Transcription
The red pill, as a sort of a terminology, was created or was like, we got bounced around back in the day in the old seduction communities and the uh seduction forums, and we didn't even really call it red pill at that time. We said, "Unplugging from the matrix," right? Because I believed all of these things about like women. I've been playing by the rules. I've been playing by the old set of, you know, rule book, and I've got nothing. But I'm, I'm single and sexless, and I, it doesn't work for me, kind of thing. And I believed all this stuff.
And then when men understand their own nature, and they understand women's nature, and they understand the intersectional dynamics between the two of them, then they sort of pull themselves out of this matrix and they start putting themselves into, uh, you know, came, came out of the gaming community, meaning like pickup artists and stuff of the early 2000s, which evolved into what we call the manosphere and what we call the, the red pill right now. "You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." And if he swallows the red pill, the scales will be peeled back from his eyes. He will see everything that he hasn't been able to see. And if he takes the blue pill, he'll just go back to sleep and live in his sort of unaware, semiccomos state forever and probably be a lot happier. It's, it's a pretty apt analogy.
So, what is the blue pill in this world?
Well, the blue pill is the paradigm that most people live by. That men have all the power, that they've always had all the power, that domestic violence is a problem that's committed by men against women only. That sexual assaults are only committed by men against women, that women don't make the same money for the same work as men. Men commit domestic violence. We need to stop violence against women instead of just stopping violence. That is feminist training. My name is Paul Elum, and you can find out more about me at paulilum.com. I'm on Twitter, Facebook, and all the blah blah blah. You reach me at any of those places.
What's the difference between Paul Elen's red pill and Rolo Tamasi's red pill?
We're coming out of the gate strong. I see. Okay. Well, let me see. How can I put this? My idea of the red pill was always about men's autonomy and independence and their personal growth outside of the realm of women. And from what I've seen of Rolo's work, I read his book, one of them anyway. I read "The Rational Male." I've seen a lot of his podcasts. And his work, at least in my opinion, tends to emulate certain Machiavellian tendencies and is about manipulation, control. Um, not things that, uh, if you're interested in a relationship with a woman, not things that build a relationship, but things that ultimately undermine them.
Why was the original Red Pill movie all about male disposability and men's rights, but the Red Pill movement is all about self-improvement and dating advice?
Because the red pill movement as we see it today isn't red pill, it's blue pill. It's about pursuing women. It's about winning at any cost. It's about, I think, a lot of ego, a lot of grandiosity. Um, and almost nothing about personal values, integrity, or the things that actually make a man's life better.
Why was there no mention of a high value man during the men's rights discussions of the past?
I think we assumed that men were high value to begin with. Uh, if, if you have to point somebody toward being high value, of course, you're addressing a problem. And I, and, and don't get me wrong, I think there's some real benefit to this stuff, to pursuing better jobs, better health, uh, better status, even. I, I think those things are worthwhile goals. But most of what you see today is that they're pursuing higher status, higher value in order to pursue more women. Uh, that, to me, defeats the purpose. If you're, if you truly value yourself, then becoming high value is its own reward in other ways outside the approval or recognition of other people, especially with men, for women.
Why do you no longer work with Warren Ferrell?
I wouldn't say I don't work with Warren. Uh, Warren and I are friends, and he's a dear friend. Um, he's done a lot of great work. Uh, he's currently still pursuing a, a, a White House Council on Men and Boys. I'm skeptic about that effort myself. I think that if we get that council, um, it'll be about, you can set your watch, it'll be about five minutes until feminists take it over and start talking about toxic masculinity because that's what happens in the upper levels of our government. Uh, no matter whose administration it is, it just doesn't matter. Uh, so while it's, I think a very noble idea to try to establish some sort of understanding and recognition for men, the issues that affect men and boys, I don't see our government ever having an agency that actually does that. It's more likely that they're going to run counter to those interests.
What happened to his men's liberation movement?
