The rise of Red Pill philosophy and neo‑misogyny 

Ciaran Colleran analyses the emergence of right wing ‘men’s rights’ groups

(Pic: flickr/thomasthomas)
(Pic: flickr/thomasthomas)

‘Men’s Right’s Activism’ and Red Pill Philosophy first revealed itself to the public in 2014 when Elliot Rodgers, who was associated with the movement, went on a murderous rampage, killing six people. In his online tirades against women he repeatedly referred to the jargon connected with the philosophy: ‘Alpha, Beta, Incel’. It has been suggested that his hatred of women was fuelled by this online ideological echo chamber that validated and amplified his sickness.

More recently, the unapologetic Red Pill proponent Roosh V (Daryush Valizdah) was prevented from giving his seminars in England. Roosh wanted ‘Red Pillers’ (terpers) to start stepping out from behind the anonymity of the internet. He arranged meet-ups in various countries of men who subscribe to his site. However, these meetings were stopped in their tracks as the left organised on social media to confront and disrupt them.

Roosh V is the owner of the right wing website known as Return of Kings (ROK). It aims for the return of what he terms ‘Neo‑Masculinity’, to ‘foster masculinity in an age where masculinity is under attack’. He is also the author of many self-published books that offer advice to men on how to ‘pick up’ women and have sex with them. In 2015 he was vehemently criticised for a post titled ‘How to Stop Rape’, where he argued that the best way to stop rape was to legalise it.

Roosh has argued, implausibly, that this article was Swiftian satire. It seems that whenever ‘Red Pillers’ are called out and attacked for their vile misogyny, they resort to this weak defence. They then go on the attack, stating that the left has ‘no humour’ because it is crippled by political correctness. ‘Humorous’ titles on ROK range from “Five reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder” to “5 reasons fat girls don’t deserve love”. Other articles cover weight lifting, diet, self-improvement and ‘game’ (how to seduce women). Women and LGBT contributors are banned because the site is a ‘safe space’ for heterosexual men to discuss ‘heterosexual‑male‑related issues’.

Red Pill philosophy inhabits the ‘manosphere’ (a loose collection of internet sites that focus on men’s issues). It owes its existence to the Pick Up Artists craze of the late 1990s and early 2000s. What makes the Red Pill different from its earlier manifestation is that it takes the basic thesis of ‘game theory’ (how to seduce women), and runs with it, extending its application to all facets of life. The resulting perspective is a detailed, right wing political conspiracy theory which blames society for creating the illusion that women are oppressed.

Terpers proclaim the exact opposite is the case.

Terpers want to assert a reimagined masculinity in the face of a ‘politically correct world’, which they believe has emasculated and feminised men. This is the common thread linking all Red Pill websites and forums. They reject outright the idea that gender is a social construct and invokes various evolutionary psychological arguments. They argue that there is an absolute biological and neurological difference between men and women and that men have been ‘fooled by society’ into thinking that both genders are the same. Indeed, ‘Waking up to one’s masculinity’ means throwing off the ‘shackles’ of what they term ‘The Blue Pill World’ and taking the Red Pill just like Neo! (Yes, these are direct references to the Matrix). This entails men learning to be dominant in all aspects of life, including romantic relationships. Make no mistake, ‘dominant’ here means rejecting women’s sexual and political liberation and practising what can only be described as systematic emotional abuse in order to (try) to manipulate women into a submissive relationship.

Beyond the jargon it all boils down to an infantile male complaint that is saturated with patriarchal sexual entitlement; ‘women don’t want to sleep with nice guys, they only want to sleep with douchebags’. This is the centre of Red Pill Philosophy – everything else is a footnote. They believe, with fanatical faith, that ‘assholes who manage to seduce women’ embody the pure manifestation of ‘raw masculinity’ that women find irresistible, and only the Red Pill philosophy holds the key to becoming one of these ‘Alpha Males’. Terpers believe that all women put men into two camps:

  • The Alpha male, a man who women view as a short term, fun sexual partner. This is a man who has the best genetic material and with whom women want to have easy non-committal sex.
  • The Beta male, a man who does not measure up in physical attributes compared to the Alpha, but is seen as a good provider for long term relationships.

