Topic: I wonder if I were young, would I fall into the trap of masculinity influencers?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #133,615
But the answer is no. They are bro douchebags selling a fake lifestyle. Bad financial advice, rented homes, leased cars, female influencers pretending to be their girlfriends. They’re Rachel Hollis with dicks.
I used to see their predecessors at Lollapalooza, five idiots with their shirts off and hats backwards, wearing Ray Bans and walking with invisible lats.
I used to see their predecessors at Lollapalooza, five idiots with their shirts off and hats backwards, wearing Ray Bans and walking with invisible lats.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 30 minutes later[^] [v] #1,422,997
"Red Pill Ideology" is just common sense to anyone before the sexual revolution.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,032
Actual Red Pill Ideology is transgenderism, the Wachowski brothers sisters confirmed it.
BBC Documentary joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,033
BBC Documentary double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,034
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,061
@1,422,997 (B)
> "Red Pill Ideology" is just common sense to anyone before the sexual revolution.
There’s plenty of it that does, and men don’t exist to be an as-needed accessory to women raised in a princess culture whose levels of entitlement are off the charts.
I’m talking about the tools peddling workout, relationship, and financial advice. “Bro I just made $10,000 in 3 minutes. Don’t you want this lifestyle? Women need a leader! Lead them, mate!”
> "Red Pill Ideology" is just common sense to anyone before the sexual revolution.
There’s plenty of it that does, and men don’t exist to be an as-needed accessory to women raised in a princess culture whose levels of entitlement are off the charts.
I’m talking about the tools peddling workout, relationship, and financial advice. “Bro I just made $10,000 in 3 minutes. Don’t you want this lifestyle? Women need a leader! Lead them, mate!”
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,095
@previous (D)
Get rich quick schemes and manosphere influencers aren't really the same thing.
Likewise, we wouldn't say feminism is when women get involved in one of those suburban multilevel marketing businesses.
The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
Get rich quick schemes and manosphere influencers aren't really the same thing.
Likewise, we wouldn't say feminism is when women get involved in one of those suburban multilevel marketing businesses.
The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,107
Some of the beard circles are like that. I mostly just wanted to look ok for work purposes but many channels treat it like a lifestyle.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,152
@1,423,095 (B)
> Get rich quick schemes and manosphere influencers aren't really the same thing.
>
> Likewise, we wouldn't say feminism is when women get involved in one of those suburban multilevel marketing businesses.
>
> The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
The manosphere guys like Tate, Justin Waller, and HS in the UK pitch all kinds of dodgy investments in addition to fitness and red pill stuff.
> Get rich quick schemes and manosphere influencers aren't really the same thing.
>
> Likewise, we wouldn't say feminism is when women get involved in one of those suburban multilevel marketing businesses.
>
> The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
The manosphere guys like Tate, Justin Waller, and HS in the UK pitch all kinds of dodgy investments in addition to fitness and red pill stuff.
B L A C K P E O P L E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,154
@1,423,095 (B)
> The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
I can think of way too many counter examples to this. For example, queen Victoria.
> The idea that men need to lead women is just a cultural universal for most of human history, and still most of the world today. It's really only urban western culture since the 70s that disagree
I can think of way too many counter examples to this. For example, queen Victoria.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 35 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,156
There was PUA shit when I was growing up and everyone involved in it was either a desperate sad virgin or the loser exploiting them tbh.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,214
@1,423,154 (B L A C K P E O P L E)
That's a bad example she was notoriously against the women's rights movement and in favor of traditional gender roles. Why do you think "Victorian attitudes" refers to strict gender norms?
That's a bad example she was notoriously against the women's rights movement and in favor of traditional gender roles. Why do you think "Victorian attitudes" refers to strict gender norms?
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,216
@1,423,152 (F)
I believe it, but that's really not limited to those channels. I've seen scams added into a lot of random independent channels that have nothing to do with gender.
@1,423,156 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you equating PUA to "Red Pill"?
A lot of men just want the traditional deal, the classic social contract.
If that's not possible, some go MGTOW and some just play the PUA game.
If someone wants to be a PUA from the outset that's scummy, but a lot of those people are just conforming to a broken system.
I believe it, but that's really not limited to those channels. I've seen scams added into a lot of random independent channels that have nothing to do with gender.
@1,423,156 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you equating PUA to "Red Pill"?
A lot of men just want the traditional deal, the classic social contract.
If that's not possible, some go MGTOW and some just play the PUA game.
