As the social animals we are, we have an innate desire to be desired. Something strange happened to me recently after a failed date, something that only a 16-year-old me could’ve predicted: I fell down a Reddit rabbit-hole dedicated to “Red Pilled Women.” If you aren’t chronically online (or haven’t been for the last 10 years), you are likely unfamiliar with this terminology. It is a reference to the movie, The Matrix, where the protagonists are faced with the option of taking two pills. The first is a blue pill, which keeps the user within the “matrix,” or to remain ignorant and unquestioning of reality as we know it. The second, a red pill, allows the user to break out of the “matrix” and live life with knowledge of the larger societal systems in place. Since the movie's release in the late 90s, the concept has taken off. There are now spin-off concepts such as black-pillers (nihilist) and pink-pillers (radical feminist). For our purposes here, we’ll only be discussing the red pill subscribers. What was once a term utilized largely by men now has a growing feminine counterpart.
It is important to note the distinction between the men and women of these two populations. The Evolution of the Manosphere Across the Web dates the start of the ideals movement sometime around the later half of the 20th century, starting as a critique of neoliberal male gender roles, which were seen as oppressive in the Men’s Liberation Movement. Then, in the 1970s, a new branch in the movement began to see the “oppression” as stemming from feminism and women empowerment. Men’s Rights Activists began to focus on men’s issues such as the draft, divorce and custody laws. This sprouted new ideologies. Several groups would be formed, two of note being Involuntary Celibates (Incels) and Pick Up Artists (PUA) who dedicate themselves to the “game” of picking up women (or rather manipulating them into sex).
In this new branch, women’s liberation would be thought of as an attack on men's rights and the movement’s interconnected atmosphere evaporated. Although it was once niche, with the explosion of the internet and its growing widespread accessibility coinciding with The Matrix popularity still rising in the early 2000s, alongside access to message boards such as Reddit and 4Chan allowed predominantly male users to congregate, where a portion arrived at the conclusion that being red-pilled metaphorically refers to an awakening to the same belief: feminism exploits and deceives men.
Their anger is typically an aversion to the denial of access to a woman's intimacy, sexuality and any transpirement of trust. A study conducted by Michael Vallerga and Eileen L. Zurbriggen for Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy on the hegemony of masculinity within the Manosphere (red pill and incel communities, culturally known as two separate spheres but undeniably interlinked), discusses how a hegemonistic form masculinity has taken over a portion of predominantly young men by reinforcing patriarchal and misogynistic ideals. The attributes listed in the study found men in the manosphere believe women to be largely promiscuous, deceptive and willing to trade sex for power. I argue these beliefs are rooted in fear as the analysis goes on to say, “hegemonic legitimizations of patriarchy become central to an identity that strongly emphasizes adherence to traditional masculinity in the face of perceived threats to it”. The Matrix, proceeding a decade of global resurgence in neoliberal ideals, or “boot-strap” beliefs, reinforced violence to perceived threats of power (such as stature within a social hierarchy) is justifiable within the rhetoric. The paper goes on to say, “Men expect women to use their promiscuity to exploit men, gain power, and even dominate them. Fearing this, men dominate women, to avoid domination themselves.”
The idea of deadly women, or “femme fatale,” has existed since ancient times lending itself to religious and historical examples. The interpretation of the term culturally took off in the 19th century, littering media such as plays, paintings, and novels. What makes these women so deadly is their utilization of strategic sexuality, manipulation, and lies. This is a direct opposition to patriarchal ideas and not in line with a woman's role within it. The trope in and of itself appeals to the male gaze in terms of encountering a seductress –– a woman who’s forward, exciting, and sexually enticing. Once successful in her schemes, the femme fatale is immediately villainized. Her motives are always material and her personality is left hollow. The biblical figure Eve, other than being made from Adam's rib, was left to blame for all of humanity's hardships.
Modern women have lifted the veil in terms of operating within a patriarchy and approach dating with this knowledge in mind. What I found in the women's subreddit was surprisingly refreshing. Not entirely progressive or feminist, a movement struggling with intersectionality since its inception, but not nearly as scary comparatively as I anticipated from women existing within the space. What is not said is left up to context and nuance. Pauline Hoebanx, who composed the data of over 2,000 subreddit comments in a study titled Red Pill Women: Heterosexual Fantasies in Misogynistic Spaces, rightly holds its participants accountable for engaging in harmful rhetoric.