Terpers believe that Betas are pond scum, someone to be used and abused. Indeed, many posts start with ‘I am so ashamed when I think back to my Blue Pill Beta days’. There are also many posts that depict how Betas deserve what they get as they are the ones who have unquestionably ‘swallowed the blue pill lie’. If there is one thing these guys hate more than women, it is Betas. Any man who is seen sticking up for a woman is labelled a ‘mangina/whiteknight’ and quickly ostracised.

This dualism between Alpha and Beta ties directly into their confusing hatred for women who enjoy sex with multiple partners – confusing because most of the philosophy revolves around learning how to get women to sleep with them. Nevertheless, terpers believe that women look for Alphas in their youth to have lots of no-strings-attached sex with. Simultaneously, they believe these same women ‘friendzone’ Betas in order to extrapolate emotional resources and support, while the aloof Alpha gets what the Beta so desperately desires: causal sex. This leads to their dictum ‘Alpha fux, Beta Bux’: meaning Alphas for sex, Betas for money and resources.

Not surprisingly, these reactionaries are giving their full backing to Donald Trump in the US presidential election. Very recently, a prominent Red Pill poster who goes by the offensive online moniker ‘Gaylubeoil’ appeared on talk-show called ‘Full Frontal’ to discuss why he supports Trump. His contribution involved calling host Samantha Bee a ‘trickle-down media whore’. Furthermore, on the Reddit subreddit ‘The Red Pill’, there are many posts describing what a wonderful Alpha Trump is. Additionally, the insult ‘Cuckservative’, is used to describe those traditional conservatives who have no problem with immigration and is an example of Red Pill terminology leaking into the wider right wing discourse. A ‘cuck’ (short for ‘cuckold’) is a man who is ‘happy to let other men have intercourse with his wife’. For these men, Donald Trump is no ‘Cuckservative’, he is the only one who is willing to ‘uncuck the right’.

When reading terper material, I found myself feeling a mixture of deep anger and pity for the men that read this stuff religiously. Many of them actually write about how things were better before they ‘swallowed the Red Pill’. I can’t express enough how toxic their ideology is. It manipulates working class male insecurities in a changing world and preys upon their vulnerabilities. It takes very real, alienating economic forces and places the blame solely on women’s shoulders. They live in a world where they cannot trust women; where they are told that a woman cannot love a man in the same way that he loves her; where the only way to keep a woman who they care about in their lives is to manipulate and emotionally abuse them.

A Marxist Response

Clive Martin recently wrote a controversial piece for Vice magazine entitled ‘Rise of the douchebag’. On the surface, it seems to harbour prejudice toward working class males. However, beyond the vitriolic language which typifies Vice, Clive touches on something pertinent: the masculinity crisis. His article focuses on the rise of a new type of male, who has risen out of the debris of modern, late capitalism. The ‘douchebag’, for Martin, is characterised by a proclivity for what can only be seen as ‘hyper-masculinity’, obsessed with aesthetics and the bedding of women that comes from his endless focus on it.

This same phenomenon has been described as creating the ‘spornosexuals’ by journalist Mark Simpson – a neologism that fuses together porn star, sports star and sexual. He argues that this is the next evolutionary stage from the metrosexual. Max Olesker of Esquire, who expands on this, writes:

‘He [the spornosexual] defines himself less by the clothes he wears than by his HD-ready body, which is perpetually ready to be ogled on the beach, admired on the high street as it bursts out of a skin-tight plunging V-neck T-shirt, or rubbed-up-against under the flickering strobe of an Essex nightclub.’

I believe that this phenomenon is related, albeit different, to the rise of the Red Pill. Indeed it shares many traits – 1) The injunction to lift weights, 2) The focus on aesthetics, 3) The objectification of women.

If these aforementioned pieces reflect the outward manifestation of a type of desperate return to an idealised form of masculinity, then the Red Pill can be perceived as a facet of its theoretical basis and an online justification, albeit with a deep right wing twist. That said, I do believe that Red Pill and the spornosexual are ultimately different things, though related. However, the rise of terpers and spornosexuals have the same cause. Clive Martin writes:

… whilst it’s easy to scorn the banality-and vanity of the modern British douchebag, they’re only products of their environment. An environment that has very little to offer them anymore, other than gym memberships, intentionally ripped clothes, alcohol and creatine [a muscle‑building supplement]. The institutions that gave British men a sense of wellbeing have been ripped apart. Nobody trusts the police any more: nobody wants to join the army because no one believes in its wars; traditional industries have been decimated and the only thing to replace them is stifling, mind-numbing positions in service and retail. Because of this, British men have tried to reimagine masculinity, in a hyper-realised, childish, desperate way. A new kind of machismo, built on fake bravado and vanity.