Well, that's a, a really good question. You may have stumped me a little bit on that. What did happen to it? Um, one thing that happened to it is that they didn't turn it really political. Uh, the men's liberation movement was an extension, an offshoot of feminism. And I think there's some warfall stuff in that in that, uh, the idea was that once women were liberated from gender expectations, that the same would apply to men. Of course, that never happened. Uh, but the idea was there that men could be freed from the onerous financial burdens of women, that women could start carrying more of their own weight with men and taking responsibility and the dreaded accountability. Uh, which that never happened either, and it's not going to. Um, I think what happened was that gyocentrism battled against true men's liberation, and gyocentrism won. Uh, there is, there's been no men's liberation except for a very small percentage, I think, of the so-called red pill community. Uh, there's a small percentage of that community who have liberated themselves. I think the MIGTOW guys have done it a lot. Uh, I think, uh, the rest of it, though, date coaching and PUA and, and all this other stuff, it's just more gyocentrism.
Why hasn't he condemned self-improvement gurus like Andrew Tate and Myron Gaines who want men to become success objects?
My guess would be, I mean, I'm not inside Warren's head, but I know him fairly well. He's not a confrontational person. His, his style is very different from mine. Um, and I, I think it's more in line for Warren to approach ideas than it is to explicitly condemn people. Ed, I, I admire that about him. I mean, that's not a criticism. Uh, but I think he hasn't condemned that lot of so-called red pill guys for the same reason he hasn't really confronted and condemned feminists. Uh, it's just not his style to be that overtly confrontational and combative.
How did we go from men's liberation to now where men are told they have a masculine burden of performance?
Uh, we've always had a masculine burden of performance. I, I, I think the men's liberation was like a little blip on the radar screen. It's just a little bump that happened. The forces of gyocentrism had their way. It crushed that sort of attitude from the, from the beginning. Um, I, I just don't think we got from one to the other. I think we're always have been out. We find different ways to express it. Uh, you know, old school traditionalists will talk about being a great provider and a strong man and appealing to women that way. Well, it's a pretty much the same thing you hear from PUAs. Uh, men, when, when you ask the question, what happened to it? The most honest, direct answer I can give you is that men happened to it. 95% of the male population are just simps. Uh, that's the way it is. And anything you give them, red pill, blue pill, black pill, gold pill, anything that they encounter, they're going to turn around and figure out how to please women with that.
Is men's liberation blue pill by today's standards?
Yes, it always has been. Uh, [clears throat] there is no, at this point, there's no men's liberation. It, it's not happening. Men are still out there trying to earn more money, trying to buy nicer cars, trying to get better jobs, trying to improve themselves, all in the name of attracting women. Um, and of course, it's why you don't hear, when you listen to TradCons, you know, Andrew Wilson and a lot of them, you don't hear them talking about family court. You don't hear them talking about gyocentric laws and all these things. It's just sort of, you know, "man up and marry the hoe and worry about the consequences later." I even heard Tim, I've forgotten Tim's last name, recently talk, uh, about, you, sure, you can meet a woman with purple hair and a nose ring. Uh, just go ahead and marry her and turn her into a Catholic. It's this absolutely bizarre sort of interpretation of the world and rationalization on steroids.
Does feminism benefit men in any way? And if so, how?
I'm going to get hell for this. I'm going to say yes. Feminism ultimately inspired me to become red pill. Feminism, women's demands. "We want to be treated as equals." Well, but special, but we want to be treated as equals. We want to make the same money. We want all these opportunities. We want to compete in the world of men. Um, and we demand that, and we'll crush you if you don't give it to us. It did finally inspire some guys to say, "Well, okay, you can have that. I'm, I'm happy." Yes. Get in the coal mine. Oh, you don't want the coal mine. You want the corner office without having earned it. Uh, I think that sort of behavior in women, and I mean, we're, we're calling it feminism, but this is very female behavior. Uh, that sort of behavior is inspiring guys to walk away, along with the family courts and the rules of dating and, oh, I mean, oh my god, the dating environment. We could go on for an hour about that. It's absolutely insane. Uh, but I think it has prompted guys to rethink, you know, what their role is, what they want their role to be with women. And now we're even having discussions on dowy coming back. Um, probably not going to happen anytime soon, but the fact that we're talking about it is amazing. Um, so I think it, yeah, I think feminism has been helpful. It, it pointed out women's hypocrisy and gave men an actual visible incentive to do things differently.
