928
929

Red Pill TheoryWomen are Children. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Modredpillschool

Somebody asked me the other day why women shit-test in relationships, and why they push so much to turn men into betas.

My response was this: Women are children. They seek out boundaries. They require the men in their lives to define and enforce these boundaries. And just like children, if women are not given boundaries, they will occupy the space they are given and become terrible, unruly brats.

Which brings us to my post today, my periodic recap of women being children:


Women are children. How could we ever see them otherwise?

Women live the most protected, sheltered lives. They are safe from almost all danger- war, crime, and violence. They are safe from almost all consequences, receiving fewer if any punishments for crimes (/r/pussypass). When a woman makes a mistake, society bends to absolve her and protect her from these consequences. Even the most life-altering events (having a child) puts little to no actual burden on a woman. She is free to do as she pleases, completely oblivious to the world around her that makes her comfortable life possible.

This means that they cannot possibly understand the nature of the world, and therefore cannot possibly make adult decisions within it.

Consider the child who cries "everybody else has one, why can't I?" He sees his parents as the unlimited source of money. When they cannot buy him something, he sees it as them withholding or punishing him. Why can't he have the newest video game? Why can't he have an iPhone? Why can't he have better food than his mothers bland cooking?

The child does not understand that his parents work, that they have bills to pay. He doesn't understand the reality that his parents might be having trouble making ends meet. He has no experience in this world. He cannot fathom the way that money works. He only knows a life where his actions have no bearing on his livelihood. Food is always available to him; he cannot starve. Shelter is available to him; he cannot freeze to death. Even if he were to shoplift, his worst punishment won't involve jail. He'll get sent to his room... hardly a punishment in the age of technology.

Of course he thinks his life isn't fair when he doesn't get a brand new Nintendo. He sees his friends have one, so it only stands to reason that he should have one.

Luckily for us, this phase is something most of us grow out of. We expect this from a child because he has yet to have the perspective to allow him to understand that his friend's Nintendo was purchased with real money, that his friend's parents had to work extra to get. Eventually our spoiled brat grows up and pays his own way. And he learns that your fortune is that which you make of it.

In many ways, women have no such epiphany. Society is structured in such a way that women will never truly understand the hardships of life. They don't have to do the dirty jobs. They don't face the selective service at 18. They can start a fight and expect others to fight it for them (and others will go to prison for it). All she knows is the protected perspective of a child.

How could we expect her to be anything but?

Women watch the people around them and expect the same outcomes. The same privileges. The same benefits. The same money. The same everything. Because they don't have the same perspective, they simply cannot fathom what it takes to get what they see.

How could we ever take them as anything but children?

Our society listens to these overgrown children. We listen to them with all ears, in earnest. Women aren't earning as much? Say it ain't so! Quick let's come to the rescue and literally just give women extra cash. They deserve it!

How could you see what these women are saying and take it seriously? How could any woman ever be taken seriously knowing what we know? When you see these women complain about money, but not one of them takes the job on an oil rig, in a coal mine, or as the garbage man? Why wouldn't we as a society collectively laugh at the machinations of an overgrown child?

When you see them claim that they need safety. That new legislation must be provided to bring safety to women. How is this different than the child demanding Pizza Hut when he dislikes his mother's cooking? He is completely unaware that there are children starving in other countries; the privileged child sees nothing but that which concerns him, regardless that he will never know actual hunger in his lifetime.

How could you see these requests and complaints as anything but the tantrums of toddlers overdue for a nap?

Women are children. Absolutely nothing that could ever come from a woman will ever be from any other perspective. Treat them as such.


Women are Children

So I wanted to write this up to serve as a quick reminder, you are dealing with emotionally and intellectually stunted people. Let's explore and analyze these following phrases and experiences:

  • I can't...

Failing to accept their own agency, women often resort to the phrase "I can't." It's a phrase that red pill men work hard to eliminate from our lexicons. "I can't" implies past and future inability. "I haven't yet" implies a struggle towards a goal. "I can't" implies resignation.

It's an obvious sign that this person has not matured beyond the simplicity of a child, whom everybody serves. So trying and failing would be a pointless exercise to them. Beyond this, her mind simply understands that her abilities and skills are innate (as they assume all people are), therefore anything outside the bounds of what seems natural to her are simply outside her bounds. She declares with confidence that she "can't" because she knows this to be true.

  • I don't know why I'm being like this. / I don't know why I did it

Her actions and feelings are outside the purview of her control. Simply put, she believes her actions (however few she mistakenly makes) to have just happened, without influence from her. As with all hypoagency, in an attempt not to be held responsible for actions, women will do everything in their power not to make discernible actions, or when they must, to do so under the guise of plausible deniability (to limit their risk of responsibility and consequence). Likewise, when no shroud of plausibility exists, their minds simply draw a blank, almost as though they are just as surprised with their actions as you are.