This analysis is where I believe a Marxist analysis of Red Pill philosophy should start. Rather than just condemning their theory as a type of evil that is born out of nothing, we must understand aspects of patriarchy as being tied to new manifestations of late capitalism. As it spirals further out of control, new forms of reaction from its alienated victims will create new ways of simplifying the complexity of their cause of distress. The Red Pill is a symptom of toxic capitalism which drags the frail vestiges of male identity further into its machinations. Indeed, as the plasticity and fluidity of capitalism dissolves ancient structures, in order to make new ones that further benefit the accumulation of capital for the 1%, working class men are left adrift without a sense of identity. This lack of identity in turn, creates a desire for wholeness, a suture that can alleviate the pain of modern existence. However, as Slavoj Žižek would point out, this solution exists in the realm of the imaginary. In order for their proposed solution to exist, terpers need a mirror image which they loathe, yet desperately want to subsume into themselves: women.

The Red Pill, therefore, is a fantasy of male heterosexual wholeness that masks the need for men who have lost all purpose in life. However, rather than fight inequality and institutions that cause exploitation, terpers are told to ‘man up’, suck it up and float to the top of the pile; become the exploiter not exploited. These are alienated men who, between endless, fruitless work and a sense of purposelessness, find temporary relief in a manipulative fantasy that fuses male entitlement and utopian ideas of sexually successful men, sports stars and businessmen under the grim title of Alpha. ‘The Dreamers’, a movie by Bernardo Bertolucci, attempts to show what romantic relationships would look like outside the realms of economic injunctions. If ‘The Dreamers’ attempts to show what revolutionary love is, that is, a love life that is free from the forces of production, then the Red Pill shows what relationships look like when capitalism saturates every aspect of a relationship. Love is subsumed into a crude exchange of goods: a woman’s sex in exchange for a man’s commitment. Sex becomes an expression of power, and our worth (our sexual market value) is only found in the fluctuating vicissitudes of what terpers call ‘the sexual market place’.

A Marxist response, therefore, sees The Red Pill as a symptom of capitalism and the need for revolution itself as an answer to the supposed masculinity crisis. Questions of gender identity are irrevocably bound up in a world of economic scarcity – a revolutionary challenge to these conditions must, by necessity, revolutionalise these identities and relations. Getting into online arguments with these people will lead nowhere. The best way to combat them is to continue to protest the physical presence of people like Roosh and to fight against economic inequality as part of a movement that challenges every manifestation of oppression as counter to all of our interests.

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2016 issue of the rs21 magazine


  1. “The Red Pill is a symptom of toxic capitalism”.Wow,writes the article the person using a computer,internet to upload to people to tak about it using capitalist system with all goods many people use every day in the world in most developed countries.So a feminist’s point of view is “Sexism,opression and misogyny stop us everywhere, however we have access to career,entertinment,health services,banking system,education,travel and shopping whenever we want ,but from other hand we must stop men to have free speech despite we claim to be feminist which state 50/50.When people invent things others would use they do not limit it to specific gender.Even a vibrator many women use was created by man.Feminists take everything for granted still complaining how opressed they are.I see no indications where women are so opressed.Fantasy theories.Ask any any economists (including women) where data show women to be paid (not earn) different rate for same position with same our hours worked.I can not see news everyday on tv or radio women making cases in courts against employers to be paid less.I treat feminism as activists using people’s emotions them to believe in something which is only a theory not backed by facts.Most feminists write articles with assumptions in every sentence.”He must have smallest….”,”he is not a real man”,”they are sad men coz they were rised in single parent family”.But those are only theories.Your eorld is built of theories and those brain wash many women telling them that men are their enemies.Then those young women go online and cry out being depressed which deepens and men become more happy as surveys state.Facts matter,theories must be proven!

  2. Yes, revolutionary socialism never existed before Roosh V and without him we have no purpose. In the US, Stephen King is worried about the alleged growing hysteria about clowns on the eve of his new clown film. The self-publicist should use you as an example of the phenomenon here before ‘It’ premiers in the UK.

  3. It’s you who is trolling, you need Roosh V to justify your pitiful and empty existence. Without Roosh V being the bogeyman, you have no movement at all.

