the reasons that you listed.  So my additional advice to them is "Build your wealth before you marry, but do not transfer ANY of it into marital assets, no matter what your wife may try to convince you to do.  Enjoy the fruits of your investments but don't hand her the keys to your prosperity."  A sad commentary but necessary self-protection.