TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

50

As a man, I am well aware of many advantages and privileges my gender affords me. For example: I almost never worry about being raped or sexually assaulted. People take me seriously almost by default and assume that I know what I'm talking about more than they probably would if I were a woman. I have much less pressure to conform to body/image beauty standards. Ageism is probably a non-issue for me until I reach retirement age. I don't have to go through pregnancy. I don't need to always be hyper aware of my surroundings because I don't appear to be easy of a target for predators as women might be. I don't usually get leered at and harassed by members of the other gender to the point that it makes me uncomfortable. Et cetera.

To be fair, I could list off plenty of disadvantages to being a man (especially a man of color) as well. But the point is that it isn't too hard for me to call a spade a spade and admit it when I have a clear advantage. Most men IME are reasonably able to do this when comparing thier situations to women.

On the other hand, probably the biggest power imbalance that women have in thier favor is in the realm of sexuality and romance, but you'd never know it of you took women's words for it. Sure, there is a small minority of very attractive men that have it better than everyone, women included, but that doesn't warrant extrapolating thier situations to all men. Maybe it's just the PPD echo chamber. Women offline seem to be more willing to level about these issues IME, albeit more in a "Oh well, tough shit" kind of tone.

But it seems like the most you can get out of most women in discussions here is an implication that any advantages are basically negated by other disadvantages, at best. At worst, these things are hamstered away, and NAWALTed ad infinitum, and even argued up and down as disadvantages in reality, contrary to all evidence and common sense. It's almost like suggesting that women have the upper hand over men, in any appreciable way whatsoever is the worst kind of heresy and sacrilege.

Not for nothing, I'm not suggesting that we just devolve into round after round of oppression Olympics for the sake of complaining. I just think it's important for men to accurately know where thier advantages and disadvantages lie so as to formulate effective strategies. Why is it that women seem to be completely averse to this?


[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 17[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

No leading questions. Removed.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man26 points27 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The cultural zeitgeist is that women are oppressed and men are oppressors. Women admitting to advantages makes them feel less "oppressed", so even if they see advantages they have to restate it in ways that makes those advantages a part of their oppression. Not doing so would disrupt the culture of tilting the scales in favor of women.

[–]tmep-account17297 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. We're living in an age where (ironically): to be oppressed grants a group power. There's no reason a group would voluntarily give up there power. You'll get a few individuals who see through it and don't give a shit, but by and large most people in the group will just shrug and accept things as the way they are.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea, this is definitely part of it.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

People in general downplay their advantages and dwell on their disadvantages.

If people weren't like this, we'd all still be living in the woods flinging shit at each other

(Meh...maybe that would've been better than this nightmare society humanity has created. This hellhole of contradictions and boundless, unfulfillable want is our collective punishment for our millennia of ingratitude and discontentment)

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yup. This is universal.

It's not just that, but people have trouble imagining what it's like to be in different position than what they're in or be different than what they are. People care most about what affects them personally or something they have had personal experience with.

I didn't think about nor care much about the rights of wheelchair users until I had kids and was wheeling mine around in strollers; then I suddenly noticed how hard it was to go anywhere and I started being more cognisant of how hard it must be to be wheelchair.

A woman who has never had any trouble getting laid, or worse, never experienced what it's like to be thirsty, will not ever really empathise with what it's like.

[–]WhyMeThough11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

""It's not just that, but people have trouble imagining what it's like to be in different position than what they're in or be different than what they are.""

That's not true. Maybe it's a hard time for you but plenty of people do feel empathy and can imagin being in a different position. Bad example.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman who has never had any trouble getting laid, or worse, never experienced what it's like to be thirsty, will not ever really empathise with what it's like.

I don't see much empathy from femcels for incels anyway.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I also think women in particular are nearly hypochondriacs about their vulnerabilities.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If people weren't like this, we'd all still be living in the woods flinging shit at each other

I don't follow the logic there.

[–]DREADC0RSAIRNo Pill | Just Dead Inside3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We get bored of the good shit we already have and complain about the shit we dont. So we feel a compulsion to make life more comfortable, thus creating stuff like houses, cars, organized civilization etc.