  4. stop putting your words in my mouth!

    are you capable of intelligent debate? what is actually wrong with anything Roosh V said in the video above?
    He is merely stating an opinion you don’t like.

    I’ve never been to a Roosh V event and i have no interest in going. I only heard of him through the publicity provided by people like you, professional activists who want a whipping boy and a cause celebre.

    …like a slave owner.”

    made me laugh that one.
    In your opinion, is this song homophobic?

  5. As someone who thinks rape is a joke you’re not just sick but dangerous to women and the men whose minds you poison with this bigotry. The logic of your defense is like a slave owner feigning disbelief when accused of treating people abusively. I can’t spell it out any clearer. If you at least attempted an intelligent debate instead of parroting the same mindless Roosh V propaganda then perhaps your trolling wouldn’t be so dull and predictable. Obviously such childish game playing goes down well with your juvenile mates at Roosh V events but the rest of the world expects so much better. I’m sure you’ll confirm all this with your next pro forma post.

  6. Hi RayB,

    if you want to see yourself as a victim, you can continue to delude yourself. who are you to say that a mind is ‘poisoned’? what does this mean?

    challeging this ‘sick’ attitude is not stalinist, but the tactics of throwing labels to paint someone is the worst possible light is very stalinist.

    you have made two value judgements ‘sick’ and ‘poisoned’.

    It is you who has a sick and poisoned mind, looking for an imaginary enemy to pick upon who is also rather defenceless.

    I assume you have a ‘healthy’ ie not ‘sick’, and that your mind is not poisoned by any ‘bigotry’.

    you are the biggest bigot yourself.

    what is wrong with this: some of what he says is true:

  7. “you are not a victim of Roosh V’s opinions”

    Everyone is a victim of his bigotry because it poisons minds including yours sadly. Continually lying to defend him is, according to you, honest but anyone challenging this sick attitude is a Stalinist. Only a hypocrite could defend the indefensible.

  8. Hi Ray B

    I haven’t called anyone Stalin or Pol Pot. I think your tactics of coming up with big words to dismiss someone else’s opinion is similar to Stalinist methods.

    you are not a victim of Roosh V’s opinions, and if you don’t like them, i dont see who is forcing you to read his stuff or watch his videos.

    as far as i’m aware, Roosh V hasn’t defended rape or the abuse of women at all, its people like you who allege that he is doing that, but if one checks up, he is not.

    see you on the next slutwalk!

  9. You aren’t here to defend free speech or to have a debate. You call critics Pol Pot and Stalin. That’s a tactic to shut down debate. You’re here to shut down opposition to bigotry by lying about a sexist thug who advocates rape and to defend the abuse of women as a source of humor. You can’t deny RooshV made those sexist remarks so you try to excuse them as a joke. No one has to tolerate such vicious bigotry and everyone has the right to defend themselves from it. Tough shit if that ruins your sexist entertainment.

  10. Hi Ray B

    I don’t want to shut down your voice, i am not the one calling for “The best way to combat them is to continue to protest the physical presence of people like Roosh”

    you are dishonest Ray B, you alread prejudge someone with terms like ‘bigot’, accusations of things that can’t really be backed up, and then put words into my mouth “but you want to shut down the voices of those who are critical of this.”

    I don’t want to shut down voices critical of this, i just don’t think it is a real issue, and most of the accusations of Roosh V are overblown.

    what makes you think you have the right to decide what people can and cannot say?

  11. “I defend the right of Roosh V’s free speech, even if i don’t agree with his opinions.”

    You defend a bigot who advocates rape and jokes about it but you want to shut down the voices of those who are critical of this. So you do believe that in limits to freedom of speech so long as it suits your agenda.

  12. Hi pplswar,

    i am not aware that he does advocate rape and sexual assault. He is accused of this from a satirical article.
    i suppose i simply don’t believe the things that are being alleged about him. that doesn’t mean i support his views, but i get the impression he is being made a scapegoat to rile up the activists over a non issue.

    Roosh V is a non issue, and he is in no way comparable to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
    just mud slinging.
    Has he ever been convicted of rape? no.
    can you point to me the article where he does advocate rape and sexual assault?
    Is humour and satire not possible anymore?

    Like Germaine Greer, I don’t really believe men can become women, transgender etc. does that mean i hate them? no. should i be silenced and shouted down and called a fascist just because I don’t believe an extremely questionable theory?

    this is the problem i have with the campaign against Roosh V. it seems much like a manufactured issue, i suspect.

