Red Pill

Pierce Alexander Dignam
Deana A. Rohlinger
Misogynistic Men Online: How the Red Pill

Helped Elect Trump
When somebody accuses a powerful or famous figure like Trump of “sexual

assault,” I don’t look the other way. I don’t denounce them or their behavior.
Instead I run towards them, because there is no truer signal which side some-
body is on, than when they’re given a bogus accusation by the establishment.
This is our beacon to find allies in the war.
—redpillschool, moderator, 2016 Men’s Rights post titled “ ‘Sexual Assault’
Is Why I’m Endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States.”1
D onald Trump shocked the world by emerging victorious in the 2016 US

presidential election. His victory was celebrated by many, including the
alt-right, which is an extremist movement composed predominantly of
young men who embrace white nationalism and anti-Semitism (Southern
Poverty Law Center 2012; Lyons 2017). Popularly represented by self-
proclaimed Nazis such as Richard Spencer, propaganda “news” sites such
as Breitbart and Daily Stormer, and the white supremacist forum Stormfront
(Bowman-Grieve 2009), the alt-right seeks to upend traditional conservatism
and build a male-dominated white state. Among other complaints, the alt-
right laments men’s status in Western society, arguing that men are under at-
tack from leftism, political correctness, and feminism. In their view, feminism
has distorted the natural gender order and demasculinized men, to the det-
riment of modern society (Ferber 2000; Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016).
The alt-right positions itself as (white) men’s salvation, promising to help
men reclaim their natural manhood and usurp women’s social, political, and
economic power (Ferber 2000).2 In essence, the alt-right offers men’s rights
activists, or individuals who make this pro-male attitude central to their iden-
We would like to thank Miranda Waggoner and Douglas Schrock for their guidance on this
project, as well as our reviewers for their hard work on improving this article.
1
Hard copies of the data collected for this project (all comments and threads) are available
upon request as PDF files.
2
As Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate Miltner (2016) note, the alt-right conflates an attack on
particular constructions of masculinity with an attack on maleness.
[Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2019, vol. 44, no. 3]
© 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2019/4403-0003$10.00
This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
590 y Dignam and Rohlinger
tity politics, a solution to the “woman problem”: organized misogyny (Banet-

Weiser and Miltner 2016). This solution is problematic for many reasons, in-
cluding that it ignores the fact that social and economic precarity are the fruits
of neoliberal policies and practices and that men are not the only group af-
fected by these developments (Berlant 2011). Additionally, it fails to acknowl-
edge that the popular feminism under attack by the alt-right often champions
the central tenets of neoliberalism—the importance of self-empowerment, per-
sonal responsibility, and consumption to individual success—rather than the
concrete social change offered by political feminism (McRobbie 2009; Banet-
Weiser and Miltner 2016; Banet-Weiser and Portwood-Stacer 2017).3 Their at-
tack on feminism, in short, is an unsophisticated critique of a neoliberal po-
litical project that exploits gender for profit (Harvey 2005; Mendes 2012),
ironically creating a popular misogyny as a backlash to popular feminism
(Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016) and to a state that has become increasingly
feminized (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). While claims of male oppres-
sion are certainly not new, as the once popular mythopoetic men’s and men’s
liberation movements demonstrate (Messner 1998; Ferber 2000), the call for
“men’s rights” is increasingly visible online and in mainstream politics (Jane
2014, 2016; Sobieraj 2017).
The ascendance of men’s rights from marginal online forums such as
4chan and Reddit to electoral politics and the White House is alarming for
at least two reasons. First, it signals that antifeminism is more virulent than
previously believed. While there has never been a shortage of pushback against
gender equity projects (Faludi 1991; Cohen 1996), radical groups including
white supremacists and men’s rights activists have tended to organize—and
stay—outside of mainstream politics.4 This is in part because some advocates
understood men’s liberation as a private, personal philosophy that required
changes in thinking and behavior rather than political action. However, some-
thing has changed among adherents of these groups insofar as men’s rights ac-
tivists increasingly regard their (white) pro-male identities as more than per-
sonal. They believe that if they identify and act collectively as men, they can
effect political change. The election of a man who brags about sexually assault-
ing women illustrates the efficacy of this conviction.
Second, and related, feminists are not always aware of what is happening
in these extreme online communities—or of the potential political strength of
these communities—until it is too late. Trump’s social media strategy included,
among other things, “shit-posting” about Hillary Clinton to mobilize alt-right
3
For an in-depth look at how feminism became depoliticized and popularized over time,
please see Mendes (2012).
4
See Messner (1998), Futrell and Simi (2004), Jordan (2016), and Salter (2016).

S I G N S Spring 2019 y 591
men against her, a strategy that was underestimated by many feminists.5 To

be clear, feminist scholars have done their fair share of difficult work analyzing
antifeminist and white supremacist movements and, more recently, analyzing
online trolling practices.6 The point here is that feminists need to be willing to
study online communities that they find abhorrent if they are to understand
and counter them.
In this essay, we analyze one of the online forums that helped propel
Trump to electoral victory (Martin 2017). Drawing on social movement the-
ory and an analysis of 1,762 posts, we show how leaders of the forum the Red
Pill were able to move a community of adherents from understanding men’s
rights as a personal philosophy to political action. As we illustrate, this was no
small move. The Red Pill forum was explicitly opposed to political involve-
ment until the summer before the 2016 election. Users and forum leaders
rejected political action because they associated it with “mainstream” men’s
rights movements. This changed months before the election. Leaders and
elite users of the forum heralded Trump’s candidacy as an opportunity to push
back against feminism and get a “real man” into the White House. While this
mobilization may have been short lived, it was highly successful. We argue
that while previous research illuminates the importance of alt-right virtual
spaces such as Stormfront for the cultivation and maintenance of a racist col-
lective identity (Blee 2002; Futrell and Simi 2004; Caren, Jowers, and Gaby
2012), we know very little about how men conceptualize gender in ways that
inform their personal and political action (see Messner 1998 as an exception)—
and this is to our detriment. We conclude the essay by arguing that feminists
need to understand how men cultivate extreme personal and political identi-
ties in virtual spaces so that we can better understand how new technologies
are used to move these individuals from their armchairs to the voting booth.
Conceptualizing men’s right activism in the digital age

Resistance to gender equality is not new. In 1991, Susan Faludi documented
backlash against feminism, noting, among other points, that mass media
5
“Shit-posting” refers to the practice whereby individuals post negative content in an on-
line forum (spaces primarily used for text-based communication among somewhat anonymous
users) such as Reddit or a social media network (spaces where individuals share a variety of con-
tent and interact with one another using their real identities) such as Twitter. One purpose
of shit-posting is to derail or take over a discussion. Trump’s supporters shit-posted about his
opponents by creating memes and, in some cases, billboards emphasizing their potential weak-
nesses.
6
See Marshall (1985), Ferber (2000), McCammon et al. (2001), Blee (2002), and Sobieraj
(2017).

