Okay. Here goes my confession: I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Voted enthusiastically for Bernie way back in the 2016 primaries. Wanted him to run again. Held my nose and voted for Harris this past time. And I can't stand Trump. Some of his ideas I would agree with; for example, I'll give him credit for calling China our #1 enemy back in 2016 when everyone, Republican and Democrat, were tripping over themselves to sell off more of our country to them. But this dude as the standard-bearer for those ideas? I'll pass.

I hope I don't start a flame war for stating my opinion, and I respect that most people here would disagree with me on my politics, as I do theirs, but I think we do both solidly agree on the sexual and gender politics that this forum focuses on.

And the reason I'm outing myself (seriously, I feel like a gay guy coming out in the barracks in the 1980s :-) is because I wanted to answer the OP about why so many guys have become redpilled. If my liberal brethren continue to say that a woman who came from a rich background, went to an Ivy League school, and has a solid 6-figure job, is oppressed, while a guy from a poor family, who scraped his way through community college and lives breaking his back in an at-will construction job that he gets laid off from everytime the housing market cools, is privileged, then don't be surprised when your party loses that construction guy's support. Does being a woman mean your opinions are dismissed easier? Yes. Are there other disadvantages to being a woman? Sure. But do all those disadvantages automatically outweigh every other factor when it comes to deciding who's privileged and who's oppressed? Hell no.

The sight of a bunch of young women protesting on the campuses of Columbia or Harvard or some other safe, cloistered, Ivy League school, about their "oppression" while knowing their daddy's connections will land them in a far better life than the average male in America, repels men of all stripes to a degree that I think most of my liberal colleagues can't fathom. Calling anyone with a penis "the enemy" pretty much ensures that -- surprise -- they become "the enemy".

Anyway, that's my political analysis. I was amused when so many Democrats were shocked at how many young men voted for Trump the last election. All I could say was, if you tell men they're automatically bad because because of who they are, then they'll go to the party that doesn't tell them that. And every other issue, be it taxes, education, environment, whatever, that they might otherwise agree with you on, takes secondary precedence.

There's a great post in slatestarcodex about how this phenomenon works, specifically as it relates to young men and their difficulties in the dating world, and how that leads to wholesale conversation of their entire political affiliation. It's really good. I'll have to dig it up and post it as weekend content.

So let's get something straight for these two poor, struggling souls [sic]. Men never went to a bar for drinks. You can drink much better liquor, for less money, without the inconvenience of flagging down a bartender, at home (don't even need to wear pants!).

Men go to bars and clubs to meet women. That's what they're paying for. A club promoter once referred to his job as slut-herding: rounding up hot sluts into a single location, so that guys could pay money for the convenience of shooting their shot with a bunch of women in a single night, women that they otherwise would never meet through work or friends or the rest of their normal lives. The alcohol is just social lubricant.

But now, the slut herders aren't necessary, because they've been replaced by the biggest slut herder of them all: Tinder (and other OLDs). Now, you can shoot your shot with far more women herded into a single location, much quicker, and much easier (don't even need to start with small talk). And even a paid subscription to Tinder is cheaper than a cover charge.

Eespite women's lies to the contrary, even in bars, it was never about conversation. It was about your looks first (which is why everyone dressed up). Then money ("So what do you do?"), then maybe a little extra credit for personality. Which is the same on Tinder. So it's not even like you have a better shot in a bar because it's in-person (maybe at church, or at work, or being setup by friends, the priorities are a little different, but not at a bar). Why would any man who has a decent shot at attracting a woman at a bar, not just spend their time swiping on Tinder? Far more efficient, cheaper, and you only need one set of curated pics rather than having to dress up every time you go out. No small talk, no buying drinks, no dealing with friends being cockblockers, it's open 24/7, you can literally go through more women during a bathroom break at work than on a full night at a club.

And let's be frank. Neither of these women is celibate. They go to a bar hoping some deluded person will buy them free drinks all night, while lining up a fuck session with a hot guy off tinder. And guys know this. If you go to a bar with the intention of hooking up, or even actually finding a girlfriend (you sweet summer child...), you're no longer just competing with the guys at the bar. you're competing with the thousands of guys available to her on OLD that night. What advantage does meeting them at the bar provide you? It's far better to be the guy meeting them on Tinder. The cost is basically free (not just in money; in time, and most importantly, emotional damage of being rejected).

Honestly, even the women prefer this: they have access to many more guys than they do at the bar. What they're really complaining about is that they no longer get free drinks, and they no longer get the dopamine high of rejecting a man to his face after he's invested several hours and a hundred bucks on drinks for her. That's really the only thing that bars provide for a woman that they can't get from Tinder.

Theoretically, swiping is better for both parties: neither one wastes time with someone they see no potential in. But only women complain about it, because the old system had something more valuable: seeing just how much time/effort/money you're willing to pay for the chance of dating her, before she rejects you. Guys' emotional pain at rejection was always the inverse of women's emotional satisfaction at seeing how far on a limb a guy would go for her. It's why when experienced players, who might spend the same amount of time on her, easily move on to the next one when she says no, the girl feels cheated, or "played". What exactly was she cheated of, if the PUA still spent time chatting with her and flirting with her? And the answer is of course: she didn't get to see him suffer from her rejection. He robbed her of that emotional high.

That's what these girls are after when they go to a bar. They can find men more easily on Tinder than any bar, just like men can find them with much less effort. But the high of rejecting dudes on Tinder by swiping left isn't the same as seeing their confidence shattered face-to-face, especially when you know the guy you swiped left on barely even remembers swiping on you amongst the hundreds of other girls he swiped right on. And for sure will never spend the rest of the night thinking about you and what he might have done differently.