    I defend the right of Roosh V’s free speech, even if i don’t agree with his opinions.

  13. Advocating rape and sexual assault is not a political opinion any more than Al-Qaeda’s or ISIS’s advocacy of suicide bombings targeting civilians is a political opinion. Both are examples of incitement and therefore disqualified from the protections afforded to political speech.

  14. You did have a problem with the article in your earlier posts but because you won’t or can’t use your freedom to speak on this blog to discuss these disagreements you are now moving the goal posts. When you present a rational argument rather than posting Roosh V video propaganda and calling anyone who disagrees with you Pol Pot then perhaps we will have one. Until then unfortunately you’ll carry on enjoying Roosh V’s sick jokes about rape and continue to try to convince everyone that abusing women is humorous. Freedom of speech is not an automatic right. People have fought and died for those rights so don’t think you can abuse them to discriminate against others for your own sick entertainment.

  15. Hi Ray B

    my problem is not with the article, nor with Roosh V. it is people like you who think they have a god given right to stop other people’s opinions. the ‘no platform’ was originally for fascists, ie BNP, NF etc. it is not meant for anybody who simply has a different view to the ‘left’.

    Roosh V wrote a satirical article, which the ‘legalize rape’ comes from. it was not a serious article!
    it seems to me that no other views apart from politically correct views are now allowed.

    Roosh V may be a ‘demagogue’ to you but perhaps you are a demagogue to him. this kind of name calling will get you nowhere, as anybody can do it.

    as far as i can see, you and people like you simply can’t stand anybody else’s opinions that are different to yours, and you feel a need to shout everybody down.

    we are not getting anywhere with this, i was mistaken to think that a rational conversation was even possible.

  16. The worrying thing is that you let Roosh V speak for you instead of sharing your own point of view on the issues raised in the article. Rather than responding to what the person wrote in the article, you post random videos and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being Pol Pot or Stalin. When I point the problems with this method of debate, you claim that this is restricting your freedom of speech. What a dishonest strategy you use to promote Roosh V. He taught you well.

  17. Ray B

    you are not a rational person.

    You seem convinced that you are the spokesman and champion of the working classes. but you’re not.
    You seem to think you have a god given right to shout down anybody that has a different point of view.

    that’s what is worrying, more than Roosh V’s supposed views.

  18. “you are simply dismissing him using big words from marxism”

    Wanted to address this because I think it exemplifies the strategy these demagogues use to control their followers. They promote a stereotype of working class people as an irrational mass controlled by their emotions. Instead of trying to understand the points of disagreement, ponty complains about the terminology used on a Marxist forum. Roosh V cultivates this reaction because it prevents his followers questioning his irrational agenda and ensures that they passively follow him. I’m sure this point has been made many times before to ponty so it’s unlikely now to encourage him or her to stop trolling and engage with the points raised in this article.

  19. So far you haven’t engaged with any of the points made in this article. Like an typical troll you just keep posting more vile propaganda made by these bigots while they exploit your prejudices to make money and live the lifestyle they believe they are entitled to. Stop letting them speak for you and get your own brain into gear. Otherwise carry on mindlessly filling their pockets and massaging their egos like they want you to.

  20. In regards to the odd debate above

    They pretty clearly push an oppositional line against women. They think women are snakes who simply try to extort men’s emotional labor or take their money. Only prostitution is honest to them because all the costs are upfront and the transactional hollow nature of sex relations are displayed. They think women lie, abuse feminism, subjugate the men in their lives, and so on.

    And for biological differences between the sexes, the ones that are actually relevant to this are ones about weakness and a supposed propensity for women to cheat and lie.

    This is all crazy nonsense. No one on the actual left has ever suggested that men abandon their dignity, that sexual liberation means relationship violence against men, and so on. If someone does then ballocks to them. But I’ve read Roosh V’s writing, and he clearly advocates doing things that under the law are sexual assault. He advises men to distrust and subvert women.

    You may not agree with no platforming but in so far as someone would support it, it would apply to someone publishing advice on (and committing) sexual assault.

  21. Hi Ray B

    you say:
    “This article clearly deals with all the main arguments put forward by these vile homophobic, sexist and racist demagogues. So instead of posting more bigoted nonsense by Roosh V, who advocates rape, why not actually address the critique set out by this article? ”
    I say:
    it doesn’t. Roosh V is simply called a number of nasty names, which you repeat, ‘bigoted nonsense’, etc.

    the word ‘bigotry’ is doing a lot of work for you. any opinion you don’t like is ‘bigoted’?