played a critical role in elevating unsupported arguments regarding the neg-

ative effects of feminism on women’s lives. These myths, which were pushed
by New Right organizations, were designed to erode support for feminism
and encourage women to return to their homes with their children (Marshall
1985; Hall and Rodriguez 2003). Antifeminist ideas, however, have become
more pervasive—and far more personal—in the digital age. Internet commu-
nication technologies provide men’s rights activists with relative anonymity
and with the ability to confront women one-on-one, making the Internet
the territory of choice for extremist misogynistic discourse (Sobieraj 2017).
Online, men’s rights activists adopt a position of patriarchal resistance,
which forcefully denies that feminist issues such as domestic violence, sexual
assault, and gendered wage gaps are structural issues that (re)produce wom-
en’s oppression (Berns 2001). Proponents reject the idea that men are re-
sponsible for perpetuating gender inequality and instead argue that feminism
has systematically reduced men’s social, political, and economic opportuni-
ties, which has resulted in the oppression of men (Ferber 2000; Hall and
Rodriguez 2003). These ideas found legs online, in part because claims mak-
ing is increasingly personalized. Individuals are not required to buy in to ide-
ologies whole cloth. They can pick, choose, and customize ideas that reso-
nate with their lives (Bennett 2012). It does not hurt that individuals can
subscribe to these ideas while hiding their “real” identities. Online anony-
mous spaces such as Stormfront, Reddit, and 4chan are appealing because
individuals can mask their identities and express agreement with extreme views
without their friends and neighbors finding out (Caren, Jowers, and Gaby
2012; Beyer 2014).
These virtual forums provide spaces where individuals can cultivate com-
munity and oppositional consciousness (Mansbridge and Morris 2001; Ca-
ren, Jowers, and Gaby 2012). Our use of the term “oppositional conscious-
ness” requires explanation. Feminists and social movement scholars alike use
oppositional consciousness to refer to an “empowering mental state that pre-
pares members of an oppressed group to undermine, reform, or overthrow
a dominant system” (Mansbridge and Morris 2001, 25; see also Sandoval
1991). While the young white men who populate these forums are not op-
pressed and, in fact, benefit from the dominant system, they use these virtual
spaces to cultivate their patriarchal resistance and detail the specific sexist,
racist, and transphobic behaviors that correspond with this ideology. Since,
as we discuss in greater detail below, patriarchal resistance is constructed in
opposition to popular feminism and its proponents, it is helpful to conceptu-
alize the process by which men’s rights proponents make sense of their griev-
ances and devise solutions to their shared problem as oppositional conscious-
ness (see also Mansbridge 1986). More important, from our perspective, the

cultivation of oppositional consciousness does not presume that individuals

will (or do) engage in political action (Mansbridge and Morris 2001). It sim-
ply creates an ideological framework for understanding the causes of and pro-
posed solutions to their grievances and cultivates a sense of “we-ness,” or col-
lective identity among participants (Polletta and Jasper 2001), which keeps
individuals engaged over time—even in online forums (Beyer 2014; Rohlin-
ger and Bunnage 2015, 2017).7
Of course, collective identities can become politicized and move propo-
nents from the armchair to the streets. “Politicized collective identity” refers
to an identity that not only connects individuals to a community and a cause
larger than themselves but also provides an explicit rationale for political in-
volvement (Simon and Klandermans 2001). A politicized collective identity
often identifies both with an aggrieved group (e.g., other individuals partic-
ipating in an online forum) and with a larger polity (e.g., the nation-state),
which provides a context for political struggle (Simon and Klandermans
2001). Not surprisingly, the politicization of a collective identity may be tied
to political opportunities or moments when meaningful institutional change
appears to be within reach (Simon and Klandermans 2001; Bernstein 2005).
This shift to politicization is gendered insofar as men’s rights proponents see
an opportunity to reinforce systemic gendered arrangements and, more spe-
cifically, white male power and privilege.8
There are four additional, related points worth making regarding the shift
from oppositional consciousness to politicized collective identity. First, nei-
ther oppositional consciousness nor a politicized collective identity requires
adherents to have an accurate or nuanced understanding of the social, polit-
ical, or economic issues around which they mobilize. This is certainly true of
men’s rights activists, who are threatened by anything associated with fem-
ininity (Banet-Weiser and Miltner 2016) and blame the feminization of
labor (the trend of women being employed in greater numbers while exist-
ing forms of labor become more stereotypically feminine in practice) and
America’s crumbling dream of upward mobility on women and feminism
rather than neoliberalism (Berlant 2011). Men’s rights activists fail to grasp
7
The cultivation of oppositional consciousness and the creation of collective identity are in-
terrelated processes that are difficult to parse out from one another (see Mansbridge and Morris
2001). Consequently, we do not separate them here but focus on how these sometimes mutually
reinforcing processes play out in an online forum. Future scholarship should consider the empir-
ical differences between these processes and how these differences affect political action.
8
We diverge from social scientists in our usage of “gendered opportunities,” which is typ-
ically used to explain when and how women can challenge the male status quo and forward
women’s rights and representation (Beckwith 1996; McCammon et al. 2001).

that the popular feminism championed by celebrities, female CEOs, and cor-
porations undercuts the power base needed to influence social structures and
gender institutions in the ways that they catastrophize (Ferber 2000; Mc-
Robbie 2009). Thus, while men’s rights activists may recognize that they
face certain problems collectively as (white, heterosexual) men, their inabil-
ity to properly identify the source of these problems causes them to mobilize
in ways that are not necessarily rational from a political perspective yet can be
seen as rational when considering the origin of these groups and the hege-
monic nature of their collective identity.
Second, emotion plays an important role in politicization (Polletta and
Jasper 2001; Jasper 2011). Opinion leaders in online forums prey on the
insecurities of participants and use emotions such as fear and anger to induce
political participation (Jasper 2011). For instance, the individuals who are
key to developing oppositional consciousness can effectively use emotion
to frame political moments—or political candidates—as threatening to (or
supportive of ) a cause and a collective identity. Savvy leaders can stoke ad-
herents’ emotions in ways that cast political engagement as an extension
(and obligation) of a collectivity (Benford and Snow 2000).
Third, forum leaders play an important role in the politicization of col-
lective identity insofar as they are charged with convincing adherents that
political engagement will pay off. Of course, in the digital era, leadership
looks quite different than it did in the past. Leaders can establish and exercise
a great deal of control over a forum, or they can allow others to engage in lead-
ing tasks and perform the work of a leader without the title (Earl and Schuss-
man 2004; Earl 2007). Finally, the politicization of collective identity changes a
forum and, consequently, who participates in it, as leaders must strategically
resituate a collective relative to a larger polity—with this process taking the
risk of alienating previous adherents who may feel threatened by the new sta-
tus quo (Gamson 1997; Bernstein 2005; Rohlinger et al. 2015).
In this article, we trace this shift from oppositional consciousness to po-
liticized collective identity through an analysis of identity talk. Social move-
ment scholars understand identity talk as an extension of identity work, which
is an “interactional accomplishment that is socially constructed, interpreted,
and communicated via words, deeds, and images” (Hunt and Benford 1994,
491; see also Snow and McAdam 2000; Blee and Creasap 2010). Commu-
nication, whether it is written, verbal, or symbolic, provides a foundation
for the construction and maintenance of collective identity (Hunt, Benford,
and Snow 1994; Gamson 1997; Snow and McAdam 2000). Identity talk is
an ideal way to track how a collective identity shifts from a personal philoso-
phy to a political mandate. Here, we analyze how the collective identity asso-
ciated with one of the most popular alt-right forums, the Red Pill, became