If someone wants to be a PUA from the outset that's scummy, but a lot of those people are just conforming to a broken system.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,446
@previous (B)
They're related but they're not the same thing. All this stuff about teaching men what real masculinity is, how to get women to sleep with you, etc. stems from exploiting the same male insecurity even if the content output is different.
They're related but they're not the same thing. All this stuff about teaching men what real masculinity is, how to get women to sleep with you, etc. stems from exploiting the same male insecurity even if the content output is different.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,484
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,486
@1,423,214 (B)
> That's a bad example she was notoriously against the women's rights movement and in favor of traditional gender roles. Why do you think "Victorian attitudes" refers to strict gender norms?
That’s kinda the point. She was the queen of a very socially conservative society but she was still leading men.
> That's a bad example she was notoriously against the women's rights movement and in favor of traditional gender roles. Why do you think "Victorian attitudes" refers to strict gender norms?
That’s kinda the point. She was the queen of a very socially conservative society but she was still leading men.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,487
My point was that even in "western" culture, women have been historically been in positions of power less frequently than men, but they were still definitely in positions of power. The idea of a woman being in charge of men isn’t a new concept. For example queen Elizabeth I during the Spanish Armada. Men ruled more often than women, but you can definitely find examples of women ruling over me in history and you can find examples of women ruling making important military decisions. If queen Elizabeth I made different decisions and the Spanish were successful, then the United States would basically be a Catholic country.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,488
Since America is Protestant since England was Protestant, but England was only Protestant because the Spanish Armada was unsuccessful but if it was successful and the Spanish overthrew Elizabeth I, then it follows they would have forced England to convert back to Christianity, and any future British colonies would have been Catholic, meaning the US would end up being majority Catholic.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,490
So… I mean I’m not Protestant, but… I think women made some significant contributions to the course of history, and that’s hard to deny.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,493
Because if you think about the European empires, France was mostly Catholic, Spain and Portugal were mostly Catholic. You could sort of make the argument that if it wasn’t for Elizabeth I, then there wouldn’t really be Protestant countries outside of Europe.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,495
If you think about it, countries just retained the religious traditions of their colonizers. The US is mostly Protestant because England was mostly Protestant. The rest of Latin America is mostly Catholic because Spain and Portugal were Catholic. Nigeria is mostly Protestant because it was colonized by the British, the DRC is mostly Catholic. The Philippines is mostly Catholic. That seems at least a little bit significant.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,496
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,510
@1,423,486 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
The monarch is a figurehead for the lords, who were men.
She could have tried to push for feminism anyway, but didn't, because that pedigree comes with the IQ to know better.
The monarch is a figurehead for the lords, who were men.
She could have tried to push for feminism anyway, but didn't, because that pedigree comes with the IQ to know better.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,527
@1,423,493 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
The Protestant reformation happened in a lot of different countries, but in any event USA was founded by puritans who were oppressed in England by the church of England
The Protestant reformation happened in a lot of different countries, but in any event USA was founded by puritans who were oppressed in England by the church of England
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,528
@1,423,156 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> There was PUA shit when I was growing up and everyone involved in it was either a desperate sad virgin or the loser exploiting them tbh.
Come on, Mystery and Style were hilarious. And that ugly psycho Ross whatever.
> There was PUA shit when I was growing up and everyone involved in it was either a desperate sad virgin or the loser exploiting them tbh.
Come on, Mystery and Style were hilarious. And that ugly psycho Ross whatever.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,531
@1,423,527 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> The Protestant reformation happened in a lot of different countries, but in any event USA was founded by puritans who were oppressed in England by the church of England
Do you honestly think that puritans would exist at all if England was under the control of Spain?
> The Protestant reformation happened in a lot of different countries, but in any event USA was founded by puritans who were oppressed in England by the church of England
Do you honestly think that puritans would exist at all if England was under the control of Spain?
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,532
Globally Protestants are about 37% of Christians and Catholics are about 50% of Christians. If the British Empire wasn’t Protestant there wouldn’t be any Protestants in Africa, North America, Australia, or Asia, so the Catholic Church would probably dominate Christianity almost entirely.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,533
I mean, you can read about the way that the Spanish crown treated non-Catholics in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. If they were occupying England, a foreign nation, they probably would have been even worse. I really doubt that under Spanish control any opposition to the Catholic Church would have been tolerated.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,534
The way the Spanish Inquisition worked is you were Catholic, you were tortured until you confessed to being Catholic, or you were just killed. And that’s basically it.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,542
pounding nigguhs through a mesh with a mallet produces fine cat food!Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,659
@1,423,531 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Puritans didn't exist in England either as they were driven out
Puritans didn't exist in England either as they were driven out