[–]Autistic_ReeeeeeeeeeRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. it truly is miserable.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There was a recent episode of Freakonomics about how people tend to think that they have more disadvantages than advantages in life. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-my-life-so-hard/

Anyway, I think some of it has to do with feminism. It teaches women to think about how disadvantaged they are. Every political movement has a tendency to overplay their victimhood because "anger" and "feeling victimized" are useful for every political movement. It makes people press for changes and it keeps people funding the movement. Further, people who want to change the system are most likely to rise to power and become leaders of movements - and people who erroneously over-estimate their victimhood are ones who most want to change the system. So, you get a bunch of leaders telling people (and believing) they're oppressed. Turn on FOX News, and you'll see them complaining about how hard it is to be white and Christian in the US - showing that the victimhood narrative works for conservatives, too.

It's funny, though, how often situations are twisted into the "women are oppressed" narrative. For example, there's some good research showing that being female is a big advantage in the criminal justice system. Women get much shorter sentences than men for the same crimes, and are more likely to avoid jailtime all-together than men are. In fact, the research shows that being a woman (rather than a man) is a bigger advantage than being white (rather than black). We hear a lot about "white privilege" in the criminal justice system, but I've rarely heard anything about "female privilege" in the criminal justice system. I've heard the counter-argument that the reason women don't get punished has harshly as men is because "society doesn't take women seriously". Which is some spin-doctoring to make an advantage look like a disadvantage. On the flip-side, I once was in an online discussion where some women were talking about prison sentences for people who murder their spouses. A woman mentioned a study saying that women got an average prison sentences of 16 years for murdering their husbands, but men only got an average of 6 years for murdering their wives. A number of women chimed in to talk say "of course the patriarchy would allow men to get off with shorter sentences" and generally bemoaning this as an example of female oppression under "the patriarchy". She actually got the research backwards - men who murder their spouse get an average of 16 years, women who murder their husbands get an average of 6 years. It's the old pattern of women getting lighter sentences. My point in bringing this up is this: whether men got longer sentences than women or men got shorter sentences than women, BOTH were interpreted by women as examples of female oppression. It was an interesting lesson how opposite stories can be spun to reinforce the "women are oppressed" narrative. I think women have been told so often they're oppressed that any difference in the treatment of men and women is immediately met with "how does this male-female difference support my existing belief that women are oppressed?"

[–]sketch162000[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Aye, feminism is a likely culprit.

It can come off as almost religious or cult-like. There's this acceptance of the infallible Creed, (i.e. women are oppressed and men are the oppressors) naming of the demon (i.e. The Patriarchy,) even a concept of original sin (i.e. privilege) and everything twists to support that narrative. It's why some ex-feminists describe leaving feminism as almost like losing your faith.

[–]HossMcDankEdgy Centrist5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if they're much less inclined to do so, as many men won't admit to having any gender-based advantages (though some of yours are straight up false). Most people are too insecure to admit that in some cases they have it easier since it's ego damaging.

Let's be real, if you're using this forum in a first world country you are at least in the top 1% of the most privileged people in history.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's be real, if you're using this forum in a first world country you are at least in the top 1% of the most privileged people in history.

This knowledge will not pay my bills or my food though.
It's good to show gratitude for what you have but don't go the other way around.

We also have a lot of problems that ancient Greeks did not have.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know what that final statement has to do with anything.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Self-esteem boost.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why is it that women seem to be completely averse to this?

That's not hard to answer. Women do this because it means the flow of resources from men to women keep coming. Look at the women who do openly admit that women have advantages - female MRAs aside, they will always say that women deserve advantages. Look how many women around here say that men are and should stay disposable, for God's sake.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Look how many women around here say that men are and should stay disposable, for God's sake.

And this is a good thing. It's shows men that visit this place that nerdy women see them as disposable.

Honestly if dating was mandatory, I'd go with a fat feminist before even considering dating the type of woman found here - that holds purple pill views.

At least I'm somewhat attractive to her even if I don't reach Chad levels.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

And this is a good thing. It's shows men that visit this place that nerdy women see them as disposable.

Thereby generating even more misogyny. That's not good.

Honestly if dating was mandatory, I'd go with a fat feminist before even considering dating the type of woman found here - that holds purple pill views.

This place is crawling with feminists - and (fat or not) feminists are always the very men and women screaming loudest that men should be disposable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

More misogyny is not good but useful, insofar that it shakes the boat.

Yeah, I don't prefer a fat feminist to a normal woman. Just to a PPD "nerd" feminist.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

More misogyny is not good but useful, insofar that it shakes the boat.