politicized and served as a base of collective action in the 2016 presidential

election.
The Red Pill: An introduction

The Red Pill forum was created in October 2012 by “pk_atheist,” who was
recently revealed to be the former Republican lawmaker Robert Fisher. The
name of the forum is a reference to the film The Matrix in which the protag-
onist, Neo, is given a choice between slavery (the blue pill) and enlighten-
ment (the red pill). Neo chooses the red pill and subsequently learns that
the world in which he lives is designed to deceive and enslave him. Similarly,
the purpose of the Red Pill forum is to expose the “true nature” of feminism
as oppressive to men and to help men reclaim their “rightful place” in society.
The Red Pill is situated within Reddit.com, a semianonymous online space
branded as “the Front Page of the Internet.” Unlike the alt-right forums
4chan and Stormfront, Reddit is easy to access and has few startup costs
for social movement actors (Phillips 2015), increasing its viability as a political
rallying point. Within Reddit, there is a variety of user-created forums (called
subreddits) where individuals can create discussion threads around topics of
interest. The Red Pill is one such forum. Reddit users, who must navigate to
a specific forum and thread, can add their comments and “upvote” or “down-
vote” a thread or post, which adds or subtracts from its score (called “karma”).
Karma is consequential because threads and posts with positive karma become
more visible to other users, while posts with negative karma become less vis-
ible. This voting system ultimately allows popular users, whom we refer to
as elite users, to dominate conversations, while obscuring posts that chal-
lenge popular views. Subreddit creators and moderators can also affect the
direction of conversation. They create codes of conduct for the subreddit,
which allows them to ban users who violate forum norms. Additionally, they
can add “sticky” posts with which they agree, which makes a post constantly
visible to users regardless of its karma score.9
In the Red Pill subreddit, there are several categories of discussion, such as
Field Reports, Men’s Rights, Fitness, and Science. The forum is structured
hierarchically, and moderators respectively reward and sanction users with
whom they do (or do not) agree. Moderators, who are denoted by a special
symbol next to their names, choose which users will be designated as “Red
Pill elites.” While there are various levels of seniority among elites, these
users are given special “flairs” next to their usernames to publicly identify
9
To “sticky” a post is a verb specific to Reddit that makes posts always accessible at the top
of a page.

their special status within the community. In this way, moderators choose
which users they think express Red Pill sentiments appropriately and publicly
reward them for doing so. Moderators also punish those with whom they dis-
agree by deleting their posts, publicly dismissing their points of view, or label-
ing them as trolls and banning them from them forum.
We analyzed two different types of discussion threads on the Red Pill sub-
reddit: Field Reports and Men’s Rights. In Field Reports, users discuss how
they employ a “Red Pill strategy” in real-world situations and seek advice from
other users on how to better act like “alpha” men (these terms are discussed
in detail below). In Men’s Rights threads, users discuss topics concerning the
perceived systematic oppression of men. We focused on these two threads for
three related reasons. First, these threads were the most popular over time.
Threads on Fitness and Science, for example, generated sporadic and limited
conversations among users. Second, given their popularity, these threads al-
lowed us to track points of convergence and divergence among the opinions
of forum users, the role of these (dis)agreements in developing an oppositional
consciousness, and the eventual politicization of the Red Pill collective iden-
tity. Finally, these threads enable us to assess the role of moderators and elite
users in politicization as well as how they responded to those with whom they
did not agree.
We analyzed the four highest community-rated Field Reports and Men’s
Rights posts from October 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.10 We used the
month of October since it was the first month in which the Red Pill had
both Field Reports and Men’s Rights threads. Table 1 summarizes the topic
post titles, notes who wrote the post (e.g., an elite user, moderator, or reg-
ular user), and lists the number of comments associated with each post. Be-
cause Reddit is a semianonymous forum, it is difficult to say with certainty
who uses a given subreddit. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey
(Barthel et al. 2016), 71 percent of Reddit news users are men and 59 percent
are between the ages of 18 and 29. Pew also found that 47 percent of Reddit
users identify as liberal, 39 percent as moderate, and 13 percent as conserva-
tive. The Red Pill skews politically conservative, meaning that forum users
consistently post alt-right content. Trevor Martin (2017), for instance, found
that the Red Pill shares many of its users with the pro-Trump forum The
Donald. This suggests that, at least on Reddit, there is a continuous exchange
of conservative commentary between forums dedicated to mainstream Re-
publican politics and alt-right meeting grounds. As discussed above, the strict
regulation of the forum by users and moderators alike allows us to be almost
10
We used the website Reddit Time Machine to determine the most popular posts from
October each year.

Table 1. Most popular October posts by topic, 2013–2016
Number of
Topic Posts Post Creator and Comments
by Year Title Community Status Karma on Post
2013:
Field report What Bodybuilding Taught GayLubeOil (elite user) 125 89
Me about Cultural Marx-
ism
Men’s rights Fewer Men Graduate Col- Bsutansalt (moderator) 153 90
lege: Obama Says It’s a
“Great Accomplishment”
2014:
Field report Dread Game in Action Summertime_Dimes 314 100
(regular user)
Men’s rights TIL Just Deleted a Post Aerobus (moderator) 1,217 219
about Male Victims of
Domestic Abuse
2015:
Field report Keep Your Feelings to Your- Pronobis21 (regular 340 148
self, and Especially Away user)
from Women
Men’s rights A Message to Men’s Rights GayLubeOil (elite user) 605 375
from Red Pill
2016:
Field report Going to an Event Where Bulk_king11 1,041 123
You Don’t Know Anyone (regular user)
Men’s rights “Sexual Assault” Is Why Redpillschool 971 618
I’m Endorsing Donald (moderator)
Trump for President of
the United States
Note: Total number of comments: 1,762.
certain that the commenters in our sample are men who are interested in the
Red Pill, and not trolls looking to disrupt the forum’s normal operations.11
We used inductive content analysis to analyze the 1,762 comments made
by forum participants. Inductive content analysis refers to the use of an open-
ended coding scheme to sort data into distinct analytical categories (Cho and
Lee 2014). For example, if a user bragged about recent sexual exploits in
a comment while also stating that such exploits proved their alpha status,
we would label that comment as discussing Sexual Virility and Alpha Status.
This process enabled us to quantify important categories of discourse (such as
11
There is, however, a forum for Red Pill Women, where women can discuss how to sup-
port their alpha men and live a Red Pill lifestyle.

