Red Pill TheoryEmma Watson says, "Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes" as she dates an alpha male jock (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana

Emma Watson: "I want men to take up this mantle. So...that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too — reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves."

But remember that TRP encourages you to watch what people do, not what they say:


...she has become “Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women,” a job that evidently requires her to say silly feminist stuff on Twitter, e.g.:

Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes.

Ri-iiight. Because what guys really need is to be liberated from “prescribed gender stereotypes.” All the hot babes like Emma Watson are crazy for guys who don’t fit “prescribed gender stereotypes,” right? So you will probably be surprised to learn that Emma Watson is dating a bald scrawny impoverished poet the biggest jock at an elite university:

According to a multiple outlets, the 23-year-old former “Harry Potter” film star has recently begun dating a fellow Oxford University student named Matthew Janney. . . .

The UK’s Mirror reported . . . that Janney, 21, is not only a student at the prestigious institution, he is also a star rugby player for their varsity team. Despite his prized athletic skills, Janney has also been recognized for something else: his looks. According to the report, the college student was named “Oxford’s most eligible bachelor” and “best looking player” by the university’s rugby team’s official Twitter account.

In other words, an Alpha male, the epitome of “prescribed gender stereotypes” from which Emma Watson says we need to be liberated.

Smart young fellows figure out that listening to what women say is less important than watching what women do. Women are constantly saying they want sensitive Ashley Wilkes types, even while they’re actually going crazy for the Rhett Butler types. But women are hopelessly fickle and self-contradictory, anyway.

As a man in our new feminist world, you are liberated from your gender stereotype and have permission to be vulnerable and human. And women have permission to dump you for the next nearby alpha male who decided that he doesn't need to be liberated from his gender stereotype.

Hat tip to /u/nix_on_the_glowworm for exposing me to this article, /u/TRPsubmitter for the idea of submitting this, and /u/justmanthings for posting the original quote about "taking up the mantle".

Edit: /u/We_Are_Legion suggests including this excellent image from /u/tremenfing: https://imgur.com/J5L4Ien

[–]tracer123 334 points335 points  (53 children)

All women are saying "be more sensitive" ONLY to Alpha men. They want to see inside your head which is the purpose of you keeping frame. They get high on your mystery and stoicism but don't like the power you wield. They are NOT saying this for Beta men, who are invisible anyway.

[–]RAGING_ERECTION 215 points215 points [recovered]

This is true.

When you ask a woman what she's looking for in a man she will start listing off 'beta' qualities and behaviours.

The difference is, she's imagining these coming from the top 1% rich alpha movie star, not your typical obese neckbeard.

[–]Cousieknow 41 points42 points  (3 children)

I want to quote you on this, but giving credit...

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 41 points42 points  (1 child)

What so hard about quoting him?

Whenever I say something brilliant to a woman, I always cite my raging erection as the source.

[–]muyuu 5 points6 points  (0 children)

RAGING_ERECTION doesn't lie.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK. This. This explains so much of my life.

[–]Dream4eva 83 points84 points  (2 children)

It's one big shit test to find the true alpha men and weed out the rest.

[–]1BadgerBurger 20 points21 points  (0 children)

This is the true definition of feminism.

[–]2johnnight 80 points81 points  (4 children)

They are saying this not because it would give the man a positive result, but because the aloofness is positively annoying them.

That's like me saying to a girl "stop dressing so sexy".

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know. It's annoying her to the point of gina tingles, in fact. Girls dressing sexy annoy my dick by making it hard too. I wish they would stop it.

Huhuh. Reminds me of Beavis & Butthead's sexual harassment suit. http://youtu.be/7SF5Yiz3qTQ

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, they don't like the idea that beta men are acting alpha. They don't like the idea that their intended betabux is instead out speaking directly to women's nether parts and making them tingle.

It's about power. The brain of a woman, especially a powerful capable one, resists the fact that sexual attraction bypasses her control and gives the man power.

But it's legal, and then the woman does consent of her own free will. No drugs, alcohol or threats are used.

[–]yumyumgivemesome 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. We men like a girl who knows how to dress conservatively and comfortably... as long as she is capable of dressing and looking fuckin hot too.

[–]Mr_Zarika 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Actually I was talking to my mother the other day and the topic of gender roles came up. She's pretty RP (so is my dad) and quite Christian. She mentioned that in the Bible it says that the woman's curse (when they get kicked out of the garden of eden) is to lust after the power men have, but that men will always rule over them.

Thought it was kinda interesting that the Bible noted that so long ago.

EDIT: I realized I commented this on the wrong comment, that's why it seems like it doesn't follow from above. Either way, I found the verse, it's Genesis 3.

It says, "To the woman, He (being God) said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain," and the Hebrew text says, "and childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children," Then it says, "yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.'"

[–]RedPill115 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's been the standard for forever that women prefer a more follow role in relationships. It's easier, it's less risky. But they always end up trying to get 2 contradictory 2 things:
1. A powerful lead
2. Influence over the lead

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"he shall rule over you" should be taken not just as a statement to the woman but an instruction to the man.

It's our job to lead. If we don't do it and stuff doesn't happen for us, we are ignoring the recipe book and getting the expected (lack of) good results.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 22 points23 points  (22 children)

That is exactly what she is saying. I am liking this Emma Watson more and more. Women should be allowed to fuck alpha males and then get some beta male to support them.

If you where female, would you want your offspring to have genetic material from a waddling American lard ass male or a beta whiney Asian male ? These type of males should be happy that the female even lets them look at her and sometimes even have sex with her.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (12 children)

Not sure why this is getting down voted. It's mostly sarcasm but this is how women think.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 37 points38 points  (11 children)

People don't like to take a good long hard look in the mirror.

Reverse the roles. Men here are always bitching about how fat American women are. There are just as many lard ass men as there are lard ass women.

People tell me stuff like, I am a wierd old man, I am an asshole, I am arrogant, I am racist, I am elitist, I ended up in a third world country because I fucked up in a first world one. They think by telling the truth they can hurt me.

I made a lot of bad choices when I was young, and you always end up paying for it one way or another. But despite these bad choices I still ended up on my feet.

[–]jerrytheman1998 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I have no idea what you're on about but I enjoyed reading it

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference is that a lard ass man can overcome it easily. Not just by working out, though that's fine. He can keep his same shape and learn some game and do at least ok. Well enough he'll be motivated to try more things to improve.

Whereas a lard ass woman had better lose weight and fast. Or give up and decide she's really a feminist or a lesbian.

There's no need men have to have the same problems women do. We have our own problems and challenges and our own role to play. We must not be talked into taking on women's problems as well.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Whenever people start Fuckin with you just say u mad bro? Turn into a human troll whenever someone tries coming at you like that.

Tells me your story about how you ended up in a third world country!

[–]sir_wankalot_here 5 points6 points  (6 children)

The world has changed a lot in the last 30+ years, and I am not talking about cellphones, internet and computers. The invention of the telegraph and steam engine had far more impact.

Kids are no longer allowed to walk to school alone, never mind own things like BB guns. When I was a kid, we had bikes and we would go miles from home without adult supervision. Bullying in school, you dealt with it, either by knocking the crap out of the bully or knocking him down verbally. 95% of the stuff that teachers did when I was a kid is now illegal. If a kid was acting up in class the teacher and the kid might publically exchange good natured insults, and a smart teacher would outwit the kid. On the other hand if that kid really need help, the same teacher would be there to have a heart to heart talk with the kid.

One math teacher noticed some kids where illegally betting on horses. So he used racing forms to show them how to calculate odds better, why betting on horses is a bad idea etc. The kids got an interest in math. That teacher probably would be fired today.

Kids today are in a sterile environment and bored shitless.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)


With the whole bullying issue, I went through it bad but found a great solution.

If I have a boy, he will be getting into a combat sport (boxing, UFC, BJJ). Those kids don't get bullied.

If I have a girl, well... she'll be hot seeing as I'll be having a kid with a smoking Latina. She'll live a healthy lifestyle and stay lean as well.

The way society handles bullying in this day is repulsive. Bullying is a very primal thing. we need to teach our kids to see it as a challenge rather than get all butt hurt about it. I'll take my kid to Disneyland if he beats up a bully. No joke, I'll walk in that office and blurt out loud to my kid "did you make that kid your bitch? I'm taking you to Disneyland!" then watch the principals hamster go in overdrive about how I'm a terrible parent. Fuckin hilarious!

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I see it in other things. The first settlers in North America where mainly English. Then every new immigrant group from Irish, Germans, Italians and so on faced a lot of racism for maybe one generation. And then the new immigrants proved their worth, and ideas where exchanged. It was like a cultural/society scale shittest.

With this age of political correctness, the reality is new immigrants are not assimulating even after two plus generarions. And the racism is still there beneath the surface.

The Irish heavily influnced American music. Germans combined with American ideas to make great things like hotdogs and hamburgers. Because of Italians we have spagetti, pizza and other great things.

Before the "politically correct" started to meddle, black and white wages where naturally equalizing. Whites started to go to black communities to enjoy BBQ ribs, Jazz and other black cultural things. Without any government interference many "white" night clubs started to lift the "white only" policy, black musicians played a big part in this when they started performing in white night clubs.

40++ years after affirmative action, the black and white wage gap is now increasing. Beneath the surface there is a lot of hidden racism by both blacks and whites. 200+ years of slavery did not manage to destroy black culture. But 40 years of political correctness and affirmative action seems to be doing the job.

For stating the obvious about Asians I get called "racist". But meanwhile the "politically correct" will visit these countries, and then in "politically correct" language call certain Asian customs "barbaric".

Despite so called political correctness and affirmative action, we live in a far less tolerant world.

[–]feelinglazy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Do you have any proof to back those statements up? To me it all sounds like an elaborated ruse to promote racism

[–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Go do a google for statement made by politicians in the 1930s about ethnic groups like Jews and Italians.

Go do a google for Ford's policy on hiring black workers prior to affirmative action, and black wages.

And lets even take it a back further. Go do a google on Robert E Lee's view on black slavery. Also find out what Robert E Lee did with his slaves before the civil war. Also you will learn Lincoln never freed the slaves. What did Robert E Lee state would happen is slaves where freed like what happened ?

The last major country to eliminate slavery was Brazil. How did they elimate black slavery ? What is the wage gap between Blacks and Non blacks in Brazil today ?

[–]sabresandiego -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is obvious differences between races, just like there is obvious differences between men and women. This does not justify hatred towards another race, just like it doesn't justify hatred towards women. Racism and discrimination are the incorrect response because they are based on hate. Hate doesn't solve anything, understanding and adaptation does.

[–]sabresandiego 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ill give you an upvote just because there is merit in the statement you made.

