Meerkat Musings

Red Pill Daughters – Nope 

Red Pill Daughters – Nope 

So I ventured onto Return of Kings earlier. I’ve bleached my eyes and can now offer up my views on one of their latest articles, even if I want to puke.

I’ve just read possibly some of the worst parenting advice any father could give their daughter (unless they actually want their little girl to be a complete doormat). shall we jump into this cesspit and see what we find? Where I’m quoting the article (written by one Dawn Pine), I’ll be highlighting the quote in purple.

1. Teach her what guys and girls find attractive

We all know the answer to that one. But a child does not. Children are not blank slate, but they are unaware of “how the world works”. It is my responsibility as the patriarch to show them.

In order to starve the hamster in advance, I give my daughters tools and the language to understand. Kids have a very strong hamster, as do females (we all know that).

Since early times, people have used stories and myths to educate. This is truer at a young age, as they are not yet teenagers. I often use stories and examples, as kids sometime struggle with “concepts” or “genralities”.

Example: Mr. Peabody & Sherman (the movie)

Some movies illustrate red pill better than others. You also need to find one which the kids relate to. For this article I picked Mr. Peabody & Sherman. It is a fun movie, staring male protagonists which are likable.

During the movie, when the heroes go back in time to save Penny (the child who beat him up and called him names), Sherman talks of her in a “love stroke” manner. In our words – he is attracted to her.

“Why do you think he is attracted to her?” I asked my daughters. Notice how I emphasized attraction rather than “love”. Kids need to parse their environment in the right manor. If you call it love, later in life girls will have a problem separating attraction with love.

Even mean girls are converted if they find their guy Alpha

Even mean girls are converted if they find their guy Alpha

Their hamster ran as excuses came out one after the other. They dished out multiple explanations, which I will not name, but would make some us laugh.

“It is because she is pretty” I explained. “Boys are attracted to pretty girls. This is what boys prefer.” I continue, “You can see it also in your school, and that pretty girls get more attention”. They acknowledge it, as they have witnessed it firsthand. Lesson hammered in. I repeat it every time we witness it.

“Dad, were you attracted to Mom because she was pretty?” They have asked. I confirmed. They now know that beauty is important. But there is more.

To distill this down to its most basic point, stripping away the pseudo-argument, this position is about teaching girls from a young age that their looks are their best feature. The author is setting his daughters up to believe their self-worth is dependent on how boys perceive them, and that boys are more concerned with looks than values.

Later in the movie, after Sherman rescues Penny, she is smitten by him. She starts treating him better, and even stands up for him to his “father”. This is not something you do for a person you abused and ridiculed (actually on the same day, at school – if one recalls the plot).

“Why is she attracted to him? She wasn’t before,” I asked them.

Their hamster ran again. Fast. Excuses were coming out, repeating most of what they said before. They even try to say that Sherman is handsome.

“It is because he is now successful,” I explained. “Girls are attracted to successful boys”.

That rang a bell as they sometimes have a crush on one of the boys. Now they know why they feel attracted and not “LOVE”. My other point is that you should not, at their age, discuss Alpha and Beta. This is for a later age. You cannot talk to young girls about “Alpha” male, or “Beta”. I decided to run with “successful”.

By telling his daughters that girls are attracted to successful boys, or ‘Alphas’, he is doing his daughters a massive disservice. One of the classic rants of the MGTOW is that women are golddiggers. Telling girls they are attracted to successful boys is only going to develop this image, not change it. It is also reinforcing the suggestion that attraction is shallow.

Next is the concept of “The Wall”

Taking CH advice:

Tell her with uncompromising bluntness that she is pretty now, and all the boys notice her, but her prettiness will disappear faster than she knows (or can possibly know at her tender age), and there will come a time, always much sooner than she had hoped, when none of the boys will notice her.

My daughters know that they should be married by their mid-20s. I use their mom and other moms of their friends and asking: ”How successful will her boyfriend be, if she was single?”. They look at the fathers of their friends, and at least some of the time it is obvious. My eldest told me that her mom told her that being married at 25 is too young. I replied by stating that her mother has actually no strength running after them, and that they as young moms would have the strength to do things with their children. Message well understood.

The first paragraph is especially scary. It preys upon fear, fear that a woman’s value is defined by her appearance, and that as age takes hold, and appearance fades (which is in itself not always true), a woman’s value diminishes. It also sends the message that men care only about looks. This guy is doing neither men nor women any favours with his arguments.

The simple reality is, if you want to have a career, have a career. If you’re not ready to settle down until you’re 30, so be it. If you feel ready to start a family at 21, that’s fine too! It is however, your choice. No one else’s. The pigeon hole that the author is trying to put his daughters in (you need to be married by your mid-20s) is based on the notions mentioned earlier – that appearance drives a woman’s worth, and that marriage (and having kids) are the only things a woman can aspire to.

Do we really think this is a worthwhile message?

2. Show her how guys hit on girls

I day game sometimes. I don’t do it much in front of my girls, because they will cockblock me. It happened a few times before I “stopped”. I recall one time that they ran interference at a wedding, when I was about to number close a young hot girl.

But if we are in a restaurant for example, I tease the waitresses. I use pet names, boss them around a little bit and treat her as a small child. The waitresses usually take it very well, and sometime even blush.