Red Pill Theory, Labeling Women as Manipulative, and Challenging Other

Users) and systematically assess whether there were any changes in the iden-
tity talk over time. Our quantitative analysis revealed a distinct shift in dis-
course.12 Between 2013 and 2015, users simultaneously cultivated an oppo-
sitional consciousness toward feminism while explicitly distancing themselves
from political engagement. Users agreed that efforts to change legislation in
men’s favor were futile and that the best way to win the gender war was to
employ a sexual strategy that would conquer feminism. There was an abrupt
shift in 2016, as moderators and elite users celebrated the ascendance of alpha
male Donald Trump in the presidential race and argued that forum partici-
pants needed to take advantage of this unique political opportunity to under-
cut feminists. In the remainder of this article, we trace this shift in the Red Pill
discourse over time.
October 2013–2015: The Red Pill as personal philosophy

Angered by feminism’s increasing influence in modern culture, Red Pill men
seek to reclaim their power in a world where “we [men] no longer run the
show” (pk_atheist, 11/8/2012, “Introduction”). These men long for a past
where masculinity could be performed purely through physical, economic,
and sexual prowess and explicitly push back against feminism by establishing
a sexual strategy for men. The purpose of this strategy is explained in an early
post by the creator of the Red Pill: “Feminism is a sexual strategy. It puts
women into the best position they can find, to select mates, to determine
when they want to switch mates, to locate the best DNA possible, and to gar-
ner the most resources they can individually achieve. The Red Pill is men’s
sexual strategy. Reality is happening, and we need to make sure that we ad-
just our strategy accordingly” (pk_atheist, 11/8/2012, “Introduction”).
The initial focus on establishing a sexual strategy for men was consequen-
tial for two reasons. First, it focused forum users’ attention on their personal
behavior relative to women rather than politics. Elites urged men to inter-
nalize this sexual strategy and make it a “philosophy” that shaped their daily
interactions with women, and many users recommend that this philosophy
not be shared with others outside the forum. As noted in one popular com-
ment: “The first rule advocated by the subreddit is to never talk about The
Red Pill in real life, and never argue the ideas anywhere but an online forum.
Many on The Red Pill agree that we are best when we are a relative minor-
12
Quantitative content analysis also was used to count the presence of different frames over
time. While it is beyond the scope of this article to present these results, these counts were used
to confirm the Red Pill’s transformation.

ity. We do not want mainstream success because we primarily advocate in-

dividual solutions. And the individuals in this community are at their best
when the vast majority of their competition is average and the outside world
is not well informed on game” (“HonestMaskProprietor,” Men’s Rights,
10/19/2015).
Second, and related, the emphasis on feminism—rather than institutional
politics or collective action—created an “empowering mental state” or op-
positional framework through which men could understand their lives
(Mansbridge and Morris 2001, 4). Popular feminism served as the Red Pill’s
foil. Men projected their fear and anger onto feminism and constructed a so-
lution that put women back in their place. Throughout their conversations,
adherents focused on three topics that they regarded as foundational to the
Red Pill collective identity: the sexual subjugation of women, men’s personal
transformation from “betas” to “alphas,” and the differences between the
mainstream men’s rights movement and the Red Pill.
The first key way that forum users solidified their collective identity was
through the “oppressive othering” (Schwalbe et al. 2000, 423) of women as
an inferior group. It is common for men to bond with one another and dem-
onstrate their manhood through the public degradation of women (Schrock
and Schwalbe 2009), and the process of oppressive othering allows the op-
pressors to feel more connected to a dominant social group (Schwalbe et al.
2000). Users bonded through the shared dehumanization of women, with
many forum conversations describing women as inferior, self-centered, and
manipulative, often utilizing a plethora of other slurs including “slut,” “cunt,”
“bitch,” and “plates” (Red Pill’s term for sexually subservient women).13 For
example, one highly rated comment on a 2015 Field Report post noted: “The
greatest part is that your closest male friends will always be there for you. My
Grandmother is not doing too well and I get phone calls every week from
them asking how both of us are doing. It’s such an amazing feeling. No em-
pathy from women, though. Too busy receiving validation on social media
because the world revolves around vagina” (foldpak111, 10/28/2015). In
an extension of this discussion, the same user described men and women by
likening them to animals: “Dogs act like men, cats act like women. So basi-
cally, if you want a loyal best friend who is always going to be there for you
when you’re on your knees, get a dog. If you want a passive aggressive bitch
who walks around like she owns the place and when you confront her, she
hides for a week, get a cat” (foldpak111, 10/28/2015).
13
Given the offensive nature of posts on the Red Pill regarding the sexual exploitation and
humiliation of women, we limit our examples in this section.

Derogatory slurs were not the only way in which men recast the world
through the patriarchal lens of the Red Pill sexual strategy. In their conver-
sations, adherents routinely cast women as sexual playthings that men could
(and should) use to demonstrate their masculine superiority. When all women
are “sluts” or “plates,” it is in the Red Pill man’s best interest to use them for
their only purpose (sex) and discard them when they are no longer useful.
A highly rated comment on the 2014 Field Report demonstrates this view:
“One of my most memorable nights/weeks of sex happened after I told a
plate I’d be getting a drink with a woman I’d known in high school. Plate
begged me to come to her place afterwards, ‘no matter how late.’ I stumbled
in at 2am. . . . She did one of those fake yawns, ‘oh, did you have fun?’ I pro-
ceed to fuck the holy shit out of her. The next morning I went back to my
place and banged the high school friend, who I’d yet to inform the plate
was staying at my place” (10/2/2014). In the 2016 Field Report, users dis-
cussed how to seduce women at social events, and one user offered this pop-
ular comment: “And weddings are high anxiety events for women because it
reminds them that they are failing in life and still riding the Cock Carousel
without a man as a rock for her (unmarried girls freak out . . . feeling the Wall
approaching). So exploit female anxiety (wedding) and amplify your freedom
(I Don’t Give a Fuck) and the odds are you come out a winner” (Neore-
actionSafe, 10/4/2016). In short, Red Pill men agreed that women were
a (sexual) enemy, and a sexual strategy was needed to survive the “war on
men.” What is disturbing about this oppositional consciousness is that Red
Pill men equate the sexual exploitation and humiliation of women with a
blow to feminism and a successful performance of an “alpha” masculine iden-
tity (discussed below). We do not think this is coincidental given the historical
links of masculine performance to physical and sexual violence.
The second key way in which Red Pill men constructed their collective
identity was through discussions of their transformation from weak beta
men to strong, virile alpha men. This transformation reflects men’s accep-
tance of a collective identity that rejects gender equity and all those in favor
of it. Such stories rely heavily on details of men’s sexual exploits, demonstrat-
ing that they have moved from being betas, who are subservient to wives and
girlfriends, to alphas, who hook up with multiple sexual partners without ro-
mantic commitment, control women through emotional manipulation, and
possess a (predominantly sexual) agentic self. These narratives are interest-
ing because they utilize neoliberal ideologies to strengthen the collective iden-
tity of adherents (Jasper 1998; Polletta 1998). Power is achieved through in-
dependence, and such independence relies on neoliberal norms of success in
which individuals must stand on their own merit and personal improvement
can be achieved through correct consumption habits (Harvey 2005). In this