    Roosh V doesn’t advocate rape. I don’t know about petty bourgeois, your favourite word. as far as i’m aware, you are probably just as much petty bourgeois if not more than Roosh V.

    My problem is that I get the impression you and RS21 really can’t tolerate different opinions, and if anybody dares to question some minor aspect of sexual ‘liberation’, they are a bigot, petty bourgeois etc etc.

    Neither this article nor you are making any critique of Roosh V, you are simply dismissing him using big words from marxism. unfortunately, this is what the stalinists used to do, and it is what you do.

  22. This article clearly deals with all the main arguments put forward by these vile homophobic, sexist and racist demagogues. So instead of posting more bigoted nonsense by Roosh V, who advocates rape, why not actually address the critique set out by this article? Of course you can’t because, like I pointed out previously, their bigotry is undeniable so instead you employ the tactic of trying to derail the debate by posting platitudes about these petit bourgeois demagogues being misunderstood. If you’re going to defend them then at least have the guts to defend what they actually believe in rather than insult us with your Narnian spin.

  23. Hi Ray B

    you are simply a stalinist of a different stripe. You haven’t dealth with anything that Roosh V says, but simply call him a ‘vile demagogue’, petty bourgeois’ etc etc. It is you who is making crass generalizations, not me.

    I am not defending Roosh V, but i have checked his stuff, and i can’t see anything that he’s said or done that warrants this kind of response.

    I’m afraid Ray B you are simply an ideologue, and cannot tolerate different opinions.

    Is Roosh V really privileged? any more than you or any number of people in groups such as RS21? It is you who are duplicitous.

    I am not here to support Roosh V, but am alarmed by this kind of stalinist name calling Ray B indulges in.

  24. The vicious bigots who are promoting this reactionary propaganda are overwhelmingly from the petit bourgeoisie. They cynically use class rhetoric to hide their privileged background and elitist attitudes. They are from the same reactionary rump who lead right wing populist movements such as the Tea Party and UKIP. The way to stop them is to build campaigns to expose their vile bigotry and protest against them when ever and where ever they raise their heads.

    There is no point in engaging in debate with these reactionary demagogues because they lie about their beliefs and try to derail any debate by claiming that anyone disputing the continuation of their elite and privileged status is an oppressor. Unfortunately some people like ponty are either fooled by this duplicitous rhetoric or use special pleading as a wedge to promote more reactionary nonsense.

    Their usual debating tactic is to make a generalization that one of these vile demagogues “has a point” without specifying what that point is and then to smear anyone who disputes this as either a fascist or Stalinist. These right wing demagogues use the tactic of making crass generalisations and then offer slight concessions once they’ve either created or shifted the political agenda. Trump is their model. We don’t have to play by these duplicitous rules.

  25. Hi,

    I don’t agree with some of your suggestions ie “The best way to combat them is to continue to protest the physical presence of people like Roosh and to fight against economic inequality as part of a movement that challenges every manifestation of oppression as counter to all of our interests.”

    Roosh V is allowed a voice, unless you have gone full on stalinist. do you believe in free speech? if not, who are you to stop other people’s opinions?

    its also wrong to start your article with Elliot Rodgers, its a bit like having an article on Marxism and beginning with Pol Pot and Stalin.

    I don’t agree with Roosh V and the MRA. However, i do see that Roosh V and others like him have a point, which you haven’t addressed.

    For instance, you say of them:
    “They reject outright the idea that gender is a social construct and invokes various evolutionary psychological arguments. They argue that there is an absolute biological and neurological difference between men and women and that men have been ‘fooled by society’ into thinking that both genders are the same. ”

    I also reject the idea that gender is a social construct. this is simply the truth. Germaine Greer and other feminists say the same thing. to say so is not to be a reactionary or right wing or anything else.

  26. I wonder how we can win this fight when so many on the left don’t even want to abolish the sexual marketplace.

    And I think the spornosexual arguments that came out a few months ago were flawed. Like men in prison, weight lifting is a way to pass the time, feel better physically (exercise helps deal with depression and alienation), prevent gaining weight, and then, obviously, be more attractive (which even feminist men would want because who wouldn’t?).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here