I've been having small scale conversations with a lot of guys lately that are honestly red pilled but are having a lot of trouble figuring how this plays into starting a family, and this is causing a lot of cognitive dissonance and strife. So I think it's worthy to expand this out because it is a clear point of contention that is not well defined enough from key content such as Rollo's.

I also teased about how I was trying to wrap my head around some issues with the meta study I was talking about in terms of a possible third category, how I couldn't understand how this male concept of alpha bucks was fitting in and why women didn't want good fathers or smart partners, even for long term mates.

That really threw me for a loop... but I think I've got a coherent understanding of this now that makes a lot of sense to me, at least, and does conform to the TRP framework I believe.

Here's the main concepts that reconciled should help men understand exactly what it means to provision and to understand the TRP framework at a high enough level to understand what they're getting into when they start a family or get married.

Short term vs Long term mates

When you think of a man that is a provider, what does that mean?

To remove some of the TRP terminology for a second, you can understand both sides of the male equation by understanding them in the way they are referred to in studies of mating behavior.

Short term mates are men who are high on traits we come to associate with the red pill. Good looking, strong frame, narcissistic.

"Long term" mates are men who are high on traits we associate with the blue pill. Reliable and typically with a strong earning potential. They are as Jordan Peterson would say "high in agreeableness." Or good guys.

The description here we see oft of "alpha bucks" is actually a high SMV provisioner. Yes, you can even put Brad Pitt into this category. Elon Musk is an easy one to understand here. Which many men on here would describe as "high smv, in shape, make lots of money." Many would describe this hypothetical guy as being a programmer or business owner.

From there, many readers would project their inner desires readily. To be this high SMV man and enter a long term relationship to start a family. To be a high smv provider.

Illegitimate Children

When you think of children without fathers, how do you imagine the type of man that she was with and what type of woman was she?

We're going to break this down into two archetypes

  • Failed providers
  • Failed mothers

The type of man in the mainstream narrative of a children without a father, is the failed provider. This is the "immature man child" who won't take responsibility and won't "man up." The scorn that is held for this type of guy is because he is not honoring his archetype.

What men more often see, is an archetypical guy that we all know would not be the type of guy to stick around. The stereotype here is Tyrone. In these cases, it's not unusual that the "immaturity" angle never rears its head, because it wouldn't pass the smell test. What would be obvious to anyone, is that this man simply honored his archetype. This is the failed mother.

What the actual "alpha bucks" is to a woman, is not Brad Pitt. It's Tyrone, who doesn't realize he is Tyrone, but instead a high SMV provider. This is the point that I've noticed men are having trouble reconciling.

Male solipsism and the nuclear family

So the inherent conclusion from most men is great, just get in shape and be high SMV. But we already know what happens to naturals. It would seem at this point that there isn't a solution to the problem, what is the solution. That's what men do with everything, you give us a problem, we find a solution.

But what if there wasn't a solution, what if the solution, was in fact, it's inability to be unsolvable, and if that was the case, then what is the question?

How would you ensure both the fitness AND genetic diversity of offspring to ensure a steady but constant improvement of the species?

The way that men want to answer that question always ends BEFORE the AND operator. It's "AND genetic diversity." Or the concept we know as "she's not yours."

Tyrone changes some diapers : Tradcon and a successful blue pill relationship

The actual conflict between Tyrone and the mother of his children isn't necessarily that he is not an alpha male, or even that he is blue pilled. Our example is a blue pilled alpha male.

A while back I wrote that there were successful blue pill relationships, but I couldn't put my finger on what that meant. This is that.

Attraction Components

  • Female has low or no n-count
  • Female is naive
  • Male is highly dimorphic
  • Female is of markedly lower SMV

Family components

  • Female has strong maternal orientation
  • Females primary or sole personal growth is done through the family, not career or social life.

This gives the woman control over an alpha male, and that control is balanced out by other significant factors. The component naivety is REQUIRED. We can think of the opposite of naive as "westernized." But the fact that she does have control over him, firmly places him within the provider framework.

But this relationship can work, especially if the guy makes all the right moves, even if he is blue in his heart. This is the fantasy that is sold as a normal relationship. Statistically though, this is very rare.

Just do the math on female with no partners and one standard deviation to the right for height. We're talking about less than 1% of relationships are falling into this paradigm. But they are the ones you recognize in your SMV circle. They're the ones as a red pill man you go "how is this working?"

A low n-count with an archetypically attractive man for a woman who hasn't yet westernized herself goes a long way. But what you can see here is that in order to realize your "blue pill dreams" the requirements are a male optimized woman.

Tradcon vs Modprog

Okay so you're jacked and you want a family. You find the girl with a low n-count, she always loved kids, has a good father and asks you if she should work or not. The ball is in your court. You run the family EXACTLY how you want it.

You provide only

  • You can be an equal partner in the arrangement and change diapers and go to the zoo.
  • You can spend that time doing man things

Any variation between the two, do whatever you think works best.

You both work

  • You can be an equal partner in the arrangement and change diapers and go to the zoo.

There is not enough time for you to do a tradcon setup* To be clear, I'm not saying you're whipped, but you certainly can NOT pull off tradcon.

So you can easily see there isn't an arrangement that doesn't involve you providing. Easily. Listen buddy, trust me, you're going to the Zoo for Cupcake day. And you know what, that isn't terrible.

Wrong solution for the wrong problem

There is no solution to "how do I enter a long term provisioning relationship and be treated like a short term partner in terms of attraction?" "How can I be treated as non-disposable, while subjecting myself to acceptance into a provider paradigm?"

Remember how we talked about how blue pill dreams can only be optimized by a "male optimized woman?" If that is the case, how does the system optimize for the other 99% of women?

The system is optimized under the truest possible pragmatic reality.

Men compete, women select, society supports hoping to bill a provider. Women are nomadic and the nuclear family is a primarily male value system.

You know what other question this answer solves?

How would you ensure both the fitness AND genetic diversity of offspring to ensure a steady but constant improvement of the species?

Proof

If we accept this statement as true, you will find NO conflict between TRPs canon, the structure of the society and the way women operate or behave. NONE.

So what now?

You have two choices. Genetic contributor, or provider. Choose your path, but accept whichever path you choose. Don't deceive yourself. A provider is chosen either directly (her choosing a LTR candidate), indirectly (her finding a natural to groom) by her, or society (failed provider through child support, failed mother through welfare).

So ultimately, if you're asking how can you have children without being treated like a provider?

Understand that women don't respect good fathers, truly understand that. They're not attracted to them. They respect a good father in the same way that a manager respects a good employee. Understand briffault's law. Understand what it means to "be a father." Understand it is, the ultimate blue pill dream to have a nuclear family, even if you have a proto-alpha setup of Don Draper.

You must operate as a contributor, only then, when your mental point of origin, as Rollo would say, is to spread your seed and conquer the world, can you allow a woman to enter your world, and in return, on your terms, can you be a father to those children. But only under your terms, and I don't believe that can be mutually exclusive.

And if you're honest that you are in fact, not operating under a blue pill paradigm, when or if she leaves, you move on to start the process all over again. And if you can't ever imagine doing that, just understand and accept your position as a provider. From there you can use the advice at MRP to become a red pill aware, blue pill, provider presenting as an alpha male. A red pill aware, natural. I don't mean that pejoratively either.