The truth is that being an asshole, arrogant, racist, elitist is generally a bad thing (although good and bad are merely perspectives). What is good is being assertive, confident, ambitious, and these are traits that people with conviction or contempt may convey. Assholes are generally assertive, elitists are generally ambitious, racists have conviction. Bad things can cause you to display attractive traits which goes back to the idea that women are attracted to assholes. They arent attracted to assholes, they are attracted to the dominance that assholes tend to project. If a good guy had the same amount of assertiveness, ambition, and confidence as the asshole, he actually becomes FAR more attractive than the asshole.

[–]Enisei 9 points10 points  (8 children)

Is this supposed to be satire?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Can you explain why it should be?

Entertain the thought.

If you were a woman. Would you not want your kids to have the best genes paid for by the richest guy?

[–]colovick 11 points12 points  (4 children)

That's true, but the post above was barely intelligible.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (3 children)

Sir wankalot is like a court jester here. He's full of real red to the bone truths hidden inside an often unapproachable layer of madness.

I love him and you'll always find him at the bottom of the thread buried with down votes not giving a fuck.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I always go to the very bottom of red pill forums and there he is with "-14 children" lmao

Oh, just got banned from r/feminism for making a post that said 'i need feminism because it's hilarious.' I made it like 15 mins though so at least some people saw it.

[–]colovick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I didn't down vote him personally, but I got the gist of what he was saying. I'm not active enough lately to be nuanced in the sub's personalities.

[–]tehwankingwalruses 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Its /u/sir_wankalot_here. He is a prolific troll (or idiot) on TRP.

[–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All women are saying "be more sensitive" ONLY to Alpha men.

I don't 100% agree with you. It seems to me like there's also a lot of the opposite case - when she's really happy with the alpha (which tends not to last past a certain period of time, but in that time period) it seems like she doesn't give him that crap, but instead tells the semi-alpha guys around her that in order to make them better orbiters and less likely to leave because they meet another girl.

Have you seen how heavily a super beta guy can get told by women that his beta ways are good, he should be more beta if anything, and yet have nothing similar to say to the alpha guy she's attracted to?

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]2comment 21 points22 points  (2 children)

I think Rowling (and lesser extent Watson) play the media and fans like Vivaldi played the violin. The tidbit doesn't matter, it was just juicy enough for fans. Just like Rowling was "outed" as an anonymous author last year when the book sales were going nowhere. As a result, it got more buzz and interest than her first, arguably half-failed non-HP book, and got casual Rowling fans to buy it who wouldn't buy a detective novel, even from her.

Happily Ever After is a static ending people like but doesn't rouse passions or get fans to argue. So shey throw gas on the fire every so often to keep the embers going, but it doesn't change anything.

It may be because Universal opened 2 theme park areas this summer and to raise interest. It may be something else, I don't follow their careers closely enough to know exactly what.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I hated how she gave her pseudonym military and police credentials to up the credibility of the book and no one called her out on her shit.

Born in 1968, Robert Galbraith is married with two sons. After several years with the Royal Military Police, he was attached to the SIB (Special Investigation Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for protagonist Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who have returned to the civilian world. 'Robert Galbraith' is a pseudonym.

If anybody else did that they'd be ripped to shreds. Oh wait, James Frey, author of "A Million Little Pieces", was for something similiar.

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Ron wasn't alpha AT ALL. Constantly whimpering, complaining, acting like a dumbass. The only alpha thing he did was eat like a boss. That's how a real man eats. stuffs his face and doesn't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.

He fucked up in the fourth movie where Hermione hooked up with the Durmstrang hunk. When you show jealousy like that you're finished. In real life she would of kept sleeping with bad boys until her looks wouldn't allow it.

Ron hooked up with that crazy broad in the sixth movie. That's what she should have been doing since the first one. Oh, don't worry about Hermione, she wouldn't be jealous or upset, she wouldn't even notice.. head too wrapped up in bad boys to care.

As for harry, he would of banged Cho into an inevitable pregnancy. Damn she was hot.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Yeah, Harry's girl issues were completely unbelievable. Sure, the saviour of your entire community, who just came out on top against a dragon, is struggling to get a date for the dance.

Yeah... No.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Bitches would have been throwing themselves at him. High school pussy for days

[–][deleted] 207 points208 points  (51 children)


Incredible. She could not date a more stereotypical 'buff athletic alpha male' if she tried to. But I'm sure he's soft deep down, right, right?

[–]1Ill_mumble_that 181 points182 points  (29 children)

Is it just me, or is he way out of her league? Her celebrity status is the only reason she's not a plate, or maybe she still is.

[–]Adach 116 points117 points  (3 children)

[–]vaker 17 points18 points  (0 children)

He should divorce rape her...

[–]beginner_ 39 points40 points  (1 child)

lol my thought as well. She kind of looks out of place and ugly besides him.

[–]Endorsed ContributorNiftyDolphin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that Watson or the chick from Twilight?

[–]spaldingnoooo 25 points26 points  (5 children)

Idk, his face looks crooked as shit but he's obviously in great shape though (forgot to add tall because obviously that matters).

[–]youonlylive2wice 65 points66 points  (2 children)

He has the face of a rugby player... and the attitude that goes along w/ "I've had my nose broken 4 times, its no big deal, and if you make it a big deal, well, I'm tougher than you" AKA confidence in one self and apathy towards the ridicule of others.

Chicks don't just dig scars, they dig what the scars mean.

[–]AveSharia 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Is it just me or is that him, making it a big deal?

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 18 points19 points  (1 child)

She needs to start exercising... she looks weak.

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]nallalalla 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Like many jocks through history, he gets off on fucking the girl that the nerds wish they were fucking

[–]8lp 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Have to disagree there - I don't think she can possibly be considered less than a 7 with this face (I give her face at least 8.5, maybe 9):


Her body is thin/kinda nice but nothing special, so she's a 7.5-8 in my book. The picture in OP is just a bad picture.


[–]munky82 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This picture always freaked me out. She did look cute in "This is the End" though, but never in the Harry Potter films. I just never got why neckbeards are so crazy about her, except maybe for the same reason they crush on their friends’ mousey sisters (false proximity).

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]8lp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree that her body is pretty average. But an average /6 girl could not look like the above pictures even with the greatest stylists in the world.

[–]1whatsazipper 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think you're letting the sad state of the rest of the population mess with your scale. Spend some time in an area where the women aren't carrying extra weight. This chick looks average when compared to girls who are at a sensible weight.

[–]8lp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You make a good point. I was in Paris a while back (I'm from the US) and every couple hours I thought I saw the most beautiful girl I've ever seen.

[–]sweetleef 70 points71 points  (8 children)

Rejecting "gender stereotypes" is great - as long as it only applies to everyone else.

Along with the obvious contradiction in the fact that the only reason she is given a chance to lecture others to "reject gender stereotypes" is that she fits the stereotypical beautiful woman gender stereotype.

If she were the stereotypical hambeast lesbian with a crew cut and neck tattoos, nobody would give a shit what she said.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (3 children)

she fits the stereotypical beautiful woman gender stereotype.

Does she though? I've never understood the hardon so many guys have for her. She's cute, but just not all that attractive to me.

Maybe it's because when she played Hermione as a child I was already in my 30s so now when I see her I can't unsee that little girl. Brains can be funny that way.

[–]md619 31 points32 points  (1 child)

She fulfills the beta male fantasy on the kind of girl you could fall in love with. Not only is attractive (by their standards) but she's supposedly smart and somewhat nerdy. It's a girl who, in their mind, would finally understand and appreciate them.

Beta males can't compete in terms of masculinity so they have to hope that similarities will keep a girl around. What they don't understand is that opposites attract.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

She fulfills the beta male fantasy on the kind of girl you could fall in love with. Not only is attractive (by their standards) but she's supposedly smart and somewhat nerdy. It's a girl who, in their mind, would finally understand and appreciate them.

They project an image onto her that I'm sure she doesn't actually have. She's cute, but not 'hot' which makes her seem attractive yet approachable (in their minds).

[–]Flareprime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Little Potter boys grew up with her on screen while they were racing through puberty. It sticks, its why I am still in love with the actually average looking Princess Leia

[–]guitarstrings44 -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

If she were the stereotypical hambeast lesbian with a crew cut and neck tattoos, nobody would give a shit what she said.

Maybe that's WHY she felt obligated to do these things. We paid attention to her because of the issues presented in her speech. The internet wouldn't be blowing up right now if it wasn't her that said it and how she said it. MAYBE, just maybe that is the point. Let's talk about our hypocrisies and broken behaviors instead of staying silent.

[–]sweetleef 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Let's talk about our hypocrisies and broken behaviors instead of staying silent.

That may have motivated her. But the statement is still hypocritical given her actions - she earns obscene amounts of money for being attractive, she spends energy cultivating and marketing that attractiveness, she poses for sexy photos and wears revealing clothes - then she lectures others that they are evil and base for buying what she's selling.

As for "our behaviors", I don't see what is "broken", or how it could be fixed. People pay attention to attractive people - it's been that way since we developed eyes. No amount of talking will change that.

[–]1MarcusDavidson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We paid attention to her because of the issues presented in her speech.

The internet is not blowing up because she is hot. The internet is blowing up because she is a liar of such low moral caliber that she caused harm to millions of vulnerable boys/girls for cash.

[–]walkonthebeach 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Amazing picture. Thanks. It's just says all I need to know!

[–]Wally_B 11 points12 points  (1 child)

kinda looks like he was photoshopped in...

[–]Donald_Fuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It all looks pretty good except for emma's right arm wtf is with that

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Don't want to be that guy, but Emma needs some squats in her life.

[–]EasyChief 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see Ringo Starr has been working out.

[–]87GNX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Damn, right down to the inguinal crease. He's better looking than she is!

[–]FrDax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He skips leg day, she's never heard of leg day

[–]real-boethius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of the typical feminist complaining not enough women in STEM subjects. Then you ask them what they majored in and the answer is "feminism and and a minor in English lit".

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]xu85 52 points53 points  (2 children)

Very, very easy to denounce 'sexism' and 'gender stereotypes' when you have made your fortune off the back of your looks. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation. Get all the fame, money and power mainly through your looks, then turn around and one-up all those actresses who don't 'call out sexism' and 'do your bit'. It's like Raising Awareness, all the benefits of helping people and feeling great, but none of the ensuing criticism or dealing with difficult questions. Win-win.

Other similar behaviours - flying around the planet campaigning against "climate change", being in an Irish pop group and lobbying for 'ending poverty', while practicing massive tax avoidance on earned income, having a token ethnic minority friend while living in a very safe white neighbourhood and sending your children to a private school thereby having a convenient buffer against any future claims of' 'racism', buying 'fairtrade organic' food produce to make yourself feel good about 'making a difference' while driving a big car and living in an inefficient household, criticising 'war' while not understanding or not realising that you are an indirect beneficiary or countless wars your ancestors faught and won, 'liking' some bulllshit about a 'noble cause' on Facebook to 'raise awareness', doing 'ice bucket challenge' to 'raise awareness for charidee' while infact using it as a convenient reason to showcase your expensive property of perfectly maintained abs/breasts/exuberant personality.

