What happens when you drop a bunch of women on an island to fend for themselves? (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1spicy_fries

This is a great comment from an ROK article that proves that feminism is nothing but a collective shit test.

"Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor with my feminist roommate. That particular series of Dutch Survivor would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. The feminist roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women - free from the evils of Patriarchy – would be like.

And it did. Oh it did.

Here is what happened: Initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Watching this with my feminist roommate was wonderful.Initially she tried to rationalize the differences, but her arguments became weaker and weaker. Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women. ‘Where is your hut?’,they asked. ‘We have no hut’ ‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed ‘We ate all the rice’

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe.

The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available.They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what Patriarchy is. My former roommate is no longer a feminist."

You can see the actual comment here:


[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 345 points346 points  (9 children)

It is to be remembered that "patriarchy" doesn't literally mean "rule by men".

It means "rule by fathers". That distinction is super-important. Fathers are the subset of men who are most invested in society. It is they who are willing to sacrifice their personal welfare for that of society.

[–][deleted] 51 points51 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 42 points43 points  (2 children)

Because feminists socially and politically charged the word to have negative oppressive connotations. Matriarchy comes from maternal, patriarchy comes from paternal - mother and father. Etymology exposing that bullshit.

[–][deleted] 19 points19 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]mydarkmeatrises 23 points24 points  (13 children)

After reading the Wiki, the woman won. Did she contribute during the show? Did she have any qualities that justified her winning?

[–]HahahahaWaitWhat 52 points53 points  (3 children)

No, but she had some qualities that justified her being selected as the winner in front a TV audience.

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Namely, a vagina.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 5 points6 points  (1 child)

So basically if it was her vs a guy in the finale she'd probably get all the votes from dudes with dicks and maybe a few feminista votes.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 9 points10 points  (0 children)

She'd get all the feminista votes and some white knights.

[–]nshaq 25 points26 points  (1 child)

The thing about these "competitions" is like this... If someone is exceeding and is really successful, many of the other players vote him out, because they are no match against that person. They eliminate tough competition this way. So for example if you had two dudes and one chick in the semi finals, the weaker of the two would vote the strong one out because that way they both still have a chance to win. There is a very good chance you end up with the woman and the weaker of the two men in the finals.

[–]1FloranHunter 5 points6 points  (0 children)


The women couldn't get anything done because they demanded consensus for everything. When it came time for competitions, wouldn't the female strategy then be useful? They'd vote as a bloc against the men who would vote piecemeal. Or so I guess.

[–]junkiexxl 39 points40 points  (3 children)

The show isnt really about surviving skills. Its mostly a social game. Every episode one person has to leave by a voting system. So when you dont have any enemies you have the biggest chance to stay because nobody votes on you.

The men who claim leadership are usually voted away because they are in the spotlight and sort of responsible for anything that goes wrong. Also strong and productive people are voted away because they are the "biggest threat" in the endgame. Its usually a bunch of women who group up and put all their votes on one person. And the good men vote on each other because they want to eliminate competition.

This leads to the removal of the best contestants and leaves you with a bunch of women and suckups.

Also the endgame consists of games where you have to make fire, a raft then paddle 100 meters over sea, but Always ends with a silly game like slingshotting a coconut over a distance of 20 meters in a bucket, pure randomness. This way even the slow contestants can win if the first guy to arrive is unlucky.

[–]neilmcc 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Bit like communism.

[–]fihsined 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Women always win because the guys will vote each other out for invisible pussy and the women will all backstab each other at a 1-1 ratio. so it goes in order of least liked guys -> least attractive women -> guys -> most attractive woman wins. The only time men win are when the women are all 7's and 8's and he's mindblowingly productive/successful.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I'd rather the audience vote people out.

[–]fihsined 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would literally work the exact same way. The only difference is the pussy would be even distant, and thus higher on the pedestal.

[–]GuideGhost 90 points90 points [recovered]

This perfectly illustrates the problem with the way women operate in groups of other women, and feminists' wish for society: inclusiveness.

"Everyone gets a say! Everyone gets to participate! Gurrrrl power! Yay!"

I see this fervor for inclusiveness pop up everywhere:

The problem with this mindset of inclusiveness, of course, is the simple fact that less shit gets done. It's poisonous to productivity. When you need to get the group's permission to do anything, people tend to just throw their hands up and say "fuck it, I'm not going to take any initiative; I'll just live with whatever the group decides."

The men on the show operated as autonomous agents, building shit, creating tools, making shelter etc because they knew their quality of life would be as high as the amount of effort they put in. It perfectly illustrates why the "patriarchy" has been - and will always be - in charge.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 75 points76 points  (3 children)

The problem with this mindset of inclusiveness, of course, is the simple fact that less shit gets done. It's poisonous to productivity.

I studied Economics in school, and one of the first things I learned was that "specialization increases the pie."

If I'm great at fixing computers but shitty at fixing cars, I'd create more value for both myself and society at large by working as an IT technician, rather than an auto mechanic. If everyone in a given society does what they're best at, maximum value is created, the economy expands, and everyone's individual piece of the pie is bigger.

There's a reason gender roles exist. Sometimes people are better at some things than others.

[–]fihsined 34 points35 points  (0 children)

I learn so much here. Fucking thank you.

[–]RichardBehiel 14 points15 points  (0 children)

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Feminists only force inclusiveness on men. They have no problem with their women-only areas.

  • permalink
  • 2&&(n[t].style.display="none")}else{e.innerHTML="[–]";for(var n=document.getElementById(e.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.id).children,t=0;t2&&(n[t].style.display="")}}