Criticism of misandry and male disposability (which feminists mistake as misogyny) is useful. Outright misogyny only creates more misandry, and vice-versa.

Yeah, I don't prefer a fat feminist to a normal woman. Just to a PPD "nerd" feminist.

You don't want a feminist at all. I'm telling you, real life every day feminists are the ones posting here. You're meeting real life women giving you their real opinions that they'd never share publicly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I wouldn't talk about this sort of stuff in public either.

I once told a guy when I was drunk that I don't want to marry a woman who's been with over 30 guys at 32 and he practically stopped talking to me. LOL.

His GF also cheated on him (he claims to have caught them) and he's still with her.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL he's a fucking loser. Hope you ejected his dumb ass.

[–]KikiYuyuPurple Pill Woman11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Not everyone is in a position to capatalize on or experience all the advantages of their demographic. I'm not using my womanly wiles any time soon. But I do admit I generally get treated more gently than I would if I was a man.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That's what most people will experience: women get more attention, both positive and negative. Men are more ignored and invisible. Women who are attractive will think being invisible is bliss. Women who aren't will think they're not getting any advantage out of anything. Men will think that people's bias toward women give them more potential even though most won't use it.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Self awareness is a gift.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Everything is a gift.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

gives rus9384 a pile of shit

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😂️ I wish the thread hadn't been deleted by annoying mods so more people could see this comment.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

use pile of shit as fertilizer, grows transgenic plant-women beings and sell them to incels

gets super wealthy, kidnaps exit_sandman and actually buries him under unfertile piles of shit

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I did not tell a good gift, though.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a downside to all of this chivalry, though -- you will probably have less credibility and more difficulty imposing your will. You'll have to be much more diplomatic in managing people without them realizing it, lol.

That has been my experience, but then I'm not interested in being treated gently; I want to rule the world.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ooookay.

[–]KikiYuyuPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's pretty handy for me as an introvert. I might be looked down on as weak if I was a man, but since I'm a girl I guess it's more "acceptable" for me to have weakness, so people take pity on my awkward shyness rather than mistreat me for it.

[–]OverAnalyzingAutist7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No one wants to believe that their success is due to luck as opposed to their own hard work.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oddly enough, people who work hard seem to be unusually lucky ... a coincidence? I think not.

[–]Brazilian_Slaughter7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because a lot of people still subscribe to the Just World fallacy, so they think that this is somehow "balanced" by something something male priviledge NAWALT blablabla just be yourself

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they are telling the world is not just but ought to be just.

[–]merewautt16 points17 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

I honestly don't know if I see women on here denying the privileges as much as denying the assumptions based on them. Women can get more dates and casual sex = rarely see anyone disagree with that fact. Women who date who they like in a women's market are superficial cunts and the downfall of society = lots of disagreement.

I personally don't care if men want to complain that dating is harder from their end. It's the whole "women are hivemind monsters who are specifically doing this punish us, and men's quality of life is more important so we need to revert" narrative that I disagree with.

It's the super sensationalized conclusions that are being drawn from what started out as just pretty obvious cultural observations. Like you all could have had decent online conversations about dating, and possibly started changes in the culture that would benefit you (dating norms have shifted before), but you had to jump to such absolute insanity that you can't even bring the subject up without people assuming (correctly 9/10) you're implying horrible shit about women. And you end up even more isolated and lower socially than before the whole redpill/incel thing blew up. I try to be sympathetic, but come on. That's just objectively a horrible game plan.

You all did say you have bad social skills, though. You should invest in a PR manager or something.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse3 points4 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

I personally don't care if men want to complain that dating is harder from their end. It's the whole "women are hivemind monsters who are specifically doing this punish us, and men's quality of life is more important so we need to revert" narrative that I disagree with.

Well I disagree with the "need to revert." No need to become the monster that you hate. The best way to handle such a problem is to provide a better example of behavior - and also men need to set way higher standards for the women they reward with romantic/sexual companionship.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

also men need to set way higher standards for the women they reward with romantic/sexual companionship.