I am seeing this type of 'champagne socialism' more and more because of social media.

[–]VegasHostTre 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I love that term "Champagne Socalism"

I'm Emma Watson denouncing stereotypes because I made my money off of fat nerds who eat this Harry Potter crap up. I would never date any of you though, my rugby boyfriend will kick your ass if you touch me

I'm Al Sharpton claiming racism and fighting for any cause that gets me TV time. Once said cause has died down and nobody's talking about it anymore, I'm done with it as I have kept myself in the news and keep my donations running. Did I mention soon as I made a million dollars I divorced my old black hag of a wife for a much lighter complexioned, younger mixed breed woman?

Im Barack Obama I claim to be about change but I been in office for 1 1/2 terms now and not a damn thing has changed. I still am in the pockets of the largest multinational corporations giving them tax breaks for jobs their shipping overseas. Even though women graduate from college more than men, get more jobs than men, and are just generally treated better than men, I will still spew the irrational logic that society doesn't value women.Remember #bringbackourgirls Now I still haven't tracked down Boko Harem and the women that he has probably sold by now but still.

Champagne Socialism I love it!

[–]Gods_Work -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

wow. You broke it. Broke it right down. Its the break down.... and you did it. I'm God_Work and I want you to know...These are the breaaks! Break it up!Break it up! Break it UuuP!

[–]Stinkfished 94 points95 points  (8 children)

Yes tell us of your wisdom 23 year old child star that has lived in a fantasy world for most of your life.

[–][deleted] -5 points-5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]nallalalla 7 points8 points  (1 child)

really has no place in a reasoned debate.

Which is to say, it's exactly the way to deal with feminists

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

So a 6 year old girl who lived in a mansion all her life could "potentially" have a better opinion on military strategy than a seasoned war veteran?

The only reason people care about Emma Watson's feminist ideology is because they know her from some movies. Had she been an unattractive fat girl with a lisp, nobody would give a shit.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Correct, anyone can become "knowledgeable" about a subject, however only those with experience and some sort of degree or proof of knowledge should be the ones we listen to.

The message may be the same, but we need to examine the speaker as well. In my opinion, this is just a publicity stunt to keep Emma related in current events.

I doubt she believes it herself, seeing as her boyfriend is the exact opposite of the men she claims there need to be.

She's a spoiled actress, her opinion is no better than a fat chick with a lisp's ideology. People are treating her like she's either the next Jesus or Saddam Hussein exaggeration but in all actuality she doesn't matter.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't need someone to tell me how to think, but I'd sooner listen to an expert than some spoiled princess actress. It's very weak-minded of you to apparently 'trust and defend' some publicity stunt of an actress who has yet to find another big role.

You seem to believe that common information (the weather, random trivia and opinion) is the same as specialized information (politics, medicine, psychology, sociology). We both agree that her opinion is bullshit and that she isn't qualified, so what is the problem here?

My point is that she has no experience in the subject, but because she is a celebrity, people pretend she does. Her opinion is not important because she has absolutely no relation to such a subject- she lives a sheltered life full of adoring fans and has an alpha stud boyfriend.

Never once did I mean to imply a college education makes someone a genius- but it's still a college education. I also said that a degree isn't the only way to prove one's knowledge on a subject- any sort of provable experience, document, or other proof is satisfactory enough.

Basically, I trust lawyers to know the law and doctors to know medicine. That doesn't mean I trust them unconditionally; I still learn about these subjects and make my own opinions. But if Emma Watson came out of nowhere on her own (with no help or citation from others) and started making random comments on political theory or how to perform neurosurgery, I wouldn't trust her at all.

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPill115 9 points10 points  (1 child)

What's ironic is that while feminists want more women in science, women don't necessarily want to be in science. Have you ever talked to a high school girl about math? "gross" I've heard more than once to describe it.

[–]WarkillercR 58 points59 points  (0 children)

When I discovered this for myself, a warm feeling consumed my insides and a giant shit eating grin wore my face. Too good to be true almost.

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gods_Work 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't ever, ever, EVER take advice from a woman on how to attract women, or how you should behave as a man. LOOK TO OTHER SUCCESSFUL MEN!

I would make a 3d representation of ^ out of diamond if i had the dough to spare

edit: if i ever do make the money, I swear on my life i will deliver. Hand to my heart and soul.

[–]yummyluckycharms 118 points119 points  (34 children)

Typical feminist logic - or lack thereof. Kinda like how beyonce talks about being a feminist and then marries Jay Z

There is a good reason why most ceos aren't women

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 43 points44 points  (5 children)

This might be the best authority on the subject:


The semiconductor business is a tough one with significant competition from the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Koreans. There have been more corporate casualties than survivors. For that reason, our Board of Directors is not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function. The essential criteria for Cypress board membership are as follows:

  • Experience as a CEO of an important technology company.
  • Direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience.
  • Direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry.

A search based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30 years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater diversification of graduate students in the '80s.) Bluntly stated, a "woman's view" on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a director, because we pursue talent -- and we don't care in what package that talent comes.

I believe that placing arbitrary racial or gender quotas on corporate boards is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, not only does Cypress not meet your requirements for boardroom diversification, but we are unlikely to, because it is very difficult to find qualified directors, let alone directors that also meet investors' racial and gender preferences.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Wow, just read the full text. Absolutely destroyed that nun.

[–]HalfPastTuna 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I did a case study on this company in school. Guy is the definition of redpill, if probably a complete asshole

[–]1Ill_mumble_that 6 points7 points  (0 children)

bu.. buu.. but where's the pussypass?

That's right. It has no place in the real competitive world.

[–]mrheh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Consider charitable donations. When the U.S. economy shrinks, the dollars available to charity shrink faster, including those dollars earmarked for the Sisters of St. Francis. If all companies in the U.S. were forced to operate according to some arbitrary social agenda, rather than for profit, all American companies would operate at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors, all Americans would become less well off (some laid off), and charitable giving would decline precipitously. Making Americans poorer and reducing charitable giving in order to force companies to follow an arbitrary social agenda is fundamentally wrong.

That's pretty much what happened.

[–]1Ill_mumble_that 149 points150 points  (2 children)

The main reason is that most companies strive to stay in business.

[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 41 points42 points  (1 child)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: TRP isn't about changing women or the world. It's not even about criticizing women. It's about understanding them.

If women were out there fucking the pasty-white math nerds, then every thread on TRP would be about how to learn calculus.

I honestly don't care if women like tall guys or short guys or confident guys or shy guys or smart guys or dumb guys. Women can like whatever they want. But having learned that women like tall, confident, alpha, badboys - I resolve to change my behavior. I am conscious of my posture so that I look at tall and confident as possible. And I exhibit other behaviors that make me more attractive.

Note also (mostly for the idiot blue pillers who lurk here): it's really not useful to me that a tiny minority of women actually do like shy, meek, math nerds. If I happen to meet such a girl, I will happily adjust my approach. You (you idiot blue pillers) waste everyone's time when you say that, and you give false hope to betas - which is frankly kind of a mean thing to do.

[–]throwaway-aa2[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

which is frankly kind of a mean thing to do.

That's what gets me. These people are basically assholes, they don't give a FUCK WHO they hurt. They don't care about logic

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Others have said it but getting men to show their feelings and express their vulnerability is just a way to aid in filtering out the unsuitable men. Don't fall for it.

[–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or to produce useful beta orbiters. I've never found that women "hate" beta's - they love betas. They just don't want to sleep with them at all. They find them very very useful and comforting though, as long as there's sex involved.

[–][deleted] 47 points47 points

[permanently deleted]

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]spaced86 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Did anyone notice that she claims feminism has become a dirty word, but doesn't actually bother to investigate why. Could it be that where there is smoke there is fire? Oh no, not in the case of feminism. Definitely a purely holy and virtuous undertaking where all fault lies among the men in society, as per usual.

Excuse me people, but I need to go puke.

[–]RedPill115 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lol, these half truths are always amusing.

Feminism has an image problem!...that comes from an accurate view of what feminism is doing.

It's like saying the Klu Klux Klan has an image problem...well no kidding.

[–]Red_Shirt_Blue_Pants 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just read through the first couple paragraphs on HeForShe. Its like one huge joke. There is so much hypocrisy even the fucking mission statement....no EVEN THE NAME tells the truth. I cam't believe the masses are taking this seriously

[–]dro13 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I as a man will be vulnerable and sensitive when you can get up in front of the UN without doing your hair and make up

[–]Gods_Work 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's a fair deal. Entertaining this thought is fun

[–]throwaway-aa2[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yo I LOVE RedPill man... saying the hard hitting shit that NO ONE would ever even entertain....

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (3 children)

tl;dr famous bitch put on a suit and says some silly stuff in a conference where they clap to her, goes back to living the rich and famous life because she can.

meanwhile at the same university as her bf, some skinnyfaat guy and his fat whalt "gf" (great friend) actually listen to that stuff this is why the UN actually cares to put such shows up.

footnote : to whoever promised to deliver the relevant 'information' on her, deliver.

[–]malthuswaswrong 16 points17 points  (1 child)

If 4chan actually had nudes of EW they'd already be released.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The nudes were a viral media hoax.

[–]Iswearbyapollo 43 points44 points  (16 children)

Are we actually surprised that "gina tingles" and hampstering trumps what a woman says?

The words/promises/vows/exhortations of a woman are not worth the stale air she exhales making them. Accept it, cute as she is, she is the same jangled bag of fucked up urges, hormones and bullshit they all are, just in a more aesthetically pleasing package.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 37 points38 points  (14 children)

Are we actually surprised that "gina tingles" and hampstering trumps what a woman says?

Only surprised that it's reached the level of the UN.

[–]Dark_Shroud 17 points18 points  (9 children)

The UN extorts money from the world pandering what ever BS they can. Of course they're going to parade women up there to get money for poor women around the world then do nothing.

[–]sweetleef 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Of course they're going to parade women up there to get money for poor women around the world then do nothing.

That's an unfair accusation. That money goes to fund tens of thousands of expensed gourmet meals, hotels, private jet flights, escorts, coke dealers, and construction projects granted to family and friends.

[–]Dark_Shroud 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean do nothing helpful for the world. ;)

[–]Adach 5 points6 points  (6 children)

it's pretty "in" right now, just wait for the next presidential election

[–]Hoodwink 4 points5 points  (5 children)

If Hill-dog is actually nominated - it's going to be interesting to see how they spin her loss.

I'm betting they will blame the nearest man (either the vice presidential candidate or Obama) for the loss.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPill115 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just console yourself by looking forward to the day when feminist can no longer whine about how now woman has ever been president, and have to admit that a woman wasn't any better at the job than men.

You must be new to feminism, lol. They'll just continue to blame "the patriarchy" for creating a systematic bla bla bla.

Recently their tactic to say that men dieing in wars doesn't matter is to say that women couldn't join the army, but they were held back by an oppressive patriarchy - otherwise women would have been beating down the door to get shot in the face for low pay!