case, men consume the advice of other users, a variety of protein supplements,
and a steady gym membership.
The transformation from beta to alpha is difficult, and Red Pill users uti-
lized forum conversations as a support system throughout their journey of
self-improvement. In the 2013 Field Report, elite user GayLubeOil rallied
Red Pill men by arguing that men must not be afraid to selfishly take what
they want, noting, “Women and betas always stand in the way of greatness.
They love mediocrity. . . . If you want to be the best, then you’re going to
have to do whatever it takes to get there . . . even if it makes women uncom-
fortable” (10/28/2013). In the world of the Red Pill, men are at the mercy
of a state that does not care for their existence and must therefore use any
means necessary to achieve personal happiness. These efforts are a backlash
to more gender-neutral state policies (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005),
with Red Pill men seeking not only to reclaim traditional masculinity but also
to transform modern understandings of gender to suit their own needs. The
achievement of alpha status thus reflects one’s complete embodiment of neo-
liberal masculine norms, with personal fulfillment being far more valuable
than group welfare.
To further establish themselves as a unique collective, Red Pill users dis-
tanced the forum from traditional men’s rights groups, which were regarded
as both insufficiently critical of feminism and too focused on political action.
Users often framed these groups as inferior to the Red Pill because they em-
braced ideas of gender equity in their pursuit of political goals (such as fa-
thers’ rights and alimony reform) instead of focusing on personal improve-
ment. Over time, Red Pillers began to label traditional men’s rights groups as
“the male equivalent of feminism” (Sadpanda596, Men’s Rights, 10/19/
2015). A highly praised comment demonstrates this view: “I frequent the
MensRights subreddit and sadly it has devolved into one giant circle jerk
complaining about female child molesters and shit feminists say on Facebook.
Too often they’re trying to win the ‘oppression Olympics’ against third wave
feminists and in doing so they’re actually emasculating men and turning them
into women. I think there are a lot of men’s issues that need to be addressed
(e.g. male suicide, biased divorce courts, etc.), but doing from the same
worldview as feminism is a fool’s game because nobody is going to care about
male ‘oppression’ ” (jb_trp, 10/19/2015, Men’s Rights 2015). Red Pill elite
“GayLubeOil,” who wrote the 2015 Men’s Rights post, offered this com-
ment on the aptitude of traditional men’s rights activists:
So to all of the men’s rights activists that got trolled into reading this
article, do us all a favor and stop being a chubster, speak with confi-
dence and for the love of pregnant Men’s Rights Activist Jesus go lift.

Your body is the message. The sooner you start taking your appearance
seriously the sooner you will be taken seriously. Who knows maybe
you guys can help make marriage a viable institution again or bring
back free speech to university campuses. We The Red Pill are standing
right behind you, getting our dicks sucked by insecure sorority girls
and calling you fat. (“GayLubeOil,” Men’s Rights, 10/19/2015)
The Red Pill was often likened to a club of elite men who had figured out
how to beat their competition in the masculinity game, and to these men,
political action was futile in comparison to personal improvement and sexual
conquest. This understanding of the Red Pill as a personal philosophy that
needs to be hidden from the broader public in part reflects the concern of
stigmatization. White supremacists, for instance, often hide their affiliation
with hateful communities to protect themselves from criticism (Blee 2002).
However, this understanding also allowed forum users to emphasize their
personal transformations from beta to alpha men in a safe space, in a twisted
inversion of feminist safe spaces that promise protection and empowerment
for users (Clark-Parson 2017).
In sum, Red Pill men utilized their oppositional consciousness to redefine
understandings of manhood and patriarchal authority. Users engaged with
the forum to create a philosophy of sexual strategy that cultivated the Red
Pill collective identity as a pro-male force against feminism and its propo-
nents, while rejecting political mobilization. Moderators and elite users ar-
gued that the political action of traditional men’s rights groups was less ful-
filling than the goal of personal improvement, and the community agreed.
The satisfaction of Red Pill men was far more important than welfare of all
men. This sentiment would change as Trump ascended within the Republi-
can Party. Elite users utilized Trump’s platform, and their clout in the forum,
to push the community toward mainstream political engagement.
October 2016: Politicizing the Red Pill identity

Identity talk on the Red Pill forum shifted dramatically after Trump became
the official candidate of the Republican Party. Moderators and elite users
did an abrupt about-face on their views of political action. In fact, modera-
tors and elite users quickly positioned Trump’s candidacy as an opportunity
to push back politically against feminism and destroy Hillary Clinton, whom
they regarded as the epitome of everything wrong with feminists. As we out-
line above, the Red Pill forum had a collective identity and a common
enemy, meaning that the forum leadership only needed to convince adher-
ents that involvement in institutional politics would help them strike a seri-

ous blow against feminism (Simon and Klandermans 2001; Simon and
Grabow 2010).
To do so, moderators and elite users had to move adherents beyond a
focus on feminism, and their personal opposition to it, and contextualize
the importance of political action through voting. They did this by framing
the presidential election in the context of a political “war on men,” specifi-
cally focusing on the threat Clinton posed to the Red Pill community and
exalting Trump as an alpha male who would fight for men’s political fortune.
Forum leaders were careful to link political action to the Red Pill’s sexual
strategy and to argue that the 2016 presidential election represented a unique
opportunity to forward the forum’s ideological agenda.
Moderators and elite users pitted Clinton and Trump against each other
ideologically and argued that Clinton would exacerbate the war on men. The
top Men’s Right’s post of October 2016, titled “‘Sexual Assault’ Is Why
I’m Endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States,” was cre-
ated as a call to action against this political development. In this post, mod-
erator “redpillschool” explains that this war on men “is not abating as many
have suggested over the last few years. It’s growing, and it’s growing out of
control.” He takes care to note that while the forum is normally “politics neu-
tral,” the 2016 election represents a key political opportunity for Red Pill
users, one that could make or break their ability to push back against femi-
nism. He explains: “This election season we’re not going to be able to put
up any walls between sexual strategy and politics, because the outcomes from
these candidates are directly tied to the very cultural influences and trends
we’ve been discussing here for the past few years. They’re tied to sexual strat-
egy. . . . Our presidential candidates are representing a system set up to in-
creasingly damage the lives of men (and promote the choices, advantages,
and positive outcomes for women) and those alienated by this system, respec-
tively” (“redpillschool,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016). Hillary Clinton, in
short, was the avatar of a feminist, antimale establishment.
Redpillschool’s call to action received immediate positive attention from
the community and notably from other elite users. Another moderator, “bsu-
tansalt,” quickly “stickied” a reply to the post, in which he agreed with red-
pillschool and offered additional reasons why Red Pill men should vote for
Trump. Bsutansalt linked to a video made by Trump campaign associate Da-
vid Clarke, in which Clarke criticized an oppressive “leftist media” for being
afraid of the Trump campaign’s violent rhetoric. Bsutansalt argued that this
message was one that Red Pillers “need to see at least once in their lives,” im-
plying that the “leftists” that Clarke mentioned were also enemies of the Red
Pill. Bsutansalt further suggested that Trump personified their sexual strat-
egy, noting: “Young HOT women LOVE The Donald, but it’s the older,

