The Red Pill is Right | Income Gender Roles
Game Theory | Behavioral Economics
The Red Pill movement has a lot of different definitions and beliefs behind it. But traditional income gender roles seems to be a common pillar among all followers. The Red Pill movement began from the movie The Matrix in which the main character (Neo) has a choice to make: take a red pill or a take a blue pill.
The red pill removes the veil of lies covering your eyes and goes deeper into the rabbit hole of the truth about the world. The blue pill keeps the veil on and you will live in a world of blissful ignorance. Neo proceeds to take the Red Pill and sees the world for what it truly is.
The Red Pill movement was created to help others see the world for how it truly is and not how others want us to see it. To help distinguish the truth in a vat of lies. To change your life for the better through self improvement. Although all this sounds amazing, The Red Pill movement has had more than their fair share of criticism. Saying the movement is rooted in everything from sexism to racism to anti-Semitism to white supremacy.
Criticism
One of the biggest struggles The Red Pill movement has when fighting this criticism is that there is no real definition of the movement. What you just read was my interpretation of the movement. But this doesn’t mean someone who is a blatant racist or white supremacist can’t have other views and call themselves Red Pilled.
This article will focus on gender roles and how The Red Pill movement is right in regards to traditional gender roles. This topic has had the most heat for the movement in calling the followers sexist. Mainly because it largely goes against the mainstream feminism roles portrayed in the media today.
Traditional Income Gender Roles
The Red Pill movement believes that men and women should be left to their traditional gender roles and that social movements like feminism are harmful for society. Because of the use of the phrase of traditional gender roles and the dislike of modern feminism most people have the assumption that The Red Pill followers hate women. That they want to remove their rights. This is not the case a here’s why.
High Wealth
One of the traditional gender roles is for men to have a high income and be the bread winner of the household. This is contrary to the modern feminist outlook on the household income where they encourage women to be the bread winner. Now when looking for a significant other what does each gender look for in terms of income? Let’s use some game theory.
Man’s Income
If you are a women and you had two options one who two marry. They both have the same exact qualities, they are everything you look for in a significant other, but there is one difference. One has an income that is half the median male income ($19,230) and the other has an income that is double the median male income ($76,922). Who would you choose to marry?
Everyone would choose the man with more income. This is because of something called Ceteris Paribus. Meaning with all other conditions remaining the same. If everything about your significant other remains the same except income would you want them to have a high or low income. The answer is higher income because everyone gains more utility with higher income. This means there is a positive correlation between income and a higher value man.
Feminism and Income
When feminism encourages women to be the bread winners this increases the supply of work in the market place. Which is good from an economic standpoint. But what also happens is a decrease in salary for those jobs, ceteris paribus. So by encouraging, women to work you are indirectly making men less attractive and valuable to women.
Because women want a man that makes more money than them. This is true statistically, currently in the United States the divorce rate is 50%. If you look at marriages in which women make more than men the divorce rate increases to 75%. The bear minimum income for a man to make compared to their counterpart and and not have a negative impact on a successful marriage is at least as much as their women.
The Nuclear Family
Success rates among children in every category is increased when the child grows up with two parents in the household, specifically a mother and a father. This is known as a nuclear family. This is largest driver in a majority of the problems the United States is having currently, from mass shootings, to gender dysphoria, to financial literacy. And there has been a decrease in the percentage of nuclear families in the United States. The current rate of nuclear families is 18% and has been decreasing since the 70s at 40%.
Modern Feminism is one factor that is destroying the nuclear family. Here’s how: More marriages fail when the women makes more money than the man. This is because women are inherently attracted to men who make more money. Modern Feminism encourages women to make more money and become independent. This increases the work supply and decreases median salary. Which then decreases men’s median salary. Thus making more men less attractive to women. Leading to an decrease in successful marriages and thus a decrease in nuclear families. Which leads to increased likelihood a child acquires negative attributes when raises by a single mother.
Red Pill is About Family
The red pill movement hates modern feminism, not because they hate women, but because they love the positive effects on your community the nuclear family has. They understand how men must make a lot of money to have a increased chance of a successful marriages and feminism try’s to discourage that. Now there are a lot of other factors that go into a successful marriage so money doesn’t mean everything. And yes there are still some successful marriages where the women does make more than the man, but that is the exception not the rule. But we do know that on average when a women makes more than a man their divorce rate increases by 50%. That is why the red pill movement is right about income using game theory.