[–]Hoodwink 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't doubt Clinton will be the next president if she is nominated. The problem is getting nominated - she is more to the right than Obama. She can't really claim the progressives or any populist stances. It's going to be FEMINISM and WOMAN PRESIDENT and maybe she'll try to be SUPER TOUGH GIRL ON ISIS/ISIL. The pandering will be obvious and she has an air of deceit to everything she says. So, a genuinely good candidate with cash will have a good chance.

Also, Democrats played the 'minority' card already. They might be a lot less enthusiastic about the next one. The only problem is that the male vote will probably be split on purpose by strategists.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hoodwink -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For me, Obama came out of no-where that I would never expect. Perhaps, I'm just expecting another 'out of fucking no-where' candidate too much. I'll concede Hillary is a lock. She probably has the resources to properly manipulate the election too.

[–]joncho 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Why do you think so highly of the UN? It's mostly a joke organization that burns money.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Her position is very prestigious - there are people who work their entire lives towards such a position and never achieve it.

By speaking at the UN, she has the ear of the entire world.

[–]korewarp 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I used to think that the UN was a great idea. But when 5(?) super powerful nations can veto ANYTHING, then it just becomes a stale joke.

[–]joncho 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Really? I think the idea of the UN itself is a disaster, not only the present implementation. A central authority with power over the whole world, what could go wrong?

[–]xu85 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I'm not a regular or even occasional contributor to TRP, I just find it it delicious that any time some 'feminist drama' comes up in the MSM somewhere, I just know other elements of reddit (SRS, SRD) lurk TRP to see what people are saying about it.

TRP is the sub that reddit loves to hate.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I see no less than two threads referencing this one in TBP.

[–]1kick6 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I, for one, find this hilarious.

[–]1raceAround126 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I worked with a guy years ago who went through a pretty mad divorce. Details aside, there was apparently a time where he happened to open up to two of his workmates (ladies) who he'd known for 10+ years and who offered the proverbial shoulder to cry on.

IT was interesting that, after this event, a lot of the women at that place referred to him constantly as "creepy" and "I wouldn't want to be alone with him" suggesting he was not trustworthy to be alone with. As all of this would batter him and he became more reclusive, the "creepier" women thought he was.

All because he let down his guard, broke his gender stereotype and did exactly as these women wanted.

This is just an International shit test of epic proportions. Lets see what men will take this advice, break frame, and expose themselves as betas.

Welp, I know what I'm doing. Tomorrow, hitting the gym, Friday... a random fuck, I think!

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is the story I hear over and over again, both online and in real life.

I'm not falling for the "feel free to be vulnerable and emotional" trick again.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never again. I dont have any emotions, sorry.

[–]Azothlike 19 points20 points  (20 children)

Of all the feminist harpies out there, Emma isn't so bad. She admits the flaws in feminism, even to go so far as to say "We are searching for a word to unite us", etc etc.

But her platform is one of social perception and stigma, so it's pretty useless. People have been free to act how they want for millenia, and they have chosen to act this way time and time again.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 22 points23 points  (7 children)

Time will tell, though I think she might be even worse.

She acknowledges the issues that men face, then tries to recruit men to the feminist cause which does nothing and will continue to do nothing for men.

The whole name of the campaign, "HeForShe", indicates exactly what she stands for.

[–]Dream4eva 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Exactly, how can you acknowledge in one sentence that we need a word to unite us and in the next tout a slogan which places the onus on men to ensure equality.

The whole movement is inherently anti-feminist. 'heforshe' takes away responsibility from women. 'heforshe' want men to do the work in a movement where its foundations come from self empowerment of women and women liberating themselves.

[–]joncho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having men do the work is anti-feminist?. Last time I checked feminist support alimony.

[–]Azothlike 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree on some points. I still feel it's the "lesser of two evils", in comparison to what we're usually confronted with(rape-culture screaming harpies, etc).

I still feel that "men have suffered unfair emotional expectations of them and we should end it", while half-hearted and bullshit, is much closer to the reality of "men have suffered legal and physical inequality in many ways and we should end those" than any other contender that crazy feminists will align with, at the moment.

At the VERY LEAST, a public figure openly admitting to the bad image of feminism is enough to rightfully shame some of it.

Time will tell if the message swings back towards solipsistic demands or not, of course.

[–]scum101 2 points2 points [recovered]

To be fair, her speech is aimed at all nations and societies. Unlike many westerns society, where feminism has become something more then equality of gender, many countries have a long way to go in terms of woman's right. I honestly despise feminism in north america, but i know there are places in this world where i fully support the feminist movement.

I think we all agree on the need for equal opportunity between sexes. But that has long been achieved in the western world. Unfortunately the feminist movement here has gradually turned into a "woman supremacy" movement, conflicted between their poor understanding of gender differences and needs. That's why her speech seems so irrelevant to us.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I agree with what you're saying, and it should also be pointed out that many countries have a long way to go in terms of men's rights as well. Look at the men being trafficked in the fishing industry or the boys working as slaves for cocoa production on the Ivory Coast. To call a program for gender equality "HeForShe" is almost insulting.

[–]RedPill115 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's the thing. In those countries where women have things horrible, feminism pointedly leaves out that men also have things horribly.

It's like when those schoolgirls got kidnapped and the president got involved - before that these guys had been kidnapping or killing boys, and nobody cared enough for it to be an issue. Women were treated exactly like they've always been treated - as the gender who's lives are considered more valuable than men's.

In countries where women are brutalized by invading armies, often those same armies kidnap boys and force them to fight in battle - or die. I've read that they will force the boys to fight each other to the death - the loser is dead, the winner it's part of his forced indoctrination into their army.

Their are shitty things happening in the world. But usually if they're happening to women, their is an equivalent happening even worse to men.

[–]Dark_Shroud 8 points9 points  (6 children)

She's probably worse. Let's take an evaluation of her so far.

Her life is unique because her parents were smart in raising her. So she grew up comfortable but didn't have access to her money more than a $75 a week. While her parents had her money go into savings. She does films, voice acting, & modeling.

So now she's worth $60 million USD.

She's always been comfortable and now lives very well in a pent house that probably costs more than I'll ever make in one life time. She is used to being around power players. She's very appealing on every level. Looks, her voice, & she's smart. Doors have just opened for her. Lastly she has good genes, she'll be looking good into her late 30s possibly 40s if she properly cares for her skin.

This is not the kind of person that should be lecturing anyone.

[–]TRP VanguardYouDislikeMyOpinion 7 points8 points  (5 children)

lives very well in a pent house that probably costs more than I'll ever make in one life time.

No. Fuck that noise that you can't do it. You can do it.

[–]Dark_Shroud 8 points9 points  (4 children)

She spent $15.5 million on a NYC pent house. To hell with that, I want nothing to do with living in NYC.

I'm going to buy a water front house on some land in the country. So I can be left alone and enjoy life. Even more so if I ever have kids. I now dislike living so close to Chicago and both suburb and more so city people irritate me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I lived in the heart of Chicago and I loved to chaos of everyday life. I grew up in the country and hated the isolation. To each his own.

[–]Dark_Shroud 0 points1 point  (2 children)

See that's the difference, I've lived in Southern California and now Chicago area growing up with the chaos while every so often getting a taste of country life. Now of course I want to live near a decent town & hospital. I will absolutely miss being able to go out at midnight or later to get a Chicago Italian beef.

I want some space of my own so I can be left alone. I'm tired of the pigs throwing their trash around the street. I don't want to listen to assholes blaring loud obscenity ridden garbage they call music at all hours.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was definitely loud in Andersonville but Rogers park was silent at night. But I lived right by Loyola university so that was why. 5 mins north it's gunshots every night. What area did you live in? If south or west side I totally understand lol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was definitely loud in Andersonville but Rogers park was silent at night. But I lived right by Loyola university so that was why. 5 mins north it's gunshots every night. What area did you live in? If south or west side I totally understand lol

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

She doesn't admit the problems of feminism at all. She thinks feminism has an image problem, and furthermore an image problem that stems from sources outside Feminism.

[–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (0 children)


I could find what she said interesting if she was saying "the problem with feminism is that there's man hating in there that shouldn't be there".

[–]zephyrprime 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What are you referring to when you say "this way"? What way?

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men and women have chosen to adopt their stereotypical social and emotional gender roles(Men as stoic/strong/rational/science-driven providers, women as emotional/nurturing/family-oriented caregivers) time and time again, in societies across time and territory.

In short, men have chosen to be strong, and women have chosen to be sensitive, to paraphase Emma's speech that women should feel free to be strong and men should feel free to be sensitive.

[–]Valendr0s 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The article you're quoting sounds like a Rita Skeeter article about Hermonie dating Victor Krum.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If anything is a harmful prescribed gender stereotype its: Strong Independent Woman®

[–]guest121 61 points62 points  (94 children)

C'mon, who the fuck would you expect her to date? With her SMV? Of course she would go for the top. Because she can.

[–]16 TRP VanguardTRPsubmitter 59 points60 points  (8 children)

You're missing the point. We all know women prefer to date alphas.

The point of this post is that WHILE she dates alphas, she is also being disingenuous in telling men that "being alpha doesn't matter! let down your guard!"

Many inexperienced guys fall prey to this; they think that by becoming "supportive allies" and by following what women say (speeches such as this), that women will respond to them and like them.

However, reality is that women TELL men to be vulnerable and to "redefine masculinity" because that maintains womens' beta orbiters. Then they go on to date the same alphas they would in the first place.

So the TL;DR is that women are often disingenuous in the "advice" they give to men about redefining masculinity. It's redefining it for THEIR benefit not ours. Cause they will still go after the same dudes.

[–]triangleman83 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Ok so would you call what Emma is doing some kind of massively broadcast shit test? Not that she has the need to vet millions of men, but it would essentially add to her beta orbiter count. I can see how lots of women do this on the smaller scale too, as in on facebook.

  1. Girl posts status update complaining about her current alpha fux not appreciating her in some way (duh he's an alpha)

  2. Beta orbiters come out from the woodwork to give support.

  3. Any new names that support her are added to her beta orbiter list, never to be considered for fux.

[–]1MarcusDavidson 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She is paid to be the "Women's Goodwill Ambassador for the UN". Some PR agency wrote the script. She just parroted the words.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I swear the red pill is a cheat code for life. I remember white knighting women in the past on social media and was completely ignored, sometimes blocked. Once I said to a girl "he's out there Fuckin other bitches because you are worthless." this bitch messaged me with a very flirtatious message: "you think you're so smart don't you."

Amazing. If you are an asshole, you are alpha fux.

I remember ome girl I was seeing earlier this year and she was a real whore. She stopped seeing me and I decided to beg her to come back (this was pre TRP). She was always on fb so she was ignoring me while talking about parties and festivals. So after like a month I sent her a text, "I heard what you did @ xyz's party last night. Dodged that bullet, you worthless whore lol" woke up next morning, had 14 text messages from her.