Can't do that when there are so many desperate guys who are ready to be treated disrespectfully just for having sex.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

There needs to be a new pill-equivalent that reaches out to men about this subject. I think it could be more successful than TRP if it doesn't lie to men and say men aren't victims. You must first acknowledge that women have made dating a fucking hellscape. But then you must point out that men are partially responsible for this. You have to package the truth in a way that swells a man's pride with empowerment, by saying that he has the power to stop this. Add one tiny big lie that he has the individual power to stop this - just one tiny embellishment - and you get tons of men to act on it because they also feel empowered; and then that embellishment becomes truth. Plus you've also talked directly to that bitterness, validated it, and then channeled it to an incentive to take positive action.

You can turn the desperate male herd. It's all about how you package (and sometimes embellish) the truth.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There needs to be a new pill-equivalent that reaches out to men about this subject.

The only kind of pill that would get men to be less thirsty is a chemical castration pill. If it weren't for male thirst we wouldn't all be here today after all

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Idt so. I think it's off the charts these days for many reasons.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually male thirst at the levels expressed now will help make sure we won't be here for much longer. Male thirst, kept within sensible limits, would have forged a better quality of woman, and thus a better quality of species.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This has been apart of my strategy for the longest. It's strange how things go full circle. My earliest posts reflect everything that's happening now & back then people said I was a lunatic.

& honestly, how have we let women single handedly do this. Like why have we given in so much that we're letting all this happen.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like to say often of this: men's rights need to come with men's responsibilities.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

women have made dating a fucking hellscape.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Yes, many women became assholes because men allow them act that way.

The majority will ignore that new pill-equivalent anyway.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No more than ignore TRP. But I think it will get more traction because it is easier to do, and more empowering. And the rewards are far more wholesome.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They have in know that bothers you. I figured that statement would trigger someone.

[–]Strykarun10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's funny how what you're talking about is basically protestant sexual ethics, or any pretty much any religious traditions approach to sexual ethics. (Ie. don't have so much sex)

Its like sexual liberation actually did really fuck up some important homeostatic mechanism (moral fabric) of society that religion was trying to hold in place.

Not saying we need to be religious but yeah it's interesting.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men don't need Protestantism, they just need to be choosier.

[–]merewautt3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Well I don't think women are monsters... so there's that part of your comment.

But anyway, I am curious by what you mean by "men need to set way high standards for the women they reward with romantic/sexual companionship"? How would that work in your conception of it? I just can't imagine telling other women to have higher standards so that I could finally attain the men that could previously date them, let alone how I could actually get them to agree and avoid men they're interested in just for the sake of other women (strangers) having more power in the dating sphere.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Well I don't think women are monsters... so there's that part of your comment.

Not all women are monsters. But relating to my post, the ones who are monsters are that way partially because men fail to set boundaries and hold women to higher standards.

By this, I mean (for one of many instances) if a woman says in her Tinder profile, "I won't date a guy who's insecure or under 6 feet", the men who see this and date her anyway are enabling her monster behavior. If a woman gets to be known as someone who dates Chads, her beta orbiters who are doing things for her (like, in one meme I saw, giving her a motherfucking pedicure) are enabling her.

This enabling needs to stop. Men need some large and loud Manosphere entity that preaches how not to be so damned thirsty. This is what helps monster women thrive. Men need to take responsibility rather than just whine.

Edit: Please see this blog post of mine about how to set higher standards

[–]reluctantly_red3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

if a woman says in her Tinder profile, "I won't date a guy who's insecure or under 6 feet", the men who see this and date her anyway are enabling her monster behavior.

Good luck getting guys to pass on their comparative advantage. As a 6'4" guy this is exactly the woman I'm going to hit up.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw a Twitter thread where a women just said some shit like that & she was like "everybody else is disqualified" & I literally laughed at loud at the dudes that posted in that thread. She has you fucking tap dancing for her social media games just for a "chance at a date". & you're ass is basically like "Well, there's still a shot I guess".

[–]Kujab0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I already had some relationships based on their attraction to my height and I actually pass on these women now.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But then you should fuckzone her. For being a bitch.

Of course, I assume she is not a bitch if she is 5"11' or taller, but that's a rare case.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Back in the day I hooked up with a woman who was the same height as me (she was a college basketball player). The sex was great but unfortunately she turned out to be totally nuts.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Problem is if she stops liking you if you lose 10 inches, she never loved you for you in the first place... she only loves the image you present. Some men will get that message when you point it out, others won't. No message reaches everyone.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Problem is if she stops liking you if you lose 10 inches, she never loved you for you in the first place... she only loves the image you present.