jaded, washed up feminist types who seem to have a problem. Think about
why that is for a moment . . . you’ll see exactly why this is TRP-related”
(“redpillschool,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016). Bsutansalt was not the only
elite to speak on Trump’s behalf. GayLubeOil, the elite user who had argued
against political action just a year earlier, also pushed Red Pill men to vote
Trump and argued with users who would not endorse him.
Most Red Pill men posting on the forum were easily politicized. Forum
users described a Hillary Clinton presidency as cataclysmically emasculating
insofar as it would irreversibly entrench feminism into American politics. This
prospect inspired anger and fear among Red Pill users, with one even arguing
that Hillary’s victory would “give the free card to all women in the nation to
be complete deplorable corrupt whores” (“VitaminPower,” Men’s Rights,
10/14/2016). Among these users, political support for Trump was a natural
extension of the Red Pill personal philosophy. As “ECoast_Man” noted: “I
would actually argue that it is incompatible to adhere to the Red Pill and sup-
port Hillary Clinton’s bid for presidency. You can not support Trump but
there is no way to be a Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter. RedPillSchool
is absolutely right to bring this up, we’ve been talking about this here for
years” (Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016). Another user argued that men would
live in fear if Trump lost the election: “RedPillSchool is exactly right. They
[the media] are trying to make what Trump said/did into ‘sexual assault.’
If they succeed then no man will be safe anywhere, anytime. There will be par-
alyzing fear in all men at the mere thought of approaching a woman. Only
true ‘Alphas’ will have the confidence to approach women and it won’t mat-
ter. They can be brought down decades later if they were too forward or if
they talked trash on a blog” (“Bluepillprofessor,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/
2016). In short, the sexual strategy of the Red Pill served as a foundation
for politicizing the collective identity of forum users, with elite users trans-
forming this oppositional consciousness into a political stance. As one user
summarized, “This war on masculinity has gone on for far too long, and our
only hope of stopping it right now is Donald Trump” (“Oxykitten80mg,”
Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016).
It is important to underscore that the Red Pill’s political pivot was con-
tentious, with some users challenging this new commitment to politics and
Trump. One highly rated comment derided pro-Trump users, stating: “Y’all
falling for the cult of personality. Dumb fucks” (“Darkwoodz,” Men’s Rights,
10/14/2016). Another user agreed, commenting: “[Trump’s] not a Red Pill
hero. He’s an idiot, he’s a sexual pervert, he has huge insecurities, and is as
eloquent as a bag of dog shit. Oh, and he’s known for being a deal maker
his entire life. Lol he IS the system. Stop confusing being stupid for being al-
pha” (“logicalthinker1,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016).

For some, Trump did not adequately represent Red Pill ideology and was
simply another representation of the political establishment that would hurt
the Red Pill. These challenges were largely unsuccessful. The most popular
anti-Trump comment received less than half the karma than the most pop-
ular pro-Trump comment received, and most anti-Trump comment threads
had very low comment scores. Trump haters were publicly called out and la-
beled as “shills” for pro-Hillary public relations firms and, in some cases, had
their alpha male status questioned. The implication here is that anti-Trump
sentiment could never come from a true Red Pill man and that any push
against politicization came from outside the forum. Forum leaders redrew
the boundaries regarding who did—and did not—constitute legitimate mem-
bers of the forum to encourage users to fall in line with the new political focus
(Gamson 1997; Bernstein 2005; Rohlinger and Bunnage 2017).
Many pro-Trump users explicitly linked Trump’s masculinity performances
to the alpha identity, with his financial and sexual prowess making him em-
blematic of Red Pill manhood. As a popular comment stated: “Trump might
be one of our last hopes to overthrow the current system and banish the liars
forever. More importantly he’s the embodiment of everything masculine.
Trump becoming president in the United States means the West will eventu-
ally reflect him. We are taking our manhood back. No more slaves. Freedom
for all” (“PantsonFire1234,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016). Another user de-
scribed Trump’s embodiment of Red Pill values: “[The media] criticizing
him for being a billionaire womanizer is just absurd. I would be shocked
and a bit concerned if he didn’t use his status in society on women (who, let’s
be honest, were probably all over him when this ‘assault’ happened). Trump
embodies Red Pill thinking into every fiber of his being. It’s important that
we support him” (“redpillnexus,” Men’s Rights, 10/14/2016). As Red Pill
followers long for “traditional masculinity” that prides men on sexual prow-
ess, physical aggression, and economic success, Trump’s “true man” persona
makes him emblematic of Red Pill ideals. Attacks on Trump were thus criti-
cisms of the Red Pill identity, and these attacks were attributed to feminists
and the “leftist media,” further aligning the Red Pill community with Trump
through their common enemies. It did not hurt that Trump’s idealization
of himself as a self-made entrepreneur closely fits with neoliberal idealizations
of success, which further convinced Red Pill adherents that Trump was the
kind of alpha who would whip America into shape.
In sum, elites politicized the Red Pill identity by linking community ideals
of neoliberal alpha masculinity to Trump’s public image as a powerful, inde-
pendent deal maker and then framed the electoral conflict as one between
alpha masculinity and the “feminist establishment.” Elite users then pushed
adherents to engage in anonymous political action—voting for a Red Pill

savior. The gendered philosophy of sexual strategy was merged with the gen-
dered political action of voting for an aggressively misogynistic and tradi-
tionally masculine candidate. Trump’s rapid ascension allowed the Red Pill
to produce change in accordance with the concept of gendered opportunity
structures (McCammon et al. 2001). Trump’s polarizing effect on the polit-
ical environment, in that he caused hypermasculinity, blatant misogyny, and
violent tough talk to resurge in popularity on the national stage, provided the
perfect opportunity for Red Pill men to combat feminism through political
action. When users attempted to resist this politicization, their credentials as
true Red Pill men were diminished by elite users. With Hillary supporters de-
scribed as betas, the only action suitable for alphas was to vote for Donald
Trump, who, in the eyes of many users, would make America manly again.
The future of politicized semiautonomous spaces

In the wake of Trump’s victory, many scholars were left wondering how this
extremist candidate was able to secure the most venerated position in US
politics. We investigated the inner workings of the Red Pill to glean some in-
sight into where (and how) some of Trump’s most fervent supporters were
mobilized on Election Day. During the Obama era, envisioning such polit-
ical efficacy from forums like the Red Pill seemed ludicrous. Even social sci-
entists would have been reticent to say that semianonymous forums cultivated
communities that could mobilize effective political change (Futrell and Simi
2004; Caren, Jowers, and Gaby 2012; Beyer 2014).
The case of the Red Pill shows the political viability of semianonymous
online communities within networks of contention. Men were drawn to the
Red Pill identity as a safe method of enhancing personal strength and sexual
gratification. Their journey toward enlightenment was shepherded by elite
users, who used neoliberal cultural messages to construct the Red Pill as a per-
sonal philosophy in a patriarchal resistance to feminism. Moderators and users
cultivated their patriarchal resistance to feminism outside the view of the
broader public until Trump, who espoused his own disdain toward women
(among other groups), emerged as the Republican presidential candidate.
Moderators and elite users quickly used their authority to rally forum adher-
ents to action, successfully overcoming years of political reticence by linking
adherents’ understanding of manhood to Trump’s neoliberal public image as
a self-made billionaire. Appeals to the Red Pill sexual strategy as a collective
identity and the threat of a Clinton presidency, which represented the poten-
tial entrenchment of feminism in American politics, were crucial to galvaniz-
ing this engagement.