Be an asshole and they will respond

[–]jcrpta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's anywhere near as thought through as that.

Women are very social creatures (by which I mean "they crave to be accepted as part of a group", not "they like to go out drinking with their friends every night"), and as such very much aware of what society thinks.

We know what happens when someone publicly dissents from the socially acceptable view - hell, we see rp ideas absolutely buried and proponents crucified if they so much as breathe the word "red". And society is very clear on what you're supposed to think and say about what women want in a man, while being extremely tolerant of women doing the exact opposite.

So, what does a socially aware girl who's been engaged by the UN to tell society what to think say? Well, what do you think she's going to say? It ain't gonna be "To hell with men who are in touch with their feelings, give me a rugby player any day".

[–]guest121 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My point was that there should be no surprise for the folks here. Maybe for other guys, but not for those in this sub.

[–]16 TRP VanguardTRPsubmitter 16 points17 points  (0 children)

True, but it's a good thing to point out. I saw way too much "wow, Emma watson is acknowledging some flaws in feminism" as if she's on our side or something like that. More dangerous is her little bit about "men are being told to 'man up' and it's okay to be vulnerable", because some guys will see that and be like "wow, i'm so relieved!"

I think it's still important to point out that the "advice" she's giving is totally wrong and fool's gold, even though it seems enticing.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's not missing the point. He's supporting it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 134 points135 points  (33 children)

Who I expect her to date depends on whether I listen to her words or TRP theory. Looks like TRP theory wins this time.

Also, I don't think fame adds much to a woman's SMV besides (1) having tons of publicity photos that makes her look perfect, and (2) bragging rights for the guy.

A great relevant comment from Chateau Heartiste's blog: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/how-super-alpha-males-are-similar-to-hot-babes/

Women, would you rather date Paul Walker (pre-dead, of course) or a watier that looked exactly like Paul Walker?

Men, would you rather date Scarlett Johanssen, or a waitress that looked exactly like Scarlett Johanssen?

...and the answers to these questions demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between women and men.

[–]the99percent1 35 points36 points  (1 child)

you are looking from a male perspective.. where male celebrities don't care who they date.

women on the other hand rarely date down. This oxford schlub has got his life set.. all he needs to say is I used to fuck Emma Watson and the girls will go into a feeding frenzy.

[–]watersign 3 points4 points  (0 children)

he was probably banging all the girls before emma came along and will continue to do so after

[–]jmg83 29 points29 points [recovered]

Easy. The waitress who looks exactly like the hot famous chick. A) I don't need motherfuckers like TMZ looking into my business. B) People will say Scarlett is carrying me, even if I don't accept a penny of her money C) Even if I had money, as in I won the lottery and met SJ a day later by chance, I'm not into the whole Hollywood lifestyle. My friend once told me that when SJ visits London, she stays in an 18k a night hotel. Assuming this is true, as a guy who's never had much money, I can't imagine such extravagance. Scarlett, a woman my age who's been a movie star since she was a teenager, probably doesn't think twice about such things. Her waitress doppelganger, on the other hand, is more likely to know where I'm coming from.

[–]ISODAK 8 points9 points  (2 children)

This was roughly my thought as well. SJ is likely to be full of herself, while a waitress will be more likely to see you as having higher SMV.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Agreed. It's not even really an ego thing on my part, it's just that things that would be a big deal to me are taken completely for granted by Hollywood stars. A lot of other people my age are struggling to make ends meet, pay off mortgages, etc. Scarlett Johnasson could outright buy most houses around here by just doing a fucking TV commercial. When I look back at the shit I've had to do in life like bullshitting my way into gigs for cheaper or for free, going to X supermarket instead of y to save money, waking up earlier and commuting the long way to work because it's 50% cheaper, tricks for travelling on trains for free, smuggling drinks into nightclubs, surviving on a pittance and a shitload lot of other things. A movie star just. wouldn't. get it. We'd basically have very little in common. This isn't to say she's not a nice woman, To return to the earlier example made by another poster, the Paul Walker clone who works as a bartender would make a nice mantoy for most women, but they'd start to see themselves as better than him. Hell, they'd choose the real Paul Walker (if he still lived) over his minimum wage clone for the exact reasons that most men would chose the waitress lookalike over the celebrity, which tells you all you need to know about men and women.

[–]ISODAK 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True about differences. Thought now that I think about it, one thing I've heard about actors is they tend to have a lot of charisma, and are a lot of fun to talk to (even for the non-celebrity-obsessed like myself). So I guess it's worth pointing out that there's more than looks: I'm sure SJ would beat the waitress in general social skills and knowing how to be sexy. But as someone else pointed out, she can be trained.

SJ would probably be more fun in the short run, but waitress wins long-term.

[–]zulhadm 4 points5 points  (2 children)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I don't know if this is the same place, if it is, I stand corrected.

[–]zulhadm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The place I listed is the most exclusive. So if it's another place it's probably cheaper

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I'll be damned if I'm going to have the media attacking me when I come out of the grocery store. Fuck that mess. I don't know how celebrities deal with that... oh wait cos $

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I guess the money softens the blow. It comes down to whether you think it's worth it or not.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 49 points50 points  (10 children)

This is something most women do not understand. I don't give a shit about your achievements, career, knowledge or degrees.

I will inevitably have to teach you how to be an appropriate woman, so I might as well teach you all the rest as well while I am at it.

You've got a career going? Well, giod for you and I surely appreciate that you've got goals. Does it change your attraction to me in any way? Hell no.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (8 children)

I don't think its fair to say we don't care at all. Because someone with those academic achievements will likely be more intelligent and men do value intelligence.

But what we don't care about is fame. I think most men would actually prefer the complete opposite of fame, whatever that is.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 29 points30 points  (3 children)

I don't think that an academic degree and intelligence behave proportional.

With today's educational system a degree solely prooves that you are able to memorize and things and echo pre-digestes knowledge.

Also for matters of attraction and SMV intelligence is not a necessary trait. Just look how many successful high-SMV men have total dipshits by their side and seem to be completely happy.

It might be a trait that you are looking for if you conciously want to start a family, but for a plate I don't care if her IQ is next to potatoe.

[–]damnyouresickbro 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Degrees and how well you do in school only show how intelligent you are to an extent. Was talking to a girl that probably will get into medical school but had the mentality of a teenager. Social smarts and books smarts differ completely.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I completely agree.

IQ in women is only important for breeding purposes. However, that can be done without marriage (surrogacy + buying eggs + genetic engineering), so spin plates potatoes to your hearts content!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The word you're looking for is anonymity and I agree. A famous woman wouldn't be very available. It'd be a part-time relationship

[–]colovick 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Infamy, but you mean we prefer low profile women. If you date a celebrity, some of her spotlight rubs off on you. And for better or worse, that makes everything you do more widely known

[–]1sailorJery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Infamy is not the opposite of famous.

[–]mrheh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We really don't, just remember the bitches Tiger Woods was fucking, some real sleazy ho's but we like that shit once in a while. Remember the perkins waitress he was fuckin? she was shit but we creatures of convenience and is a okay looking chick massages your ego a bit most of us would fuck her.(not saying date, just sex)

[–]mrheh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Men build from the bottom up, Women build from the TOP Down."-Patrice Oneal talking about how men and women approach relationships. ie: we can build a dumb bitch who looks good into something, a women will not take a bum and make him into something because he looks good.

[–]a_nus 8 points8 points [recovered]

A group of girls I hangout with were saying Drake is hot. I told them to pretend he wasn't famous for a moment. Picture him not being a celebrity, is he still hot? They all said no. Some even said "hm, interesting" after consciously realizing their own subconscious. Others just hamstered away.

[–]mrheh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Patrice Oneal had a hilarious point abouta womens SMV (I'm guessing that means her value beside looks?). Patrice goes "A famous fat ugly guy can get pussy cause he's famous, a fat bitch who famous is still just a fat bitch, Precious (the fat black chick from that movie) anit getting dick now because shes famous.... Oprah has the same pussy as the bitch from Mcdonalds."

[–]sweetleef 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Men, would you rather date Scarlett Johanssen, or a waitress that looked exactly like Scarlett Johanssen?

Is there a third option?

[–]TaylorWolf 2 points3 points  (2 children)

My jiu jitsu coach Eddie Bravo puts social/sexual hierarchy like this

1 famous women 2 famous men 3 women 4 men

He says men will do anything for a woman, and famous women like Angelina Jolie can put famous men under her

It does seem like this is the norm to me, except I realize that TRP is exactly how a man can rise above a woman in rare cases. Justin Timberlake for example fucked like 20-30 famous women with household names.

[–]theozoph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My jiu jitsu coach Eddie Bravo

Great humblebrag. ;)

But really, it's cool, Eddie is a pretty chill guy, if what I've heard of him on the Joe Rogan podcast is any indication.

[–]mrheh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree but not totally. The highest position on the social/sexual hierarchy are powerful/dangerous men. If John Gotti and Angelina Jolie are both waiting to get in your club who are you letting in first. Also Eddie and you live in LA where shit in fuckin 100% about hot chicks and money where NYC where I'm from is more about power.

[–]deaduponaviral 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes classic tale of the king marrying the farm girl. Princesses only mary princes though.

[–]tallwheel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know. I think there are certainly guys out there who would go for the bragging rights.

You're premise is correct, though. Social status of one's partner matters a hell of a lot less for men than for women.

[–]usernameson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish I could give you a thousand upvotes for that one.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Napoleon dynamite,

He is so sensitive.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Napoleon is not amused: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmqXIUgsrP8

Edit: not calling you an idiot.

[–]Iswearbyapollo 19 points20 points  (0 children)

No argument there. But since she is a woman, no one should expect her words and actions to align in any sort of approximation of reality or consistency.

[–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 9 points10 points  (16 children)

I was surprised by this; he is not anywhere near the top. Being a good looking rugby player at Oxford is nothing, plus he is 3 years younger than her. Being high status in Oxford is great for getting hottt Oxford girls as its basically a bubble and people don't date outside of their uni there; but Watson is on the international scene.

She is 24 so should consider dating the top men in the world in the next couple years and stop fucking around!

[–]guest121 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Really? The way I see it the girl is having fun with a good looking dude. That he is wanted by other girls makes it even better. She is during the "fun" times in her life. Settling down is for much later.

[–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah I did a little reading and she is actually an Oxford student now. Makes sense for her to date this guy while finishing her degree

[–]ThanksRoissy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Anyone want to venture guesses that she'll be ready to settle down anywhere between 27-33? Maybe with her genes she'll press on another 5 years?

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

She'll probably end up marrying royalty like Grace Kelly or a hedge fund manager like Chelsea Clinton.

[–]AlfredTheGreatest 6 points7 points  (0 children)

When you're as rich as Emma you don't need any beta bucks. He's super hot and super high-status. Makes perfect sense to me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The guy has a full beard, almost two meters tall, ripped... he looks like he's late 20's. It's not oabput how old you are, it's about how old you LOOK.