This is very true -- but its true for all women in all situations -- doesn't matter what drew her to you in the first place.

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it not the same with men?

[–]Soorma5392-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And get divorce raped by them not once but twice 😂

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why is she exactly the type you want to hit up?

Are you so desperate to get your dick wet? I thought sex wasn't that important...

Or does that only apply to losers?

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought sex wasn't that important

Who the hell believes that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lots of people, especially here on reddit tell guys on FA and other "self-pity" subs where hetero men (who don't do well with women) gather.

I've seen "sex is not that important" on reddit, quite possibly more than anywhere else.

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree. Women as a whole know better to have standards, and there is no reason men couldn't learn and follow the same principle.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"women are hivemind monsters who are specifically doing this

That's not what TRP says. Women act independently and have free will. However, millions of years of biology and thousands of years of culture push them in certain directions. Guys would be foolish not to acknowledge this.

TRP is a predictive model. It doesn't have to be right 100% of the time to be useful.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

TRP is a predictive model. It doesn't have to be right 100% of the time to be useful.

Can we compare TRP with Newtonian mechanics? Then there might be General Relativity somewhere...

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like Newtonian mechanics it explains and predicts the vast majority of real life day to day interacts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah TRP is more like a Monte Carlo algorithm.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women dating who they like is understandable. I would not date a woman whom I don't like either.

The problems are: single moms, women who cry WAATG(L)M, women looking for beta bailouts, etc.

You rarely see men cry about not finding a woman to bail them out.

Women want every single thing men want in a partner AND MORE.

[–]xanacop7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that the dialogue has always been about which sex has it worst. We never actually talk about specific advantages and disadvantages uniquely with each sex. And when we do talk about about, it's always in the context of making a list and jotting down who has more than the other.

[–]Shazoa2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see a lot of sense in this. I think for the most part that those with advantages are unlikely to see them, and the fact that many men these days are aware of their own advantages is a result of a push for awareness over many years by interest groups.

Women do not have to question their advantages because by and large people aren't (or haven't) been talking about them. Why would a woman see inequality in the world of dating? Its not malicious it just will seem absurd. That's privilege in the sense that feminists use it: Not having to consider the issues experienced by others because it's never affected you, and as a result it never crosses your mind.

If someone suddenly starts telling you that, actually, you've got it easy in some way? The normal human response is cynicism and disbelief. It takes a long time for shifts in public opinion on these things.

[–]-Mavs10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women = more neurotic in general which leads to them being negative/pessimistic which leads to perceived hardships in almost everything they do (including dating).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that part of the difficulty in getting women to admit that they have an advantage when it comes to finding sex / romance is that they take it as being told the advantage exists in the current marketplace, but if they're the average woman, it's not easy to conceptualise this as an advantage.

I definitely had/have an advantage, because I'm relatively thirsty for a woman. So I both wanted to have sex with lots of people, and there were plenty of men willing to have sex with me! (I have been turned down though, it totally happens!) For me it's easy to imagine being a guy, being thirsty, and having no luck with the ladies and being lonely, horny and sad. I genuinely feel bad for guys like this.

BUT your average woman is a lot less thirsty than me. For her, she's in a marketplace with lots of thirsty men, and that garners unwanted attention. She's not imaging what it's like to be a heterosexual thirsty man, on the prowl in a sea of unthirsty woman. You're telling her she has an advantage that, in the current environment for her, she doesn't want.

Basically, you're asking women to admit to having an advantage that is only an advantage if you have a more masculine psychology about sex / relationships.

When I was younger, I didn't get that other women were not like me and I was way more RP than I am today because of this. (Although in those days, RP didn't exist, it was more an MRA associated concept then)

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Self awareness. ask her what it was like if she had no options on Christmas and Valentines. She would get the picture really quickly.

[–]smokyvisions0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It should come as no surprise that women as the weaker sex have learned to exploit their weaknesses and are reluctant to make any concessions in this regard, it runs contrary to their instinct. It's also why they are unfit to rule (let alone vote, which is merely an instrument of rule for the weak regardless of gender) but which man is still man enough to rule?

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

1819 called. It wants you back. Please go!

[–]smokyvisions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well considering I could set Napoleon free and raise him an army of Cossacks, that might not be such a bad idea 🤔

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The body image thing is no longer true. Your average obese American woman is far more sexually desirable than the average non-obese American male.

