Online, a person who has “accepted” certain traditionalist myths about men and women and the roles they ought to play in society is said to have “take the red pill” or are “redpilled” (a reference to that scene from The Matrix). The Red Pill presents itself as a complex philosophy that is brutally honest about the nature of sexual relationships between men and women and the countless dangers of feminism which have conspired in scores of unhappy men and women. Most of it is just rehashed biological essentialism, with perhaps a touch of postmodern nihilism.



Thanks to my morbid curiosity, I’ve been exposure to this ugly, misogynistic subculture through it’s now “quarantined” home on Reddit and the several watchdog/satire subreddits, such as r/thebluepill, that keep an eye on it and the several related internet subcultures it has spawned (incels, Men Going Their Own Way, etc.). These online communities are known collectively as “the manosphere.”

Red Pill evangelicals insist that their movement is about male self-improvement, which is a fascinating angle for a women-hating philosophy to adopt, but upon further inspection it makes perfect sense that they lead with this. Proto- and Crypto-Fascist ideologies (and The Red Pill absolutely is one of these) are extremely opportunistic; they seize upon important and emerging fissures in society and supplant a critical materialist explanation with reactionary dogma and, as always, use this dogma to prescribe as a fix both wanton cruelty and a return to a Golden Past that is distorted or nonexistent. They sell a vision of a time when a man could sit comfortably on a couch in a clean house after a hard day of work, well behaved children out of earshot, homemade meal in his stomach, and awaiting the delivery of a cold beer from his grateful wife, and feel like he deserved this, that he’d earned it. They sell a fantasy.

Why does the fantasy appeal to so many heterosexual, cis-men? What fissure has this ideology grown out of? Men in Western society, and perhaps particularly in America, find themselves in a crisis of identity. The roots of this crisis are primarily economic, and as complex as they are, can be simplified in this way: as the rate of profit has steadily fallen in the postwar era, more and more social labor is required from families (or per individual), and less and less net pay it making its way into the family’s checking account. By social labor, we mean labor done outside the home that is traded for wages. As we know, real wages are stagnant and prices are rising; preserving a standard of living requires bringing in more income. The natural consequence is that dual income households have become more common (and necessary), from the working poor all the way through the upper-middle class, for the last five decades. A notable side effect is that, as the presence of women in professional careers has been normalized, women are more often finding themselves the primary breadwinner in the family, supplanting a host of traditional expectations about familial roles. Fifteen years ago this tension was a favorite source of material for stand-up comics and sitcoms; now it’s passe to even comment on, but the insecurities and dislocation persist.

Heterosexual, cis-men’s traditional and patriarchal role in the family, which was often imbued with the power to unilaterally direct the family’s resources, was tightly interwoven with their prescribed role as “provider.” The social order of the day was at the time tasked with preserving this status quo; putting up glass ceilings, limiting access to higher education, permitting rampant sexual harassment/assault, legalized discrimination, on and on. This is not to say that women haven’t always worked, especially in the working class, but by and large they had access only to a few professions and were otherwise capped at lower wages and lower ranks.

To whatever extent this role was actually realized by men of previous generations, it seems this has been turned upside down. This has been very disorienting for many men, not least of all because they are also finding themselves expected to do more and more of the “reproductive labor” that used to be taken care of by a stay-at-home spouse (or servant) just a generation or two ago. By reproductive labor, we mean the labor that maintains the workers themselves and provides for the nurturance of the next generation of workers. Reproductive labor is often referred to as household labor.

It will come as no surprise to many women that, as their share of social labor has increased, they nonetheless continue to perform the majority of reproductive labor, both globally and domestically. Those figures get even more stark if you factor in emotional labor and the facilitation and managerial tasks we’ve come to call “mental load.” This strip by French cartoonist Emma demonstrates the significant weight of mental load, and the repercussions it’s inequitable distribution has had on women and Heterosexual marriages.

Indeed, Red Pillers acknowledge this inequity right off the bat. They gleefully ridicule other heterosexual cis-men for being irresponsible, lazy, selfish, gluttonous, and unattractive. They see it as an unfortunate norm that fathers are directed by wives on where to go, what to do, what to wear, or are altogether left out as the woman goes about the business of running a family while simultaneously pulling a full-time job. They bemoan the “Homer Simpson-ification” of the western man, who has, we’re to believe, been transformed by feminism and mainstream media into an extra child that the wife/mother must care for, instead of the “captain” that she needs and truely desires (the Nazi’s promised each man would be the “Fuhrer” of their household). Their diagnosis is based on biological essentialist dogma; their prescription is based on an idealist return to a time that never really existed; but the problem they identify is a real one. Men by and large struggle with relating to their families in positive ways, particularly as their role has shifted, and we on the Left, particularly we cis-men in Heterosexual relationships, must address this problem ideologically, through our political work, and in our own lives.

Wolfgang Willrich, The Aryan Family (1930)



The answer, of course, lies not in moving society backwards, but forwards. An inequitable division of labor, particularly founded on the oppression of women, is unacceptable. So to is a world that enforces strict gender role conformity and uses a division of labor to drive a wedge between men and women. In everything we do, we must assert the scientific truth: all major differences between men and women in ideology, ability, and behavior are acculturated or perceived, not biologically determined. We must be self-critical about the assumptions we make about who should do what and how much/how often. We should promote a vision of fatherhood and parenthood which is dedicated, affectionate, nurturing, disciplined, collaborative, and as communal as our society allows. We should invest our mental and emotional energy and time as dutifully at home as we do at work. We should hold each other accountable (gracefully and supportively). And we must do this as much for our activist spaces as well as our social and work spaces.

I’ve always been salty that the right has appropriated “red” in this instance. Red should belong to us. The real Red Pill reveals a world full of ideological justifications for the exploitation of women and the infantilism of men, and once you see it, it’s impossible to unsee. Women really can do it all, perhaps not all the time or forever, but they do it everyday; the question is, who does this benefit? Men’s discomfort with their changing role in the world suggests that we are beginning to see the danger in our own dependency (as opposed to interdependency) and increasing irrelevance, all because we lack the imagination necessary to break out of the outdated patterns and expectations and weave new kinds of bonds with our wives and children.

So whatever the color, it’s time for men to swallow whatever pill is necessary to see our responsibilities towards domestic life for what it is, and what it could be. This is not about making men “men,” again, but about being an adult. Are we full, equal, responsible participants in the managing of our homes and the rearing of our children? The order of the day is partnership, and this is a good thing, for the liberation of women and the formulation of a new, positive identity for men.