It's. All. Just. Looks.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I wasn't whining, I'm fairly good looking and do just fine with women. I'm just pointing out a fact that if a girl likes you I highly doubt its your personality.

[–]mrheh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wrong dude, you can talk your way out of pussy easily even if you are attractive. Women believe it or not aren't as shallow as men are when it comes to looks, why? Because men are bigger than out looks, women aren't. We learn to be charming, funny, witty, intelligent, well spoken and other things all in order to get pussy. Women simple have to stay in shape. Now an attractive man will get on average more then a unattractive man but A confident man will get the most. We've all seen hot girls with ugly dudes and say wtf? and when we ask she always says "there's just something about him" Woman dont have that ability. When do you ever see a great looking male with a fat, ugly, but funny or intelligent women? Never because our values are different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Macaulay Culkin???

Culkin was a handsome dude, and not to mention internationally famous, back when Mila was a run-of-the-mill TV actress.

Once she got more famous, she upgraded.

[–]Lister-Cascade 0 points1 point  (3 children)

he is not anywhere near the top. Being a good looking rugby player at Oxford is nothing

That isn't even close to making sense.

[–]watersign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah, that comment was dumb as fuck

[–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 0 points1 point  (1 child)

is nothing relative to the networks of malemodelhedgefundmanagers a top addresses/celebrity moves between

[–]Lister-Cascade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There aren't many that can match the looks/intelligence. Although in my opinion he isn't particularly good looking (face wise).

[–]the99percent1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

exactly.. she's a fucking celebrity.. how many celebrities in the world end up dating some fucking local uni lad 3 years your junior! wtf..

[–]Dark_Shroud 7 points8 points  (0 children)

She's in college with this guy. So she's dating one of the top studs in the college micro-chasm "having fun." Her previous BF was a model from the same modeling company she had a contract with.

She has great genes so she'll last into her late 30s. In five years she will be dating some wealthy guy looking to get married.

[–]LineOfCoke 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Really he SMV is high? I don't find her attractive, and her job doesn't do shit for me sexually.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (2 children)

her job doesn't do shit for me sexually

It does for a lot of guys, though.

[–]LineOfCoke 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Guys trains to think and act like women by feminized society.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Just guys who want to say that they banged Hermione.

[–]Endorsed ContributorLastRevision -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Glad someone else said this. I don't find her attractive in the least, and with her attitude? Yuck. This guy is supposedly a male 10? What a white knight, blue pill sucker. I'd be living the life with multiple HB09 plates.

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

I'd be living the life with multiple HB09 plates.

Who says he's not? You never know what I guy has on the side.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (23 children)

With her SMV?

Truth be told, her SMV is not that high. Judging by those pictures that is. He is at least 3 grades above her.

[–][deleted] 17 points17 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]LineOfCoke 2 points3 points  (21 children)

I don't believe that females career has any bearing on her smv, men don't select mates for financial security etc.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (12 children)

would you date a 9 or 10 over Emma Watson? I think that's a hard question to answer. I mean obviously she is hot but the fact that she's Emma fucking Watson makes it a different ball game

[–]LineOfCoke 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I don't find her pretty and I never liked Harry Potter so I honestly don't see the appeal.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

People see her as being unattainable, that's the appeal. I just see her as a posh girl who happens to be famous.

[–]LineOfCoke 8 points9 points  (2 children)

To me its like putting Emma Stone on a pedestal. She's a plain ass girl. The fuck do I care about her fame. Tell me about her fuckin caseroles.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'd take Stone over Watson.

[–]LineOfCoke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, but neither is worth idolizing imo.

[–]salami_inferno 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The appeal would be preselection. Even if you personally don't find her attractive, dating her would open doors full of pussy for you.

[–]LineOfCoke 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I suppose, but that still begs the question to what extent do I allow my behavior and choices to be colored by the pursuit of sexual conquests?

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meh, if dating one attractive girl forever raised my SMV I'd do it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on how 9 or 10 acted. Even if I were into her and she were into me, I wouldn't date Emma Watson because of the inevitable public scrutiny. I value my privacy too much.

[–]Iswearbyapollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pick the prettiest of the rare "well behaved" women, not the best behaved of the prettiest women. There is a huge distinction, with a lifetime of pain for those who fail to understand the distinction.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. The fact that she is fucking Hermione is enough to make her automatically a 10 in a lot of people's books. Guaranteed there are guys all around the world jacking off to her right now.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is different, though. It's not just a career. She is a fucking fantasy for a lot of guys. For most male Harry Potter fans, she is automatically a 10 just for being fucking Hermione. Dudes around the world are jacking off to her as we speak.

[–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Celebrity status does though.

[–]LineOfCoke 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You think so? As a man dating a celebrity automatically puts you in the bitch position. You don't wanna be KFed.

[–]Dark_Shroud 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He's a college athlete in the UK. She is an international actress, voice actress, & model.

He probably could date a woman who is better looking than Emma right now. The difference is Emma opens all kinds of doors, especially in England. Dating her is a smart career move. It also helps his smv later when she's moved on.

[–]anonlymouse -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Somebody forgot to tell Brad Pitt. KFed is KFed and he was dating Spears, that's not really comparable to dating Watson.

[–]dirtboxchampion -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Agreed about careers and SMV, but celebrity isn't a career.

[–]Dark_Shroud 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For her it is. She's an actress, voice actress, & model. That's a lot of open doors. Making a good impression and handing out business cards through doors like that can get your a comfortable future.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

actually Emma is executing a great strategy. Now, if naturally beta men are allowed to show their true vulnerability, it will be easier for women to screen the natural alphas from the betas.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]cooltrip 22 points23 points  (5 children)

"Emma Watson says, "Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes" as she dates an alpha male jock"

Red Pill, you really need to improve your analyzing skills:

1º) Feminism comprises the female sexual right (... to respond: "No, I don't want to have sex with you"). Where on Earth does it say this female sexual right contradicts the female hypergamous preference for alpha? Women use their feminist sexual right to respond "No, I don't want to have sex with you" for rejecting betas. Feminism fights oppressionTM, don't forget.

2º) Feminism says women are not inferior. Where on Earth does it say that statement contradicts the female hypergamous preference for alpha? Feminism means "women are not inferior to inferior men (betas) ". You think women are stupid?. Tangentially, feminists use their gender equality claim for demanding bux from inferior men (betas).

3º) What if Emma is dating an alpha? women don't use feminism for rejecting alphas, but for rejecting betas. It's their right, it's their freedom, it's their hypergamy, and it's their feminism, right?

4º) In short: "feminism is not incompatible with female hypergamous preference for alpha; feminism is an ideological catalog women use for rejecting beta semen and demanding beta bux. Because it's women's freedom, it's women's right, and it's women's preferences. Feminism is the female agenda for institutionalizing "Alpha fux-beta bux" ".

Don't underestimate female ancestral intelligence about males. You guys think you are winning but women were winning all the fucking time. You can win women about science, technology and progress, but not about men and man rank; cause it's women's survival. Alpha fux, beta Nobels.

[–]tallwheel 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It looks to me as if you and OP are in agreement. OP posted this only as proof that all of what you said above is true.

[–]masonpowers96 5 points6 points  (2 children)

It's the opposite. The destruction of the masculine man is one of feminism's objective. You should lurk more cause you're talking nonsense. Learn what feminism actually is and where it came from.

[–]cooltrip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, you see how Emma's UN'ish feminism chose a bald scrawny impoverished poet so she could destruct masculine men.

Show me where is that huge online statistics of women feminists revealing they don't prefer masculine men.

[–]joncho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he is actually correct. Not even women believe they will be successful with feminism and are just letting go of weak minded men. I don't think they believed they would be as successful as they have been.

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi 2 points3 points  (1 child)

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Looks like it is getting serious between them. Maybe he does have a sensitive side after all.

The 24-year-old actress looked stylish even as she carried out the manual labour, wearing jeans, a black sweater, and comfy trainers, with her hair in a top knot.

I can feel my IQ dropping as I read...

[–]shlomif 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Sorry, but that sounds like a big Ad-hominem attack - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - how does Watson’s choices in her personal life necessarily invalidate the contents of her words?

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)


This is a fallacy:

  1. George says we should wear raincoats.
  2. George doesn't wear a raincoat.
  3. Therefore, we shouldn't wear raincoats.

This isn't.

  1. George says we should wear raincoats.
  2. George doesn't wear a raincoat.
  3. Therefore, we shouldn't trust George.

The former is an argument about wearing raincoats. The latter is an argument about George's character.

We're saying:

  • Emma is preaching that men should not be trapped in their gender roles but she dates a manly man who is very typical of his gender role, so she's a hypocrite.
  • Emma has said nothing to prove that women would love to date sensitive and vulnerable men, so her argument is weak anyway.
  • Emma is part of a majority of women who encourage men to be vulnerable but date manly men, which proves that women like traditionally manly men.

[–]shlomif 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine, so Emma Watson is a "hypocrite". If I were her, I would embrace this newfound label and say "I'm a hypocrite and damn proud of it. Here's a nickel, kid - but yourself a candy."

As someone who took some criticisms to his advantage - see http://www.shlomifish.org/me/rindolf/#rindolf_the_evil_reindeer and http://www.shlomifish.org/me/rindolf/#rindolf_aim_very_high_hitlower I think that antagonising such criticisms tends to just backfires. (I also wrote fun stuff about Grammar Nazism.

Anyway, carrying the "hypocrite" label doesn't make Emma any less of an amazing, beautiful, wonderful, awesome/smashing/cool person, whom I have a lot of respect and admiration for. I'm pretty sure her boyfriend is a very nice guy (or otherwise she would probably not be dating him as she does get first choice), and I wish them the best of luck in their relationship.

Just for the record, we cannot rule out that her boyfriend has a sensitive side to him. I recently talked with a very nice lady on Facebook who: 1. Has a My Little Pony ponies on her facebook page. 2. Is drawing technical diagrams for a living. 3. Looked really sexy in a photo of her with a red shirt and glasses; and — 4. Recently got a new belt in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo . Male IDF soldiers have been known to cry during funerals, and some of the toughest U.S. male and heterosexual combat fighters, love My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

We live in interesting (and amazing) times where the lines between what is considered masculine and what is considered feminine are blurred, and a person can exhibit some of both.

If you change your attitude and lookout on life and see the good in every person and every situation, then your life will really improve. Finding faults in every thing is cynicism and will only make you less happy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shlomif/Saladin_Style .

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Like I said, men are free to be what they are, and women are free to reject the ones that don't live up to the male gender stereotype.

Being rejected romantically for being sensitive and vulnerable doesn't exactly encourage men to be sensitive and vulnerable.

suggests to me that you only want to be sensitive and vulnerable if it gets you laid more often

This is similar to saying that you only want to be a slacker if you get money for it. Shouldn't you be true to yourself and slack as much as your true nature desires, and not try to live up to expectations by working?

Admittedly the third point could be stated a bit better. The fact that Emma says that men should be free to cast off their gender stereotypes and then goes on to date a man who is the archetype for the gender stereotype - it isn't proof that men should stick to their gender stereotype, but it is one more data point in a sea of similar data. That's basically what I was trying to say with point #3.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I was actually assuming that men would love to be able to show their vulnerable side to women, but they don't because they know how unattractive it is to women. Similarly, people would love to slack, but they don't because they won't get paid. That's the analogy.

[–]1cover20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Regardless of what happens, being vulnerable and soft with a woman will not make her tingle. I have permission to be that way right now. But not the motivation.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Watch what they do, not what they say

Watch what they do, not what they say

Watch what they do, not what they say

Watch what they do, not what they say

Watch what they do, not what they say

[–]Position5hero 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Some gender stereotypes are bad too for the record. Specifically, men providing for women, showering her with gifts, beta bux, etc

Some gender stereotypes aren't Alpha.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I'd say that

men providing for women, showering her with gifts, beta bux, etc

are actually a societal expectation and not a stereotype, although maybe I'm splitting hairs at this point.

If you want to see a stereotype for the ideal man, James Bond would be a good example.

[–]Position5hero 3 points4 points  (1 child)

we not splitting hairs at this point we splitting split ends

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad to see my hair-splitting skills have become so good!

[–]LadyLumen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think she's just trying to stay relevant, now that she's not in Harry Potter anymore. Pandering to what people want to hear is a good way to do that.

[–]TNPgaylover 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Also notice name of moment HE FOR SHE Movement for gender equality.

Women are equal only if men do something for them.

[–]the99percent1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SHE always comes first. ALWAYS.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Females can spew whatever they want. I'm 5'5" so I need to be mire strict about my masculinity. I plan on getting tattoos, I work out to the breaking point and then I go further, focus on grooming and making that dough. Anything other than that and women see me subconsciously as a failure.

Emma Watson, you were my unicorn from age 9 til 17. But you now confirm that those don't exist. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some heavy squatting to do and a 1600 calorie protein shake to swivel down.

Oh and I'm sure her boyfriend has a great personality. Everybody just loves who he is as a person.

[–]joncho 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Why do you think tattoos are masculine? I always felt them more as femenine/hipster.

[–]HAMMURABl 6 points7 points  (0 children)

with muscles= masculine/badboy, without muscles = hipster/feminine/artistic

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It's because the guys who used to get them were prisoners, gang members, soldiers, and other generally tough guys who had to stick together. Having a tattoo wasn't socially acceptable so you had to have a good reason to get one, and the usual reason was to show others that you were not to be messed with.

Even though it is socially acceptable to get a tattoo now, people associate tattoos with toughness.

[–]gokurakumaru 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I associate them with sheep.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well these days you might be right more often than not.

[–]RegentsEnd 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Never, ever, ever listen to a word women say. The only thing that matters is what they do.

It can't be said enough.

[–]Gods_Work 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this aint no place for no hero, emma. Just carry on with your life and don't try to change people thoughts about each other. Focus on changing their thoughts about earth and our place in the universe. Make people more environmentally aware. Make them more concious of how their shit is changing the place we live on and will want to continue living on for more than 100 years. Talk about renewable energy. Talk about laws that punish those who dont respect earth, the wildlife, and air we breathe. Damn girl, use your looks and the stereotype they bring to do something useful, not something that gets drowned when the new [insert current popular musician here] scandal/song is revealed. ugh......UGH! RATM

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alphas need to go on strike against this type of shit. If some girl is hypocritically mouthing these platitudes, you say: "Okay, I'd like you to meet my friend Cadwalader; he sits in his basement and writes poetry about being a brony. Have at it."

[–]writeonbrother 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure all the Dictators listening to her speech were moved to immediately ban the wearing of burkas. The Saudi Royals will now give women the vote. Powerful stuff from Miss Watson.

[–]Forty_Deuce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, there are gender stereotypes. I Guarantee, I guaran-damn-tee that the moment the man of one of these feminist chicks falls out of his gender stereotype, they will drop him with the quickness and have no compassion. They'll say something like, "I'm just not attracted to you anymore," or "the way you're acting just isn't attractive." Why is that? Because there are fucking gender roles and there is no amount of trying to make everyone equal going to change that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

maybe shes allowed to date who she wants?( ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡° )

[–]iiMSouperman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The minute she implied being "a man" isn't human she instantly lost the slight ounce of dignity left over.

She's a silly, naive, privileged schoolgirl who doesn't understand the shit she spews.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She's young, dumb, and full of cum.

best comment on that article:

Exactly. And the first word that came to my mind when I read her tweet was "university". Her tweet wasn't an original thought, it's what she's been taught to say by leftwing professors. She's too young and inexperienced to know any better. She's just old enough and smart enough to repeat what she thinks she's expected to say.

But actually we call it "The Cathedral" because its adherents follow it blindly, like a religion.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You lost me at "says". Who cares?

[–]tedcase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brilliant! If I was the type to spend money on strangers on the internet, I would give you gold for that.

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

I really got the feeling that she's just throwing men a bone here to encourage them to participate and help women. As far as I can tell, her speech is about how women have it worse and men should help out. Do you think the program is really going to address any of these issues?

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

What you say is very reasonable. Emma is a vastly more reasonable than Sarkeesian or Amanda Marcotte.

My worry is that feminism is trying to co-opt the MRM. Why have an MRM when feminism is here to address all your gender issues? In this way, Emma might be even more dangerous than a hardcore feminist.

Even Big Red addresses many MRM issues in this horrifying video, with the implication that feminism has it all figured out:


You've probably seen the U of T protest as well - there's a woman in that video who basically says, why listen to Warren Farrell when feminism has the answers?

The truth is that the MRM is forcing their hand, otherwise they would have never thrown men a bone in the first place. The MRM should continue to keep up the pressure and criticize what needs to be criticized.

The MRM exists because feminism did a very bad job addressing gender issues for men. Without the MRM, feminism would have never made any concessions, and even with the MRM, they'll continue to do a horrible job addressing men's issues, perhaps talking the talk but not walking the walk.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Interesting point. The kinder, gentler feminist is certainly more appealing than the Big Red shut-the-fuck-up feminist.

However, the alternative is for there to be a small minority of angry feminists and the rest of the women not really identifying as feminists.

So do we want a big group of kinder, gentler feminists or a smaller group of angry feminists? Tough to say.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Is the enemy of my enemy really my friend? MRAs and hardcore feminists joining sides to denounce the kinder, gentler feminism?

To begin with, the name “He For She” is problematic, no matter how you slice it. Some may call these criticisms divisive and nitpicky, but there is nothing feminist about a campaign that reinforces a gender binary that is harmful to people whose gender identities don’t fit into such tidy boxes. When we reinforce the idea that only people who neatly fit the gender binary are worthy of being protected and supported, we erase and exclude the people who are at most risk of patriarchal violence and oppression.

While I have problems with the He For She name, she takes it to a whole new level. I'm having trouble believing that this is not an Onion article.

Well, my hope is that the free flow of information is going to help us debunk crazy claims and ultimately come to a better understanding of each other. Here's to the future.

[–]Flowhill 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Definitely agree with you here.

[–]tedcase 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I wouldn't mind so much, but she is such a fucking catastrophically awfull actress too. I can't fathom how the hell this bimbo with an accent got so famous.

[–][deleted] 8 points8 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]joncho 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I never got that either, I don't find her that attractive. She is cute in a non attractive way.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everyone has an accent. Unless, of course, they can't speak.

[–]Iswearbyapollo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

On the other hand...


But not with that godawful haircut...

[–]the99percent1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not with that god awful man-jaw

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"She seems like a really nice and gentle person"

See that's how they getcha

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I usually refrain from commenting on these posts because the popcorn quality of their amusement is too high for me to want to be banned from this sub...but you are insane and its too hysterical not to say so!

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We'll take that as a compliment.

[–]nopetrol 2 points3 points  (2 children)

How do we know the rugby player never displays vulnerability or sensitivity?

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Good question.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread:

It is possible to be who he is and be a vulnerable person, but not likely. "Vulnerable" is not the go-to word for a star rugby player.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe he does on occasion, but he can because his other qualities likely make him still perceived overall as alpha.

The problem is that she is giving terrible advice to the majority of men who are not alphas in the first place. They don't have the leeway to show many beta qualities without just making themselves look even more beta than they probably already appear.

[–]thecommonreactor -1 points0 points  (4 children)

I see what you're saying, but is it really fair to call this guy an "alpha male" only because he's been described as good-looking and plays a sport? In a world where all stereotypes are true, those two things would say a lot about his personality, but he doesn't seem to be much of a public figure, so how can we really make that judgement?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Based on those two things, he probably has to beat the bitches off him with a stick. Basically, yes he is.

[–]thecommonreactor -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

Well yeah, but that's making a big assumption. I'm saying that not knowing anything about him personally makes it unfair to judge him in a certain way.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

What are you, 5? How many people do you "personally" know? We make assumptions my friend. He's banging Emma Watson, is a star rugby player, and was voted most handsome or some shit? Do you need to measure his dick before you can decide he's "Alpha" enough for your standards? Why does it matter to you anyway? Get money, fuck bitches.

[–]KevyB 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Stupid bitch, always has been, always will be.

And flat like an ironing board, so who gives a shit.

[–]Watermelon_Salesman 7 points7 points [recovered]

I have not read Harry Potter, and it baffles me that redditors and men in general who were kids and teenagers when the books and films were coming out have such a soft spot for Emma Watson.

She is not a good looking woman. She really, really, really isn't. She has the body of a boy, and the jaw of Schwarzenegger. If you think she's gorgeous, then you're under Hermione's spell, not Watson's.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's okay she will tame him and turn him beta-bux. After all, it seems like that is her purpose.

[–]cali_gunner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can tell she's a flip for alphas. Betas need to relax with treating a 5 like a 10.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I can sympathize, but sorry dude, you sound a bit too stereotypically butthurt. Sure, most of us will never approach this guy's SMV. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make our own lots in life as good for ourselves as possible. That's the way life works. We can't help the circumstances each of us are born into, and we all just have to make the best of what we have.

[–]__var 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there an archive of stickies? If not, can we create one?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except that guy is hot.

I'm not convinced that having an alpha or Beta character have a significative influence compared to being HOT or NOT (Maybe in the long terme, sure )

A sensitive hot guy would fare better than an average/ugly guy with Alpha characters. And the more you're hot, the more you are perceived Alpha anyway.

Please keep in mind that while "Alpha" or "Beta" character is not always linear, extreme, being hot or not is. The same guy can be perceived as a "sensitive" or "very shy", or just "mysterious" by different girls, while the hot guy will be perceived as hot by the majority of girls.

I don't see how your examples proves anything.

When you'll find an example of an average looking guy with "Alpha" characteristics faring better than a hot guy with less alpha characteristics, then you could score a point.