This is horrifying. He treats women in a demeaning, dehumanising fashion, and the only reason he doesn’t do this in front of his daughters is because they might get betweeen him and some action. The only reason any waitress in these circumstances would pretend to tolerate such behaviour is because they are worried about rocking the boat and losing their job, because society thinks such behaviour should be tolerated. It’s objectification at its worst.

My daughters start to giggle. “Dad, I don’t know why, but I feel good when you do that,” my elder told me. “It is because older girls are like young girls. They love it when a successful man makes fun of them” I explained. “Also, you see that the waitress was responding well. She likes it,” I add. They witnessed it, and now they know how it feels and how it looks when a guy hits on a girl and what an interaction between boys and girls looks like.

Lesson hammered again. As a side benefit, now my daughters feel better knowing that their father is “Successful”. I’ll admit that my game level is intermediate at best, but good enough is good enough.

He’s brainwashing his daughters into thinking that a man can belittle them and objectify them as a means of courting them, and that this is perfectly normal and even desirable. In other words, he’s training them to have very little self-respect.

Section 3 of Dawn’s article relates to connecting to one’s heritage. I don’t object in principle to this, though I have to have concerns about how this concerns the wider message.

4. Work on their femininity

We are man and we practice masculinity. Femininity? Red-pill guys? How exactly? One would assume that this is the mom’s job. So what? We all know that women are not to be trusted with responsibility. So I gladly take some of this burden upon myself.

You can do it too. The funny things is that it is not that hard. It also correspond with the red-pill.

First example: Women highest calling

“What is the most important thing that girls can do?” I ask them. “Give birth” they answer. “And raise the child,” I add. This is something I always find the place to mention to them. There is nothing more important than continuation of our species. “Dad, what if we didn’t have kids?” They ask. “It will be the end of the world for our family,” I answer. “The family line will be lost”. It took some time to understand this, but now they get it. Now they know that kids are crucial and that they should have them and take care of them.


So in one breath Dawn says women can’t be trusted with responsibility then he goes on to say that women should do nothing but aspire to be mothers – erm, does anyone else see the obvious contradiction here? Being a parent is a huge responsibility, and Dawn’s idea is that this is the highest achievement his daughters can reach. He is also putting pressure on them to do exactly that.

Second example: Chores around the house

Not my best one (to say the least), but I try to have them do feminine chores around the house: Cook with me, fold laundry and so on. Just because I live alone and do masculine and feminine chores does not mean that my daughters can’t learn it also from me.

Start early, and they will reap the reward

Start early, and they will reap the reward

This is something that I lack, and should delegate more to them. It is a matter of preferences (I’m lazy in those parts and outsource some of those chores). When done correctly, you get your daughter accustomed to doing chores.


First of all, what exactly are masculine chores and what are feminine chores? If anyone – man or woman – is living by themselves, they will have to carry out both sets of chores! It is frankly stupid to define roles like this – there is only work to be done, and if it needs doing it needs doing. You’re a man who doesn’t want to peg the washing out or get out the vacuum cleaner? Boohoo, it won’t do itself, and if there’s no one else to do it, you’ll have to swallow your pride and get on with it.

This also links back to responsibilities. Women can’t be trusted, yet can be expected to fulfil important household roles?

Third example: Looks

In this case I have a good deal of help from their mom. She emphasizes looks, dresses well and wears makeup. Kids need to have discipline and getting dressed, even for girls is sometimes tiresome. Trust me, I use to be like that. When they sometime complain, I remind them that looks are important (see tip #1). This is where a cooperation between parents really kicks it in, and a lot of people mentioned how well they dress.

Whenever they form an opinion on someone (based on their looks), I hammer it home again. Looks are women’s top and dominant SMV component.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to look good. There’s nothing wrong with taking pride in one’s appearance. There is something very wrong with suggesting to young girls that their looks are their only worthwhile asset.

Forth example – Future career

Kids do a lot of thinking on what they want to do when they grow up. That may change on an hourly, daily or monthly basis. I had my daughters move from teachers to waitresses to babysitters and to doctors – all in the course of one day.

When they come to me with the new career, I remind them that they will need to also be there for their kids when they are young. Then you see them spin the wheel to show me how it works great with a child (or more). At that time I also remind them that since they will marry a successful man (god, I hope so!) he will be the one providing for them, and they will assist.

This is just cruel. ‘Don’t even think about doing something you want to do with your life, if that doesn’t mesh with your required role as a mother’. That might as well be what the above paragraph said. He is funnelling his daughters down a specific path, one that makes him happy, but won’t necessarily make them happy.

That’s about all I can stomach for one night. There is more to this article, and I might return to it, but for now, I’ll leave this to someone else.

4 thoughts on “Red Pill Daughters – Nope 

  1. Pingback: Red Pill Daughters – Nope  — Meerkat Musings – Coalition of the Brave

  2. Sha'Tara

    There is a whole string of epithets I could apply to that guy but I don’t want to write them, I’ll just think them, well except for one: the guy is a patriarchal asshole. He sounds like he’s a disciple of James Dobson, the creepy American fundamentalist “family” ministry evangelist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.