If feminism frees men from traditional obligations and being a utility, why are men's rights at odds with feminism?
Well, because feminism doesn't do those things. It never did. Feminism was always about female empowerment, entitlement, and shirking accountability for personal failure. Uh, that's all feminism is. I don't care what anybody else says. I think, look, I think it's great. I, I guess I think it's great that women vote. I don't think the outcome has been that great, but constitutionally speaking, it was a decent idea to let women vote. It's a decent idea to let women work and to earn high degrees and to explore their options in life. Uh, but feminism is a liberating force for the sexes? No, man. We've got millions of women right now with two kids at home missing their mother all the time while they're sitting in a cubicle with bags under their eyes because they bought a bill of goods. That, that's empowerment. And all I can say is, welcome to my world. It never was empowerment to be a wage slave.
Why does the manosphere spend so much time focusing on masculinity rather than misandry?
Because the manosphere is populated mostly by insecure simps, uh, trying to acquire some sort of masculinity, and they don't know how, which is why they have coaching programs and, and all these platforms that allege to provide men a pathway to masculinity, uh, when that's something that they'll never get by somebody else's pathway.
Does a man need to be masculine in order to have equal rights?
No, not legally. I don't think.
Does a man need to be masculine in order to have his needs met?
I think so. Yes. Uh, but first, he has to even understand what his needs are. And most men don't. They're inculcated in a way of thinking and living that want makes them assess what women's needs are and what women want. They are not generally even allowed to talk about or think about what they actually want in life other than a woman.
Why are men more concerned with being feminized than with being demonized?
I think that's because they're feminized, and they know it.
Why are men allowed to get angry when they're attacked on their race, religion, or creed, but not when they're attacked simply for being male?
Because it runs up against the feminist narrative. I mean, yes, we've, well, we live in a victim-centered culture and cultural identity, race, skin color, religion, all these things put you in a, a special attention, special education program to garner you sympathy as a victim. But there is no sympathy. And this is why I've, I've really tried to stress to guys over the years, if your idea of a men's movement is some sort of national, uh, mass movement, it's never, ever going to happen. It, it's sad. I, I wish it could, in a way. Uh, but this society runs on women's wants and needs, and it has for a thousand years.
Why does the manosphere recognize Norah Vincent and men having a harder life, yet we have all of these manosphere coaches telling men to embrace the very same manhood?
That's a very good question. Um, and I, I think it again, it, it goes back, it's a complicated story, but basically over the past few hundred years, it started a thousand years ago, but we started an ethos, in particularly in the West, and it happens in India and other countries too, that the romantic ethos, which is that women are elevated and more important than men. And you had to, hit me with your question again. I sort of lost my train of thought there.
Why does the manosphere recognize Norah Vincent and men having a harder life, yet we have all of these manosphere coaches telling men to embrace the very same manhood?
Because they're still chasing tail. Uh, I mean, that's the simplest answer. What they're telling men, and, and let's, so we don't just condemn the platforms and the people doing this, they're selling what men want to buy. Men want to buy the idea that if they're more masculine, they'll get more women. It always goes back to the, to the women. So, it's an easy sell. Uh, even though the, the standards and ethics of that kind of masculinity leave men vulnerable to all kinds of problems, family courts, false accusations, paternity fraud, you go down the list. That very ethic is what enables all this stuff to happen. But that's still what men want to buy. So, there's plenty of guys out there are saying, "Hey man, if you, you want to buy Strick Nine, I'll sell it to you."
Why is Passport Bros an acceptable solution when it comes to dating, but not when it comes to any other grievance of the average US citizen? Would a woman's advocacy group tell them to leave the country rather than change laws?
It's another good question. I, I think again, my answers aren't going to be that complicated. I think this goes back down to being laid. That, that, that's still the number one priority. Uh, and it's not that that's all men want. They do want other things. Men are hopelessly romantic. It's sad how romantic they are. They, they also, they want families. They want mothers for their children. But first and foremost is the biological imperative to spread seeds. And so, look, uh, I just got back from a trip to Thailand. Sexual abundance everywhere. Of woman there gives you problems. You can have another one in five minutes. I think that's also a great, very strong attractor to the men who go there. They experience this relationship with women that is so incredibly different than what they experience here in the West.