There are femcels (women involuntarily celibate) and “game” players, juxtaposing their male counterparts in gender identity, but “discourses within some [of these] women’s communities exhibit comparable levels of violence to those in men’s groups and often rely on similar foundations of evolutionary psychology and antifeminism.” Following the solidification of post-feminist theory during the 2010s (widely recognized as the backlash to feminism), a term found as early as 1982 Susan Bolotin's article Voices of the Post-Feminist Generation, women subscribing to anti-feminist rhetoric are rewarded (with a partner) as it works to prop up a neoliberal society. One where social norms are needed to be upheld, no matter the means, so long as it affirms the end.
The discovery of the TPW forum occurred whilst reading Virginia Woolf’s Three Guineas. In an attempt to answer a lawyer's question of how we are to prevent war, Woolf explores gender relations. The question seemingly perplexes her as to how a woman is to influence politics without agency nor autonomy of her own. In 1938, the year of the book's conception, marriage was no mere option. Rather, it was essential to a woman's life. Woolf goes so far as to say it was the only profession available to women at the time. She wonders, “since when before [has] an educated man asked a woman how in her opinion war can be prevented,” before declaring that her response will be “doomed to failure.” To date, this is her least renowned piece of writing. Without ever saying it directly, she spends the response meditating on a quieter war, the one of gender roles within society.
Woolf gripes with the dismissal of women's labour in taking care of a home and childcare, gone unacknowledged by the government, leaving it as an unpaid career. All monetary gain on the woman's behalf is done through marriage, where there is an implied “halving” of the husband's assets, which dispersal would still be at the discretion of the man. Women were not given access to a means of supporting themselves, nor an education to liberate themselves with, until they were able to build schools on the dime of progressive husbands and fathers. She provides us with the example of Sophia Jex-Blake, a daughter who wants to provide paid tutorship. Sophia is swiftly told that accepting strangers' money is beneath her and is appeased with a raise in allowance by her father. Afterwards however, in her diary she wrote, “It was foolish. It only defers the struggle,” alluding to all the girls who will have to theoretically fight to tip the scale in the direction of their autonomy while her complacence tips the scale back.
Today, we find ourselves in a lesser struggle, but one not fully overcome. In a post-feminist society, researcher Rosalind Gill states we are left with, “femininity as a bodily property; the shift from objectification to subjectification; an emphasis upon self-surveillance, monitoring and self-discipline; a focus on individualism, choice and empowerment; the dominance of a makeover paradigm; and a resurgence of ideas about natural sexual difference.” Keep these six attributes in mind. Upon entering r/RedPilledWomen, you will be able to find compilations of posts and articles explaining the foundation of their methodology to relationships, such as “Pre-Commitment Risk vs. Post-Commitment Risk” and “Submissive Behaviour as a Strategy." These are similar to Gill's previously listed attributes, leveraged, almost weaponized for women's benefit. There are several linked articles in RPW by Andrew Aitkan on advice for women to run “game” on men. In an article dating back to 2012 titled Female Game for Girls in Their 20s, Aitkan breaks it down.
It could be considered a community sharing information on how to excel in the profession of marriage for women. However, if you were to head over to r/Feminism, you’d find comments referring to those women as lost and miserable, guilty of reinforcing patriarchal ideas feminists have fought to deconstruct. Would Sophia Jex-Blake and Rosalind Gill see this as the struggle deferred? Or is liberation in the freedom of choice? Hoebanx offers an overview of the forum “characterized by the negotiation of tradeoffs, bargains, and premiums.” She goes on to say it's largely composed of “women accepting subordination under patriarchal norms in exchange for protection” from their male counterparts. “In the context of RPW, these norms are not passively accepted but actively negotiated to secure femininity premiums — benefits including social status, financial security, and access to high-value partners.” During my exploration, I understood the forum more like a tool-kit, an accredited method that enables RPW members to “pursue the femininity premiums promised by the Red Pill while strategically navigating the constraints of neoliberal societies.” However, those premiums only secure individual security and while they propose a means for women to cope with misogyny encountered in their lives, Gill believes that “their commitment to achieving a so-called traditional lifestyle” does not absolve them of purporting misogyny. Is the reward of a partner worth it?
Dating early in the 21st century, the height of the feminist wave, there seemed to be a structure to it all (based on MTV and my parents' relationship). Courting was alive and well, while with a more liberal approach, was as simple as Aitkan described. There’s been a specific set of ways of doing things passed down for generations and we appeared to approach a sweet spot as a society mixing older practices with new age thought. It seems we’ve now lost the recipe. The keys of the past are no longer needed to open present day doors. It’s easy to copulate, and that's the expectation. Or the idea the media would have you believe. A post of a woman on a dating app asking to be treated with respect will prompt comments along the lines of, “where does a girl get off, and does she know the internet, along with hundreds of other accessible women, exists?” Whether they have access to these hypothetical women is another question, but the sentiment of resentment is very real. My generation, contrarily and subtly, still idealizes monogamy.
