There are lots of things I learned from the Red Pill subreddit, and women’s lack of honor is one of them. In this post, I will discuss what honor is and who has it.
The Red Pill Views On Why Women Have No Honor
First, the subreddit says that honor is a male abstraction. Lots of men have no honor, but only men can have it. It is something that often is found in warrior culture. If I understand TRP views correctly, lack of honor makes women only loyal to their feelings, while men can be loyal to principles :
“Honor is a male abstract, and women are only loyal to their emotions. Sure, you feel like you’d never cheat or leave your man, but if his frame slipped for whatever reason you’d naturally start evaluating other options. Granted, if he corrected the issue and restored attraction it would probably salvage the relationship. This is hypergamy in a nutshell, and being that it is an evolutionary trait it is neither good nor bad. RP men understand this and maintain a strong frame in order to balance it out. Many relationship issues originate when a man gets too comfortable (Betas out) and stops gaming his woman.”
I tried to find a good definition of honor, and found this.
The article says honor has two components. One is horizontal honor:
“Horizontal honor is defined as the “right to respect among an exclusive society of equals.”
Horizontal honor = mutual respect. But don’t let the term “mutual respect” fool you. We’re not talking about the sort of watered-down “respect-me-simply-because-I’m-a-human-being” kind of respect that pervades our modern culture. For horizontal honor to mean anything, it must be contingent upon certain unyielding standards in order to maintain honor within the group.”
To remain in this group, you have to follow specific rules, or you will be dishonored and be kicked out of the “club”. But once in the club, you can gain what the writer calls vertical honor:
“To add on to my club analogy, vertical honor is like the awards and trophies that clubs bestow on members. To even be considered for the award, you need to be a member of the club; you need the membership card (horizontal honor). But being a card carrying member isn’t enough. To win a trophy, you must distinguish yourself from your peers by outperforming them and achieving excellence according to the club’s code.”
Here, anthropologist Julian Pitt-Rivers is quoted:
“Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to pride.”
Women can, at least according to this writer, have honor, but it’s different from the male honor:
“While honor is universal to both men and women, its standards have historically been gendered. While codes of honor have varied across time and cultures, in its most primitive form, honor has meant chastity for women and courage for men.”
To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.
This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.
Morality of Most People
How do most people decide what is right and wrong? The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg found we have three stages of moral development. The pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional stage, we are motivated mainly by self-interest, avoiding punishment and getting rewards from authority figures. People in the conventional stage of development tell right from wrong by looking at social norms and conventions.
The post-conventional stage means independently deciding what is fair. These people understand that laws and rules are not always fair. They put principles first instead. They can sometimes be confused with people on the pre-conventional level, because their actions are not in accordance with the rules of society.
Pre-conventional moral thinking dominates when we are children, conventional when we’re teenagers, and post-conventional is only reaches by a minority of the population.
Most people appear good when everything is well and social norms are not unreasonable. But once social norms and authorities demand something unethical, the majority of people show the darker side of the 2nd level of moral development. When authority tells us to do something and reassures us that it’s okay, we often do it. It was shown, for example, in the Milgram experiment . People were repeatedly told by the experimenter to electrically shock a guy hidden behind a wall, even after he started complaining of being seriously hurt and screaming. 65% reached the end of the experiment, where the strongest voltage is applied (although they were pained by having to obey):
“In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment’s final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.””
If you’ve heard of the banality of evil , you probably understand what this implies.
“Arendt’s book introduced the expression and concept “the banality of evil.” Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.”
Now, I don’t know if most atrocities are performed by ordinary, authority-obedient people, but in my view, they enable a lot of it. They go along with lots of evil stuff that becomes obviously evil if you thought about it, and cheer when authorities do them.
“In 2008, a 17-year old man jumped from the top of a parking garage in England after 300 or so people chanted for him to go for it. Some took photos and recorded video before, during and after. Afterward, the crowd dispersed, the strange spell broken. The taunters walked away wondering what came over them. The other onlookers vented their disgust into social media.”
This is one thing that I noticed about feminism – it was supported and helped by men. And today men throw other men under the bus to “protect women” from “rape”, “abuse” and other evil male actions, even if abuse is loosely defined or unproven. And onlooking men and women don’t care about it, unless it bites them directly in the ass.
Does evolutionary psychology say women are disloyal?
Hypergamy is often cited as the cause of women’s lack of loyalty – they say women like to trade up. But I’m not even sure hypergamy is the strongest natural force here. Monogamy is usually seen as useful for beta males. Without it, lots of men would remain mateless. But if you think about it, monogamy serves women too. In the times when reliable birth control and welfare didn’t exist, would it really be wise for a woman to swing from branch to branch so much? As she only gets less attractive and less fertile with age, she can’t really upgrade so much. She can trade down and let some desperate omega make use of her in exchange for his recourses, but it’s not in her best interest. It’s in her interest to stay with the same guy she got in her youth, let him grow in SMV as hers drops. If he “drops his frame”, it only makes sense to switch to another man if she’s worth a better man.
How modern environment affects our actions
We shouldn’t forget that we aren’t living in the same environment we evolved in. We’re living in a pretty unnatural time. We have birth control, welfare, abundant energy and technology. We’ve gotten way too comfortable. And not only that, but we have feminism. Only the discomfort of one sex’s natural role has been addressed, and the other one was left as it is, except for some benefits which rubbed off as a result of women’s liberation. As women were liberated, men’s behavior was also restricted and demonized. An inequality of responsibility resulted. Usually, women’s sexual power is balanced out by men’s earned public and financial powers. Considering most people never reach the principled level or morality, is it surprising that men appear better and women worse? If there is banality of evil, I’m sure there could be a banality of good. The TRP reddit is full of former “good boys”, who found the hard way that society’s rules and laws are disadvantaging them.
One proof that is usually used to show that men are more loyal, is who applies for divorce more often. That is women. But considering their sexual and legal power in marriage, they hold more cards. The one who has more power should also be able to abuse it more often, initiating divorce robbery and divorce in general. Would men do any better if they had that kind of power? I don’t know. To check it out, we would have to find a time and place in history when men had the power to toss their wife out for any reason, take the kids and then be paid alimony. I’m not sure men ever had that kind of power. But in general, it’s easy to look moral when one has no power.
“We don’t hate women, we just don’t expect much of them”
This is a common saying. But can it be true? Can you decide that someone is irreparably solipsistic, disloyal, only capable of being a good partner if kept constantly in check, AND still think it’s a good idea to spend your life closely connected to them? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t let that kind of person into my close circle of friends. There is a saying that goes “it’s better to go alone, than to go with just anybody”, and I’ve found the hard way that it’s true. I was better off alone than with shitty friends. But being with good friends was, of course, best.