First, it relies on a facile understanding of evolutionary psychology. The references to alphas and betas and how primitive species behaved in order to explain current social phenomenon of dating culture and female behavior: it’s too simplistic. The analogy can be made here is to homeopathic medicine having a too simplistic understanding of pathology. I could explain women wanting a financial stable partner in terms of primitive species relying on the alpha male for food and shelter in the same way I could explain pancreatic cancer in terms of my chi being out of line. Both explanations are unfalsifiable, ad hoc, and have little explanatory power; yet they have intuitive appeal because it fits with a narrative (viz. red pills: a misogynistic one; homeopathic medicine: a pseudo-scientific one).

Second, the narrative of the red pill is misogynistic. This is a term thrown around and poorly defined, but the general idea is the denigration of women. What is puzzling about the Red Pill is that it treats men as the victim. This obviously resonates with young men who have been rejected or feel an entitlement to the attention of women. In other words, the Red Pill victim mentality assumes that there is a shift in the natural order of power and men ought to be in a higher position than women. The resentment and envy originate from a place of perceived injustice: women seem to have it easy in society and dominate men. Using the flawed story above, the Red Pill approach reinforces this narrative and a story about women’s place in society.

Third, it’s a bad self-help approach. It takes victims and claims to empower them with knowledge. It seeks to guide its members to succeed in the narrative they concoct. It takes vulnerable people – full of resentment, anger, and ignorance – and it spoon-feeds them an answer they want: it’s not your fault, it’s society’s fault, it’s women’s fault… It’s a twisted sense of empowerment and community akin to cults.