In martial arts, there are two basic principles one must master: 1) how to attack, and 2) how to prevent your opponent from counter-attacking. Many people usually simplify this to attack and defense. But the reality, which most martial arts figured out long ago, is that one of the most effective forms of “defense” is actually preventing your opponent from counter-attacking you in the first place.
This may take the form of disabling your opponent. For example, a common boxing tactic is punching the opponent’s body, which weakens their ability to counter-punch, reduces their coordination, and produces tiredness, shaky legs, and shortness of breath (not to be confused with a liver shot which can knock an opponent out, but is relatively uncommon with trained fighters). Numerous other examples of the same tactic can be found in Aikido, Krav Maga, Brazilian Ju-jitsu, and the like.
The whole point is to render your opponent 
defenseless. Only then can you unleash your full arsenal without fear of reprisal. Total domination.
It is not surprising then that we find this same two-principle approach – attacking and preventing your opponent from counter-attacking – in modern Feminism. If you look at phenomena like the MeToo movement, the entire idea is to create a paradigm where men cannot defend themselves, even from accusations. No Fault divorces and the Family Court system are essentially the same thing.
A world where women are always victims, and men always perpetrators, means that any accusation by a woman cannot be countered by the man. He is guilty by default. He cannot “counter punch”.
All of this is the result of the gradual erosion over the last fifty years of men’s ability to have healthy boundaries in their dealings with women, both interpersonally and professionally and legally and relationship-wise. No surprise then that many are starting to see modern Feminism as a female supremacy movement.
The Chicago Tribune ran an article last week about a national survey showing teenagers in the United States are losing interest in STEM. At least that was the headline. On closer inspection, the article actually says that percentage of boys interested in STEM dropped from 36% to 24%, while the percentage of girls interested in STEM remained unchanged at 11%. Yet the article goes on to lament the fact that girl’s interest didn’t increase, rather than focusing on the 35% drop in boys’ interest.
Clearly programs to increase female participation in STEM appear to be making those fields less palatable to young boys, without creating any improvement in female participation. But nowhere in the article is that problem discussed. Feminizing STEM careers is only serving to undermine young men in the modern West.
All of this is a very clear example of the Feminist agenda: how to disempower someone. All the while young men and boys in the modern West suffer increasingly worse outcomes, without any recourse …. and our society suffers for it as well. It is a strange notion – that “empowerment” can be rooted in disempowerment of others. Tearing others down, rather than raising yourself up.
The real irony, of course, is that classical liberalism is rooted in empowering individuals to pursue their own endeavors, rather than the collective endeavors of any one group. Feminists must have not got the memo.
I will give one final example of this sort of power play, on a more interpersonal level, which I originally posted as a comment in response to a question over at RedPillGirl’s blog. This comes from one of the girls I’m dating right now. She’s about 30, thin, tight body, youthful looking, what most men would consider attractive. She’s half-asian so that helps.
She does this thing where she uses some problem in her life (usually a contrived problem at that) to try and elicit sympathy from me, and if I don’t cave to that expectation she calls me “mean”. It’s classic female shit-testing. And I’m sure it’s worked on most guys she’s come across here in the modern West. She does it repeatedly, trying to get the man to cave a little more each time. Of course, I never do.
Her whole purpose, from an evolutionary standpoint, is to manipulate the man into giving her things, at first emotionally but over time resource-wise. This is part of her method of accomplishing that – emotional manipulation.
Now that would all be fine, especially if we still lived in a world where men could openly wield “hard power” to keep her in line. But we don’t, so my only options as a man are to either walk away from her demands, or to counter her with psychological maneuvers of my own, i.e. fight fire with fire. This is the gist of Red Pill theory and TRP.