There is good news and bad news for feminist scholars. The good news is
that while the Red Pill became politically engaged after years of disengage-
ment, the ability of elite users to use the forum for continued collective ac-
tion appears to be limited. As far as we know, users were simply encouraged
to support Trump, and those who had doubts about him were persuaded by
the community to be on their side. Users were not compelled to engage in
any other political action—not even routine actions such as donating money
to Trump’s campaign, phone banking, or political canvassing. While Red Pill
men may have engaged in these actions on their own and not revealed them
to the forum, the initial conceptualization of the Red Pill as a personal phi-
losophy limits how this collective identity can be used to foster political en-
gagement, and public stigmatization hampers what forum elites can ask ad-
herents to do, especially through the constraints of a semianonymous online
forum. In other words, politicization of the Red Pill identity seems to be
short lived, and it is unlikely that many men will wish to publicly identify with
the misogyny expressed in this forum, even in the wake of Trump’s victory.
The bad news is that even though this politicization was short lived, it was
effective (Martin 2017). While the politicization of the forum was contested,
moderators and elite users were able to quell dissent and link the Red Pill
identity with voting for Trump. This clearly demonstrates that these extreme
online enclaves can be dominated by a few powerful voices, which can help
candidates holding distasteful views to get elected. While we do not wish to
argue that the Red Pill’s mobilization was the tipping point for Trump’s elec-
toral success, we present this data to illustrate generalized processes of mo-
bilization that may have occurred across the Internet in the buildup to the
2016 election. This has implications for further studies of semianonymous
online spaces that rely on community voting to determine user experiences
and, unfortunately for feminists, indicates that extreme misogynistic dis-
course can successfully create political action in the modern age.
It remains to be seen how the Red Pill community will continue to engage
with American politics. Their success could arguably have a stifling effect
on future involvement, as some users may see the “war on men” abate with
Trump as president. Demobilization in the wake of victory is common in so-
cial movements (Rohlinger 2015). However, it is possible that this success
has drawn in enough new adherents, ones who are willing to be extreme and
push back against “political correctness” publicly. This is particularly true given
Trump’s public support for white nationalists and affiliations with alt-right
sweethearts such as Stephen Bannon. The growth of the community in the
wake of Trump’s political ascendance—as well as the development of smaller
affiliated subreddits such as Red Pill Right (an explicitly alt-right political

space for Red Pill users), Red Pill Women, and Red Pill Parenting—suggests
that the willingness of citizens to act on misogynistic philosophies is growing.
The Red Pill could function as a politically awakened network of alt-right ac-
tivism. Feminists should monitor the development of these new communi-
ties, how they interact with other alt-right spaces, and how community in-
volvement fosters an alt-right collective identity and lifestyle. It is possible
that a lack of knowledge about the alt-right’s dark corner of the Internet
has blinded scholars to the current demographics of the of US polity, primar-
ily the influence of its angry young white men. It is too easy to write off these
men as Internet trolls who are unwilling to engage with the real world. But on
November 8, 2016, they made their political agenda known, and they will
undoubtedly attempt to do so again.
Feminist groups should be alarmed at this rapidly growing alt-right online
presence and need to find ways to undermine these extreme communities.
It is likely that a shadow network (Frickel, Torcasso, and Anderson 2015)
of alt-right activism exists between various Reddit forums and other extrem-
ist political spaces, such as StormFront, segments of 4chan, and online fo-
rums unknown to scholars. If this is true, elite users on one forum can utilize
their capital within multiple online spaces, bolstering the global Right’s or-
ganizational capabilities. We must focus on the mechanisms through which
communities like the Red Pill create political engagement, such as using emo-
tional identity talk, relying on charismatic leaders, and developing personal
philosophies that can be linked to collective action. Understanding these pro-
cesses will help us combat (and hopefully prevent) the election of the next mi-
sogynistic populist.
Additionally, as feminists, we must address the social and political processes
that allowed these hateful communities to crawl out of the shadows. Our in-
fluence in modern political institutions is already waning, as we further tran-
sition into a postfeminist culture where feminist concerns and politics are
considered unnecessary and even harmful to women’s success (Taylor
1989; Hall and Rodriguez 2003; Staggenborg and Taylor 2005). This is re-
flected in an increasingly vile and misogynistic Internet culture in which
women are attacked for merely existing (Jane 2014, 2016; Sobieraj 2017).
We must ensure that these communities do not dominate online discussions,
and we must halt the tide of postfeminist discourse. The Women’s March
demonstrated that feminists are not alone in this fight against extremism. It
is critical for us to find ways to create our own networks and reproduce this
success online.
Department of Sociology
Florida State University

References
Banet-Weiser, Sarah, and Kate M. Miltner. 2016. “#MasculinitySoFragile: Culture,

Structure, and Networked Misogyny.” Feminist Media Studies 16(1):171–74.
Banet-Weiser, Sarah, and Laura Portwood-Stacer. 2017. “The Traffic in Feminism:
An Introduction to the Commentary and Criticism on Popular Feminism.” Fem-
inist Media Studies 17(5):884–88.
Barthel, Michael, Galen Stocking, Jesse Holcomb, and Amy Mitchell. 2016.
“Seven-in-Ten Reddit Users Get News on the Site.” Pew Research Center, Feb-
ruary 25. http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/25/seven-in-ten-reddit-users
-get-news-on-the-site/.
Beckwith, Karen. 1996. “Lancashire Women against Pit Closures: Women’s Standing
in a Men’s Movement.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(4):
1034–68.
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–
39.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2012. “The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social
Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation.” Annals of the American Acad-
emy of Political and Social Science 644(1):20–29.
Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Berns, Nancy. 2001. “Degendering the Problem and Gendering the Blame: Polit-
ical Discourse on Women and Violence.” Gender and Society 15(2):262–81.
Bernstein, Mary. 2005. “Identity Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:47–74.
Beyer, Jessica L. 2014. Expect Us: Online Communities and Political Mobilization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blee, Kathleen, and Kimberly A. Creasap. 2010. “Conservative and Right-Wing
Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:269–86.
Bowman-Grieve, Lorraine. 2009. “Exploring ‘Stormfront’: A Virtual Community
of the Radical Right.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 32(11):989–1007.
Caren, Neal, Kay Jowers, and Sarah Gaby. 2012. “A Social Movement Online Com-
munity: Stormfront and the White Nationalist Movement.” Research in Social
Movements, Conflicts, and Change, no. 33: 163–93.
Cho, Ji Young, and Eun-Hee Lee. 2014. “Reducing Confusion about Grounded
Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences.” Qualita-
tive Report 19(32):1–20.
Clark-Parson, Rosemary. 2017. “Building a Digital Girl Army: The Cultivation of
Feminist Safe Spaces Online.” New Media and Society 26(6):2125–44.
Cohen, Philip N. 1996. “Nationalism and Suffrage: Gender Struggle in Nation-
Building America.” Signs 21(3):707–27.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Re-
thinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19(6):829–59.