[–]ifeelfuckingterrible0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Playing the victim is a power play for women to trigger men's protective instinct towards them. Women admitting their lives are easy are less likely to get men to do stuff for them.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exceptionally attractive women probably have it very easy. The average-or-below woman doesn't. She has to work hard to attract men's attention and isn't always successful in catching the eye of the guys she desires ... so forgive her if she doesn't view herself as privileged.

[–]ShabompistanExtra Moderate Purple0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know and fully admit to having an advantage in the sexual marketplace. I’ve never had a problem with finding partners since I was 16; and I’m not even that attractive! When I first read TRP’s complaints about this advantage, I was like “Yup, makes sense”.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because that's what they hear 24/7 - that they're thoroughly victimized and that nothing is their fault: Western society as a whole is infected with the WaW-fallacy big time.

When something doesn't go well for women, it's the fault of men/the patriarchy; when things don't go well for men, it's because they suck. When women succeed, it's because they rock and are strong and capable, when men succeed, it's because the patriarchy has rigged the game in their favor.

[–]indaknffr1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Historically, the disadvantages for women were more severe. This is largely no longer the case (at least in developed countries) but the desire to "correct the past" leads to extremists skewing the conversation and going overboard in the other direction. This is true for other social justice movements as well.

[–]korkyshadow7 points8 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

It's bullshit though, we don't need to "correct the past". Raising child and taking care of the house > war, work, hunting etc. Being less strong is a disadvantage that women ended up using to their advantage (making it so men had to build society, mine, do almost all the hard labor etc).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Raising child and taking care of the house > war, work, hunting etc

I disagree with this. Pregnancy, birth, and raising children is very painful, unpleasant, difficult work too. My pelvis is too narrow to give birth naturally and 200 years ago I would have died an agonising death at 18. In the modern environment, I had an abortion at 18, and a C-section at 26 after a 50 hour labour, and a failed VBAC and C-section at 30.

In the developing world, it's still very difficult to be a woman. Even if you can give birth naturally, 10 pregnancies and having more than half of your kids die takes a big toll emotionally and on your body. If I lived in the developing world or the historical world, I'd pick being a man in a heartbeat. In the modern Western environment though, I prefer being a woman.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010106/

[–]korkyshadow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But you're assuming you would be the exact same as you are now. If you had the choice between the average man vs the average woman would you still pick man? Would you really want to mine/farm/hunt 12+ hours a day over raising child?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Funny how women only started making a fuss about going to work once work involved sitting on your ass forever in comfortable climate controlled offices that they somehow still find reasons to complain about ("why's it sooooo cooolld?!!111!" "Maybe you shouldn't have dressed for the beach")

Yeah whatever I'm misogynist

Fuckin sue me

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes I feel like western democracies are one giant insane asylum

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Name one part of the world that isn't.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha fair

[–]littleprincesrose3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

What do you think women did before offices, sit at home all day? Maybe if they belonged to middle class or upper, they did have an easily life, but that meant their husbands also had more comfortable tasks. The majority of people who weren’t that rich worked their ass off, regardless of gender. Womens work might have been physically less demanding, but their duties didn’t stop at childcare and housekeeping, they typically cared for the livestock and do field work. After industrial revolution they also worked in the factories (ever heard of the radium girls?). Social changes started when men were sent away to die in a war for someone’s greed- but the ones left behind had to eat and who do you think provided that? Later, maybe in the US one salary was enough to feed an entire family (correct me if I’m wrong) but it wasn’t in certain parts of Europe, men and women both worked. And excuse me but if you have to work either way, is it unreasonable to ask for better ciecumstances? If you and your partner spend the Same amount of time at work, is it unreasonable to share the duties of housekeeping and childcare?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

If you and your partner spend the Same amount of time at work, is it unreasonable to share the duties of housekeeping and childcare?

Talking just about America, since apparently one salary could never support a household in Europe - if women had just shut the fuck up and stayed at home, then they wouldn't have needed to spend the same amount of time at work, or any time at work. They could have stayed at home and minded the kids so the kids wouldn't have to be raised by strangers. And of course, once you double the labor supply, you don't have to pay as competitively. Feminists are fucking morons who solidified corporate goals perfectly.