That failed date helped me realise the issue I keep running into -- men aiming to make me feel bad for not being a possessable idealized partner. Under late-stage capitalism, it comes off as a sort of symptom. Certain men want access without making emotional efforts and feel scornful when they are denied, as if it's their right. Neoliberalism has put them under the impression they are owed a partner. Pop culture's role in this whole ordeal is huge. For men, after they’ve obtained money and muscles, obtaining women is marketed as easy. Meanwhile, women's humanity and complexities have been stripped. It’s an ideological pipeline. Writer Nicole Ascoff argues that capitalism and feminism can’t coexist, saying, “we have the tools to vastly improve the lives of the world’s women, and all people for that matter. Yet we haven’t directed our resources, knowledge, and energy toward achieving this goal. Why? Because the goal of capitalism is not to better the world — it’s to make a profit.” When women's bodies are commodified (by women themselves or otherwise), there is no progress towards the goal of feminism, improving everyone's quality of life. The goalpost goes where the dollar does.
I would be amidst if I didn’t factor in the concept of beauty as a whole. The term “pretty privilege” runs deeper than access to partners. Preferential treatment based on appearance is a very real practice in society but the discrimination placed upon the latter is typically overlooked. Kelsey P. Yonce of Smith University, who conducted extensive research on the topic of physical attraction, concluded that men generally prefer attractive women as romantic partners, therefore, conventionally attractive women may have more opportunities for dating or relationships than their less conventionally attractive counterparts. This even translates to customer satisfaction during sales interactions. Positive surveys correlated to higher physical attraction to a sales associate. However, this stress on physicality takes a toll. She goes on to make the point that the societal microscope put on attractiveness may negatively impact women’s self-esteem and self-image. Generally, women tend to be more critical of their own appearance. Not to mention, insecurity is highly profitable and is blind to gender. According to Statista, the global beauty industry is expected to generate 667 billion dollars in revenue by the end of 2025. The industry formerly targeted women but are now marketing to men to expand their profit. Superficiality has invaded our core values.
Perhaps the loss of inexpensive third spaces has impacted our ability to go through low-stake vetting processes. Forbes' Emily Phares refers to a survey done by dating app Match partnered with the Kinsey Institute using 2025 data, concluding that dating is expensive, with the average cost being $213 per month and active daters spending over $300 per month. Materialism is now so deeply rooted in our psyches that someone's willingness to spend money is directly linked to our perception of ourselves. Alone, that is not a meritless concept but in relation to a capitalist society, it means if the first date is not a means of monetary peacocking, then a second date isn’t assured. As the economy has changed over years, so has men's desire to date as the expectation traditionally placed on their shoulders to provide monetarily has grown increasingly out of reach. American inflation has been at a 3% average the last three years while wages have remained largely unchanged. A Pew Research statistic listing facts about single Americans reveals from 2019 to 2022, there has been an 11% decrease in men's interest in dating casually or committal, while women's interest has remained relatively consistent. Even if they are romantically involved, 63% of men younger than 30 reported that they’re single while only 34% of women in the same age group described themselves similarly. The narrative on either side is so strong and conflicting, it feels like we’ve lost a middle ground.
How does a conversation take place? Someone has to say the quiet part out loud: our desires as individuals haven’t changed but the external circumstances have. Social divisions and identity politics have only deepened, leading to a larger disconnect in dating. There is almost now a sense of bureaucracy to approaching relationships, a number of boxes to be ticked and requirements to be fulfilled before finding love. This is not sustainable. Men and women subscribing to red pill extremes don’t seem particularly fulfilled, but the truth is, we’re all struggling to navigate new territory. There is no issue with trying to date wiser, but there is concern for anyone living a life solely centred around fulfilling neoliberal ideals. There is no promise a nuclear family or a big house or perfect physique will make anyone happy. What if we focused on our innate desires, putting all the complex terminology and superficial requirements to the side?
To be clear, I don’t want to go back to 18th century social norms (God free us from trad wife content please). Red Pill ideology wasn’t born in a vacuum though. It is a response to social inequality, as many movements are. But we don’t have to fall for the finger-pointing. Initially, I thought there wasn’t a semblance of harmony. We still have systemic strides to make in terms of equality (and exploitation), but all genders are experiencing the same issues in different packaging. In the final guineas, Woolf offers, “the word feminist destroyed; the air cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause.”
© perediza 2026