Bringing us to my next favorite hypo-agent phrase:

  • I'm trying

The chorus of a woman scorned. Occasionally there will be behaviors that you do not tolerate. Fundamentally, self-improvement seems to be all but outside the grasp of most women, this inability to change is met with another acknowledgement of hypoagency: "I'm trying."

Had you the misfortune of addressing a behavior more than once, the tired phrase gets pulled out for another run, suggesting that the actions she takes are not ones she controls. Her outward actions are a mystery to her, over which she exerts little influence. She tries, begs, even pleads with her body, but her cries go unheard. If only she could change, she very much would like to do so.

The red pill man understands there is only "do" and "do not." There's no "trying" in going to the gym, there is only going and not going. A behavior or attitude is something which must be changed if it is disadvantageous to your goals. This is something our little snowflake will never grasp. And as the children they are, they shouldn't be expected to.

  • The shut down

When confronted with something difficult, overwhelming, or confusing, you notice she shuts down. She cannot process things, she is unable to react. It can be extremely frustrating, especially during a conversation that might be entirely logical and rational to you, yet she goes blank and unresponsive. You (or something/someone) have overwhelmed her simple mind, and now we must wait for her to re-emerge. If she does it properly, she will re-emerge potentially when the threat has passed, well after you (the adult) have taken care of things.

While most red pill men understand that living in the here and now is crucial to survival and success, women enjoy the luxury of turning off when needed, and the freedom to be accepted for doing so.

Imagine if during something as dangerous as a life threatening scenario, or as important as a business meeting, a red pill man were allowed to simply go silent and fail to react until they are more comfortable. Surely they would be eaten or fail. But instead, we do not expect children to make tough, quick, life decisions when the time comes. We give them room and space to breathe. This is within their nature, this is who they are.


This is not a post of anger, resentment, or hatred. Instead, it is a reminder to us all that these are the people we are dealing with. To treat them as adults and have similar expectations of them would be a mismanagement and a failure on your part to properly lead. There is a reason we usher women and children first onto the life boats. They cannot fend for themselves.

Do not expect them to act, reason, and process life and their surroundings the way you do as a man. Instead, understand that she is a child, and ultimately relies on you to be her anchor in reality. She needs you to lead. The more you expect from her, the less either of you two will get from each other.


[–]yeahwhat12345 83 points84 points  (62 children)

Just out of curiosity... What is your basis for the assertions that women are "safe from almost all danger" and that having a child "puts little to no actual burden on a woman"?

[–]RedDeadCred 44 points45 points  (20 children)

I assume he means that women are the victims of less crime (fact) and providing for a child is taken care of by child support and or welfare.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 73 points74 points  (13 children)

This.

Women are less so victims of violent crime, less represented in armed forces, not eligible for drafts, will have men aid them in public confrontations (proxy power), can literally attack others without fear of reprisal (police and on-looker proxy power). Sure they're not all zero risk, but they're considerably less so than men.

Followed by having a child. Women have 100% option (they can abort or keep), and they know that the state will provide them assistance or put a man on the hook. For men, that's all risk.

[–]CantSwingACat 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Worth pointing out that women are less likely to commit violent crimes. If anyone here has a problem with the number of men falling victim to violent crime, they should be asking what it is that makes other men commit such offences.

Also, the suggestion that women have the option to abort a baby is just wrong. In many parts of the world abortion is illegal and even in the places where it is legal, some women are unable to access it.

[–]TheReformist94 34 points35 points  (5 children)

Why the fuck would this comment be classified as controversial? Sub is full of cucks

[–]yeahwhat12345 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Honestly, there's so much flawed logic in this, I can't even be bothered to thoroughly respond. I was hoping someone would give me some statistics or scientific fact to back up these claims, rather than more theory and opinion.

[–]iFARTONMEN 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There it is, the "I can't even"

[–]DoctorBees69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you see the tag up there? The one that says "Red Pill Theory"?

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Andthentherewasbacon 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Be...cause all humans are safe from almost all danger and most humans live an impossibly cushy life better than the best of kings a hundred years ago? This guy accidentally proved that adults are older children.

[–]Man_Jose 33 points34 points  (36 children)

I have a great analogy for you.

A woman who doesn't care about her life, doesn't really put effort to make herself better, doesn't earn....WILL STILL SURVIVE.

A man who doesn't care about his life, doesn't really put in the effort to make himself better, doesn't earn...will be thrown to dogs.

Think of danger scenarios:

In a war:

Enemies kill men and rape women. Who survived?

In a famine/drought/extreme proverty situation:

The king/ruler/man with most resources kills men (or makes them their slave). Women are taken in as polygamous wives. Who survived?

In a terrorist controlled place:

Terrorists capture hostages. Men get killed. Women get raped. Who survived?

In patriarchal societies:

Man doesn't work and earn money, the woman's father disallows consummation. Man commits suicide or dies loner. For a woman, there is always a line of men (as long as she looks good). Who survived?

In a first world country:

Men fuck up their lives, they have to earn to stop being homeless and die (fuck up includes divorce rape). Women fuck up their lives, there's nanny state. Who survived?

Since ancient times, women have ALWAYS survived. Men ensured it (either by gathering resources or making rules, laws, religion or even killing other men).

Women just don't have survival instincts. They don't. They really don't care about survival. Men do. Husbands do. Fathers do. Brothers do.

Man's biggest insecurity is survival. Woman's biggest insecurity is rape. This is instinctual, not some culturally induced pseudo-science. Women really are "safe from all dangers (instinctively)".

Seriously, don't let women take your survival in her hands. She's not capable of understanding how important it is to you.

Also, don't worry about her sexuality. Let her worry about it. If she brings drama to your security, tell her to fuck off.

[–]SecretTrumpFan 29 points30 points  (12 children)

There is a lot on this sub I find interesting. I do however feel the need to point out the flawed argument here. Rape doesn't always end with being raped. Many times rape victims are also murdered.

Adding "Wartime Sexual Violence" to the mix, and you can't easily say women have it easier. Yazidi women hardly have it easy. (Note, wartime sexual violence isn't exclusive to women) Omarska is an example of this and often, the only reason a woman is freed after being raped repeatedly is when she becomes pregnant. Genocidal rape doesn't exactly set women up in a cushy "oh, I can have an abortion and live a completely normal life" scenario.

Aside from war, rape is a big deal. Speaking from experience, it isn't only emotionally painful, but physically as well.

However, I do think it is incredibly important that sexual violence isn't pinned on all men. I know more men that are good than men who are not. I don't blame all men for what happened to me. I don't let being raped define me (although, I can understand why women do allow it to define them)

But, during war in particular, women do not always survive.

[–]Man_Jose 8 points9 points  (7 children)

My post wasn't intended to show that women don't get murdered at all, or that rape doesn't end in murder.

What it intended to show was the BIGGEST insecurities in men vs women.

Most men feel a survival insecurity, deep within our instincts. Women, feel rape insecurity, everyday, even in very safe environments.

These insecurities are so natural, so ingrained in us that our lives are shaped around it. Men try to build a moat, life-safety net around themselves, all over the world, in every culture. Women try to protect their bodies, all over the world, in every culture.

[–]yeahwhat12345 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Historically, more women do survive than men in wars. I believe the estimate for WWII is 25% of casualties were women. Therefore, according to class redpill logic, women are safe in wars! Tada!

[–]Kingern 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think war in this analogy is more on the order of a bloody battle in a field somewhere and less the carpet bombing of densely populated cities

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

You present some interesting points. This would have been mostly true especially in ancient times, but not today.

Your point that women struggle less than men isn't absolute since it's not biological, it's societal. I can apply that to white people vs black, or to Americans vs "developing" countries. Have you ever been so hungry, you could possibly die? I doubt it. If an American fucks up, here is the government with their food stamps and social services coming to the rescue. The American poverty threshold is so lenient, that it's set to around 50 times my country's poverty line. (Yes, food is more expensive in your country but it's never 50x as expensive. Jesus.)

So should I say something like: How could we ever expect Americans to be anything but children?

Using drugs? No problem! There are lots rehabilitation programs available for you. People will treat you as a poor addicted soul who only needs to be saved. In my country, the president himself wants them killed without due process.

Should I say something like: How could we ever take them as anything but?

NO. Because that's a hasty generalization. I'm sure you westerners with your fancy lives and high-paid garbage men have more comfortable, almost consequence-free lives than people from developing countries, but I will not pretend that you don't have your set of problems as well. I will not pretend that I'm the only one has to face sufferings and harsh consequences. I will not pretend that you won't be able to achieve emotional maturity.

We all say "I can't" once in a while, because there are literally things some of us can't do. Many also say "I don't know why I did it" when they've lost control of their emotions, even alpha men with guns. Sure, there will be tendencies for a certain gender to behave in a certain way because of the hormones present in their body, but it's not absolute.

Your theory is interesting but you are applying it to a false dichotomy. Sure, feminism in first-world countries is ridiculous, but hypotheses "theories" like this, which wasn't even made from an actual study with real data, are obsolete.

awaiting downvotes. I'm not disagreeing just for the sake of it. Your theory just lacks logic.