Just following up on that, if women can't change because of their female nature, why are we trying to change men?
Well, um, I think people can change. Um, I think there, one of the worst problems for me right now with the manosphere as it is, is there's so much evoc. They take behavioral observations that are based really on human Western behavior for the past few hundred years, not taking biology at all into account. And they, [clears throat] point to that as evidence of, uh, that this is somehow wired genetically. Uh, and they totally refuse to, to, to recognize the cultural conditioning, uh, that comes with the romantic ethic and gyocentrism and everything else that's happened. So, it's a very easy out to say, "Oh, it's just genetics." And a lot of men use that and say, "Well, there's nothing you can do then." Uh, you can't have a woman who will be accountable. You can't hold women to account. You can't win. I've seen guys say, "You can never win an argument with a woman." And I'm like, "What an, what an absolute, you could, you could never win. You don't need a woman." I always, I always make the joke, if, uh, if women are always right, how do lesbians settle our arguments? [laughter] Often violently. They're the most violent couples out there.
Is the goal of the men's movement to put women back into their traditional role or to liberate men from their traditional role?
Depends on which movement. In the tradon men's movement, yes, it is to put women in their traditional role. And I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying that's part of the objective. But there is a fairly healthy contingent of men out there that have no interest. I'm one of them. Uh, I decided 25 years ago if a woman couldn't show up and carry her own financial weight, I didn't want anything to do with her anyway. Uh, I'm not in the, was never, well, I wouldn't say was never, but at that point in my life when things changed for me, uh, I wouldn't have anything to do with, with financial dead wheat, dead weight. Uh, you see this, men don't tolerate that in each other, uh, at all. If a guy won't carry his weight financially in a group of men, the, the group will eventually get rid of him, and the individuals in that group will get rid of them. But women that can't carry their weight, they're seen as attractive by the tran, tradon crowd.
How many men's advocates can you think of that don't lean traditional?
Three. [laughter]
So, who's advocating for men that's not conservative? And isn't that a problem?
Uh, I am. [laughter] I think Peter Wright is. I got to give a big shout out to him. I think Sha does. I give a, a great shout out to Sha for his work. Uh, but men who want women that are actual responsible adults and who won't settle for anything else are maybe 3 to 5% of the banosphere. Most of the guys there still have this idea that if I just become the most fit, protective provider, that that will guarantee me a woman who won't divorce rape me. I would suggest you guys talk to Steven Crowder about that.
Why didn't conservatives fight back harder against early feminism, but do now?
I don't think conservatives are fighting feminism. I think they're paying lip service to fighting feminism. You turn on Fox News and you hear the women across the board, most of them will tell you that they're feminist. U, and when it boils down to it, they have feminist priorities. I mean, um, conservatives want to fight the left, and they, they, they recognize that that feminism comes from Marxist philosophy. Did they get all that? But when's the, you know, when's the last time you heard a conservative talk about repealing the 19th or reforming divorce laws? Now, there's a big one right there. The divorce laws, the family courts are as corrupt as the day is long. They're savagely ruining the lives of men, women, and children. And conservatives who are supposedly anti-feminists, and the courts are feminist institutions. They're populated by feminists. The friends of the court, all kinds of the, the other ancillary stuff are all feminist-run, and you won't hear femini, uh, conservatives talk about that at all. So, it's like, are they really? I mean, I think they're getting, they're mocking feminists for some clicks. Uh, but in their actual practice, no, they're feminist.
Why has religion been injected into the men's movement and what's the connection?
That's another great question. I, I, I would have to say, I think a lot of it is because the values of, or the values of valuing men, of recognizing men's humanity, sometimes recognizing their vulnerability, they don't have the internal mechanism to fight that fight. So they lean on religion to do it for them. But again, if you go into to the modern church, it's as gyocentric as it can be. All of them. Uh, I know, with all respect, I've got some great Catholic friends. Um, I hear guys say, "Oh, the Catholic churches." Yes, it is. Absolutely. I have talked to many Catholic men whose wife came in, shed a few tears to the congregation, said he was a bad guy, and all of them turned on him. This is in the Catholic church, including the clergy. Uh, so it's like, yeah, you can talk about that stuff all day long, but in, in practice, and I see guys when they suffer the consequences of this stuff, so I see it all the time. Uh, they are not conservative. They are feminist. Churches are feminists. Government's feminist. Everything. And, and these guys, these traditional conservatives that are preaching against feminists, they're feminists, too.