[–]OfSpock5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not at work didn't mean sitting around with a duster. It meant canning the vegetables you grew all year, in a cauldron over an open fire while stopping the children from burning themselves. Ever heard the expression "tied to their mother's apron strings"? Because that was a thing, you had to keep the child away from the fire while you were working. It meant milking the cow and chopping firewood. It meant dipping your own candles from the beef tallow of the cow that was slaughtered because it was cheaper than buying them. It meant hauling water for washing and cooking, boiling the laundry and ironing it with a heated piece of metal. It was hard work.

[–]korkyshadow0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Compared to today no one is saying it wasn't hard work. We are saying that was infinitely easier than working in the coal mines for 16 hours a day. Men would literally die from exhaustion at work back then woman didn't have those problems.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Often the wives of coal miners worked alongside them.Half of men were farmers back in the 1850s.

[–]korkyshadow-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's weird considering there are almost zero photos of them. And we all know how woman can't take pictures without being in them.

[–]littleprincesrose3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Reading comprehension?? Staying home comfortably was not an option for people who weren’t rich. I dont think it was an option for poorer American women, too. They didn’t start to work outside the home because they were bored, they did because they had to. And again childcare is not where all the work stopped- work unpaid domestic work all day, living dependent on someone or earning something and making your own decisions - the latter is more appealing for a lot of people, but you do you. Also, let’s not forget not Everyone wants children and want to be a SAHM. It’s not such a hard concept.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reading comprehension?? Staying home comfortably was not an option for people who weren’t rich.

It was an option for a broad swathe of middle class American society.

I dont think it was an option for poorer American women, too.

And wouldn't you know it, what you have now is less middle class people and more poor people than we used to.

Before: doctor marries secretary....it's ok if she's poor, she'll be staying home so the child isn't raised by strangers and only occasionally tended to by angry, miserable, overworked parents

And again childcare is not where all the work stopped- work unpaid domestic work all day, living dependent on someone or earning something and making your own decisions - the latter is more appealing for a lot of people, but you do you. Also, let’s not forget not Everyone wants children and want to be a SAHM. It’s not such a hard concept.

No one can have everything. You can't both have a career and be a good mom. There's 24 hours in a day. It's not a hard concept.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I missed the part where he said they just stayed at home and did nothing all day. Anyway, hard work at home is still better than going to war, or working in construction... or a coal mine.

[–]korkyshadow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is all such bullshit or things a very few women did so you are giving all women credit. Yep they would feed the livestock/milk the cows with raising children while men plowed the fields, moved hay, fixed the broken fences, harvested etc.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Maybe you shouldn't have dressed for the beach"

Yeah -- see what kind of shit happens if you suggest socks to a woman complaining of cold feet.

I actually did this and ended up getting sent home (the sockless lady did too). Luckily the female partner who sent me home actually liked me much more than the sockless woman. I came back to work the next day but the sockless lady didn't. One of my coworkers lead the team in an impromptu version of ding dong the witch is dead (turns out sockless lady had created quite a few enemies).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can never correct the past only rewrite the past. Which is what feminists are trying to do with them twisting history or purposely skewing the facts/data.

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Women have a big advantage in getting sex but not necessarily in romance. I think both sexes also picture themselves as being at the top end of the other sex.

[–]sketch162000[S] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Women have a big advantage in getting sex but not necessarily in romance.

This is one of the more misleading things commonly said around here, which is kind of the type of thing I'm talking about. It implies that there's maybe an inverse balance between sex and romance advantages. The truth though, is that women have an advantage in BOTH sex AND romance. Sex might be a comparitively more potent advantage than romance, but both cases blow men out of the water either way.

It's like a girl armed with an AK-47 with a revolver as a sidearm fighting a guy armed with a bow and arrow and a rock.

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I think men have to get romance often to get sex whereas woman can have sex with no romance very easily. There is probably a higher percentage of men who have more trouble getting romance but I don’t think overall women have an easier time with romance.

[–]sketch162000[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There is probably a higher percentage of men who have more trouble getting romance but I don’t think overall women have an easier time with romance.

How is this not a contradiction in your view?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He meant harder time with romance i guess

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think the average man has a harder time getting romance than the average woman, but on the lower end there are probably more men who can’t get romance than women.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No sex means no romance. A woman can easily get to first base but not to home plate. You don't get to home plate but by crossing first base, unless you're aiming for a sexless romance. Which is why the "b-b-b-but my female RMV troubles" rings so pathetically hollow.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

first base

What are we in 4th grade??

