> "The Red Pill Movement is the movement created against the social oppression of men"

Well, yes and no. I think it’s useful to tell the Red Pill theory apart from the people adopting (and sometimes distorting) it. Some “Red-Pillers” are rational, some are overly emotional and some are dysfunctional.

Basically, the Red Pill means having a practical, realistic outlook about men-women relationships, as opposed to the so-called Blue Pill attitude, all romantic fairy-tales and Disney "happily-ever-after". It's a psycho-sociological theory, mostly based on evolutionary psychology.

A theory is like a tool: it can be used constructively, handled badly, or used as a weapon. A bit like a kitchen knife: you could use it to cook, or to kill. But the use depends on the user, not the theory.

Some people use the RP to support their fears and victim mindset, some people to improve their relationships. Just because someone uses the theory badly, it's not the theory's fault.

You should be able to tell apart the theory from its different users and uses. The Nazis used Nietzsche's theory of the Ubermensch to support their ideology. Was it Nietzsche's fault? Of course not.

It sounds like your fear of men has tinted (tainted?) your analysis of the Red Pill; making you conflate its worst adopters with the theory itself, and making you forgetting or ignoring the more rational, balanced RP thinkers.

PS: Here’s a video, from the psychologist Orion Taraban, rationally defining the Red Pill and suggesting it can be a path to a “spiritual transformation” and better ability to handle relationships (he also considers when the RP is not properly digested and can drive to negative reactions): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkEVFel2bk4