Why do men get so much resistance from other men when talking about men's rights?
It goes back to the brainwashing. Um, talking about men's rights jeopardizes and puts at risk your ability to have sex. Um, I, so men get frightened when they hear the truth being spoken, the truth that will upset women, and it does upset women, and it should upset them. I mean, what's being pointed out by, by at least the truth-speaking elements of the red pill community is very upsetting, and women don't want to hear it. So, consequently, men don't want to hear it. I mean, I hate to sound like a broken record, but this comes back to mating strategy, gyocentrism, every time.
Why do tradcons say the sexes are different to support their narrative while feminists say the sexes are the same to support their narrative?
Because neither of those narratives matter as long as you're putting women first. It's, it's, you know, it's the same thing in a, in a different skin. The, again, I don't think there is a hair's difference between a modern tradcon and a feminist. It's still women first, women only. It's all about the woman. And as long as you maintain that narrative, you can take shots at each other, but it's never going to be a real, real argument.
They're both gyocentric.
Yes.
If feminism disappeared tomorrow, which male problems would still exist, if any, and why?
All of them. If feminists disappeared, maybe some things would get a little better, maybe. But again, feminism is just one offshoot of gyocentrism. And you remove that, you still have the underlying gyocentrism. You're still going to have conservative judges. Uh, I can't tell you how many guys I've talked to from Texas, which is notoriously bad in family courts. Conservative judges absolutely raking them over the coals, destroying their finances, destroying the relationship with their children in order to please the woman. You, you get rid of feminists, and those guys will still be doing that.
Is gyocentrism purely cultural, biological, or evolutionary?
It's, I, I think it's cultural. Um, for the human race has been here, as far as we know, for a couple hundred thousand years. The idea of gyocentrism, the practice of it wasn't even introduced into human society until about a thousand years ago, and it only started really getting steam a couple hundred years ago. Uh, it took a long time. But now the, the biodeterminists look at that and say, "See, gyocentrism, things have always been that way." No, they haven't. They haven't been that way at all. Men used to get married with the goal being their standing in the community, their contri, their contributions to the society around them, having children. That was what was important about marriage. And women were a part of that, but they weren't the whole game. And just over the last couple of hundred years, women have become the whole game. Men find a sense of emotional completion if they find a woman that loves them. None of this other stuff plays into it.
Why can women collectively come together to smash the patriarchy while men must individually self-improve to escape the gyocentric matrix?
Because that's reality. If, if men want to escape the gyocentric matrix, if they truly want to, they do have to improve themselves. Uh, women come together to smash the patriarchy. They come together to protect criminal illegals that are in the country. They come together to abort babies. They, that women come together over anything that pleases them at the moment. If men want to break free of that, they do have to change their thinking. They have to change their attitude about themselves. They have to change their attitude about women.
Does male disposability still make sense in a modern society?
I think so in some ways. Uh, but I don't know if I would frame it exactly as male disposability. Um, we still have 99% combat troops or men for a reason. Uh, women are distraction in that way. They get in the way and ultimately cost more men's lives. So one way of looking at keeping certain professions, certain combat-ready units all male is for the, the fact that we don't want them to be disposable. We want them to operate with efficiency.
Does feminism reduce or increase gyocentrism?
I think it's an offshoot of it. It's an expression of it, and it certainly gave it political muscle, um, that it didn't have before. Um, it did have political muscle, but the degree of it from feminism has enhanced that a lot. So, I, I wouldn't say it actually enhanced gyocentrism. I think it just become another expression of it.
Does the manosphere psychologically benefit from believing in gyocentrism?
I think individual men can, can certainly benefit. Um, when I see what the average manosispherian does with gyocentrism, though, it's like, it's hard to imagine it benefiting anybody because what most of the manosphere does with gyocentrism is practice it. Uh, they're not combating it.
Why are there father's rights groups who don't fight for other men's issues? Doesn't everything that affects men's rights also affect father's rights?