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's your comeback? Jeeze you nitpick at ever inopportune moment of insignificance.

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics-2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can start out with romance and then get sex. For example go on 3 dates before having sex.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Three dates equals romance? Ehh... umm... hmmm.

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In 2019 it sort of does lol

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yikes.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Three dates equals romance?

If she doesn't want to have sex by then she's not into you -- time to move the fuck on -- NEXT!

[–]confusedspade97Ruled by Statistics0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s not necessarily true but you are free to move on if you prefer to have sex earlier on in the relationship.

[–]Barneysparky-1 points0 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Story time. At bowling tonight I got into a discussion about how the alley was up for sale and how our league of 50ish Wasp Urban Portland type liberals could keep it running.

I said to my bowling partner not his wife who owns a very nice home " you could buy it and employ me as the wise old woman barkeep. It would be a wonderful way to live out my days".

Then he told me to buy it... and I said maybe a Co-op... and we discussed it. Not going to happen but.

The times are a changing.

20 years ago the conversation would have ended up with him saying.

" ok sweetie, I'll buy that for you ha ha and I would have ha ha'd back because that's what you did.

It's better today. If you let it be.

[–]Glawen_Clattuc2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

The times are a changing.

20 years ago the conversation would have ended up with him saying.

" ok sweetie, I'll buy that for you ha ha and I would have ha ha'd back because that's what you did.

But twenty years ago was 1999 - you're making it sound like it was 1959.

Here's the US Bureau of Labor on this:

The participation rate of women 25–54 years increased throughout the second half of the 20th century, although the pace of the increase varied over time. (See figure 6.) The most rapid rise in women’s labor force participation occurred during the 1970s and 1980s. The participation rate of women 25–54 years peaked at 76.8 percent in 1999. Subsequently, the participation rate receded slightly and flattened at 75.5 percent from 2003 to 2009. It then declined to 73.7 percent in 2015, still above the rate in the 1970s and 1980s.

[–]Barneysparky0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then why are beta still considered providers?

[–]Glawen_Clattuc0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Surely that depends heavily on who it is that's doing the considering, no?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

What does women's rise in labor force participation have anything to do here?

[–]Glawen_Clattuc1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

** Sigh **

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

As I thought nothing at all.

[–]Glawen_Clattuc0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

As I thought

Highly debatable

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Nope. You failed to answer the question.

[–]Glawen_Clattuc0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

And you failed to engage with the point made in any reasonable or interesting way.

There are two probable options - one generous, one less so.

The generous one is that you knew perfectly well what point was being made, but feigned ignorance to waste my time - not in debate, but in pointless elaboration.

The less generous one is that you really didn't understand the point - thus showing it would have been a Sisyphean task to try and explain it to you.

Either option would result in no actual debate ensuing - just a process in which I feel my energy draining away into someone spiteful, stupid or both to the benefit of neither of us.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

I like how you think its my fault for not getting your point when maybe its you that didn't make your point clear. But by all means continue to not answer the question and instead derail.

[–]Glawen_Clattuc 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

I like how you think its my fault for not getting your point

That's pretty much the size of it, yup.

... maybe its you that didn't make your point clear.

Or maybe I credited other users with intelligence and honesty?

... continue to not answer the question and instead derail.

Projection at it's finest.

[–]sketch162000[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do it.

I hear the perk of wise old women barkeeps is you get to wield a sawed-off shotgun to deal with the barfights.

[–]Barneysparky0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That would make a heck of a story wouldn't it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then he told me to buy it... and I said maybe a Co-op... and we discussed it.

Confirmed Portlanders.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wtf does that even mean.

[–]Wehochick-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You perceive your inability to control your own creepy boners as an advantage? So sex based oppression is just our fun hobby? wtf is this sub lol. algorithm suggested it so I subscribed without even looking at what it was because I like the color purple.

This may be the stupidest shit I’ve ever read lmao.

haha unsubscribe while I can’t stop laughing.

[–]sketch162000[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Aww! We'll miss you!

[–]Wehochick0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your creepy boners will mra Elliot’s yuk

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because we have no advantages,,well atleaset not in my case,only attractive women have advantages..You think men are going to treat mama June like they would some Victoria secrets model.Men hold all the cards.

[–]goldmedalflower[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The Victoria's secret model types don't hold all the cards?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True.it's always going to be men.period.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter