TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

59

A benefit of structured gender roles is that everyone has a defined purpose and affiliated identity. Men know how to be good men, and women know how to be good women. Each person understands what they can offer the other sex, and they know what the other sex can offer them. Expectations are fixed in this preordained exchange of male and female value, so everyone is relatively content with the outcome.

When gender roles are removed, expectations suddenly become ambiguous. Everyone gains some freedom of choice, but they also lose the singularity and stability of a predefined path. There is new uncertainty surrounding any expectations of the opposite sex.

Women stand to benefit more from this dissolution of gender roles than men, at least in wealthy societies. A supportive role does not offer it's recipient much opportunity for self actualization. A housewife perhaps more consistently satisfies the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it falls behind at the peak. With the abolition of gender roles, women gain more access to men's power, status, and resources, but men do not gain much in return. The idea of subsidizing their loss of value with an obsolete female role is understandably unappealing to them. Meanwhile, feminists continue to force an outcome in hopes that the conditions will reach a critical mass. They hope that without sustained enforcement of gender roles, entropy will take over and roles will be distributed equally across the sexes. However, neither men nor women seem eager to head in that direction. The preferred equilibrium situation seems to be gendered specialization, not homogeneity. This could be from biology or a social artifact. We can only guess. Regardless, men and women are still looking for their identity, and a niche value associated with their sex.

As women become more self-sufficient, men find themselves competing in for their relative worth. They no longer have a monopoly on providership, a previously consistent source of value for them. With the loss of this value to women, men find that women have no desire to associate with them anymore. The men that didn't have much to offer to begin with are hit especially hard. The affection of women disappears along with their need for resources, leaving men feeling used. Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

TRP and the manosphere arise as a result, because men need to replace their loss of value with something else. After being tossed aside when women no longer needed their material support, men want something more fundamental. They want to be valued for who they are. They imagine the best way to be loved is the way women are loved, for their inherent sexuality. To men this seems more real, more impervious to any change in conditions of the sexual marketplace. This is a way they can get women to love them in a way that's similar to the way they love women.

As an added benefit, creating value from pure sex appeal instills in men a sense of power and even retribution. Since women previously withheld their affection, men could now withhold their commitment in return. Everything is on their terms now. Plus, men simply like sex. It is an optimal, psychologically satisfying solution for men.

Once this decision is made, it is reinforced to the nth degree. Any previous alternatives are completely extinguished from their mind, because the temptation to fall back into them is too great. Anything else would give women back the power, and return men to a position with nothing to exchange. Not only are men advised to spin plates and never get married, but they are also told that women are incapable of loving or caring about men. They cannot empathize with men and will drop them the second a bigger and better man comes along. This solidifies any motivation in their minds and reduces all alternatives to one. The old dream from their beta days is necessarily snuffed out of existence, or else it would catch on again like a wildfire.

However, talking to the men would give one the impression that this isn't what they really want. They say, "You think we like being like this? You think the pill isn't hard to swallow? I really just want a nice girl to settle down with, but that's impossible in the current market". TRP has removed any hope men had for their original dream. It doesn't give men what they want, it just convinces them that what they want is impossible and then offers a consolation prize.

I don't think that what men want is impossible, because I know that women do actually love men. We do care about men. We can empathize with their problems and we want men to be happy. This is as much as a part of AWALT as occasionally being a piece of shit.

I don't have a way to fix the original problem, but I know that men's dream of having a woman that loves them is not impossible. Men are not so one-dimensional that they only have value in terms of resources or sex. There is more potential there. And also women have more potential than being hypergamous bitches. We have the ability to give men the love, compassion, and acceptance. There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer. There is a way to get men what they really want.


[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard30 points31 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

An unusually insightful post. That said, where your objective analysis breaks down is here:

I don't think that what men want is impossible, because I know that women do actually love men

This is what you want to believe. You don't want to accept that we live in a world where your attraction is largely transactional. Believing it would put you in a weird negative space; the only form of love you're capable of isn't terribly romantic. What you've personally felt as love feels real to you, but from an outsider's perspective it's easy to see the transactional nature at play. You're otherwise spot on with your analysis; men do want the BP fantasy to be true. But it's exactly that, a fantasy.

TRP men aren't training themselves to distance themselves from a hard-to-obtain goal, they're distancing themselves from an impossible one. Women do not love men the way BP men wish to be loved. It's no different from the fact that male sexual arousal isn't contingent on how many accreditations and degrees a woman has. It's simply not how we work.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog30 points31 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Women do not love men the way BP men wish to be loved.

Precisely.

And most BP men who read the TRP sidebar conclude:

"TRP thinks women are incapable of love!"

when the real message is:

"You want the wrong thing. The kind of love you are hoping for doesn't exist, and if you somehow got it, you wouldn't actually like that very much. Here's how mating actually works."

[–]Xemnas817 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

if you somehow got it, you wouldn't actually like that very much

Can you elaborate on this Whisper? I understand it has something to do with the Hierarchy of Love; you can either be respected and desired as a man or pitied (thus soothed and coddled) as a boy. Is this correct?

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog16 points17 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Precisely.

Often the reason blue pill men fail with with women is because they had no father, or a weak father who might as well have been absent, and so they learned about female love from their relationship with their mother.

Which teaches all the wrong lessons.

You see, women are capable of non-judgmental, unconditional, pure, timeless, unbreakable, all-conquering love. In fact, they are programmed to feel it.

... for their children.

So these blue pill men learn to expect an idealized kind of love that women only feel for their offspring, never for their men.

The kind of love women can actually feel for men is never unconditional. It can be so intense that she would crawl over broken glass to be with him, but it is never unconditional; it is felt only when she respects him. In most cases, a son will never lose his mother's love no matter how much weakness he shows or how much he disappoints her, but a man will lose his woman's love, no matter how intense, if he loses her respect.

This is one of the reasons why men with Dark Triad mothers have an advantage when dealing with women... they have never been loved unconditionally by anyone, and thus have had no early bad example to learn bad expectations from.

[–]Xemnas813 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ahh.

As I suspected, my friend OP's good intentions get marred by solipsism.

I have noted many times the dichotomy between my mother's sweet nurturing of me and her ruthlessness towards my (then) weak betatised father. Not that he is much more alpha now, but there is a difference.

[–]coratoad[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am being solopsistic, because I am assuming that women can feel the same way I do. However I don't think this is too unreasonable a claim. If AWALT is true, then can't all women have the potential to care about and love men? And it is true that my compassion for men probably stems from some sort of maternal love. Why is this bad though? I still can respect men at the same time.

[–]donit6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman's job is to judge men, not care about them. The survival of you and your family comes first, and compassion for others comes second. So if that man is your boyfriend, it is more important for you to judge his potential to help your family's survival than to love him unconditionally or have compassion for him.

For if he is weak, having compassion for him will bring that weakness upon yourself and to own your family's survival. Any woman who ever made that mistake- didn't survive to carry such a tendency forward. So that is why such a tendency does not exist in women of today.

[–]czerdec3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You see, women are capable of non-judgmental, unconditional, pure, timeless, unbreakable, all-conquering love. In fact, they are programmed to feel it.

... for their children.

So, in your worldview, childless women go through life never feeling love for another human?

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you read that statement and make that conclusion? Please explain your thought process.

[–]czerdec2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't make a conclusion, I asked a question.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So, in your worldview, childless women go through life never feeling unconditional love for another human?

Not whisper, but I guess this would be his FTFY

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

Do you think the love men have for women is unconditional?

I'm honestly kind of floored that the concept of unconditional love outside of a parent-child relationship is something people actually believe in.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you think the love men have for women is unconditional?

Ultimately it's a mix of the following:

  • men are more likely to have pretty low expectations towards women, which can be interpreted as "taking a woman the way she is". They also don't have their options thrown at them which leads to many men sticking to an unsatisfying partner who doesn't pull her weight simply because t
  • unrealistic expectations: we're constantly told that while men are assholes who are only in it for the sex and cheat and break up healthy relationships to chase strange tail elsewhere etc. pp., women are totally above and beyond that - they're loyal, non-superficial, have only the most sublime of preferences and truly appreciate niceness and a good character; women themselves usually participate (quite self-servingly if you ask me) in that obfuscation of their preferences. When it turns out that women deep-down have an assload of pretty basic and vulgar conditions only shallow gold diggers are supposed to have, it's hard to call them "unconditionally loving" after that realization.

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

I believe this to an extent. If you set a precedent of "alpha" behavior she will help you through your weaknesses. If she has committed to you, she wants you to be her idol again. If she has never seen you as an idol, she will grind you into sexless servitude. If you are weak and in a committed relationship, chances are you are building a nest for someone else's egg.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Fuck, I'm having such a hard time killing the dream. Most of my personal experiences point towards redpill conclusions, but the romantic love myth just won't die off in my mind.

[–]apube3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't let it die. Love is fucking dope.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Our love is all the we ever had. Our love is all that we'll ever have. Boys and girls, guys and dolls. You were finding faith in bathroom stalls And broken beds spring fractured spines. Fall for the right kids all at the wrong times. And in a world of sluts we keep the wet dream alive. Yea, our drought is drying out. You go nowhere in a nowhere town and no one's listening to the sound of breaking down and breaking out is just wishful thinking. We're taking walks around the hearts and homes we'll never own. You go nowhere in a nowhere town and no one's listening to the sound of breaking down and breaking out is just wishful thinking You go nowhere in a nowhere town. We're growing up by falling down. We love the songs because we live the songs in condemned flats between rights and wrongs. And all we know is that we'll never know We love the hearts but the hearts love us even more (Keep loving. Keep brething. Keep living.) *Desperate and true- Thinking of you Borrowed and blue- Sinking with you

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It is interesting to me as how OP's entire post is how men as a whole are losing their value to women as a result of feminism, and how men are suffering for a way to be loved. Yet the conclusion is that women, at their core, still love men.

[–]Xemnas815 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Cora is an anti-feminist however. She's told me she's pretty averse to the mainstream US propaganda.

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with what she is talking about in terms of feminism's effect on men. But her conclusions come out of left field. Ultimately, she wants it to be true that we still live in a society where men can find love, and to be honest I want that to be true too. But, you cannot come to that conclusion after realizing that the respect men get from women has been lost.

I understand where she is coming from. She is coming from the perspective that women want to love men, they want to respect men, and they want to get married to men who they love and respect. But, as what women have has changed, what men need to be worthy of that respect has changed.

It is no longer good enough to "have a job", because any particular woman has that. It is no longer good enough to "be college educated", because women have that too. To be respected a man must make the transition from ordinary into extraordinary.

[–]grendalorRed Rain5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To be respected a man must make the transition from ordinary into extraordinary.

This is right, which is why TRP is all about being extraordinary, and avoiding average like the plague. Average is over -- not just when it comes to relations between the sexes, but when it comes to everything, ranging from economics to career to living to physical shape to everything else. Average is dead. Men need to be well above average, really.

[–]Xemnas812 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I also find hope in Cora's analysis, albeit naivety, in that I fear she has falsely conflated love with respect (back to the Hierarchy of Love which I posted above). It would be easy to dismiss such a conflation as female solipsism, but I won't insult her with that, it's the way we are socialised and our mental schema/ego-investments are constructed. Difficult to break out of.

My understanding is most grown men actually want respect from women. Unconditional respect. I of all people on the sub probably know this the best; at the baseline you can either have attraction and respect, or sympathy from women, rarely if ever both in equal measures. And according to some trials, male infantalisation (even perceived infantalisation) is a risk factor for depression

[–]coratoad[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is what you want to believe. You don't want to accept that we live in a world where your attraction is largely transactional.

I already believe that relationships are largely transactional. Most people do not enter relationships out of charity. We largely interact with people because we get something out of it.

I also believe that love is nothing more than biology and chemicals. There is nothing inherently romantic about it. I only love people because my ape brain convinces me that it will benefit me in some way.

But what about either of these things changes what I said? Is the fact that I care about men any less real just because it's biological? I am basically a big ape and probably only feel this way because my maternal wires got crossed somewhere and instead of caring about children I care about downtrodden men. Why does that make it any less real?

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is a very fundamental question. I do wish someone had attempted to answer it.

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

I think I understand this logic, but let me play the devil's advocate. Men don't feel sexual arousal for degrees. But perhaps respect them, or generally respect intelligence. Do you think a relationship can work where there is not much sexual arousal, but there is a lot of respecft?

Let me qualify this question. Maybe it does not work at 19 and hot and young and hormonal. But at 52 with 4 kids and tired of life, maybe better? If you as a man are 52 and tired of life, you don't want sex, you don't want to dance and all that, you just want a calm life, you better off with the young hot bunny or better off with an intelligent woman you can talk with, assuming she is not a typical educated feminist type, but somehow managed to get intelligent without feminist brainwashing? I'd say that definitely sounds better.

The same way, I think you can never get real love from a woman as long as she is "in the game". 19, hot, hormonal, horny, always fucking the best guys and so on. But the game is sooner or later over, and yes, I do think you can get something like true love at, say, 60. My mother nursed my dying father totally selflessly around that, and I don't even think they had sex for the last 15 years, but the emotional bond was strong. Maybe you can even get love at 35. Maybe you get it at 18 if you find a girl who isn't hormonal. She will be ugly of course but I assumed maybe you are not that hormonal either and don't care about that. Of course a real man should be hormonal and want to fuck, not cuddle, but in the real world a lot of guys are soft betas who want to cuddle, not fuck, that is just how it is. So maybe the unhormonal betas find the ugly unhormonal girls who wear tents and they all cuddle and not fuck and feel teh real love coming, or something, because in both cases it is not arousal, it is something more of a being each others emotional tampons, right? So that is totally a thing too.

So this is a good logic, but it is the logic of hormones and tends to work only as long as people are hormonal, healthy, really following their gina and dick itches.

Now, this is the internet, and it we can never know the exact background of people commenting. Generally I noticed on this sub many men are horny college guys hunting 20 years old bar girls, and for them it is really so. And I have seen that some subset of US culture have this "forever young" mentality, you know what I say? People at 45 still having sex, still leaving their wife or husband for a hotter one, getting their face wrinkles ironed and teeth whitenes and plastic surgery and all that foreveryoung bullshit, all that Californication, you know what I am saying? Being unable to age gracefully, like a matron or patriarch. But I think even in the US this foreveryoung crap is only a subset of society, looks a lot like a Cali thing mostly, certainly not an Idaho thing, and in Europe or Asia far less likely anyway.

So I think this all is 100% correct for hormone driven people, we just need to factor in how not everybody is hormone driven or as people age and drink/smoke/drug/fatass themselves into lower energy drives, they will get less hormonal and their relationships over say 40 become like a nice roommate thing, you know the kind of when it is like, have sex? Nah, feeling lazy today, don't want get sweaty, just watch TV. That kind of thing. Mom and dad thing.

I think all this RP stuff is incredibly good at telling how female and male hormones work, but tends to make one mistake, tends to assume everybody is a highly hormonal 20 years old healthy college sex bunny. And thus it is not so predictive of people who are through age, culture, unhealth or any other reason are not so hormonal and their romances are more like lazy, boring friendships, or alliances for a purpose, like having kids.

[–]grendalorRed Rain1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ehm, not sure how old you are. I'm 48. The sex drive doesn't go away in your 40s and 50s. It isn't raging the way it was at 21, but it isn't the case that

as a man are 52 and tired of life, you don't want sex, you don't want to dance and all that, you just want a calm life ...

It doesn't work that way. The sex part is still a critical part of the relationship, even in a mature relationship, even when you are in your 40s, 50s, 60s. It's not "like a roommate thing". When it becomes like a roommate thing, that's when things get into trouble in a marriage/LTR, because, again, it isn't like sex doesn't matter to people in these age ranges at all, just because they aren't raging with hormones like they were at 22.

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

Keep in mind, a man's love for a woman is nurturing, like the love for a child (this is of course NOT sexual), and a woman's love for a man is honor and respect. A woman will be loving, nurturing, and submissive to a man she honors him first.

[–]decimated_napkin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't everyone's love somewhat transactional? I'm not understanding why a woman's love is somehow more transactional than a man's and I'm very curious to know why you think this way when it seems like men have their own way of being "transactional". The way I see it both sexes have some element of desiring a certain thing out of the opposite sex, and also have some element of enjoying the opposite sex purely for who they are as a person (that is to say, non-transactionally).

[–]dream2080 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In order to essentialize others, you first essentialized yourself.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Nothing is impossible. But you're right that people tend to delude themselves about the non-transactional parts of their relationships.

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There is that one woman who has a medical condition where she overproduces oxytocin, and literally falls in love with everyone. Quite possibly the only exception.

Women do not love unconditionally, or even semi-conditionally. It's entirely transactional.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That depends on what you mean by "unconditionally" and "semi-conditionally". What about couples that claim to be "in love"?

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They are in love in the sense that there are chemicals in their heads creating a pair-bond with their partner. That state in women is contingent on a dozen conditions that must exist with her man, none of which are ideals set in BP fantasy.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is an EXCELLENT summary of that point.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying the only time when a woman has truly loved a man is when the man was de facto RP?

[–]Xemnas813 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Theoretically this would mean there's a time limit before one 'loses' their ex would it not. When they 'fall out of love' from distance. Either when the oxytocin from the initial pair-bond dissipates from their brain or when oxytocin forms a pair-bond to a new mate (i.e. she's got a new bae)

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS43 points44 points  (63 children) | Copy Link

I like you, Cora, but...

I don't think that what men want is impossible, because I know that women do actually love men.

...and here is where you're going wrong. Women don't "love men" as a whole, they love (=desire) individual men. Usually these men are very attractive (and far out of the league of most women who love them), or alternatively a good fit for the individual women who are into them. There's usually the RP statement "men love women, women love children" - but this could also be reworded as "betas love women, women love alphas".

Because the vast majority of men (and with that I mean specifically men who would be their natural counterparts for dating demography-wise) don't really register as lovable to them; which doesn't really apply in reverse: A man who says "I love women" is usually not lying. A player can "love women" (and lots of them), but so can a devoted white knight who swallowed the koolaid of the feminine imperative.

A woman who says "I love men" on the other hand is usually only technically correct insofar as she just makes a statement about her heterosexuality. Because neither does she perceive a considerable share of men as "lovable" in the sense men perceive women, nor does she go above and beyond the call of duty to improve specifically the lives of men. Or could you imagine a woman who would help a man she doesn't even know at personal cost just because he's a man (like the male example in the introductory chapter of Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Men" does to a woman)?

The RP idea of not banking on the love and affection of women is born out of the realization that women aren't as awesome as we were always told they are; and the stories of these pure and fundamentally good beings who are empathetic and full of love and only want the best for everyone (and don't tell me I am making that up, this is what we were told from primary school onward) did many a man who believed that shit a great disservice.

Women aren't more caring then men, they are just better at pretending they care. We just shouldn't take that personally, since they aren't much better to each other either.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

An individual woman does not see most men as "men". She sees them as merely male human beings. To an individual woman, most men are sexual blanks. She doesn't see most men as sexual beings, with wants, needs, hopes and dreams of their own, and as wanting and needing sex. She simply sees them as human beings, with generic "needs" and "wants", and believes that giving them basic sustenance (food, water, money) is sufficient.

But most women don't understand that to men, sex is like water. It is necessary for survival to us.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism12 points13 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

She doesn't see most men as sexual beings, with wants, needs, hopes and dreams of their own, and as wanting and needing sex.

so you see most women as sexual beings, with wants, needs, hopes and dreams of their own, and as wanting and needing sex?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Irrelevant.

You should know by now: "Men Do It Too!" doesn't fly with me.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism14 points15 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

so your argument is women are as horrible as men, ha.

You should know by now: "Men Do It Too!" doesn't fly with me.
just because that post makes sense in your head, doesn't mean it makes sense.

if men and women are similarly shitty in regards to something, then it's a human flaw, not a gender one, and that is relevant at least in categorizing whether the person obsessing over the flaw/failing is a misandrist, a misogynist, or simply hates everyone.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Still irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with people being similarly shitty. It has to do with how women see men, and how men see women. There's nothing even shitty about it.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism8 points9 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

it has to do with how humans are if men and women are both like that and thus obsessing over gender makes no sense. makes perfect sense that men and women should not care about the sexual desires of men and women they don't want to have sex with. doesn't mean they don't care about them as coworkers, neighbors, relatives, or in whatever capacity they are actually connected.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

A woman who's not sexually interested in a man will not care about him at all. She won't care if he lives or dies.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism15 points16 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

the majority of social workers, nurses, and other care workers would suggest otherwise. it's men that are worse at caretaking professions actually. although i wouldn't even say men generally don't care whether others live or die. i think this is all about you projecting your own misanthropic perspective and/or subjective experiences.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

social workers, nurses and care workers are PAID to care. They care because it's their job to care.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its sad you think your mother, sister/s, grandmother, cousin/s, childhood friends, current female friends, or female coworkers couldn't care less whether you lived or died if they don't or didn't want to fuck you.

[–]apube6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

A woman who's not sexually interested in a man will not care about him at all. She won't care if he lives or dies.

I am floored that you actually hold such an absurd belief to be true.

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

Some women care about helping PEOPLE. They care more if they're paid (like in u/taiboworks' feeble example). They don't care about MEN AS MEN, as a group. Women do not care about men they're not sexually attracted to.

If you're saying a woman will "notice" a man she's not attracted to, i.e. notice that he exists and his basic humanity, then sure. But to her, he isn't a "man". He's just a male human being. He's a nothing, a nonentity. Just a human being with a penis, interchangeable with any other human being. She doesn't see him as a unique individual, or consider he might have hopes, dreams, wants or needs of his own. If he dropped dead, it would not matter to her one bit.

[–]speltspelt 13 points13 points [recovered] | Copy Link

So help needs to involve sex to count? It doesn't count if a woman helps a man without wanting to have sex with him? Sheesh there's some goal post moving.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, "help" doesn't need to involves sex to count. It's just that most women don't help most men. They just don't. Look at the urban black community in the US if you doubt me. And we all should take a very good look at it, because that's where the middle class and lower class white community is headed.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How does a woman "help" a man?

[–]czerdec3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women don't "love men" as a whole, they love (=desire) individual men.

That is correct. It's hardwired for human beings of both sexes to be indifferent if a man suffers, and his suffering does not have any direct bearing on one's own resources, and the man isn't a close blood relative. There is a distinct evolutionary advantage to this bias, in a species where child-bearing is extremely taxing and the environment is full of threats to life.

Nowadays this natural universal anti-male sexism serves no purpose, and in a million years genetic drift will probably eliminate it. But for the next several thousand years we'll be dealing with it.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:417 points18 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

So what you are saying is a man doesn't want to be loved by a woman, he wants women in general to love men in general?

Maybe the disconnect works both ways then.

I don't want my husband to love women in general, I want him to love me, to elevate me above other women by selecting me and not other women to be his. I always assumed that is also what men wanted from women, to be chosen, to be "the man" not just "a man"?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS33 points34 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

So what you are saying is a man doesn't want to be loved by a woman, he wants women in general to love men in general?

No, I am saying that there is an affection imbalance between men as a whole and women as a whole that severely favors women. Men are more attracted to women and are far more willing to do shit for women specificially because they're women, even in the absence of any form of tangible reward, than vice versa. As I said, the female statement "I love men" usually really doesn't mean more than "I am heterosexual".

Well, scratch the last phrase. Norah Vincent for example isn't, but her I would believe if she claimed it because she actually made an effort to relate to men. But she's the exception.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:412 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I think that phenomenon is because of female neoteny more than anything. Women look childlike so the protective instinct toward children gets applied to them. I don't think in the case of very fat or masculine looking women it applies.

[–]gasparddelanuit14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that phenomenon is because of female neoteny more than anything. Women look childlike so the protective instinct toward children gets applied to them. I don't think in the case of very fat or masculine looking women it applies.

Neoteny is part of it, but it is not the complete story. I think biological and psychological differences between men and women, and how these affect our experience of the world are also a factor.

Clearly, the fact that women tend to have more childlike features than men (facially, physically and psychologically), does facilitate the inclination of men to be more protective towards them than vice versa, but it requires that men have adapted psychologically and physically to want to provide that protection and to be able to. This has been achieved by evolution. It’s not simply a case of everyone being a blank slate and neoteny doing all the work to get that response in men.

Also, while a woman being very fat or masculine looking is probably less likely to trigger a protective response in men than a petite or feminine looking woman, I don’t think it negates the possibility. We see that there are a lot of men who prefer BBW women and there was a time when these type of women were considered more attractive. We also have to account for the role played by a woman’s psychological disposition. Marilyn Monroe was not loved by men just because she was pretty, but also because she was charming and playful. Subsequently, a very fat and masculine looking woman could still conceivably trigger a protective response from men if she were sufficiently charming. This may also be part of the explanation why masculine personality traits found in women are unattractive to most men.

Of course, none of this accounts for the possibility that just being cognizant of the fact that someone is a woman, may in itself trigger a sympathetic and protective response from men due to the empirical factors a man might associate with that fact. A man will still recognise this person is physically weaker than himself, is pregnant or may be in need of male support for some other reason.

Interestingly, I think the neotenic personality traits sometimes found in women is a factor behind TRP’s hyperbolic claims that women don’t mature beyond the age of 18 and should be treated like children or the oldest teenagers in the house, right or wrong.

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do we respond to neoteny?

Neoteny is just an indicator. We didn't evolve to protect people with big eyes because they had big eyes. We evolved to protect them because women (and children) had bigger eyes.

[–]Xemnas814 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Precisely, chicken and egg. Social conditioning is determined by epigenetics and evolution before 'society' becomes conceptualised

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that phenomenon is because of female neoteny more than anything. Women look childlike so the protective instinct toward children gets applied to them.

Interesting analysis. I think this must factor in there somewhere.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men are more attracted to women and are far more willing to do shit for women specificially because they're women, even in the absence of any form of tangible reward, than vice versa.

Women would do this more except for the fact that there is a danger to helping strange men, and even among non-strange men there is the danger of the man expecting affection or sexual favors as thanks for said help. On the other hand, women in my life who know that I am not going to expect sex or affection from them have gladly been willing to help me just as much or even more so than a man would. The reason women don't do more for men they don't know is because of the physical power imbalance, not because of some inherent selfish nature of women. Anyone who is in a happy relationship knows how much a woman is willing to do for her man.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That might very well be, wtknight, but in the end it really doesn't matter. The fact remains that women do not do anything for most men. I'm not expecting them to. But the reality is that women do little for men. This is not going to change.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women would do this more except for the fact that there is a danger to helping strange men,

That's only half-true at best.

Even if there was no danger in helping men, women wouldn't suddenly start doing it as some sort of baseline behavior. And those women who do help men usually would have done exactly the same for a woman in a comparable situation (i.e. she wouldn't have helped the man because he's a man); actually, I'd wager that a woman is more likely to help/support another woman because she's a woman (or help/support a kid because it's a kid) than helping/supporting a man because he's a man.

and even among non-strange men there is the danger of the man expecting affection or sexual favors as thanks for said help.

The same goes for this. Sure, you won't find me arguing that many men have ulterior motives one some level when pursuing a course of action that's beneficial for women, but the generic white knight like the one I mentioned above (scroll a bit down to "chapter one") obviously did so without assuming he'd be entitled to a reward (and don't tell me that scenario is completely inconceivable). But at the end of the day, regardless of motive men support women - even entirely strange women who may be utterly undeserving of help - simply because they're women.

What do women do for men because they're men (i.e. not because they're alphas or because they're their partners)?

[–]Xemnas814 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone who is in a happy relationship knows how much a woman is willing to do for her man.

This goes back to what Sandman said, women are willing to do favours for men they're connected and attracted to, but less for men in general

[–]Xemnas813 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sandman you didn't answer my q. the other day re: walking away from the Manosphere. Personally I feel it's impossible to spit out the pill now, I can either go MGTOW and continue an extended adolescence as I currently am, or face the reality of the SMP. Every day which passes brings me closer to the end of my childhood my friend. The welfare state will only tolerate me so long. What then?

Back on point; in fairness to women, although we've more or less determined they struggle to love low SMV men romantically, they do 'love' men in the form of pity. Hierarchy of love again, and its manifestation in what BPers did to help vulnerable, needy men IRL

Of course the price of being pitied is to not be respected, essentially regarded as a child, and that being a core criterion of male value both external and internal, takes its toll in the form of his self esteem and mental health regardless of the emotional blanket women's compassionate pity provides him.

I will add the caveat that the feminine imperative demands men help women, else their character and reputation as a 'good man' be tarnished, whereas women rather get 'brownie points' for being such saints as to help men. There is that double standard.

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

Sandman you didn't answer my q. the other day re: walking away from the Manosphere.

Right. Sorry, I am having a vacation atm and rarely ever have the time to post for the last few days.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic11 points12 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

The RP idea of not banking on the love and affection of women is born out of the realization that women aren't as awesome as we were always told they are; and the stories of these pure and fundamentally good beings who are empathetic and full of love and only want the best for everyone (and don't tell me I am making that up, this is what we were told from primary school onward) did many a man who believed that shit a great disservice.

The problem with TRP is that it goes way too far in the other direction. Most women are not awesome, true, but most women are also not shallow self-interested beings who always use betas for their resources and secretly pine for alphas. Women are human just like men, and individual women vary as much as individual men. Any philosophy that criticizes one gender more than the other is faulty at its core.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Any philosophy that criticizes one gender more than the other is faulty at its core.

Because aggregate gender differences don't exist?

I think Science would have a word or two about that.

[–]provanagotannat0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

No because every coin has two sides.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

You really think a catch phrase is a good replacement for actual Science?

http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

[–]provanagotannat-2 points-1 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Do you really think facing the attantion on how I phrased it makes it less true?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I don't care about phrasing. However short of showing me some comprehensive studies published in peer reviewed physical science journals, I'm just going to view your statement as ignorance.

[–]provanagotannat1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I did not say that there isn't a biological difference between woman and med. I however agreed that if you focus on the best from one gender and the worst from the other, the picture you will get will not be fair/true picture of reality.

And I really believe you understood that, but choose to take this approach to make me look stupd. which backfired to the point that I don't think you will be able to defend your point at all

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I do understand. And I agree, comparing the extremes is bad. Catch being, I think TRP is largely dealing in generalities, because they are functionally useful. (I.e. The big middle portion of a bell curve)

Similar to a heuristic like "all guns are loaded".

[–]provanagotannat-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

So then we agree on what wtknight was sayin?

I don't subscribe to the redpill, I only read the purple pill debate. But if the since the RP seem to be very quick to claim AWALT when talking about the top 10% attractive women, i will call bullshit on generalities

[–]apube0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

However short of showing me some comprehensive studies published in peer reviewed physical science journals, I'm just going to view your statement as ignorance.

I don't disagree with you, but to be fair, the link you gave falls incredibly short of a "comprehensive study published in a peer reviewed journal." It's just some leadership consultant's take on some research and literature on the topic. Given how horribly I've seen the MSM misinterpret research (especially when it pertains to a controversial topic) or assign more significance to its results than is warranted, I see no real reason to trust that info. If you wanna make it seem like you're on the side of science and evidence, you're gonna need to do better than that.

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

Fair point, but grabbing a bunch of peer review is just gonna be unintelligible gibberish to most lay readers.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TL;DR: Women are Wonderful effect is very real.

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

Women aren't more caring then men, they are just better at pretending they care. We just shouldn't take that personally, since they aren't much better to each other either

I'd just like to say that women are generally like this with "friends" they genuinely don't like - usually friends of friends they're stuck hanging out with sometimes because refusing to spend time with them would make a friend they genuinely DO like sad. It's easy - and reasonable - to see someone being dishonest with one person and assume they're dishonest to everyone, but most actual female friendships aren't like the picture. Otherwise women would lead depressing, friendless lives, ha.

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

.and here is where you're going wrong. Women don't "love men" as a whole, they love (=desire) individual men. Usually these men are very attractive (and far out of the league of most women who love them), or alternatively a good fit for the individual women who are into them. There's usually the RP statement "men love women, women love children" - but this could also be reworded as "betas love women, women love alphas".

You are talking about a romantic kind of love, the love I am talking about is more maternal, or the love you would have for a friend. If anything, alphas are probably excluded from this type of love, simply because they don't need it. Donald Trump or Chatum Tanning don't evoke any feelings of empathy. Neither of them are my friends and never will be. If either of them died tomorrow I wouldn't be upset at all to be honest. But I would be upset if I found that any of the self-proclaimed incels here on PPD that I regularly talk to had died.

Because the vast majority of men (and with that I mean specifically men who would be their natural counterparts for dating demography-wise) don't really register as lovable to them; which doesn't really apply in reverse:

Men don't register as fuckable. This is different than lovable. Even still, if women can be aroused by other women and even bonobos, then I don't think that any man is completely exempt from being fuckable.

Or could you imagine a woman who would help a man she doesn't even know at personal cost just because he's a man

Have you ever read any of the studies on gender interactions based on games contrived by the researchers? I went over a few here where I also linked some of the studies. In the 'dictator game' the researchers give one of the participants an amount of money. Then the participant can split the money however she/he would like with another participant. Men give more to women, and women will give more to men. This pattern is repeated in the other types of games as well. There is another game where the participants have to trust the other person with some sum of money. Men trust women more, and women trust men more. People are nicer to the opposite gender.

The RP idea of not banking on the love and affection of women is born out of the realization that women aren't as awesome as we were always told they are; and the stories of these pure and fundamentally good beings who are empathetic and full of love and only want the best for everyone (and don't tell me I am making that up, this is what we were told from primary school onward) did many a man who believed that shit a great disservice.

I am not saying all women are awesome. I'm only saying that all women, or at least all healthy, normally functioning women, have the potential to be loving and altruistic towards men. This is not because we are angels or even good people. It's just a part of our instinct as social animals that evolved to feel empathy towards other humans. Somehow this helped us survive better.

[–]grendalorRed Rain15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No solution offered in your analysis, which is okay, I think, because there really isn't a "global solution" to this problem.

Egalitarianism, suggested in some of the other comments here, is not a solution because the underlying problem is a lack of male value relative to women -- that value gap is not decreased by men becoming more feminine and egalitarian. That value gap is real and isn't fixable by egalitarianism because a man in an equalist relationship with a woman still doesn't bring sufficient value on his side of the equation that is enough of a value-add from the woman's perspective, in terms of being distinct from her own value in a way that is sustainably attractive, to create equal value. This will not change, either, because men's inherent "strengths" are increasingly useless and obsolete in the contemporary economy and culture. Sure a man can "learn to do things differently", and embrace a kind of feminine manhood, but this will in no way make their inherent value equal, because they will be doing this not from a position of their natural strengths, but rather from a position of natural weakness -- that is, they are destined to perform poorly at this across the board by nature when they are trying to play up feminine strengths which are not their inherent strengths. Some guys are exceptions to this and are quite feminine by nature -- given the presence of these, there may be some kind of an inversion of sorts (which we are already seeing in part) whereby the most naturally feminine men become more successful in this equalist schema, enjoying a kind of "heterosexual lesbian" relationship with women, but for the larger body of men this approach is not something that will give them an inherently equal value.

The problem really cannot be solved because technology and the economy that results from it have reset the value of men, in an inherent sense, downward because the inherent strengths of men are now less valuable than they have ever been at any point in the history of the species -- it's to be expected that this kind of drastic change would be rather disruptive to relations between the sexes. But that change is kind of done at this point, and certainly won't be "un-done". This is why the only solutions to the problem are individual ones for individual men, based on what they have going on themselves. Some men can become more feminine and equalist and perhaps that works for them in the kind of "het lesbian" vibe of an equalist relationship. Other men can emphasize their masculinity and spin plates or become an alpha bucks and score a high value mate. Others will be with ESPN and X-Box. All of these are solutions to the same problem of a lack of inherent male value in the current context relative to the inherent value of women.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Some guys are exceptions to this and are quite feminine by nature -- given the presence of these, there may be some kind of an inversion of sorts (which we are already seeing in part) whereby the most naturally feminine men become more successful in this equalist schema, enjoying a kind of "heterosexual lesbian" relationship with women, but for the larger body of men this approach is not something that will give them an inherently equal value.

Disagree; these guys are probably struggling more due to the fact that feminized guys aren't really in demand except among women who are "political lesbians" who nevertheless still want the D. A former roommate of mine who was quite the leftwinger told me about a ultra-feminist girl she knew who dated a transvestite or some almost-transgender dude because she didn't want a relationship with a het cismale person yet on the other hand wasn't actually into women, so she had to find an alternative solution (what can I say, some people are just fucked up). But generally women don't want guys like that, and even if such a feminized guy does well in the current system economically (which I would still have to see first before I believe it), he'll still encounter problems romantically.

[–]grendalorRed Rain1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I wasn't thinking so much about explicit genderbenders like crossdressers or fetishists, but was thinking more along the lines of the typical equalist marriage where the beta bux is dominated by the wife -- it's kind of a feminine male role he has in that scenario, and it isn't very uncommon. These guys do get married, as red pill theory suggests. What happens after then varies -- sometimes it's "cuck and chuck", sometimes it's just a lackluster low-sex marriage (maybe she just has a low drive or something), sometimes it's discreet affairs, and so on, but this isn't an uncommon scenario in contemporary equalist marriages.

[–]InformalCriticismProbably Red11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

This has been a pretty good effort to redirect anyone who's on the fence, but I am highly critical of some key points you've made.

A benefit of structured gender roles is that everyone has a defined purpose and affiliated identity. Men know how to be good men, and women know how to be good women. Each person understands what they can offer the other sex, and they know what the other sex can offer them. Expectations are fixed in this preordained exchange of male and female value, so everyone is relatively content with the outcome.

I don't think this is necessarily true; men and women have to learn how to be good at their gender. Sure, there are more pronounced natural abilities and situational awareness skills that arise without formal training, but it is far from innate or inherent in a meaningful way.

When gender roles are removed, expectations suddenly become ambiguous. Everyone gains some freedom of choice, but they also lose the singularity and stability of a predefined path. There is new uncertainty surrounding any expectations of the opposite sex.

Here you seem to agree with me and contradict yourself by saying that gender roles are learned, and they can be removed; one could not remove a predisposed, innate, or inherent ability to know oneself.

Women stand to benefit more...

Yes, your treatment here is fair, especially with your caveat to such a claim to make certain that only in civilized society could a swing toward egalitarian "equilibrium" be possible. I think you missed a step between that and what happens to gender roles in affluent society. How do you think civilization got to where it was? Well, quite simply through the gender roles feminism attempts to cast away, by your own admission, except in parts of the world where it has a very real function. This should give you pause. The crusade toward equality for equality's sake is going against a very real part of human history, and indeed, the naturally occurring relationships men and women form out of necessity. Shouldn't that factor into contemporary relationships of all types?

Also, you may either underestimate the range women have on Maslow's Hierarchy, or be under a false impression that self-actualization happen on the regular. The aggregate of humanity simply does not achieve that status, and I would be hard-pressed to move on that belief.

As women become more self-sufficient, men find themselves competing in for their relative worth. They no longer have a monopoly on providership, a previously consistent source of value for them. With the loss of this value to women, men find that women have no desire to associate with them anymore. The men that didn't have much to offer to begin with are hit especially hard. The affection of women disappears along with their need for resources, leaving men feeling used. Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

This is where it's important to note that women do not consistently enjoy their lack of dependence. Certain minorities of women will believe in working hard to support themselves, but at no point does it satisfy them when it comes to romantic relationships the same way it would a man who sees himself as a provider. Granted, two self-sustaining partners would still manage compatibility and attraction just fine, but it's a distinction worth noting that men do get something from providing for a beloved in a way that women do not. If a woman provides for a man, it is a feeling of charity. If men provide it is a feeling of duty and pride. It places both genders at a disadvantage to lose the asymmetric symbiosis of the male dominated (or male-led; [whatever least offensive phrase you like]), relationship.

Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

I think it is a mistake to suggest that envy is a motive for anything in TRP.

TRP and the manosphere arise as a result, because men need to replace their loss of value with something else.

It is not a loss of value; men were lied to about the egalitarian nature of attraction - that men and women are inherently equal in every measure, it is a loss of a dream. Men are waking up to the reality that has always been the state of nature. TRP creates nothing. It recognizes and re-organizes the truth to avoid the nuisances of life that plague who would have been a prime candidate for the fiction of Disney life.

As an added benefit, creating value from pure sex appeal instills in men a sense of power and even retribution. Since women previously withheld their affection, men could now withhold their commitment in return. Everything is on their terms now. Plus, men simply like sex. It is an optimal, psychologically satisfying solution for men.

I will readily admit that the tenets found within TRP are abused, and done so frequently, and sometimes with dubious intent. While TRP does not judge these people, there are many who do not take the Ring of Gyge's and run amok, and ignoring that point hurts your position.

Once this decision is made, it is reinforced to the nth degree. Any previous alternatives are completely extinguished from their mind, because the temptation to fall back into them is too great. Anything else would give women back the power, and return men to a position with nothing to exchange. Not only are men advised to spin plates and never get married, but they are also told that women are incapable of loving or caring about men. They cannot empathize with men and will drop them the second a bigger and better man comes along. This solidifies any motivation in their minds and reduces all alternatives to one. The old dream from their beta days is necessarily snuffed out of existence, or else it would catch on again like a wildfire.

Here you frame the discussion as men and women on diametrically opposed and competing sides. That's why Feminism has no place in the current climate - the best of its principles have come to fruition, and, arguably, too well to the point where boys are suffering in school, and men suffer disproportionately in both civil and criminal courts.

...I know that women do actually love men.

It is true. Women can actually love men more than men love themselves. But, there is no such thing as loving a man on principle who isn't her son. Love is conditional to women, and those conditions are fluid. Not all men, but men generally have a capacity for fraternal love on principle; camaraderie, genuine appreciate for their value as useful members of the species, etc. How men and women love is different, and it makes sense through the red lens. I have never loved a woman nearly as much as women have loved me in my life. I just don't have that range. The closest I can come to that is a longing for her, but it falls painfully short.

TRP has removed any hope men had for their original dream.

TRP is a path through the fog. It provides nothing the man doesn't himself pursue. It just so happens that men in that community are in pursuit of the same thing. Truth.

[Women] have the ability to give men the love, compassion, and acceptance. There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer. There is a way to get men what they really want.

Now to the heart of your title and how you finish this post. I think I can boil our differences down to two sentences:

You say: TRP doesn't give men what they want.

I say: TRP doesn't give men what they wanted.

  • Men were lied to. Now that they know, they're taking what they can and going their own way.

You say: There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer.

I say: There is not a better solution out there, today.

  • That many men dedicated to attraction? Some very, very intelligent, successful, and impressive men - not the unenviable types we so often hear about. We would have figured it out by now, don't you think?

PS - I didn't have time to get to everything you brought up, but I think you have helped frame a more productive discussion for useful perspectives to come forth.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

If a woman provides for a man, it is a feeling of charity. If men provide it is a feeling of duty and pride.

I am going to be accused of solipsism, but in fairness, so should anybody who paints with this broad a brush. I am intensely proud of my ability to provide for my family, husband and children both. It brings me great gratification and peace. I am one generation removed from the kind of poverty that most people posting here probably associate with the Great Depression, Dorothy Lange photographs, and John Steinbeck novels. Ensuring that my family has top-notch healthcare, nutritious food, safe vehicles, a solid house, and every educational opportunity is what drives me, because I am intimately familiar with what happens to people who don't have any of these things.

I don't think that, in general, people consider the effects of social class on things like views towards providership nearly enough. My husband grew up far more privileged than I. He has the general urge to provide that any man normally does, but he also takes upper-middle-class things for granted, because his family has never been without them. (At least, as far back as anybody has bothered to research.) He is not driven by the memory of hunger, and that makes a big difference.

[–]InformalCriticismProbably Red3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think the discussion was relegated to something to the affect of "only in wealthy nations [can egalitarian notions form]", so I'll concede, it's not impossible for a woman to feel pride in her work - that's certainly not what I meant. You mentioned two things that you might want to revisit, though. You said your husband also feels a general urge, something like the duty I mentioned. And you mentioned that you feel a sense of urgency out of necessity having experienced something outside of wealthy society.

It sounds like you and I can agree that only through poverty can women feel that level of pride in providing whereas men and women look to men and question why they're not providing more or why they're not the provider, in general. And this is because when you look at the size of men and their propensity to carry on in their profession without letting feelings interfere with their decisions, the sentiment that men ought to be providers will remain, even in wealthy circumstance.

I think it's fair to say I am appealing to the whole of human nature because the post made similarly broad statements about TRP and men's desires.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

To be specific, my mother was the one who grew up in poverty, not me. But she was also the one who drilled it into my sister and I that we had an obligation to be able to support ourselves and our families. There were no passes given because we were girls. I freely admit that we are outliers, but that is not synonymous with being unique. I don't think that poverty is necessarily the sole game-changer; my BFF from college is the child of immigrants who were extremely wealthy in their home country (there is a large area of it named for her family), but who could not bring their wealth to the States. She was raised with the same kinds of values and has been her family's main breadwinner for most of her marriage.

My husband does feel a general urge. My urge is much stronger than his.

I would never dispute the idea that nearly all men feel obligated to provide for their families, or the idea that many women - probably even most women - feel like they have the option to skate on that responsibility. I merely wanted to observe that I think there is a class-based component here that often gets short shrift. Of all the working-class girls made good that I know, most of them support their families, and all of them work, and none of them view not working as an option.

the sentiment that men ought to be providers will remain, even in wealthy circumstance.

I'd say, especially there. My BIL used to date a girl from a rich NYC family. The level of entitlement she displayed was jaw-dropping.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

feel like they have the option to skate on that responsibility.

I wouldn't say that they relate to it like "Oh, guess what? I can skate on that…" It's more that they feel that their attention and devotion is more needed elsewhere. Specifically, on "nesting", and nurturing and developing their children so that they grow up successfully.

I know a lot of working mothers. My wife is a working mother. Almost all of them feel a tremendous amount of consternation and even wrenching guilt over not being with their children more. It can really make them neurotic, and I don't doubt that there is a direct correlation between that induced neuroticism and phenomenons like "helicopter parenting." I don't doubt that many women try to compensate for being gone from their babies all the time through being overly attentive and overly nurturing and overly protective when they do have time together.

Men have the same issues, for sure, and most father's I know lament not being able to spend more time with their kids, but it's a whole 'nother level when it comes to mothers.

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

Maybe it's just the fact that the people I know best are outliers, but literally none of my friends feel guilt about working. None. Not one. (Then again, they're not "gone from their babies all the time;" they see their kids in the morning and when they get home from work and they eat dinner together and do the whole bedtime thing.)

Yours is not the first report I've heard of this, so I will readily admit that it must be a thing for some women. But I have literally never encountered it my own self.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe it's just the fact that the people I know best are outliers, but literally none of my friends feel guilt about working.

I don't think it's necessarily something that is overt. In fact, I think that most women who suffer from this kind of, I don't know, suppress it or something? Because, really, what are you going to do?

However, it makes itself apparent when there are breakdowns and when you notice the neurotic behavior.

I know, with my wife, she isn't really all "Yeah, I totally feel guilty about not being with my son!" I mean, there's nothing that can be done, so why indulge that thinking? In fact, she would be loathe to admit that, since doing so would bring up all kinds of negative shit.

But, if I watch her behavior and listen to how she talks about motherhood, it's clear that she is struggling. A lot. It might not be noticeable to an outsider, but I know her well enough to know that she isn't always being who I know her to be. And that's true of my close friends who are mothers as well.

Women (and men, too, but particularly mothers) are majorly neurotic about their children in general. Like, sometimes flat out irrationally insane, such that they seem like an entirely different person. I think that throwing work into the mix just amplifies that.

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

Women (and men, too, but particularly mothers) are majorly neurotic about their children in general. Like, sometimes flat out irrationally insane, such that they seem like an entirely different person.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining a little further? I love my kids totally unconditionally and can find myself gripped with panic when I reflect on certain child-related tragedies that I have witnessed in the past (notably, the two sisters I went to school with who were incinerated when their Wrangler was rear-ended, and the friend of my mother's who accidentally ran over and killed her granddaughter), but I wouldn't characterize that as neurotic.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

but I wouldn't characterize that as neurotic.

Of course you wouldn't, lol. ;)

But seriously, from a non-mother perspective, ya'll get neurotic as fuck sometimes. I mean, I get it, I have a world of compassion, and I acknowledge I have my own neuroses to deal with, but there are all kinds of irrationalities that can start driving the ship. I mean, there is a reason that so many divorces happen within the first five years (or whatever it is) of having children.

The pressure to be a "good parent" is tremendous, and it, for whatever reason, is applied more to women than men. Parents are bombarded daily with how important it is to parent your children "correctly", how fragile they are, how easy it is to fuck them up by not paying enough attention or by paying too much attention or by giving them to few opportunities or by giving them the wrong opportunities or by teaching them bad habits or by not teaching them good habits or…the list is endless. I'm not surprised, at all, by the neuroticism of parents in general and mothers in particular, but it still is a major thing to deal with.

I used to say that parents are probably a marketing persons dream - even the most basic marketing strategies can kill it with parents, given their general level of anxiety and often-overwhelming feelings of inadequacy (not to mention their low cognitive functioning due to prolonged sleep deprivation and lack of self-care, lol). Show parents this new thing to be afraid of, then show them how your product can mitigate that fear and BAM! Sales!

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

Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I am reminded of when I went to visit my college BFF after she had her first. She was worried that he wasn't gaining enough weight (note: there was absolutely no medical justification for this worry, and she admitted as much), so she would weigh him before and after each nursing session and record all the numbers in a notebook. I thought that was a bit much, but refrained from commenting. They now have five kids and she is a lot less worked up about that kind of thing.

Parents are bombarded daily with how important it is to parent your children "correctly", how fragile they are, how easy it is to fuck them up by not paying enough attention or by paying too much attention or by giving them to few opportunities or by giving them the wrong opportunities or by teaching them bad habits or by not teaching them good habits or…the list is endless.

I totally agree with this, and it is a major reason that we were very grateful to have twins. There was just so much fucking work that first year or two that there was no time to get all worked up about any of the shit that our singleton-having friends worried about. We're still not worked up about it! (We also consume very little mass media and no social media, so are not really up on all the ways that we are supposed to be anxious about failing our kids.)

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I would offer an additional possible explanation: the only child.

First, from what I've observed among my friends who have kids, it was that they have been terribly attentive (bordering on the neurotic) with their first child, but are far more relaxed with the prospect of having another one.

Considering that working mothers are more likely to stick to one kid, they'd also be more likely to never become "normal" since they lack a proper frame of reference for any phase their kid is going through. On top of that, because they only have one kid, the pressure that this kids "succeeds" (for any given measure of success) is far greater than if they had 2-3 or more spares (as it was in the days of old).

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't doubt that that is a contributing factor, for sure.

There was a book about parenting written recently entitled "All Joy and No Fun" that examined the change in parental attitudes over time. Your observation is a big part of what that book observes as well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I freely admit that we are outliers

I think hell just froze over.

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

??? It's not like I haven't acknowledged this before.

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

I think it's because this is pretty rare at PPD in general.

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man26 points27 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They no longer have a monopoly on providership, a previously consistent source of value for them. With the loss of this value to women, men find that women have no desire to associate with them anymore.

You're glossing over the fact that the state redistributes a ton of money from men to women(both in regular taxes/welfare and mandatory CS and alimony). It has not freed men from the provider role, simply freed women from the obligation to spread their legs regularly in exchange for those resources. At the same time, it makes it harder and harder for men to fulfill their workhorse role (push men out of education, scholarships, AA for women, etc). THere's nothing fair about this process, it's not a "let's break down the barriers, emancipation for all" situation.

Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

I don't think women are inherently valuable nowadays (some group or person's ability to have more children is really not a limiting factor in our society), but we still carry our ancestor's biases. I think men will always exchange some resources for sex simply because their sex impulse is stronger.

That said, maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't crave the old-fashioned lifelong provider role("beta"). I really dislike work, and working hard is no longer a question of life and death in our rich societies, seems more about determining the number after your iphone. I don't care how much I want sex, there's no way I'm going to work every day for 4 decades while bonnie looks after the kids/finds new hobbies. I've got porn.

I kinda agree with the rest. It's possible that there's a happy ending somewhere, but the market/legal situation is fucked atm, and TRP is not solving anything. Well, aside from some "awareness raising"(lol they'd hate being described as that), which is okay I guess.

[–]antariuszRed Pill Man24 points25 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just look at the role of insurance if you had any doubt, where men will pay more for insurance, it's allowed for men to pay more. (Auto insurance).

Where women would require more insurance (health insurance) it is ILLEGAL for a company to charge more money to women than to men.

Insurance is regulated in both instances, required, by law, to give individual payouts based on risk of the individual, but where women would benefit, this is ignored.

The complete takeover of the feminine primacy social order was the passage of mandated health insurance. Healthy young men didn't need to participate in the subsidization, because it was more expensive to pay for health insurance than it was not to... by design. Why would I participate in a flawed system where I pay more for insurance than I would (on average) protect myself from catastrophe, unless legally mandated to.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:49 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interestingly this is one place the EU is being consistent. Car insurance basing prices on gender is illegal.

Car insurers get around the law by assuming gender based on occupation.

[–]Xemnas817 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Aye. All of this was covered in Karen Straughan's talks, particularly Fempocalypse. Cf. The Misandry Bubble

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really dislike work, and working hard is no longer a question of life and death in our rich societies, seems more about determining the number after your iphone.

BOOM

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Here's the other place you're going wrong.

There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer. There is a way to get men what they really want.

No, there isn't a "way to get "men" what they really want." There isn't just one way. There are as many different ways as there are different men.

There's no one size fits all solution for men here. There are only individual solutions and it will be up to individual men to craft them for themselves.

But the long and short of it is that most men are not going to meet one woman who will stay with them until death. Most men are not attractive enough to get and keep one woman. They just aren't. Most women don't need that man. You've said this yourself. So if they don't need him, they can offload him and get men they want -- which is exactly what they are doing. And most women lack the character and inner fortitude to tough it out with one man.

A few men at the top will clean up with multiple women and have as much sex as they want. A few men at the bottom will get nothing and will never get anything. Most men in the middle will get the sexual equivalent of table scraps and leftovers, every once in a very great while. Most men will need to acknowledge this, accept it, and move on to other things in their lives.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:43 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Even if the 50% of marriages end in divorce thing is true, that's 50% that don't. Half the men that get married have wives who don't get bored and run off with some chad. More when it comes to first marriages.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

All you're really describing is marriages that don't end in divorce. The fact that those marriages hang together does NOT mean they are "happy", "good" or even "functional". And they certainly don't mean that the wives are all "not bored".

[–]LimekillI am THE bunch of sticks u wished u were8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My mother used to babysit a married couples kids.

These are highly educated people (both law degrees, etc) and have very high up corporate roles - also they both come from conservative families.

The chance of divorce is effectively zero (where will she find another lawyer? - her looks are fading). The chance of cheating is also probably pretty low (as the husband would divorce, and her family would find out, as well as her co-workers, etc).

The woman used to sleep in the main Bedroom and the husband on a mattress on the floor between the two kids beds. Are they happy married couple? No.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One just never really knows what goes on behind closed doors unless one gets to go back there.

I think what you're describing is getting increasingly common among upper middle classes on up. They're unhappily married (usually because she doesn't want to fuck her husband), but they stay together because they have no other options or because they can't afford to divorce or because they truly do want to help their kids.

I hear more and more stories every few months or so of some supposedly happily married couple getting divorced or having serious problems. Get a few beers in the husband and you soon discover what's really going on. No sex. She disrespects him in public. She treats him like shit. And on and on.

But they stay together for any number of reasons. For the kids. Because divorce would destroy them socially and financially. Because they don't know what else to do.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:40 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Given the ease of divorce I can't see why the largely secular public would cling on against the grain unless they were pretty satisfied with their marriages.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

1) Can't afford to divorce. one partner is totally reliant on the other for financial support.

2) Religious/family/social stigma.

3) Children.

4) Finances/financial advantages.

The stigma and the money are major reasons why upper middle class and upper class folks stay together. Most of those people have kids. In today's world, they, and their kids, need every single advantage they can get. And these people truly love and care about their kids, even if they dont' feel the same about each other. So they tough it out for their kids. A divorce would mean a huge financial hit for both of them. A divorce would also mean enormous social hit as well. It's just not done in some circles.

Among the middle class on down, a lot of these unhappy marriages stay together for the kids. Some do so out of moral and religious obligation. Some do so just because they have no other options - they live such atomized and disconnected lives that they have no other options or connections to other people.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:41 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

All I can say, completely anecdotally, is all the older people (50s and 60s and up) I know still married to their first spouse, seem to be pretty happy. They dote on each other, smile and joke together, make lewd comments for one another, they seem attached, deeply so. Of the people I knew at school only my parents are still married though. My parents had one hell of a rough patch, and some of the factors you mention are involved in their staying together (namely - financial, children) - maybe without those factors they wouldn't have - but the rough patch ended and they are way more in love now than when I was a kid. To me they have always modeled the fact if you stick it out, in the end it will be better. All my friends divorced parents are still in that youthful desperate phase of trying to impress people - and my parents can relax because they are together and don't need to impress nobody.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And most of those people in their 50s and 60s have been married at least 30 years. They married in the late 70s and early 80s, to people they were sexually attracted to (at least some), and well before hookup and divorce culture really took hold.

I'd venture a few of them also married before racking up high Ns.

I'd also guess that you don't really know what goes on behind closed doors. You see only their public faces, not their private ones. You don't know how they live their private lives. You don't know their private struggles, problems and issues.

You don't really know.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:44 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And most of those people in their 50s and 60s have been married at least 30 years. They married in the late 70s and early 80s, to people they were sexually attracted to (at least some), and well before hookup and divorce culture really took hold.

Divorce really kicked off in the 70s. As for casual sex, again, the 70s and 80s were when casual sex was really becoming common. Millennials have lower n-counts than their generation did at the same age.

I'd also guess that you don't really know what goes on behind closed doors. You see only their public faces, not their private ones. You don't know how they live their private lives. You don't know their private struggles, problems and issues.

Well firstly, some of my close friends are from that generation (weirdly I have no friends who are millennials, but this is mostly because I make friends at church and there's not many millennials at church, and I make a point of making married friends to avoid confusion, and there's even fewer of them) and my parents as I mentioned. But ok, mostly no I don't. Neither do you, why err on the side of cynicism and misery?

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Given the ease of divorce

Honestly, I don't think there is anything easy about divorce. Especially when there are children involved, but even if there isn't. Unless one or both people are sociopaths or narcissists, or the marriage is fairly recent, a divorce will almost always take an enormous material, emotional, spiritual and social toll on the individuals involved. And double that toll if the couple has children.

I have been meaning for a while to write a post on this, but easy access to divorce does not mean that divorce is easy. Despite divorce being the "go to" solution for most BPers.

I've had the unfortunate opportunity to see a lot of my friends and family get divorced over the past few years, and, while the D-word is never uttered in my house, I've certainly been confronted with looking at that possibility for my own marriage (thought experiment only at this point, fortunately). It's a devastating situation for everyone involved.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:40 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah. I agree. I meant ease in a legal sense.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

When gender roles are removed, expectations suddenly become ambiguous. Everyone gains some freedom of choice, but they also lose the singularity and stability of a predefined path. There is new uncertainty surrounding any expectations of the opposite sex.

Women stand to benefit more from this dissolution of gender roles than men, at least in wealthy societies. A supportive role does not offer it's recipient much opportunity for self actualization. A housewife perhaps more consistently satisfies the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it falls behind at the peak.

Gender roles are more prominent than ever. Men getting discriminated against right and left is a way of having male efforts support and protect women on a cultural level. All we've done is make gender roles communal.

However, talking to the men would give one the impression that this isn't what they really want. They say, "You think we like being like this? You think the pill isn't hard to swallow? I really just want a nice girl to settle down with, but that's impossible in the current market". TRP has removed any hope men had for their original dream. It doesn't give men what they want, it just convinces them that what they want is impossible and then offers a consolation prize.

TRP didn't remove that hope. All we did was send the message that the hope had been removed.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

TRP didn't remove that hope.

Oh come on dude. TRP gives you the NEVER GET MARRIED, the SHE'LL NEVER REALLY LOVE YOU, and the SHE'LL CHEAT IF YOU SLIP UP ONLY A LITTLE BIT.

There are so many dudes in the stage where they think all women are whores ready to cheat and you can tell how fucking genuinely in pain and sad they really are.

TRP sort of tears you down (which I believe is necessary for most dudes), but it doesn't try to build you up. There really isn't any reformatting of expectations, or replacing the defeatist attitude with cautious cynicism, or replacing the Disney hopefulness with some conservative optimism. Its all like KILL KILL KILL and the usefulness of it fades and you are left to fend for yourself without guidance.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP didn't make marriage a broken institution. We just told people what others did to it.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you too.

RP isn't like this, off of TRP.

But TRP is very very very much like this.

I think you have to leave the TRP forum to find a way to build yourself back up. TRP has become utterly and relentlessly negative.

Guys need to move onto that "cautious cynicism" or "conservative optimism" and TRP is just no longer able to provide that. As you say, it's all KILL KILL KILL.... And they justify that by saying that's what the noobs need.... But then don't fulfill the other half of that promise by offering the non-noobs something more.

TRP has stopped catering to RP guys, guys who have swallowed the pill and are in acceptance.... It's ALL built around the noobs now and KILL KILL KILL.

[–]grendalorRed Rain1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but this doesn't surprise me. I was red pill long, long before I came across TRP. To me, TRP is kind of like very reddit-ish, because reddit tends to have a LOT of radical echo-chamber sub-reddits -- it seems to be something facilitated by reddit, or perhaps innate in the broader culture of reddit. So I don't care that much about TRP specifically -- it's the broader red pill that was always my identification anyway.

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')>0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you have to leave the TRP forum to find a way to build yourself back up. TRP has become utterly and relentlessly negative.

I concur. TRP appears more to be a stepping stone now than a one stop shop.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guys need to move onto that "cautious cynicism"

I would say that guys need to move onto "reality-based pragmatism." I have no use for cynicism in any form, as it is simply the negative relief of idealism. Idealism (in all it's forms, including cynicism) is useless for actually living a fulfilling and meaningful life, as it is, by definition, based on something other than reality.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These men have to find their own way. TRP only shows them the current state of intersexual relationships. It doesn't presume to prescribe for each individual man "this is what you need to do to have a happy life in a 4 BR 3.5 BA colonial in the suburbs with a wife and two kids" or for this man it is "You will live a sexless existence and therefore you must get good hobbies and a good job so you can afford a hooker now and then". Each man figures this out for himself after being armed with the accurate info about the current state of intersexual relationships TRP provides.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

TRP sort of tears you down (which I believe is necessary for most dudes), but it doesn't try to build you up. There really isn't any reformatting of expectations, or replacing the defeatist attitude with cautious cynicism, or replacing the Disney hopefulness with some conservative optimism. Its all like KILL KILL KILL and the usefulness of it fades and you are left to fend for yourself without guidance.

i think this is a really good point

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a terrible point. We wrote a whole lot about how to navigate the SMP as is and be happy. We just say not to sign a bad contract.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP sort of tears you down (which I believe is necessary for most dudes), but it doesn't try to build you up. There really isn't any reformatting of expectations, or replacing the defeatist attitude with cautious cynicism, or replacing the Disney hopefulness with some conservative optimism. Its all like KILL KILL KILL and the usefulness of it fades and you are left to fend for yourself without guidance.

I think that you could come away from TRP with that impression, but that's why I think it is critical that, if you are serious about moving beyond all that pain and cynicism, you must read beyond TRP. While there are some "Red Pill" authors and blogs that write from that standpoint, there are many more who do not take a fatalistic approach to sex/relationships. Yes, it will be harshly pragmatic at times, but pragmatism is entirely distinct from cynicism.

[–]AzzmoRed1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Does a philosophy require a prescribed course of action? Can't it simply exist as an examination?

I've found TRP to be a great way of tearing down old, rotten infrastructure and putting up some good walls. If at that point a person wishes to put in some gates that's their choice but I appreciate that the guidance is generally limited to caution. I wouldn't want advice on how to live my life.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Does a philosophy require a prescribed course of action?

To suggest TRP already doesn't insist on pursuing certain lifestyles is dishonest

Most men are genetically incapable of pumping and dumping dimes despite the the revenge fantasies the angry individuals in TRP have

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And you're the person who put up the walls, painted them and decorated them the way you wanted.

TRP just tells you the old infrastructure was rotten and not working, when everyone else was telling you it was fine.

[–]newpaige0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

what is scary about this is there will be men who can take what they need from this, benefit, and take charge of the lives they want to leave. But no one ever talks about the scores of men riddled with depression, loneliness, anger, unhealthy coping mechanisms that don't know what to do with the rubble at their feet. Its heartbreaking to see and at a distance no less because as a woman, I don't want to get caught up in the crosshairs of an TRP man.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:46 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I pretty much agree with all of this except that I don't think the loss of the female role has been good for anyone but upper middle class women (who have all the opportunities for "self actualisation" in terms of career that were never really available to men or women from lower classes).

For the rest of us self-actualisation was always going to be through other things, hobbies, relationships, charitable work and so on and all these things have been available to women long before the dissolution of gender roles.

[–]newpaige0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It saddens me that I cannot upvote this more than once. This whole conversation is about this particular demo.

[–]ThrowbiWanPurple Pill Man7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think my last post should explain how I stand on this topic.

But yes I do agree. The SMP is out of whack. But I'm not sure it can be fixed.

But as long as there are guys having a shitton of sex with multiple women simply unattainable without the right genetics or high status, a lot of men will be unhappy.

The tinder experiences of me compared to those of a very attractive friend make me a sad panda. I usually get relationship probign questions. We even had the same match once. With him they quickly met up and soon hooked up. With me I get all kind of relationship-relevant questions even before meeting up for the first time.

I think average women can easily generate desire. Hell almost every woman can if she dresses invitingly (slutty/revealing/sexy) enough. There sadly isn't a similar option for men.

Best options (but still freaking horribly) were to ban casual sex (meaning 1on1 pairing would be needed, which would bind women to their own league) or artificially influencing supply and demand (kill a bunch of men off, find a way to significantly raise women's sex drive, so they aren't happy sharing a top notch guy for their casual needs, etc.)

[–]Xemnas812 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Best options (but still freaking horribly) were to ban casual sex (meaning 1on1 pairing would be needed, which would bind women to their own league)

Marriage 1.0 is dead dude.

or artificially influencing supply and demand (kill a bunch of men off, find a way to significantly raise women's sex drive, so they aren't happy sharing a top notch guy for their casual needs, etc.)

I'm sadly not being funny, I personally think a lot of contemporary one-sided laws are being motioned to achieve precisely that; kill the impoverished omega, remove the beta from the gene pool (except when called for for his service as Beta Bux hubby to toss aside once the child is of sexual maturity).

As for raising women's sex drive, have you noticed the boom in girls lifting lately?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We even had the same match once. With him they quickly met up and soon hooked up. With me I get all kind of relationship-relevant questions even before meeting up for the first time.

Wouldn't have been funny had you answered to her satisfaction and then just dumped her?

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

My M.O.!

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

She says it in her OP. To paraphrase what she said: 'Look for a unicorn. There are more out there than you think.'

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How would a woman even know (unless she's a lesbian)? She's never had to date them and try to find a good one. Maybe her girlfriends are all "fabulous" and "really nice people", but they're totally different beasts when you date them.

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

I don't have a way to fix the original problem

And this is why trp's solution of alpha plate spinning wins. Because everyone else has nothing or vilifies you for looking for a solution.

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never thought twice about this until I started dating a very feminine foreign girl. She is wonderful in feminine ways I never experienced, which are largely absent from western women.

It's hard to go back once you've realized what's out there. Egalitarian relationships have seemed so purely functional and lacking in passion in comparison.

Modern feminism wants you to drink the koolaid. Been there, done that. If anything I have much more alternatives now in the type of relationship I'd like to have.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

With the abolition of gender roles, women gain more access to men's power, status, and resources, but men do not gain much in return.

I don't think women gaining more access to men's power, status and resources is due to the abolition of gender roles, but due to laws and wealth redistribution.

However, talking to the men would give one the impression that this isn't what they really want. They say, "You think we like being like this? You think the pill isn't hard to swallow? I really just want a nice girl to settle down with, but that's impossible in the current market". TRP has removed any hope men had for their original dream. It doesn't give men what they want, it just convinces them that what they want is impossible and then offers a consolation prize.

I don't know. I think if they're honest, most men want, or wanted, a unicorn. They want to remove the burden of performance and still be loved for it. They want a beautiful woman too, in looks and in personality.

If they genuinely mean they just want a nice girl to settle down with but can't because of the current market, and they're red pill, then they probably mean that they want a fair deal and some assurances that they aren't getting from the current marriage laws.

I don't think that what men want is impossible, because I know that women do actually love men. We do care about men. We can empathize with their problems and we want men to be happy. This is as much as a part of AWALT as occasionally being a piece of shit.

This is all highly debateable and faith based as opposed to evidence based.

I don't have a way to fix the original problem, but I know that men's dream of having a woman that loves them is not impossible.

I would hope men have better dreams and aspirations than just that.

Men are not so one-dimensional that they only have value in terms of resources or sex. There is more potential there.

Totally agree with that.

And also women have more potential than being hypergamous bitches. We have the ability to give men the love, compassion, and acceptance.

Totally agree.

There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer. There is a way to get men what they really want.

You sound like you're still in the bargaining phase. The good news is it will pass. The bad news is the next phase is depression. Then comes acceptance.

Here's what's really going to annoy you though. We already had a better solution than what TRP has to offer, and it was the old style Patriarchy coupled with Christianity. The trouble is a lot of women weren't happy with that arrangement and pushed for changes to be made. Now we've just got to wait and see what rises from the ashes of western civilization.

[–]TheGreasyHoleRed Pill Woman5 points6 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Excellent post as always Coratoad. Beginning to get a bit of a reddit crush!

Of course women still love men. Women will always love men. Things are horribly skewed in women's favour at the moment but I think that TRP will cause as many problems as it solves in a few years.

What happens when all these young twenty men hit their thirties and decide they do want an LTR after all? That actually some companionship would be nice? 'Cos it's gonna happen.

That's when the shit will really hit the fan. All the good looking girls their own age will either have been snapped up years ago or are still riding the CC and are no-goes.

And if they do find a girl it worries me that TRP men will treat all disagreements/differences of opinions as shit-tests or women being AWALT and will basically end up sabotaging their own relationships due to the unduly negative perception of women and their behaviour in sexual relationships.

I think you are absolutely right - TRP convinces men that a loving, respectful relationship is not possible. And it is. It may not be easy to find, but it certainly exists. And always will. The only people they are hurting by not believing this is themselves in the long run.

[–]coratoad[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Thank you Greasy, you are growing on me as well. =)

And I think that women should shoulder some of the blame for the animosity present in TRP. It is our job to make men feel loved, cared for, and respected. Hell, empathy is the one thing we are supposed to be good at. We keep encouraging men to share their feelings, but then we turn on them when it is not expressed in the 'right way'. No wonder they hate us. I'm sorry for letting you guys down.

All this time I thought that I was trying to prove to myself that I wasn't the monster that TRP made me out to be. I kept obsessing over it even though I knew it wasn't true. Then I thought that maybe I just didn't want them to think that I was a monster. Likely both of these are at least partially true, but what has given me the most peace is the realization that it's actually the men of TRP that are not the monsters I thought them to be. They aren't bullies. They aren't cruel. They just think that is us vs. them, because we have failed to remind them that we are their team.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All this time I thought that I was trying to prove to myself that I wasn't the monster that TRP made me out to be.

Women aren't monsters. Men aren't monsters. We are human, and that's damning enough, lol.

Here's the thing I've come to understand while struggling like hell in my marriage - we are both losing, just in different ways. I've had the bad fortune to see this play out amongst so many of my friends recently (I swear, there must be something in the water here or something). No one seems to be winning. Even those who call it quits don't really have the experience of having substantially improved their lives.

Men and women have an incredibly hard time understanding each other, given how differently we view and experience life, which can feel as infuriating and crushing to the same level as love feels inspiring and fulfilling. It can be unbelievably miserable to be sabotaged by that fundamental difference, but that's just the flip side of the differences coin that gives us that incredible feeling of satisfaction and joy.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just FYI. Check the username. This was my wife posting.

But thanks anyway. I agree I'm not a monster too :)

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

Oh wow how did I miss that? I thought it was strange that I was agreeing with you, haha.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What happens when all these young twenty men hit their thirties and decide they do want an LTR after all?

Sounds like the plot of Strauss' newest book

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

All the good looking girls their own age will either have been snapped up years ago or are still riding the CC and are no-goes.

You seem to suppose that snagging a good-looking girl/good girlTM one's own age has been a reasonably likely option to begin with.

And if they do find a girl it worries me that TRP men will treat all disagreements/differences of opinions as shit-tests or women being AWALT and will basically end up sabotaging their own relationships due to the unduly negative perception of women and their behaviour in sexual relationships.

I don't really think so, since there's a learning curve involved. Guys who end up at TRP assumed that what essentially amounts to deliberately failing shit tests (the thing the funny bluepillers in here constantly deny exists) is the way to have happy relationships. Now that they go through the phase of being the asshole boyfriend who spins plates, they may also find out inhowfar this isn't the ultimate way to go for relationship problems. Of course they'll leave their share of unhappy girls along that way, but that's just how things are. It's not as if society was looking out for their good either.

[–]TheGreasyHoleRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You seem to suppose that snagging a good-looking girl/good girlTM one's own age has been a reasonably likely option to begin with.

I think it is a reasonably likely option. All I have is anecdotal evidence to back this up, but as this is equivalent to field reports, you will never convince me otherwise. All my friends (all around 35 years old now) come from families where their parents are still married. (Relationships that have lasted 35 years +) All my friends got with their husbands/wives in their late teens, early twenties. They are all still together and all seem fairly happy. So for me getting with a nice girl ones own age and having a reasonably long and successful relationship is the norm. (I live in the UK, just outside London, and am neither religious or particularly traditional.)

Where RP can really comes into it's own I believe is helping men to keep that relationship happy and on track and in helping to select 'the right type of girl' to begin with.

And this is where, IMO, TRP lets it's members down. It needs to state that while LTR's and certainly marriage is not recommended, if that is something you want to do then starting to look for it in your early twenties will be ALOT more successful than starting in your early thirties after years of spinning plates. That at that point all the girls that were always looking for an LTR will be snapped up.

Now that they go through the phase of being the asshole boyfriend who spins plates, they may also find out inhowfar this isn't the ultimate way to go for relationship problems.

Maybe, maybe not. My concern is that TRP (not RP) is actually so negative about women now that it may actually harm their chances rather than improve it - TRP/MRP seems to advocate that you can never have a healthy relationship with a girl because women are incapable of it and therefore you must always treat your SO as an adversary. I think this is plain wrong (if you have chosen wisely to begin with) and in the long run is not a good strategy within an LTR.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

All my friends (all around 35 years old now) come from families where their parents are still married. (Relationships that have lasted 35 years +) All my friends got with their husbands/wives in their late teens, early twenties. They are all still together and all seem fairly happy. So for me getting with a nice girl ones own age and having a reasonably long and successful relationship is the norm.

Ironically this is what according to a quite popular strand of RP thought would be the ideal, but rarely ever happens. My experience says that it actually is quite rare. Even those of my friends who had fairly long-lasting relationships that started in their early 20s broke them off for one reason or another at some point; only two of these couples are still together by now.

But I was more refering on the general problems with getting into relationships (let alone serious relationships with potential) in the first place. Because I also have a bunch of friends who didn't get into them in at that age and didn't take off until much later, and for guys like that being told that they should just get a girlfriend in their early 20s instead of looking for one 10 years later after a decade of plate-spinning is tantamount to saying "let them eat cake".

(I live in the UK, just outside London, and am neither religious or particularly traditional.)

I know, your hubby is my favorite Brit.

...well, after JRRT.

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

Yeah, I get what you are saying. The friends I am talking about I have known since we were all about 5 years old - TGP thinks my experiences are not the norm and girls having friends for that long is also not the norm. I can except that it definitely is not like this for everyone but when you look at the amount of people who are married (just about 50% although declining In the UK, but with another 30% in co-habiting relationships) I still think that Most people can and do find LTR's without too much hassle. Whether those LTR's last or are happy are another matter!

But I was more refering on the general problems with getting into relationships (let alone serious relationships with potential) in the first place. Because I also have a bunch of friends who didn't get into them in at that age and didn't take off until much later, and for guys like that being told that they should just get a girlfriend in their early 20s instead of looking for one 10 years later after a decade of plate-spinning is tantamount to saying "let them eat cake".

Again, different experiences. My brother and his mates were a kind of nerdy group in high school and many of them didn't start dating until mid-late twenties and I suppose you would call them 'late bloomers' but again they are all married or in serious LTR's now with the exception of one guy who is likely to be a forever alone guy.

I'm not saying that these guys should be told to get a girlfriend, of course they need to work on themselves etc etc. and of course some experience with women before they embark on trying to find a girlfriend would probably also be extremely useful ;)

And if they are happy spinning plates their whole life then everything is fine and dandy.

I just think TRP/MRP who pride themselves in working with what is real should also tell the guys that if they do get to their thirties and they want an LTR/marriage it is going to be more difficult for them by that point because the field will be incredibly narrowed.

Just like RP's infamous CC riding girls who start to hear their biological clock ticking and then lament 'where are all the good guys gone?'

In this case I think the same thing applies to both sexes.

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

That's why I'm planning on snapping up a 16 year old Pakistani virgin when the time comes around if it does.

It's more than possible and quite realistic for me anyway although most terpers aren't in that situation.

I live in Canada (instant instant turn on for girls. If you're not familiar with third world culture you simply will not understand this).

I'm 5'10 making me tall in comparison to my competition.

I'm a good looking guy.

I speak competent English (insane turn on. Even more than the first. Again, if you're never been there you won't get it.)

etc.

And arranged marriages where the age difference is significant is quite popular there. The guy's family look for stuff like youth, fertility, virginity, etc. which are quite easy to find.

The girl's family look for wealth, success, power, power, job, education. So it works out quite well. More common than you think.

[–]TheGreasyHoleRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good for you. Arranged marriages have pretty good success rates.

[–][deleted] 16 points16 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]czerdec4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Originally, nobody gave a fuck if men were monogamous or not. The sole utility of monogamy was to ensure that only the offspring of a specifically designated woman could legally inherit the nobleman's land.

Female chastity was about preventing the woman's behavior causing political difficulties when she became pregnant with the child of a man from the wrong family. A virgin daughter was a political asset who could be used to form alliances between noble houses, and thus increase the total assets (productive land, forts, manpower, precious metals) controlled by the houses involved.

Nobody gave a damn what the peasants did sexually as long as they obeyed their lords.

None of this matters a damn now that marriages have very little political significance compared to 500 years ago. But that only really changed 200 years ago, and for billions of people (especially in India and Pakistan) it's still extremely important in terms of wealth.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill6 points7 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I think what people "want" is largely socially constructed. No one is born knowing what they want. Everyone is confused. If you socially constructed a world in which players were seen as losers who couldn't provide for a family and thus had zero value, men would want to get married. If you constructed a world where married men were beta providers who couldn't get a harem and get cucked, men would want to become players.

What is consistent is that both men and women want high status in whatever society they happen to find themselves in. Also, men and women want to feel that they've overcome a hurdle, they've triumphed, and they've proven themselves. For men, that could be either success in leading a mammoth hunt or bedding 10 women a month or becoming a Catholic Bishop. It all depends.

[–]TheSandbergPrincipleMuh Soggy Knees13 points14 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think what people "want" is largely socially constructed.

I'm pretty sure me wanting to fuck lots of women isn't socially constructed. Is it socially constructed when male animals of most species want to do the same? What a load of shit.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

True, it's "largely" socially constructed, not entirely. But men wanting to fuck a lot of women is still consistent with a monogamous society. Bill Clinton is still married, after all.

[–]TheSandbergPrincipleMuh Soggy Knees8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Bill has a side chick he's fucking on the side while Hillary's campaigning. Feminists don't understand the meaning of 'social construct'. They say 'toxic masculinity' is a social construct, but it's our own biology that makes us behave the way we do. Ironically, what a social construct is would be to suppress natural male instincts (i.e. what mostly female teachers try to do to boys in school).

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

Ironically, what a social construct is would be to suppress natural male instincts (i.e. what mostly female teachers try to do to boys in school).

Gold.

[–]TheSandbergPrincipleMuh Soggy Knees6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Oh and if you're wondering where i'm getting this from, it's from a new tell all book with interviews with secret service agents

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/29/author-on-bill-clinton-he-has-a-blonde-busty-mistress/

“He has a blonde, busty mistress, and she’s been code named Energizer by agents. This is unofficially, but that is what they call her…She comes in to the Chappaqua [NY] home whenever Hillary leaves. The details coordinate to make sure they don’t cross paths. She, unlike Hillary, is very nice to the agents. She’ll bring cookies.”

Kessler also contends the Clintons’ relationship is only based on their desire to return to the White House in 2016.

“Agents say that it’s a business relationship. It’s not a marriage at all. It’s a total fake, like everything else about Hillary. It’s just a big show and a scam.”

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I've believed for years that Bill and Hillary probably have an open relationship, they just can't admit it publicly while either still has political aspirations.

You know that the day Hillary retires for good they're totally going to come out as swingers.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I suddenly have the urge to write Clinton fanfic.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Clinton fanfic

shudders

[–]grendalorRed Rain2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep. Hillary had a thing with Huma Abedin, too, for a while. That cooled off after the press started nosing around during the 2008 primary campaign, but I'd be surprised if Hillary doesn't have another attractive young(er) woman around today on a more discreet basis. The arrangement with Bill isn't sexual -- it's professional and business and mentoring/advising all rolled in together, and it appears to be complex, but the relationship has been open since at least the aftermath of Lewinsky.

[–]takua1080 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit, I'm not huge into US politics (despite being American) but man, I hope they co-write a tell-all book before they die, they must have some incredible stories to tell.

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

The funny thing is that what this guy wrote is more than just plausible, but also what most people probably assumed anyway. Even if it wasn't true, it would still be believed.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are a lot of rumors about the Clintons. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he was really in love with her. I suppose we'll find out if Hillary loses the campaign. Does Bill stay with her or not?

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

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you are confusing the primal desires with their appropriate outlets.

There are the primal desires, and then there are the outlets that society has deemed appropriate for fulfilling those desires in a way that ensures cooperative survival. The outlets are socially constructed, but the primal desires will be there regardless.

In fact, the social constructs I grew up in were very antagonistic to my innate desire for sex. I was told over and over to not want what my body was telling me I wanted. Those social constructs were, ultimately, entirely insufficient to overcome my innate "want."

Think about how many young homosexuals commit suicide or otherwise engage in self-destructive behavior due to the fact that what they were born wanting conflicts with what their social construct tells them they should want. If wants were extrinsically sourced, that wouldn't happen.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is fair. We want to breathe. We want to eat. We want to have sex in accordance to our sexual orientation. These desires aren't socially constructed. It is the form these desires take that is socially constructed.

However, since the actual fulfillment of any desire always takes a certain form, the social construction is always embedded into it. A man wants sex. Does that take the form of monogamy or polygamy? A man wants to eat. Does that take the form of eating vegetables only, or vegetables and meat?

A successful socially constructed system gives a way for people to vent their primal desires by adhering to the system. There is another class of desires though, that isn't a primal desire but is a higher-order desire. This seems to be somewhat less universal than primal desires, but generally more fulfilling. I would put loving and being loved as one of that category.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What I said seems consistent with psychological egoism.

Edit: clarifying

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If that were the biological norm for humans, then we wouldn't have such a long gestation period and we would mature much faster. Those factors are dependent on the level of parental investment typical to a species.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how that is related.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How is it not? In species with high parental investment (where parents take care of and protect their offspring) they can afford to have smaller numbers of offspring, longer pregnancies, and longer "childhoods".

Species like rabbits and fish go for the "spray and pray" strategy wherein they quickly produce a large amount of offspring that grow up fast and don't require much care.

Contrast that with our 9 month gestation period and 18 year long development period. If human males never stuck around to care for their offspring, and we didn't live in family groups that helped care for kids, then our reproductive life cycle would look a lot different.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't see what parental investment and not sticking around has to do with what I said.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You stated that males only stick around to protect their mates and care for their offspring because of social pressure. If that were the case then we would not show biological signs of high parental investment.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that. In fact, my only example in this thread is explicitly not doing that.

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

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I agree that humans are naturally poly-amorous, based on the shape of the male penis and size of the testes, as well as concealed female ovulation. Our ancestors likely cheated on each other all the time. But males still took care of their mate(s) and the resulting children.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Right, but that is kind of an aside to the actual male desire, which is to just keep all the women to himself and not have to worry about it.

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

Right.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Parental investment is only one of many factors that predict polygamy. Lions for example have very high parental investment but are completely polygamous. On the other hand, difference in average size between males and females alone is a very accurate predictor of polygamy in primates.

When you compare humans you see the size difference between the genders is about half way between that of the most polygamous primates and the most monogamous. Biologically we should expect behavior that is neither purely polygamous or purely monogamous but some combination of the two. See Tournament Species vs. Pair Bonding Species.

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

I wasn't arguing against humans being polayamorous/polygamous. I was arguing that it wasn't typical in our evolutionary history for the male to completely abandon his mate(s) and offspring. There's no proof in your source that males typically disregarded their mates' well being. It states that humans are somewhere in between on the spectrum of tournament style vs pair bonding.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (55 children) | Copy Link

The attempt to make men monogamous from polygyny was a feminization to begin with.

Yeah, no theories or other animals ever backup monogamy as the best option for a species survival.

Personally I think it's both. A higher order species (like humans) would be prudent to rely on both methods to ensure its survival.

By having both Chads impregnating anything that moves (and women that want that) and men that invest time in raising their children (and women that want that) you cover all bases for a species survival. That way you have the 'worker bees' and the people that run society.

If you look at what helps children survive later in life: Reading to them young, spending time with them, being in their life, etc. Those all come from monogamous relationships.

I guess it comes down to how you want to spread your genetics: Making a dozen or so and relying on your mothers to try and get the kid to adulthood and hope that statistically one of them makes it big or making 2-3 and investing your own time into getting them to adulthood.

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

This analysis is very flawed. Evolution isn't driven by what's best for the species, it's driven by what's best for the individual gene.

What's best for the species has zero impact on our default nature.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

And if that gene has negative impact on the species. Then yes, it does affect long term survival of the species.

You're looking at the atomic level and not the long term average.

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't work like that.

If a gene has a negative impact on a species, that gene doesn't get weeded out of existence unless the species becomes extinct. It just exists, and the species as a whole becomes less successful.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So what you're saying is that long term the genes for both polygamy and monogamy would exist in human beings without being weeded out?

And therefore both me and women could have either of the genes and as a result have a preference for either and neither could be predominant?

If there is anything that is going to lead to the split in the Time Machine it's that difference right there.

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, so let me know if this phrasing is correct:

Could there be genes for both polygamy and monogamy in human beings?

The answer is yes. Many animals adapt their mating behaviour based on whether polygamy or monogamy gives their offspring a higher chance of replication. It isn't for the success of the species.

Could men and women have either gene, and therefore adopt either evolutionary strategy in roughly the same numbers?

No. Most of these genes will be hormonally dependent. In other words, men will have one evolutionary strategy, women will have another. Except in strange circumstances, the genes which govern women's evolutionary strategies will not be activated in men.

They may in fact be attached to the Y chromosome, although I would imagine it's more likely they are epigenetic and activated by high levels of hormone activity. This could be why women who take testosterone see their libidos skyrocket. They are adopting a male strategy that they wouldn't adopt naturally.

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

many animals adapt their mating behaviour based on whether polygamy or monogamy gives their offspring a higher chance of replication

And so then how is it that no women ever would find monogamy the best solution for their offspring?

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm a little lost. I never said that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But TRP continually makes that assertion. AWALT = poly looking for the highest branch.

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

your thoughts on this article appreciated, fellas

Tl;dr

  • Good news for beta bux: Women LOVE Good Dads!

  • Bad news for monos: Pair-bonding is adapted to last as long as

a) the couple is in proximity of another to reinforce the oxytocin release

b) their offspring (children) have reached sexual maturity (and by extension, independence/self-sufficiency)

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, no theories or other animals ever backup monogamy as the best option for a species survival. A higher order species (like humans) would be prudent to rely on both methods to ensure its survival.

Stop.

Evolution does NOT work at the species level.

It works at the individual gene at the individual person level.

Good for individual genes, bad for species ? Gene still spread.

Bad for individual genes, good for species ? Gene doesn't spread.

You can't base any genetic reasoning at all on "what would be good for the species" only what is "good for the individual gene"

Any genetic drives we have are built on that foundation, and only that foundation. "Group Selection" was conclusively disproved in the 70's and 80's.

Thats not to say you couldn't make the same argument. Nor that your conclusion is untrue.

Just that you have to find another supporting rationale for it. This one is a busted flush. Just FYI.

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

Bad for individual genes, good for species ? Gene doesn't spread.

Bad for species?

Species dies.

On an atomic level you're right. Long term you're wrong.

Families without the 'gay uncle' gene would have, over all, had a worse chance of survival. Long term those families die out.

Families that act as carriers for gay uncle survive, even if the person that inherits the gay gene is the end of their individual line.

  • Gay Uncle: Bad for individual. Good for species.
  • Gay Uncle Carrier: Good for individual's offspring. Good for species.

If you want to talk about what genes are going to be around in 2025. I'll be the genes that promote an individual.

If you want to talk about what genes are going to be around in 2225, It'll be the genes that have the unintended consequences of benefiting the species.

[–]PoopInMyBottomNot Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't work like that. Have you read the selfish Gene? We could summarise the arguments but they are quite long and relatively nuanced.

Genes that benefit the species at the cost of the individual do not propagate. Genes that benefit a close family member at the cost of the individual might. It has nothing to do with the species, it has to do with the individual genes.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bad for species? Species dies. On an atomic level you're right. Long term you're wrong.

No, that's the point. The genes only work on the "atomic" level. So they'll quite happily have traits that, should they spread too much, kill off the species. It's is only "concerned" that it is copied once. It has no way to anticipate future consequence.

They have no foresight. They are just things copying themselves.

This was tested to death by science over about 4 decades. It was a major issue in genetics for years. And it doesn't occur, it doesn't work. There is like a billion words on it, and it's dead.

Like... Earth centred universe type dead.

Because the genes are competing within their species as well as outside it.

You're doing the equivalent of building an opinion on an earth centred universe hypothesis. Doesn't mean you aren't right. It does mean anyone who's read any genetics who reads this will just say "But that rationale is obviously wrong, that's just group selection".

Families without the 'gay uncle' gene would have, over all, had a worse chance of survival. Long term those families die out. Families that act as carriers for gay uncle survive, even if the person that inherits the gay gene is the end of their individual line.

Yes, we could say this was correct if you replaced family with gene above. It cares not for the family but for the gene. A gene that was copied more than once, regardless of how it was so copied would spread.

but it doesn't work as a group selection, only formulated that way.

And it's difficult, formulated that way, to conceive of an effect big enough that would make this the case since the gene itself is less likely to be copied in whichever human it is present in.

I think we are likely to find that the high prevalence of homosexuality in humans is innate but not genetic.

A malfunction in the sexing of the human brain process... That occurs much more commonly due to new environmental elfactors... But which is, nonetheless, not a matter of choice.

It's extremely hard to posit genes that could explain such a high homosexuality rate. Becaus of the nature of the behaviour it must make more likely.... an unwillingness to have the sex necessary to pass the gene on. It's defining characteristic.

If you want to talk about what genes are going to be around in 2025. I'll be the genes that promote an individual. If you want to talk about what genes are going to be around in 2225, It'll be the genes that have the unintended consequences of benefiting the species.

No. That's not how it works. At both times specified it is only going to be the genes furthering their individual success that will be around. It doesn't matter to them if they're all in bacteria, or all in humans, or all in any mix of animals, plants, or other replicators.

They just copy at the individual level. That is all. The species that will still be around is immaterial to them... And the predictor of which are still here will simply be "did humans kill this branch off yet or not?" Including our own branch.

And we could just, kill it off. Pow. Like idiots. And nothing in our genes would stop us.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

By having both Chads impregnating anything that moves (and women that want that)

What some folks fail to see is that there are a lot more "women that want that" than there are women who want this:

men that invest time in raising their children

[–]ReformedTomboyPurple Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't say there are more that want Chad than want Dad but I do think society at large has misled men to believe Chad-chasers exist at lower frequencies than they actually do. Also lets not forget the women that want a "Chad" when they are young and carefree but switch to wanting a "Dad when they grow up a bit.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yep. No women want that. Be Chad. You heard it here. AWALT and all that. Please ignore all women that don't want that Chad.

than there are women who want this:

Yep, every woman desires to be a single mother. None of them want any assistance raising their kids.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You need to work on reading comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote again as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

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

Go back and read what I wrote again as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

You were told as a child you could be a 900 lb blob and when that didn't work you swung the other way and think that all women want Chads.

I understand it completely.

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

Nope. You're still not getting it.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, he's just a "bad faith-arguer".

[–]Xemnas811 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No his point is that mono with a pair-bond is female sexual strategy, amoral poly is male ss. (According to RP theory, anyway)

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean running off necessarily. If you asked men if they had the choice of being kings with a harem or bunch of wives who couldn't disrespect them, you'd probably get a lot of yeses.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:44 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

My mum said yesterday (because my dad had been staying the night with this woman that mum thinks he fancies but he totally doesn't) "I wouldn't mind being part of a harem, share the workload with other women, have camaraderie with them.

I told dad "heh, you need to get yourself some more wives" - he doesn't seem that into the idea though. :P

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah some men have been feminized. Also, I'm fairly sure his relationships don't have the appropriate prerequisites.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:42 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think he's "feminised", just lazy. More Wives, more problems.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hence why I said wives who can't disrespect him. Obviously, a bunch of nagging harpies sounds nightmarish.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:42 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Big problem with polygamy is less the nagging (most countries that practice it are also fine with smacking them if they get uppity) and more the fighting between them.

If you're really high status they might even murder each others children to ensure that theirs is the heir. It gets messy.

My mum says she'd like it, but I bet she is imagining some fantasy co-wives and not the crazy women that my dad would no doubt go for just so long as they have red hair.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha that's interesting. There is probably some male solipsism involved with regard to female infighting.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

he doesn't seem that into the idea though. :P

He sounds smart. One is more than enough, as far as I'm concerned (went full-on poly for a short time - total headache…).

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ1 point2 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Dude, I'd also take a sexually exclusive harem of men who couldn't disrespect me, what does that prove other than people are horny?

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill9 points10 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I don't know many women that think like that. I'm sure they will be found everywhere on the BP side of PPD though.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, AWALT

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

That would actually be AMALT in this case.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

The point was AWALT until they say something unexpected, then "just those women like that".

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Well I don't really say AWALT, because I know BPers can't help but take it literally, but they are the ones who are different. The women sound more like men, and the men sound more like women, which is why I expect it from BPers.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The women sound more like men, and the men sound more like women, which is why I expect it from BPers.

Nailed it.

It's not even that there is anything wrong with that. It's just that it's not reflective of the general population.

I had an non-sexually exclusive marriage. It worked, mostly. But I am the first to acknowledge that my marriage represents an extreme outlier population in that regard, and should not be held up as an example of what marriage is for the population as a whole. In fact, my first piece of advice to anyone looking to "open up their marriage" is "don't do it", lol...

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess it's more the general attitude this kind of exception-making creates that bothers me, you're not the first person to come up with this "well women on the internet/reddit/TBP/PPD are weird and different" argument. It's the same as the old "don't ask a fish how to catch it" where women's opinions are dismissed unless they happen to agree with RP men.

It also just doesn't add up with my own experiences, but of course confirmation bias, etc.

[–]provanagotannat0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm willing to bet A LOT of money that AWALT is true in this case.

In a society where there were no social constuctions - of course every woman (and every man) would want to have a harmen of whatever gender they are attracted to who couldn't disrespect them.

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

So you'd basically take the gender-flipped version of the deal Muslim suicide bombers get? (if it was real)

Interesting.

[–]Ronin11AReckless & Refined6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

I really just want a nice girl to settle down with, but that's impossible in the current market.

I know you'll disagree, OP, but from a male perspective, it's increasingly true (from my anecdotal experience, at least).

I can't tell you how many women I've met who can't cook anything other than Easy Mac and subsist on takeout every night.

Women that might be pretty if they started paying attention to their fitness and lost 30 pounds rather than binging on the latest Netflix saga.

Or women that get sloppy, hammered drunk on wine every weekend like a 19 year old frat boy on Bud Light.

Women who consider 50 Shades of Grey to be the last good book they read. Or Divergent. Or Twilight. Or Hunger Games. Basically, nothing of any intellectual value.

SIDENOTE: Not saying pop novels aren't an acceptable guilty-pleasure. But they're the literary equivalent of junk food, and should be treated as such.

It shouldn't be an uphill battle to find an in-shape young woman who can hold an intelligent conversation on a variety of topics while helping me cook a real dinner from scratch. From my experience, however, it is.

[–]wehadtosaydickety5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

See I'm thinking of going in the other direction. What you're talking about is a best friend. What I'm talking about is a yin and a yang.

What if she had a big heart, cared about kids or something, loved Disney movies, could cook like a champ and cleaned the house? And was just in her own little world of girly shit (Sex in the City type stuff excluded, I'm talking wholesome).

Ok so you have this chick raising your kids, she'ssweet enough, cares for you, you connect on some level, at the same time there's a barrier there, she doesn't think as heavy as you do, you're the man and you take care of bringing the bread home etc. is this really so bad?

The upshot is you don't rely on her as your best friend, it's a true partnership and not an emotional prison.

I know some girls like this and wonder if I should just check out of the game with one like them if I wanted a family. Dating them is fun sometimes because they're really feminine and let you lead. Being around girls like this just makes me feel more like a man, there's no attempt by them to take over your role.

[–]Ronin11AReckless & Refined1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

could cook like a champ and cleaned the house?

Which most women can't and won't do today.

You misunderstood my post completely. I'm not looking for a "best friend" out of woman. I don't buy into that rom-com shit. And every relationship has a little bit of ying and yang.

But my point is the vast majority of women I've met recently are overweight, can't cook, live in disgustingly filthy apartments, drink like fish, and to top it off can't even find Afghanistan or Syria on a map despite their being in the news for the last decade or so.

I don't mind a girl that's girly. I an RP man. I want a girly girl, because I find feminine women attractive. I don't need to her discuss Plato's Republic with me every night, but I do demand something more than "OMG TWILIGHT SO CUTE SO HAWT."

Ok so you have this chick raising your kids, she'ssweet enough, cares for you, you connect on some level, at the same time there's a barrier there, she doesn't think as heavy as you do, you're the man and you take care of bringing the bread home etc. is this really so bad?

That's basically what all RP men want, and we're called misogynists for it.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:47 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Cooking and crafty housekeeping stuff is really fashionable these days. I find it strange you can't find any girls into that kind of thing.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Most women I know past college age love that kind of thing.

Although it is sad that basic housekeeping skills are a "fad," and not just, you know...what adults do because they're adults.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:46 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Even in university I found it was fashionable. (or do you mean college age and above?)

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

Most girls I knew in college weren't all that domestic at the time, but now they are. YMMV though.

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:42 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess because I did compsci the only girls I knew in college (literally in a year group of many hundreds there were 3 girls) were people I met at church and they're probably a very specific group.

[–]Ronin11AReckless & Refined0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, girls love to put that stuff on their Pinterest, but the number that can actually follow through meaningfully are few and far between. And I didn't say I couldn't find any, but rather the majority.

[–]wehadtosaydickety0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm addressing half your point, which is that I don't care what she can find on a map as long as she is a skilled woman in the traditional sense. I've dated a girl with Minnie Mouse decorations in her room, but she was so good at being feminine and flirting in a way that brought me up. I didn't need her to talk about Afghanistan, she was fun to be around and in that situation she's only getting 20% of me while I keep the rest to myself, it's kind of nice.

I agree that ogling fictional or real men is a red flag but that's another discussion, that's why I'm excluding sex and the city girls

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

It shouldn't be an uphill battle to find an in-shape young woman who can hold an intelligent conversation on a variety of topics while helping me cook a real dinner from scratch. From my experience, however, it is.

They exist, they're just taken by the elite men dude.

[–]Ronin11AReckless & Refined1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

They exist, they're just taken by the elite men dude.

Fair enough. Time to get more awesome and elite then.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Or in my case, often alone. Being one of those 'multi-faceted' women is a double-edged sword. Between work, gym time (i.e. staying in-shape), life maintenance stuff (i.e. cooking and cleaning skillz), pursuing all my side interests (i.e. interesting conversation fodder), making time for family/friends, etc....there's just not much energy or interest available to date around or go clubbing every week.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Online dating is your friend.

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

Sad but true. ;(

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What's so sad about that? I think not having to spend hours in clubs every week (which won't get you a boyfriend anyway) and writing a few short messages instead sounds pretty sweet

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

Just a Metallica reference bro

It's not that bad, but I think the joke is that since so many people say "there's no stigma" about online dating, there's a stigma.

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

Nah, not really. At least not anymore.

There was a stigma about online dating (I can still remember how incredulous people were 20 years ago when the first couples who had met each other online married), but the more being online became the norm for the general population and the more normal converting virtual acquaintances into real ones became, the less people cared about it.

[–]it_is_not_the_spoonMarried Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that what men want is impossible, because I know that women do actually love men. We do care about men. We can empathize with their problems and we want men to be happy. This is as much as a part of AWALT as occasionally being a piece of shit.

When you say men here it assumes a certain quality and for the most part won't apply to the bottom X%. At least not the way most men are conditioned to believe.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP has removed any hope men had for their original dream.

That is because men in the old days had absolute power over distribution of wealth.

Without that they have no value. The beta dream is gone.

Being rich isn't a factor anymore as they can just steal it.

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

Old BP story of thinking the world is a fairytale. Why do you think love is really what men want? I have had all the love in the world from my mom and dad, but ZERO sex before I came to TRP. I wanted sex. I didn't want love from any girl.

[–]Xemnas813 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey Cora, liking this. You should repost this shit to r/PunchingMorpheus :)

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

Thanks Xemnas, I wanted you to read it more than anyone else.

[–]Xemnas812 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

:)

[–]kick6Red Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. While there are undoubtedly some girls willing to play by the old rules (ergo, they genuinely love men in a reciprocal way), I think the forces of liberalism and feminism (really one in the same) have conspired to ensure that there aren't nearly enough of them to go around.

TRP isn't preaching that it's impossible or that they don't want it, just that the odds are low enough that it is far better a plan to create a life assuming you won't find it, and to be on guard against any woman who appears to offer it.

[–]czerdec4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer. There is a way to get men what they really want.

None of that follows from any of the premises you gave. It's outright wishful thinking.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Possibly the best post I've ever read on PPD. Saved, will give to ppl as a RP primer. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, which does not seem to logically follow from the body of your post, and at the very least seems unsubstantiated. The conclusion might be better accepted or debated if you provided some substantiating evidence or argument for it, because the rest of your post seems to contradict the conclusion.

As women become more self-sufficient, men find themselves competing in for their relative worth. They no longer have a monopoly on providership, a previously consistent source of value for them. With the loss of this value to women, men find that women have no desire to associate with them anymore. The men that didn't have much to offer to begin with are hit especially hard. The affection of women disappears along with their need for resources, leaving men feeling used. Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

This is the main reason I hypothesize a huge rise in male suicides in oncoming decades. I actually want to work on a post using this idea with a somewhat optimistic hypothesis for long term social outcomes.

[–]midnightvulpine2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Personally, I don't think anyone should tell men what they want. Just like no o e should tell men what they want. I'd prefer to keep the days of defined gender roles firmly in the past so men can look at themselves and feel free to be who they want to be.

The way to fix this is to let us, as people figure it out. Period. But getting other people to stop telling others what they should and shouldn't be is the hard part. Some think they have it figured out and everyone else is wrong. Those people need to learn to let others just be.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

so men can look at themselves and feel free to be who they want to be.

Men are free to do this. Men who want to experience success in the areas of sex/love/relationships, however, may find that looking at themselves and freely being who they want to be is at odds with their desire for success.

I feel like so many arguments for the whole freedom from gender roles thing sees gender roles as operating at a societal level, with the individual players being locked into those roles against their will.

But, in my experience, it's less societal expectations and more individual expectations. I feel a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to a masculine gender role from society, yes, but as a bit of a self-styled iconoclast, I don't really care about societal pressure. What I do care about, though, is the strength and quality of my relationships with the opposite sex, and that's where I feel the most pressure is coming from. Especially as I have gotten older.

It was cool to be all loosey-goosey and free about that stuff when we were all younger and had fewer responsibilities and lived for our dreams, but as life goes on and the responsibilities mount and dreaming gives way to practical concerns, all of sudden there is tremendous pressure to make things work. And in that context, gender roles come roaring back into the conversation.

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

There is a lot of truth in there. I think most men would like to have a natural relationship with a good loyal wife, sons, white picket fence, etc. Thing is with societies blank check written for girls bad behavior and the stock of women so debased that it is almost impossible

Its also worth noting that ever since gender equality girls have reported more and more unhappiness in their lives.

Basically both genders have been sold a false bill of goods where both are being made less happy.

[–]damaskroseBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The idea of subsidizing their loss of value with an obsolete female role is understandably unappealing to them.

I don't think the role of the housewife, house-husband, or stay-at-home parent is obsolete quite yet, because most professional workplaces are still structured around the full-time provider. If workplaces started offering flexible hours, and part-time or job-sharing positions for professional jobs, then there would be less of a reason for parents to stay at home full-time. Some people also receive more personal fulfillment from a carer role than they would in a traditional workplace, and I don't think that's likely to change. Different people are different, and achieve self-actualization from different sources.

They hope that without sustained enforcement of gender roles, entropy will take over and roles will be distributed equally across the sexes. However, neither men nor women seem eager to head in that direction.

I dunno, I'm a feminist and this is not what I'm hoping. I believe in making the playing field as even as possible and then letting the chips fall as they will, if that makes sense. More like the Dutch model of feminism. American feminism places a lot of emphasis on money and financial independence, because that's an American (not inherently feminist) value.

Other than those (rather nitpicky) details, I think your post is pretty spot on. Most men and women still want love, companionship, and long-term monogamous relationships.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't have time to post as thorough a response as what others have already posted, but I thought I'd just chime in to say how much I appreciate what you've written here. It's great to see someone make a post that prompts (mostly) thoughtful responses from both sides. That's a rare achievement and certainly worth commending. I wish PPD was like this all the time...

[–]coratoad[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you very much. I am happy that you approve.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Approve? Are you being sarcastic?

I am under no delusion that my approval could or should mean jack shit. I'm just sincerely appreciative.

I had no intention to condescend; I apologize if that's what you took away.

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

I wasn't being sarcastic! Maybe I phrased that the wrong way. I just meant that I value your opinion. =)

[–]LimekillI am THE bunch of sticks u wished u were7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

women know how to be good women.

Wrong. Femininity is being lost.

Women stand to benefit more from this dissolution of gender roles than men,

I believe this a con. The best option for women would to have their cake AND eat it too - i.e. be able to take time off to raise children and have the option to work IF they wanted to. However that option was lost. Now the ONLY option is to keep working.

My guess is that feminism was supported by corporations, as it would massively increase the labor supply and create a new army of customers. I am not suggesting a massive conspiracy theory here, but what I am saying is that Western Governments keep making it easier to palm off someone else to raise a child other than the mother (via daycare handouts), while discouraging mothers from raising their children (no tax credits for example, etc). Property prices in most western countries are so expensive (Sydney: $1Million+) that BOTH parents now have to work full time just to keep a roof over their head, where as before it was one parent.

However in some ways it is even worse for women now - for example in Australia Tony Abbott introduced the idea of 1 year for mother on her full salary to raise her child. It was going to be paid by a 1% tax on the biggest 200 companies (the biz tax rate was ment to fall from 30% to 29% but the top 200 would of kept paying 30%). This imho was an achievement because it was FULLY funded (which if anyone knows about Government budgets is almost always impossible to do). BUT for some reasons feminists hated the idea (mainly because they hated Tony Abbott - also there was an argument against its cost (even though it was fully funded) but that was BS strawman argument. The criticisms of the policy seemed to get a lot of traction in the media and I partly guessed that big business (and the media is also big business) disliked the idea, and would of rathered had a tax rate of 29% and not encourage mothers to be mothers.

The disappointing truth of the matter is women will NEVER, ever get that chance again. It was theirs for the taking and they literally threw it away with their "I hate the misogynist Tony Abbott" criticisms. I still cannot believe how women were so stupid for criticizing that policy - I mean it really is THE definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The men that didn't have much to offer to begin with are hit especially hard. The affection of women disappears along with their need for resources, leaving men feeling used. Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

All very true. It doesn't matter how much you earn, or how much of a nice guy you are - if your 'Zyzz' women will not give a shit about anything else.

It starts to change when they want a child - most mother would prefer to have a father to HELP raise the child - then they are looking for the "nice" guy. IF the tingles then disappear then "nice" guy will pay child support, etc.

I don't have a way to fix the original problem,

Don't worry - its coming.

but I know that men's dream of having a woman that loves them is not impossible.

Don't worry - its also coming, just not in the way you or anyone here imagines it.

There is a way to get men what they really want

No there is not. IF a woman stops having tingles = Sexless marriage = screwed relationship. You cannot make women keep having tingles for their guys.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't worry - its also coming, just not in the way you or anyone here imagines it.

Can you elaborate a little on this?

[–]LimekillI am THE bunch of sticks u wished u were0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No. Too long to post about it here.

[–]Xemnas815 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've got all day.

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

You speak as if perhaps you have already posted about it elsewhere, or are about to. Link?

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

would to have their cake AND eat it too

But wouldn't this work at as having a stay at home husband to take car of the kids while she works?

[–]LimekillI am THE bunch of sticks u wished u were1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

W can all sit here and circlejerk about how progressive we are and genders are binary but 90% of the time its women looking after her children.

I would argue that most women would at least like some time to bond with their children and probably prefer to look after them instead of working for a faceless corporation in a cubicle.

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

This is a very interesting post.

It's sexist (by definition) but it's neither hateful nor misogynistic. It's probably similar to my thinking where it's painfully obvious there is something completely wrong with relationship dynamics in Western society, but Redpill seems unsatisfying to say the least, and I genuinely feel it's a red herring or a psychological trap.

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

You've correctly identified the fundamental role that gender plays in creating a stable and secure society. Predefined roles allow people to be content in their station and to have realistic expectations for how their life and relationships will play out.

Understanding that, when we destroy gender roles what we are really doing is destroying culture and tradition itself. The progressive seeks to replace these social constructs with unbridled individualism. While we may gain some ostensible perception of increased freedom what the majority of people actually get is more uncertainty, stress, and self-doubt.

The truth is that all human desires are not equally conducive to promoting the health, welfare, and progress of society. Great societies have uniformly subverted the less desirable proclivities of humans through the use of culture and force. By employing these strategies we have reached new heights as a species.

However, in the post-modern times our traditional notions of dignity and purpose are eroding. Replaced by a form of raw hedonism and in-the-moment pleasure seeking that can only be a long-term impediment to the continued progress of humanity. Unfortunately, the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. So my friends, I say, let us enjoy the decline.

[–]RareBlur2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

You know the old song lyrics money can't buy you love? Well it's true. If a woman doesn't freely love you then she never did. There's no exchange of love for resources.

Why is a persons self worth only in their gender? TRP needs to learn how to find individual self worth. Your "role" in life is what you define it as, not what anyone else or society says it is.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Why is a persons self worth only in their gender?

A persons self-worth may not reside in their gender, but their worth to the opposite gender absolutely does.

It's find to define your own roles in life, but you can't then expect everyone else to get on board with you and your role.

Women have expectations of men (holy shit do they ever). Men have expectations of women. Those aren't going to go away because you took it upon yourself to write your own role.

So, unless you are happy as a MGTOW or a WGTOW, you are going to have to consider what expectations the opposite sex is going to have of you.

[–]RareBlur3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

What's the relation between expectations of the opposite gender and self worth?

Only if your self worth is reliant on how many expectations of the opposite gender you can meet (or in other words how many girls you can bed).

That is TRP's problem. It defines self worth that way. If you can't get girls you are worthless. How is a guy who doesn't have girls suppose to get himself some of that sweet self-worth?

TRP's answer comes two-fold. One, put girls down so it's easier to think yourself better than them. Two, define what is needed to get girls into either attractiveness or money. So physically work out because you obviously haven't money or you'd already have girls and thus not be worthless.

The problem is that it doesn't build real self-worth. It creates a bunch of guys who hang out at the gym and are desperate for female attention because if they don't get it they think they are worthless. However, they still likely lack self-respect and confidence. When physical attraction doesn't seem to be enough to get girls and the guy is STILL failing, TRP's answer is to use manipulation and lying. Manipulate and lie to women, lie about your successes to others. All this in an attempt to build your self-worth without addressing the original problem of a lonely depressed man who hates himself.

Those "alphas" who already have girls and whom TRP admires, never put their self-worth into how many girls they had. Instead they based it on other things. They gained self-worth, self-respect and thus confidence and girls flocked to them.

In fact this is why TRP is the recipe for narcissism. No real love of self. Just inflated self-worth based on social acceptance from others. A fragile self-esteem that can be cracked by rejection.

I will no longer buy the line from TRP that men love unconditionally, if they did, they could love themselves. What they really mean by that is that they won't "not want" the attention of any woman. Of course they won't they need it to function.

There I've said my peace, too bad it'll be buried. Didn't mean to rant directly at you.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Only if your self worth is reliant on how many expectations of the opposite gender you can meet (or in other words how many girls you can bed).

In my response, I attempted to shift the perspective from "self-worth" to a more general "worth", though maybe that wasn't clear. You may feel you have a lot of value, but if others do not see the same value, you will be limited in what you can accomplish, as you will be going it alone. Just because I might see myself as valuable does not mean that women will feel the same way about me. Those two values are completely unrelated, even if they sometimes overlap.

If having sex/love/relationships is important to me, I can't just focus on my value to myself. I must also focus on the value I provide to the opposite sex. It's as simple as that.

It defines self worth that way.

I have no idea if that is "what TRP does." Some TRPers might, but I don't know if that is true of TRP as a whole, and I really don't think that is true of the greater RP world.

If you can't get girls you are worthless.

If you can't get girls you aren't worthless, but you are worthless at getting girls, and if getting girls is important, you're going to be hugely frustrated by that worthlessness.

One, put girls down so it's easier to think yourself better than them.

And I would say that my experience is that I have a perspective (from wherever, doesn't matter, though I have plenty of ideas regarding the origin of that perspective, such as unrealistic expectations) that girls have more worth than I do. That they are worthy whereas I am not. That almost no matter what I do, I will never be seen as worthy at the same level.

Reminding myself that the reality is that they might be overvalued and I might be undervalued (in terms of sex/love/relationship worthiness) is pretty damned useful. No one else is going to tell me that, so I've got to tell myself in order to keep the correct perspective.

However, they still likely lack self-respect and confidence.

How do you know? I was "Red Pill" for, like, two decades. I don't think I lacked for self-respect or for confidence. At least, not any more than anyone else on the planet (I think everyone has struggles in those areas).

TRP's answer is to use manipulation and lying. Manipulate and lie to women, lie about your successes to others.

Huh? I have my issues with TRP, but I don't even think that is the TRP party line. It's certainly not the RP party line. Some TRPers might have said "Hey! I lied and manipulated, and it worked!" (and it probably did), but that's not the same as saying that that is now the TRP way.

without addressing the original problem of a lonely depressed man

Being lonely can be a major contributing factor to depression. I went through a major bout of clinical depression in the last few years, and I can guarantee that loneliness was one of the primary factors.

It's a catch-22 - being lonely causes depression, being depressed exacerbates loneliness.

I've come a long way in dealing with my loneliness, but it still sucks. I've just gotten more used to it over time. But I often hate that I'm not someone who can easily overcome those things, so the self-hate is somewhat unavoidable.

Again, what good is "self-worth" if no one else shares your view? I mean, it's a good coping mechanism, I suppose, but at the end of the day, you are still going to have to deal with the fact that your life reflects a lack of results.

Those "alphas" who already have girls and whom TRP admires, never put their self-worth into how many girls they had. Instead they based it on other things. They gained self-worth, self-respect and thus confidence and girls flocked to them.

Are you sure? Take away all of that from them. Make sure they experience no success with the opposite sex and are living a lonely existence. Are you sure that their self-worth isn't affected by that?

I don't know that you can compartmentalize self-worth and self-respect like that. You seem to be picking one extrinsic source over another. I'm not sure that's viable.

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I want to read through this carefully you have some good points. I will reply again in day or so. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm short on time myself, but I think we've got a very interesting discussion going here that I look forward to debating. Thank you for taking the time to really dig in on the subject, and I promise to get my response composed as soon as I can. I can say from my cursory review that you are making many valid points, and you are pointing out flaws in TRP that I also observe, though I would argue that the core RP paradigm, which, from my perspective, can be distinct in many ways from some of the more common but superficial paradigms expounded by various TRPers, might address some of your concerns.

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"self-worth" to a more general "worth"

This is the rub of the issue. Self-worth is how you feel about yourself where as your general "worth" as you want to define it is as the world sees you. If you equate your self-worth with how the world sees your worth you will always have a self-esteem that fluctuates depending on your social standing (this is narcissism).

You are not going to please everyone so why should this be how you define your own value?

You may feel you have a lot of value, but if others do not see the same value, you will be limited in what you can accomplish, as you will be going it alone.

I don't think I really agree with this statement because of your switch from self-worth to "general worth." The value that you give to yourself makes the value that others see in you irrelevant. If you have an understanding of your own worth and value and someone doesn't see it that's their problem and not yours. What you can accomplish is not reliant on how others use your value but instead on what you can do.

Just because I might see myself as valuable does not mean that women will feel the same way about me. Those two values are completely unrelated, even if they sometimes overlap.

Yes but this statement is again relying on how you are defining "worth/value" as well you are still speaking from this TRP philosophy that women define your value for you and that they are seeking out men they define as high "value."

Let's leave this philosophy for a moment and for the sake of discussion let's assume that it's irrelevant what women define you as and instead all they judge is what they see you project.

A man who has a strong sense of self worth projects the image of confidence. He does not need the attention of every woman in the room because his self worth is independent from what others judge his value as being. He naturally has an "aloofness" which is not rude or disrespectful but instead he is simply paying attention only to the things he thinks are important. It doesn't matter to him if a woman returns his interest or not, it doesn't affect his inner value. So the image that he projects to women become the traits that TRP says are "alpha" (aloofness, confident, strong in a mental / spiritual sense) except he's not really trying to be "alpha", he just is. All of these traits are what is attracting the attention of women because a man who has a strong sense of self-worth is mentally healthy, stable, mature, independent.

A man who has a low sense of self worth and relies on the validation from others to boost his self esteem projects differently. He is more desperate for positive attention from women because he sees no other way to heal his inner sadness and self-hate ("she thinks I have worth therefore I must have worth"). He tries too hard for attention and although not literally begging for it his interactions will betray his neediness. Women are not attracted to this projection because they can see the dependence on validation, the mental instability, and immaturity.

TRP philosophy will tell a man that he must act in a particular way because it's the act itself that attracts women. It's not really though, the act is just the projection. Women are attracted to the mentally healthy, stable, confident man. He can pretend that he is and maybe fool them and himself but if he still harbors that self-hate he is still mentally unhealthy.

If he still bases his own value and worth only on the value that others assign to him then he will always be defensive when there is the possibility of rejection. It's a fragile ego. He'll lash out at women before they even have the chance of rejection (insults, putting them down in a general sense). The value one woman gives you might be wiped away by his self-hate, he needs value from another, and another, and it won't stop. He is suspicious of women re-evaluating or flat out rejecting him when they haven't given any indication (AWALT).

If you can't get girls you aren't worthless, but you are worthless at getting girls, and if getting girls is important, you're going to be hugely frustrated by that worthlessness.

Yes I agree. And if getting girls is how what you base your value as a person on then it is even worse than frustration, it's down right damaging.

that girls have more worth than I do. That they are worthy whereas I am not. That almost no matter what I do, I will never be seen as worthy at the same level.

Ah, so heartbreaking! I think many who read TRP feel the same. I think that sub attracts men trying to feel better about themselves.

Reminding myself that the reality is that they might be overvalued and I might be undervalued

I do agree that this is the kind of thing that needs to happen. However, I think you can build up the ego without the need to put others down if you change how your value and worth is defined and remove other people from that equation altogether.

Some TRPers might have said "Hey! I lied and manipulated, and it worked!" (and it probably did), but that's not the same as saying that that is now the TRP way.

The whole "dread game" aspect, the false sense of confidence you are supposed to project. It's all an attempt to manipulate. And the lying doesn't have to be direct to women. As simple as thinking "Oh yeah she wants me." No one will convince me that "field reports" in TRP are not full of embellishment that inflates the value women are giving the author. It's another form of a lie and a manipulation except he is trying to manipulate himself to serve his ego. I'm not blaming or condemning him, I'm just pointing out this is what is happening and it's because his ego relies on validation from women.

It's a catch-22 - being lonely causes depression, being depressed exacerbates loneliness.

I agree with you, and I don't have any solutions, but people who are this way have my sympathy.

what good is "self-worth" if no one else shares your view? I mean, it's a good coping mechanism, I suppose, but at the end of the day, you are still going to have to deal with the fact that your life reflects a lack of results.

Well.. self worth can be independent of the views of others. It's not just a coping mechanism, it's how to keep a healthy mind. A lack of results also doesn't have to harm your ego. A change to that can only come from a within. eh.. that sounds cheesy but I think there's some truth to it. It takes a lot of inner reflection. Understanding of what is happening to you, how you are projecting, what value you see in yourself and why and asking if that's the right way to do things.

Take away all of that from them. Make sure they experience no success with the opposite sex and are living a lonely existence. Are you sure that their self-worth isn't affected by that?

depends on what they based their worth on. Everyone would be effected somewhat by rejection but it doesn't have to destroy you and send you into a cycle of depression. It might be difficult to think about if you've never tried to imagine it.

I don't know that you can compartmentalize self-worth and self-respect like that. You seem to be picking one extrinsic source over another. I'm not sure that's viable.

Yeah that's fair. I'm just thought-experimenting.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Almost everyone's self-worth is dependent on how much they are loved by other people. For most people, this means finding a partner who finds them sexually attractive who they are also attracted to. This is true for both sexes.

It's that simple. You discredit it by deliberately phrasing it in stereotypical 'bro speech'.

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

But it isn't. Self worth based solely social acceptance is narsism. Once your self worth and esteem is free from the fear of regection you can start to fell more alive.

Regection can always sting a little but I doesn't have to leave you so broken.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely, and this is what MGTOW is based on. But, unfortunately, most people are not capable of feeling self-worth without the approval of others - especially sexual approval. This is why I wrote "Almost everyone" in my above reply.

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually a lot of people can and so can any one who is currently into TRP.

I don't think it has anything to do with MGTOW though at least I don't think k that movement has building self worth nessiaeily at its core because they seem to want to reject all opposite sex contact.

The difference here is that men actually will have success with women when they aren't reliant on women's validation just to keep on going. Instead being with a partner becomes a bonus addition to you life.

When your ego relies on another's validation you are always on your guard against regection, always defensive, always suspsious because regection will hurt you greatly. You must protect the ego.

But instead you could live a life where you aren't worried about regection. If it happens you will deal with it but there's no reason to be on your guard constantly. Life and marriage is comfortable, secure, re-energizing. Thus is the true BP marriage.

Again I'm not ranting at anyone particular just getting some thoughts out.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Self-worth is the core of MGTOW to me. Without a strong base of self-worth, it is impossible to be happy without contact with the opposite sex.

Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of MGTOW report that, ironically, they end up attracting more women after going MGTOW. Sandman has talked about this quite a few times in his videos.

Of course, the above probably applies mostly to MGTOW who weren't horribly unattractive to begin with. Ugly as sin incels who go MGTOW will probably not have the same experience at all.

[–]RareBlur0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How interesting that MGTOW end up with some more success. I'm going to take that as proof that I'm onto some kind of truth if not with every point.

I'm not sure about an "ugly as sin incel" not gaining success. Someone who doesn't define themselves as nothing more than an "ugly as sin incel" probably projects completely differently than a buff guy who inwardly hates himself over every tiny flaw. Maybe that "ugly as sin incel" doesn't get a dousen girls after gaining his self respect and worth, maybe he only gets one quality girl, maybe he still feels more fulfilled in life.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say it's impossible. At any rate, I'd say the incel is better off with his knowledge of MGTOW (which draws heavily from the same bank of manosphere knowledge that TRP does) than he was before. He's probably more likely to attract women than he was before, even if his chances are still relatively low.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

This is an excellent analysis of The Red Pill.

I don't have a way to fix the original problem, but I know that men's dream of having a woman that loves them is not impossible.

It's impossible the way The Red Pill approaches it. TRP outright rejects egalitarian partnerships, and this is the only way that the problem you've so eloquently outlined can be fixed. Learning to accept egalitarianism takes a lot of mental and emotional work, work that TRP men are not willing to do. Instead, it's much easier for their philosophy to just suggest physical work (lift, eat well, then lift some more), something men have traditionally excelled at, than to suggest that they mature and accept women as equals.

[–]antariuszRed Pill Man10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How much cognitive dissonance is required for you to acknowledge that men are better than women, at certain tasks, because of genetics and hormones, and then not even one sentence later suggest that men and women are the exact same.

Do you refuse to also acknowledge that women might also be better at certain other tasks? And that therefore men and women are not the same?

Or are you choosing to redefine the meaning of words in the dictionary (because of feelings? Because of patriarchy? Because women are bad at math?) everyone else realizes that equal and "the same" mean the same thing. So if they are different, they are not equal. This is a basic concept that 5 year olds learn the first week of kindergarten, right at the same time they are learning 1 plus 1 equals 2... In other words 1 + 1 is "the same" as 2

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

Equal does not simply mean "can do the same amount of push ups". Quit being obtuse and think for a second before just spouting the RP sidebar.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you refuse to also acknowledge that women might also be better at certain other tasks? And that therefore men and women are not the same?

It's 2015. What exactly about the "genetics and hormones" and biological differences are required to get the required amount of calories for survival? You don't need a big strong man to till the field.

You can run an entirely egalitarian relationship in the 21st century splitting 'hunting and gathering' (grocery shopping) and other household tasks.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Survival is one thing. Psychological fulfillment is another. We can all survive easily in our current society, but it seems to me that neither men or women as a whole are satisfied with splitting these tasks arbitrarily between the genders.

For instance, it seems to be the case that most women are happier mating with men who make more money than they do. How can all the women who desire this find happiness when there are not enough suitable men to go round who meet this condition?

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

it seems to me that neither men or women as a whole are satisfied with splitting these tasks arbitrarily between the genders.

Why, because a small portion of the population that is on Reddit (~15% of males <24) are on an even smaller space (TRP) complaining?

"It seems to be the case"

Based on what? Your feels? My wife earns 2.5 as much as I do. Neither of us care. We actually team up to do 'farming'. Grocery shopping takes much less time when you split the list. We trade off evenly who cooks, cleans, etc. I don't exactly see what should be so 'upsetting' about it.

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

Life is so easy these days for the average human you have to seek out artificial weights to lift to stay in shape.

Do you think our ancestors set aside a dedicated part of the day to 'lift brah' after they got done cutting down a few trees for heat, making sure all the fields were planted and handling the farm animals?

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually recent studies are finding that our ancient ancestors (probably) spent more of their day on recreation than we do today on average. They spent it doing things like arts and crafts and storytelling though, they didn't need to "work out".

Not that that is all that relevant to the discussion at hand, just interesting.

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

Learning to accept egalitarianism takes a lot of mental and emotional work

This is what I don't get. "Accepting" it is easier than not. I couldn't imagine how taxing it would be try and live with a 'teenager' in the house, even if she was the smartest one.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting post. I agree with most of it, and it is well described, but I have a few caveats.

Regardless, men and women are still looking for their identity, and a niche value associated with their sex.

I think this would be very much cultural. Living somewhere with a very homogeneous population I've noticed people with closer ties to elsewhere or more recently arrived here do not really have this issue.

They want to be valued for who they are. They imagine the best way to be loved is the way women are loved, for their inherent sexuality.

This is funny to read because TRP seems to accept the notion that men have a higher libido than women, which would work against them being valued the same way. Instead of embodying other aspects of masculinity they go for the one that is most difficult to achieve their aims.

There is a better solution out there than what TRP has to offer.

You say the above, but prior to it said

I don't have a way to fix the original problem

If you don't know the answer, then how do you know there is one? Seem to be begging the question a bit

[–]donit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women -appear- to benefit from the dissolution of gender roles because we are thinking of them as individuals, as if they were just another type of men.

But they're not men. They are not the masculine half of the human equation. They are the equally-essential feminine-supportive half of the human family equation. What happens when you pull that support beam away?

The loss is shared equally between them.

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

Quick question.

As I understand it, you said that women don't love loyally/affectionately/deeply, and therefore men strategically refuse to commit to women in order to increase their own value somehow.

If women don't love men in the first place, though, then why would women care if men refuse to commit?

Sorry for the annoying question; I'm just confused about the logic that was presented here.

I get the part about men's value being threatened as women start to earn more, but I have no idea how the male counter-strategy makes any sense if women don't love them (and therefore don't care about commitment) in the first place.

Maybe there's some reverse psychology here that needs to be untangled and parsed.

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

As I understand it, you said that women don't love loyally/affectionately/deeply, and therefore men refuse to commit to women in order to get revenge.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying this at all.

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

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