Sure. And, but I think what you get is father's rights groups are comprised of men who have been divorce raped, who have been through hell in family courts, and they want to fight for those rights. But the moment they get confronted with the fact that to really fight for that stuff, you're going to have to go after gyocentrism, they still want to attract women. They still want to have that image with them. And so, and I've talked to several of those groups. I talked to a group in Texas, and I've talked to other groups, uh, that were father's rights groups. And I got a lot of stuff like, well, we want to choose our battles carefully. And it's like, in other words, you, you really don't want to do the battle. [laughter] You want your kid back. And I get that. Believe me, I do. Uh, but these guys, for the most part, they're not interested in fighting the core of the problem, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep from recognizing it in most cases.
When discussing MIGTOW versus men's rights, would MGTTOW actually change anything if 80% of men are already invisible to women?
It would change the right things. I think I'm big supporter of of MGTOW. Uh, I, I think that is the, these are actually men who are doing something about the problem. They're withdrawing and attending to their own lives, which is what men mostly refuse to do. Uh, we're wired most of the time like, uh, hunting women and thinking about how to attract them, and how do we acquire one? How do we keep her? That's where you get the dating coaches and, and all this other stuff. The migttow are just saying, "I'm done. Uh, see you later. I'm going to go take care of my own life." And I think a lot of those guys will come back to women at some point, to dating, or to even long-term relationships, but they're not going to be the same guy they were before. That's important.
Why would TRC consists all feel so threatened by MGTOW if it didn't have any effect? Could it be because they all benefit from exploiting male loneliness?
I think that's a, an astute observation. They do benefit from exploiting male loneliness. Only they've overdone it. Uh, we hear a lot of talk these days about a male loneliness crisis. I talk to me guys all the time. They're not lonely. Not even close. They're having a blast with their lives. I think that's what upsets the tradons and the feminists and a lot of the red pillars is that MGTTOW are out there actually doing this deal and living full, fulfilling lives. They may or may not come to the world of women again at some point, but they're not being controlled by anybody. Um, it's a very good point. Megttow upsets these people because they're actually taking care of themselves, and tradons don't want men to take care of themselves. Feminists don't want men to take care of themselves, and most of the red pill community is still focused on getting women.
I consider it men's liberation on an individual level.
Absolutely. On an individual level, that's actually now having a societywide impact. Uh, again, what some people frame as a loneliness epidemic, I call an epidemic of withdrawal.
How do you respond to people who think that male loneliness is just natural selection?
I don't buy it. Uh, there, there have been scores of single men, bachelors who have lived incredible, fulfilling lives throughout history. U, I think this is sour grapes talking. The men walked away. Excuse me. And, uh, the feminists and the tracons said, "We're just going to shame you on the way out because we can't handle the fact that you're doing the right thing."
Why has the red pill movement replaced most of the published veteran authors and intellectuals for a bunch of entertainers and shock jocks?
Because again, I'm gonna beat the dead horse a little more, because 95 plus percent of men don't give a damn about anything except women. And so you can, that's what you're going to get from that. There's still the 5% that's still consuming, uh, content from the OG guys. And I still hear from people all the time, but most men out there are, there's that expression that, that, that most red pill guys are one away from being blue pill. And it's true. Um, so that 95% you can sell them in a can, and it'll, it'll, it'll sell just fine as long as it doesn't interrupt the, the idea of getting late.
Why is it always the tradons or so-called high value men who represent the men's movement? Why is the average man never given a seat at the table when they are the ones who are the most affected by all of this?
I would, I would challenge the premise of that. TRDCons don't represent anything except click clickbait. Uh, they're not a movement. There is, you know, churches are dying. People are leaving in droves, and often for good reason. Uh, their values are becoming archaic, and, uh, we recognize them a lot as, as just plain self-destructive, suicidal values in a lot of ways. It's just a setup to ruin your life. Um, they're not a movement, and they're not representing much of anybody other than themselves. They, they make interesting content in far as, let's get some feminists in here and and throw insults at each other for 30 minutes, and let's get a couple of prostitutes and, and, and do the same thing. Um, that's not a movement. That's entertainment, and it shouldn't be confused with a movement or with activism.