All what this prooves is that being hot is the most important thing in sentimental relationships, the rest is speculation.

[–]iJJD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So glad this is out there lol

[–]hoseja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meh, all celebs do this.

[–]Transmigratory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Emma Watson can shut the fuck up.

I'd actually prefer it if some of these contemporary feminists actually didn't ignore how sexism affects guys. Like the dictators from AskHamsters, they'll do all they can to suppress that part of the story, secret police style.

[–]mc0079 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

You mean successful people want to date other successful people? Well no shit! This guy just solved everything!

On the flip side, you see many hot shot male lawyers going with slummy grocery cashiers? No, because people tend to date at their station.

This has to do more with dating at someone's station then "gender roles"...

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 4 points5 points  (2 children)

On the flip side, you see many hot shot male lawyers going with slummy grocery cashiers

Yes, actually, I work with them. The majority of male lawyers date women who have mundane jobs, or stay at home.

[–]mc0079 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Stay out home to raise kids? That's a different scenario. When I'm referring to slummy cashiers, I talking about someone who can never leave that job, that's the best they can do, trailer park style....Jobs that pay well can be mundane.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, I mean like secretaries, waitresses, bank attendants, etc. Most of them are dating women that are simply attractive.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They are always asking men to be more free to express their feelings. My man expressed his, and got arrested (few years back). What hypocrites.

[–]EvanHarper -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

This is a pretty weak attempt at a "gotcha."

[–]cikatomo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who is this guy and what makes him alpha male?

[–]Core_ten -4 points-3 points  (10 children)

Way to argue irrelevant points and extremes...

She's right. Any guy knows first hand the pressure to be stoic regardless of what happens to them. Sure, that pressure is largely generated by the attraction that that persona has to many women. However, it doesn't have to define a person. Someone who has learned to be strong out of necessity should be able admit weakness sometimes without feeling 'lesser'... that is the point she's making. A little balance is healthy.

Who she is dating is irrelevant. It's sad to see people saying that since she supports men showing some emotion from time to time that she should then be attracted to that personality over all others.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Who she is dating is quite relevant.

She's basically giving guys bad advice that will get them dumped by their girlfriends while demonstrating that women don't go for vulnerable and sensitive guys.

It would be like me saying, "Hey, you don't have to be young and traditionally beautiful to be happy," as I date a 18 year old Ms. Universe contestant.

[–]Core_ten 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Do you know the guy she is dating? Does the fact that he is an athlete and attractive somehow exclude him from being sensitive or emotional?

Her statement "Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes." is absolutely true. The macho man stereotype being constantly reinforced as the only acceptable persona is harmful to men.. but here's the nuance that is key: being strong emotionally is still important (for everyone!). Sure it's okay to show emotion, but being overly emotional is just as unhealthy as bottling your emotions up.

You saying "Hey, you don't have to be young and traditionally beautiful to be happy," as [you] date a 18 year old Ms. Universe contestant." is perfectly fine. Does your relationship and taste in women mean that a non-traditional woman will never find someone who is attracted to her? No.. of course not.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Do you know the guy she is dating? Does the fact that he is an athlete and attractive somehow exclude him from being sensitive or emotional?

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread:

It is possible to be who he is and be a vulnerable person, but not likely. "Vulnerable" is not the go-to word for a star rugby player.

Her statement "Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes." is absolutely true. The macho man stereotype being constantly reinforced as the only acceptable persona is harmful to men.. but here's the nuance that is key: being strong emotionally is still important (for everyone!). Sure it's okay to show emotion, but being overly emotional is just as unhealthy as bottling your emotions up.

When men show emotion, women see it as weakness and they dump the men. How is gender equality going to fix this? Gender equality isn't going to make women love short men or men love fat women either. It's a great ideal, but not something that can be fixed by awareness campaigns or legislation.

You saying "Hey, you don't have to be young and traditionally beautiful to be happy," as [you] date a 18 year old Ms. Universe contestant." is perfectly fine. Does your relationship and taste in women mean that a non-traditional woman will never find someone who is attracted to her? No.. of course not.

Now imagine that, for the woman's entire life, men have been telling her this and then going off and dating young beauty contestants, and then this situation comes up, in a UN speech no less. How would that make her feel?

[–]Core_ten 0 points1 point  (6 children)

"It is possible to be who he is and be a vulnerable person, but not likely."

Why is this not likely? The point she is making is that everyone is vulnerable sometimes. Everyone has emotions. Some people are stronger more regularly, but nobody is always strong.

"When men show emotion, women see it as weakness and they dump the men."

Sorry but that is bullshit. People (regardless of gender) appreciate deep emotional connections with other people. When I was in high school I thought the same way as you. I thought "I'm a sensitive guy, but why don't women seem to appreciate that?". Later on in life I made the realization that those sensitive displays are not attractive in many situations (not just sexual situations but day to day ones as well). Being emotionally strong and outgoing is important for any person trying to attract another (or make friends, or give a presentation at work/school, etc). The sensitivity comes in later, when you and said person are more comfortable sharing those emotions.

"Now imagine that, for the woman's entire life, men have been telling her this and then going off and dating young beauty contestants..." Well then those men just don't like her style, or her looks, or her personality. Well guess what? There are other people out there that sure would. Everyone gets rejected sometimes, even charismatic people. The thing is to pick yourself up and try again. Yes, process the sadness if you need to, but don't let it start to define you. We can all be strong if we work at it (but not all the time, which is Emma Watson's point).

Edit: added bracketed text after "...any person trying to attract another("

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I could address all of your points individually, but I'll just say this:

TRP speaks in absolutes but actually deals in probabilities. Women don't like beta schmucks - well, there's probably women out there who love beta schmucks, but most of them don't.

Women don't like vulnerability and sensitivity. Okay, maybe there are women that eat that up, but most of them don't, and you'd be better off following the rule than the exception. I don't have any scientific data on this, it's just based on personal experience, the other couples that I've observed, and material I've read. It's also a core tenet of this sub.

Well then those men just don't like her style, or her looks, or her personality. Well guess what? There are other people out there that sure would.

This is the same bad advice that gets people into trouble. It's about what is most probable. Saying "everyone is different, be yourself" is never helpful. Saying "men like X, Y, and Z" is much more helpful, even if there are a minority of cases where it is not true.

[–]Core_ten -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

The idea of an alpha or beta person should be obsolete. Yes, I know it's not. And yes, many women go for physically stronger and outgoing guys. Social skills can be learned though.. nobody is 'beta' by birth.

Yes, being physically unattractive can be a huge disadvantage... yes it will be harder to find people who want to be with you in that case.. but that doesn't make it impossible, and it doesn't mean you can't be charismatic or funny or any other generally attractive traits (that can be developed by working on oneself).

"Women don't like vulnerability and sensitivity." As I thoroughly argued earlier, yes they do (see large middle paragraph in my last post). Everyone does, at the right times and in the right situations. Being overly emotional all the time is not attractive no matter who you are.

"It's about what is most probable... Saying "men like X, Y, and Z" is much more helpful". If all you care about are probabilities of attracting people, then you're not really in it for the emotions eh? That kind of thinking is more about getting laid, in which case you're not valuing the other person for anything beyond what they can do for you... which is extremely dickish and not senstive at all.

Being sensitive and being strong should both have their times to be expressed by any person. The ideas supported in gender stereotypes (men are emotionally strong, women are emotionally weak) put pressure on people to abandon parts of who they are and focus too much on others. Balance is the key. Alpha and beta are trivial concepts when you can rise to a challenge of emotional expression or stoicism when situations demand. Everyone faces these challenges... regardless of gender, race, sexuality, age, etc. W'ere all just human.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The idea of an alpha or beta person should be obsolete. Yes, I know it's not. And yes, many women go for physically stronger and outgoing guys. Social skills can be learned though.. nobody is 'beta' by birth.


Yes, being physically unattractive can be a huge disadvantage... yes it will be harder to find people who want to be with you in that case.. but that doesn't make it impossible, and it doesn't mean you can't be charismatic or funny or any other generally attractive traits (that can be developed by working on oneself).

Yes, and you have to know what is attractive in order to work on those characteristics. Thus, you need hard truths about what most people like and what they don't, not "hey, there's someone out there who will find you attractive!"

"Women don't like vulnerability and sensitivity." As I thoroughly argued earlier, yes they do (see large middle paragraph in my last post). Everyone does, at the right times and in the right situations. Being overly emotional all the time is not attractive no matter who you are.

Not convinced, and your advice leads to no concrete actions that can improve your life.

"It's about what is most probable... Saying "men like X, Y, and Z" is much more helpful". If all you care about are probabilities of attracting people, then you're not really in it for the emotions eh? That kind of thinking is more about getting laid, in which case you're not valuing the other person for anything beyond what they can do for you... which is extremely dickish and not senstive at all.

There are huge leaps of logic between all 4 sentences. Maybe you can figure out what they are.

Being sensitive and being strong should both have their times to be expressed by any person. The ideas supported in gender stereotypes (men are emotionally strong, women are emotionally weak) put pressure on people to abandon parts of who they are and focus too much on others. Balance is the key. Alpha and beta are trivial concepts when you can rise to a challenge of emotional expression or stoicism when situations demand. Everyone faces these challenges... regardless of gender, race, sexuality, age, etc. W'ere all just human.

Again, nothing here leads to concrete actions that can improve your life, thus, useless.

[–]Core_ten 1 point2 points  (2 children)

"Yes, and you have to know what is attractive in order to work on those characteristics."

True, good point. Yes those traits can't be generated solely from within. Studying the behaviours of other people is definitely important for informing yourself. Personal strength still needs to be in the mix though, otherwise you're just acting.

"Not convinced, and your advice leads to no concrete actions that can improve your life."

Fair enough. Although I would say that acknowledging that emotional expression and retention should be situation dependent can improve your life. It definitely improved mine. By observing people and acting in social situations I became better at judging when and to what degree to express emotions, or not to.

"There are huge leaps of logic between all 4 sentences. Maybe you can figure out what they are."

Alright, I got a little bit ahead of myself there. No personal slight meant. I guess the point I was trying to make is that frequency isn't everything. Although I do sympathize with those people who find it so tough to connect with others that they very rarely have strong emotional connections. I've been there. Most people have at some point. Things will change though. Like you mentioned, learning behaviour from others can help immensely, but self improvement through honest contemplation about oneself shouldn't be overlooked.

"Again, nothing here leads to concrete actions that can improve your life, thus, useless."

Here I was trying to illustrate that even though it may not seem so, everybody experiences the same/similar pains/challenges. Those who many would call 'alpha' will deal with social and emotional issues just like the rest of humanity. It's easy to forget that. If you can keep that in mind when dealing with other people, you will prejudge them less. Prejudging leads to a lot of mis-communication, where there could have been strong connection.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, at first I thought you were a troll, but now I see you're having an honest discussion.

I definitely sympathize with your position more now, although it looks like we probably won't agree in certain areas.

I appreciate hearing your point of view.