Earl, Jennifer. 2007. “Leading Tasks in a Leaderless Movement: The Case of Stra-
tegic Voting.” American Behavioral Scientist 50(10):1327– 49.
Earl, Jennifer, and Alan Schussman. 2004. “From Barricades to Firewalls? Strategic
Voting and Social Movement Leadership in the Internet Age.” Sociological In-
quiry 74(4):439–63.
Faludi, Susan. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War against Women. New York: Crown.
Ferber, Abby L. 2000. “Racial Warriors and Weekend Warriors: The Construction
of Masculinity in Mythopoetic and White Supremacist Discourse.” Men and
Masculinities 3(1):30–56.
Frickel, Scott, Rebekah Torcasso, and Annika Anderson. 2015. “The Organization
of Expert Activism: Shadow Mobilization in Two Social Movements.” Mobiliza-
tion 21(3):305–23.
Futrell, Robert, and Pete Simi. 2004. “Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the Per-
sistence of US White Power Activism.” Social Problems 51(1):16– 42.
Gamson, Joshua. 1997. “Messages of Exclusion: Gender, Movements, and Sym-
bolic Boundaries.” Gender & Society 11(2):178–99.
Hall, Elaine J., and Marnie Salupo Rodriguez. 2003. “The Myth of Postfeminism.”
Gender & Society 17(6):878–902.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Hunt, Scott A., and Robert D. Benford. 1994. “Identity Talk in the Peace and Jus-
tice Movement.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22(4):488–517.
Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford, and David A. Snow. 1994. “Identity Fields:
Framing Processes and the Social Construction of Movement Identities.” In
New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Laraña,
Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield, 185–208. Philadelphia: Temple Univer-
sity Press.
Jane, Emma. 2014. “ ‘Back to the Kitchen, Cunt’: Speaking the Unspeakable about
Online Misogyny.” Continuum 28(4):558–50.
———. 2016. “Online Misogyny and Feminist Digilantism.” Continuum 30(3):284–
97.
Jasper, James. 1998. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in
and around Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 13(3):397– 424.
———. 2011. “Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Re-
search.” Annual Review of Sociology 37:285–303.
Jordan, Ana. 2016. “Conceptualizing Backlash: (UK) Men’s Right’s Groups,
Antifeminism, and Postfeminism.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law
28(1):18– 44.
Lyons, N. Matthew. 2017. “Ctrl-Alt-Delete: The Origins and Ideology of the Al-
ternative Right.” In Ctrl-Alt-Delete: An Antifacist Report on the Alt-Right, with
Its Going Down, K. Kersplebedeb, and Bromma, 1–22. Montreal: Kersplebedeb
Publishing.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mansbridge, Jane, and Aldon Morris. 2001. Oppositional Consciousness: The Subjec-
tive Roots of Social Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, Susan E. 1985. “Ladies against Women: Mobilization Dilemmas of Anti-
feminist Movements.” Social Problems 32(4):348–62.
Martin, Trevor. 2017. “Dissecting Trump’s Most Rabid Online Following.”
FiveThirtyEight, March 23. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting
-trumps-most-rabid-online-following/.
McCammon, Holly, Karen Campbell, Ellen Granberg, and Christine Mowery. 2001.
“How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and US Women’s Suf-
frage Movements, 1866 to 1919.” American Sociological Review 66(1):49–70.
McRobbie, Angela. 2009. The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture, and Social
Change. London: Sage.
Mendes, Kaitlynn. 2012. “ ‘Feminism Rules! Now, Where’s My Swimsuit?’ Re-
evaluating Feminist Discourse in Print Media, 1968–2008.” Media, Culture, and
Society 34(5):554–70.
Messner, Michael A. 1998. “The Limits of ‘the Male Sex Role’: An Analysis of the
Men’s Liberation and Men’s Rights Movements’ Discourse.” Gender & Society
12(3):255–76.
Phillips, Whitney. 2015. This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Re-
lationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Polleta, Francesca. 1998. “ ‘It Was Like a Fever . . .’ Narrative and Identity in Social
Protest.” Social Problems 45(2):137–59.
Polleta, Francesca, and James M. Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity and Social
Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:283–305.
Rohlinger, Deana. 2015. Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social Movements in
America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rohlinger, Deana, and Leslie Bunnage. 2015. “Connecting People to Politics over
Time? Internet Communication Technology and Retention in MoveOn.org
and the Florida Tea Party Movement.” Information, Communication, and Soci-
ety 18(5):539–52.
———. 2017. “Did the Tea Party Movement Fuel the Trump-Train? The Role of
Social Media in Activist Persistence and Political Change in the 21st Century.”
Social Media and Society 3(2).
Rohlinger, Deana, Jesse Klein, Tara Stamm, and Kyle Rogers. 2015. “Constricting
Boundaries: Collective Identity in the Tea Party Movement.” In Border Politics,
Social Movements, and Globalization, edited by Nancy Naples and Jennifer
Bickham Mendez, 177–205. New York: New York University Press.
Salter, Michael. 2016. “Men’s Rights or Men’s Needs? Anti-feminism in Australian
Men’s Health Promotion.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 28(1):69–90.
Sandoval, Chela. 1991. “US Third World Feminism: The Theory and Method of
Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World.” Genders 10 (Spring):
1–24.

Schrock, Douglas, and Michael Schwalbe. 2009. “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood
Acts.” Annual Review of Sociology 35:277–95.
Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy
Thompson, and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduc-
tion of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79(2):419–52.
Simon, Bernd, and Olga Grabow. 2010. “The Politicization of Migrants: Further
Evidence That Politicized Collective Identity Is a Dual Identity.” Political Psy-
chology 31(5):717–38.
Simon, Bernd, and Bert Klandermans. 2001. “Politicized Collective Identity: A So-
cial Psychological Analysis.” American Psychologist 56(4):319–31.
Snow, David A., and Doug McAdam. 2000. “Identity Work Processes in the Con-
text of Social Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement Nexus.” In Self,
Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens,
and Robert W. White, 41–67. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sobieraj, Sarah. 2017. “Bitch, Slut, Skank, Cunt: Patterned Resistance to Women’s Vis-
ibility in Digital Politics.” Information, Communication, and Society 21(8):1700–
1714.
Southern Poverty Law Center. 2012. “Misogyny: The Sites.” Intelligence Reports,
March 1. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012
/misogyny-sites.
Staggenborg, Suzanne, and Verta Taylor. 2005. “Whatever Happened to the Wom-
en’s Movement?” Mobilization 10(1):37–52.
Taylor, Verta. 1989. “Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in
Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54(5):761–75.


Red Pill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Red Pill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Red Pill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pierce Alexander Dignam

Misogynistic Men Online: How the Red Pill

When somebody accuses a powerful or famous ﬁgure like Trump of “sexual

D onald Trump shocked the world by emerging victorious in the 2016 US

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

tity politics, a solution to the “woman problem”: organized misogyny (Banet-

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

men against her, a strategy that was underestimated by many feminists.5 To

Conceptualizing men’s right activism in the digital age

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

played a critical role in elevating unsupported arguments regarding the neg-

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

cultivation of oppositional consciousness does not presume that individuals

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

politicized and served as a base of collective action in the 2016 presidential

The Red Pill: An introduction

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

Table 1. Most popular October posts by topic, 2013–2016

Note: Total number of comments: 1,762.

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

Red Pill Theory, Labeling Women as Manipulative, and Challenging Other

October 2013–2015: The Red Pill as personal philosophy

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

ity. We do not want mainstream success because we primarily advocate in-

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

October 2016: Politicizing the Red Pill identity

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

The future of politicized semiautonomous spaces

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

Banet-Weiser, Sarah, and Kate M. Miltner. 2016. “#MasculinitySoFragile: Culture,

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

This content downloaded from 140.233.002.214 on July 24, 2019 12:09:16 PM

You might also like