Following up on that point, why is it that a men's advocacy movement, red pill, has to be entertaining to gain support, but a woman's advocacy movement, feminism, didn't?
Well, I think it's the gender dynamics at play here. Um, you'll never have a movement. I don't believe this. I'll go to my grave at least believing that you will never have a movement societywide that has a huge impact that's like Megttow. It's, it's just not going to happen because Western men live in a desperation mindset all the time, thinking they're incomplete without a woman, and that whatever woman they get, they think, "Could I have done a little better? Could I have found somebody a little more attractive, a little hotter?" That's their mentality. Uh, they, and these are still guys that want families and would like successful marriages, but their, their values for creating families and successful marriages undermine them every step of the way. And the tradons are the worst about reinforcing that thinking.
Do you think it could be because we have more empathy for women than we do for men?
Yeah, sure. Uh, we always have.
The empathy gap, obviously.
Yes.
Why has the men's movement become all about money and fame and entertainment? Doesn't this differentiate between the legitimate men's movement and the imposters?
Yeah. Um, it's become that because there's money in it. Uh, clickbait is an income revenue. I mean, it, it's, it's a revenue generator, and you generate more clicks with conflict, without thoughtful discussion, without really analyzing what's going on in the lives of men. It's why you have all these crowdcons out there that cut off half the material. They will not talk about gyocentrism in any meaningful way or any of the things that really impact the lives of men. It's just, "Here's what a man is. Now go do that." And if you get destroyed in the process, you probably did something wrong. And I would say, yeah, they followed your advice. That's what they did wrong.
I think it's also why we see a lot of this blood sport debating and, uh, just, you know, posturing, things like that.
Red pill says the world is gyocentric. Feminists say the world is androcentric. Is there some way to come to a consensus and restore balance?
No. The world is gyocentric.
Where are men overburdened and where are women disadvantaged?
Some of the guys will hate this too. Where are men overburdened where they choose to be? Uh, one of the things that, that I see that I don't like, and it's, this is a really important point, is that feminism runs on a lack of accountability. "I'm a victim in everything." That will never work for men. It, we live by our choices in life. And I think that if we want to talk about some sort of idea of true masculinity, that is, is found in that, in, in the accountability. Um, every guy that ended up in a bad marriage, he did it with a woman he chose to be with, and that he chose to breed with. He made decisions about dating and how to form relationships. And the last thing men need is a movement telling them that, uh, they're not responsible for that.
Why can't we remove gender specific obligations on both sides?
Well, because women want gender specific privilege, and men want to give women what they want. So that puts a little roadblock in that idea.
And finally, where would you like to see the men's movement in five years? Where do you think things are headed?
This is going to be a selfish answer. In five years, I would like to still be alive, still free, still in a stable home with none of this garbage. Uh, I would like that for as many men as possible. But I have to say, and, and coming from my old man perspective here, uh, that I'm not hopeful for getting there with a lot of men. I'm very hopeful that a small percentage of men who can embrace the idea that there actually are worth something, that they actually do have needs and wants in life that are more important than pleasing women. Those guys, I think, can be living the dream. They absolutely can. They can be more or less immune from the problems. Don't get legally married. Don't, I mean, that stuff is just out the window. That small percent, it's why I keep working at this. That small percentage of guys can, can win in the end. Most guys, not going to happen. They're going to end up being the guys that come to me after 20 years of marriage. They haven't even talked to their wives in 5 years, much less had sex. They're living lives of quiet desperation, and they have no idea how they got there.
Well, Paul, it was truly an honor to meet you. Uh, I'm eternally grateful for this opportunity, and you're a huge source of inspiration in my work, and, uh, you inspire many other people. And I would just like to ask, is there any final thoughts you'd like to say?
Well, thank you for saying that. I'm a big fan of yours. I love what you're doing. The, the, the cogent, pointed questions to the public, watching them fumble for answers because you're asking the right question. It's not only entertaining, it's worthy. It's, it's, it's teaching us about the way most people think. So, I'm a big fan of that. Uh, uh, so, all I have to say to add to this is I hope you keep doing what you're doing because I, I appreciate it a great deal.
Really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Paul.