(From the Inbetweeners)
Alright, since you’re not enough in enough pain please read this.
The reason the red pill/blue pill Matrix terminology shows up so much is that of clips like this and stories like that.
The blue pill false reality is that basically, at least in the Anglosphere (as far as I can tell), women nearly constantly “lie” to you about what they want or think are attractive. I put to lie in quotes because it is almost never intentional deception so much as leaving key elements out. Charlotte wants a guy like Will (kind, etc.), she just wants that from someone she is also attracted to. I have to give some credit to Will though, once he clued in he declined the offer to go for a drink; he may be a beta, but he definitely stopped orbiting (NB: for anyone new to this a beta orbiter is a straight male friend of an attractive girl he has a crush on who “hangs around” her, but whom the girl is definitely not attracted to).
I also say lie in quotes because I think feminism and Victorian (for want of a better term) attitudes have had a bastard child together that has created the monstrosity of dating today. Yes, both of them and not for the reasons you think.
The only consistent feminist I recall seeing in fiction was Starbuck from the reimagined Battlestar Galactica (yeah, I’m needing out on you, what of it?). She competes in a masculine profession and never, EVER, pulls “don’t hit me I’m a girl”. This is why men love her and also why she is totally fictional. She competes in a masculine environment, but when she loses, she takes it on the chin. She owns her own actions and is awake enough to see them. She may do crazy or stupid things, but she OWNS it. It is her crazy and her stupid. She puts a lot of effort and internal resources in and gets whatever they’re worth out and doesn’t whine about the outcome.
The Victorian mythos (admittedly a sloppy use of the term) has to be kept in context. One of the best things about the Victorian era is that it lifted Britain out of being the Thailand of Europe, a living nightmare of substance abuse and widespread sexual chaos (Hellfire Club, anyone?). It brought the idea in that anybody who acted like a gentleman or acted like a lady was a gentleman or lady (gentlemen did not beat their wives, ladies didn’t become the village bicycle). Men treated women at large with perhaps an excessive kind of respect, but women also earned it by acting like ladies. This may have had problems, but it was great compared to before.
We now live in a society where these ideas did not compete so much as syncretize. Women still feel entitled to the respect given to Jane in Pride and Prejudice while also feeling entitled to act like Lydia. They insist on competing not just in masculine arenas (Elizabeth I did this as well), but competing with masculine characteristics (usually a parody of what they think men act like). Trouble is the would be Starbuck acts like a Victorian maiden when she loses (something Elizabeth I would never have done).
Now, personally, I think both philosophies are gravely flawed while having some inherent virtues. Combined they create a social atmosphere which roughly translates to “I am a woman who is entitled thereby to the best in life, however, I am not responsible for any of my actions.” The male response is either becoming a player (even if they have never heard of “game”) or going through some variant of the Intel hell. Ultimately two very unsatisfactory choices.
The church in the Evangelist here is emphatically not an exception to this. Don’t go too hardcore on this, humanity and virtue can shine through, it’s just taken a thick veneer. The “hot” girls the in the church know they can break ranks on chastity and no one will say boo. The attractive men frequently leave the church anyway if they break ranks (philosophical consistency tends to be more greatly prized by males). The unattractive women are fed lies about how they are desirable just the way they are without change (frequently fed these lies because nurturing tends to be more greatly prized by females). The unattractive men are a nuisance who won’t go away and are not mentored by the more masculine males (because nurturing is not as prized by powerful males).
It did not use to be this way. This is not one of those, oh in the old days it was better, throwaway lines. A mentor is an actual name we turned into a verb. Mentor was the teacher of Telemachus (Ulysses’ son). The history of great Christian men was a history of men being mentored (Augustine and Ambrose, et al). The church produced men who were great thinkers, great fighters, great lovers. Paul wanted men to act like men and you had best believe they knew what that meant in the Roman Empire. I can guarantee you it was not “act like a man unless someone gets offended” or “whine when the bad guys hit you”. It also didn’t mean the Stoic ideal we have conflated with manliness, “well men just aren’t as emotional” and all that nonsense.
It is a digression, but is all nonsense: men are just as emotional as women, but our emotions are different. Women only think we are unemotional because we do not feel exactly as they feel under similar circumstances. Off the rabbit trail and back on point.
Pay attention to how people act and not what they say. Pay attention to what gets a response. Incidentally, that is the rule for not getting conned as well. A con man will say anything, but if he isn’t acting in a way consistent with a real opportunity, he isn’t being real.