699,178 posts

Grab the popcorn, somebody asked /r/ASKMEN: At what age do you assume a pretty, never-married woman must be crazy or have something wrong with her?

Reddit View
February 21, 2013
25 upvotes
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/18ylcz/at_what_age_do_you_assume_a_pretty_nevermarried/c8j585z


Post Information
Title Grab the popcorn, somebody asked /r/ASKMEN: At what age do you assume a pretty, never-married woman must be crazy or have something wrong with her?
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 25
Comments 137
Date 21 February 2013 10:14 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/174864
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/18zc8d/grab_the_popcorn_somebody_asked_raskmen_at_what/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (226 children) | Copy

Wow, he actually does run a subreddit about hating women. In which case, even by his description she's too good for him.

LOL, how the fuck is this a subreddit about hating women? I fucking love women, wish there were more of them, and fewer guys like this.

I love the beta male ninja jerk-off tactic: Agree with women and one day I will get pussy! Once she realizes what a misogynist jerk he is she will be mine! Until that day, I will silently spank it to the memory of when she accidentally brushed up against my arm on that warm summer day...

GO-GO-GADGET DOWNVOTE TRAIN!

Edit: And where is GBFM when you need him? I would love to see a bernankified butthexxing of this thread...

[–]logicalmisologist3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Who the hell is Great Books For Men anyway?

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

Nfi... but he is somehow inexplicably hilarious =]

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (223 children) | Copy

I'm one of the people who was in the /r/AskMen thread. I've never been here before today. I've been going through this subreddit for the past 2 hours or so and I see nothing but a broad disregard and lack of respect for females. Disloyal, fickle, uninteresting, shallow, just a pair of tits, really, that only use men as a means to get what they want. So to answer your question, that's where I personally drew the conclusion that this is a subreddit does not like women.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill23 points24 points  (68 children) | Copy

I actually understand that. Understand, but not agree.

If you'll look, you'll see the more common and even keeled voices repeatedly telling guys to lose the bitterness. The bitterness and anger is completely understandable; they (I guess 'we' now) are trying to tell guys that they are playing by the wrong rules and that continuing to follow those rules will lead to unsuccessful outcomes just like they've already experienced. The 'Confessions of a Reformed Incel' sidebar is great at this; it has that bitterness and anger cranked up to 11, but it without fail resonates a deep chord in men. They've experienced that pain, and once they realize the reality, they're angry at everyone who has misled them, angry at the years they've wasted in vain, and angry at themselves for falling for it for so long.

If you want to dismiss us because of that impression, I encourage you to take a deeper look and see those 'dont be bitter' posts as well, which can get lost. Also be sure to try to interpret the posts in other lights as well; many posts put forward information women consider inflammatory which can be interpreted as bitterness.

But if you REALLY want to help make us change our tune, you can do the exact thing we want you to do: prove us wrong and point out flaws in the model. We're men. We don't care whether you consider the facts insulting. We care if the facts are accurate. Help prove that evo psych is psuedoscience. If you can't, help prove that the genetic behavior traits are identical between males and females, instead of different sexes following different mating strategies. Do this, show us where we're wrong based on FACT and studies and science and logic, and we'll happily change our tune, and you'll have our thanks and the biggest 'WE WERE WRONG' you could ever hope for. We don't care about opinions or feelings or frankly even an outside morality. We care about facts and reality. If our model can be proven wrong, the model MUST change.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (67 children) | Copy

I'm not dismissing it at all! I've been bumming around for the past 4 hours. The further I look into it though, the more I find a total disregard and lack of respect for women. I just wrote this in another post, but essentially this post is what I find outrageous:

I think it's all about how you approach and think about women. If you expect women to be men with tits, you'll be sorely let down by them all the time. Their lack of honor, their lack of courage. Their lack of dedication to truth, justice, or loyalty. So the best way to deal with it is to really really understand that women are not men. Women are women. They have different values and are not men. The best way to put it is that they're overgrown children. Obviously you wouldn't expect honor and loyalty from a child. You might be disappointed when a child steals cookies before dinner, but you're not surprised. In the same vein, be disappointed, not surprised when women violate men's rules. When you look at women as things to trifle with, but not respect as you would a man, they become fun and actually a joy to keep around. They do what they do well. They just aren't men. If you feel yourself hating women, it's because you're expecting them to be men.

Redpillschool wrote that in this thread. This is not the only thread nor user who I have seen that expresses such sentiments.

Is that really fair or true? That we lack honor and courage? We're not dedicated to truth, justice or loyalty? At all? Agreed, we have different values, but that our only desire is to use men as a means to fulfill our shallow needs? We're just overgrown children? I reject that completely and cannot understand that.

I'm not arguing that we are the same. We're not. AT ALL. I know that and so do most reasonable women. Of course there are genetic differences! But do you really believe that that equals less on all levels?! And how do you even establish that? Because you're physically stronger? Or because you just perceive the behavior of women to be lesser than that of men?

I think that this theory reduces women to such a degree is astonishing. I'm trying to understand you guys, but when I read stuff like that, damn! I don't want to understand such a school of thought! I don't know what kind of women you have encountered in your lives, but I can't wrap my head around such a view.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill23 points24 points  (37 children) | Copy

No problem, ill be happy to answer any of those as best I can, but I'd like to ask one thing first for you to think about. A cousin of mine watched the Penn and Teller episode about the Bible. I didn't make my viewpoint known, but I asked him what he thought of it. His response that he wouldn't be a very good Christian if he allowed such things to sway his faith. I was taken back, because such a view is damn near alien to me. Belief in the face of directly contradictory facts was something for him to ASPIRE to. I have to ask if you feel the same way. If you dug deep into the facts, reasoning, logic, and statistics available that showed an overwhelming amount of support for sexual in-equivalence (Ill 'splain why equivalence instead of equality in a sec), would you be a better feminist or egalitarian by reconsidering your stance, or by digging your heels in? Any scientist will tell you that the core tenant of science is the simple acknowledgement 'We could be wrong.' and the encouragement of contradictory experimental results. If you can't agree that there is some reasonable amount of (currently hypothetical for you) evidence to make you change your stance, then we are all just wasting time. Think about it.

Is that really fair or true?

'Fair' doesn't have anything to do with it. Is it true? We believe it is. The values of loyalty are deeply ingrained in us, and enforced in our genetic behavior. The loyalties to our tribe and family and our word are the strongest we have. Here's one thing I want to point out; no one is saying women aren't people. We're saying women aren't men. The converse is true as well. There are direct behavioral and physical differences between the two. Saying that women are less loyal than men is the behavioral equivalent of saying women are smaller than men. That's not malice or bitterness; there are differences both behavioraly and physically between the sexes. A man expecting a woman to show the loyalty to him that he shows to her is just as wrong as a man expecting a woman to be the same size and weight as he is. In general, they're both wrong.

Or because you just perceive the behavior of women to be lesser than that of men?

I can't speak for everyone, but I think most would agree than average man is worth far less than an average woman. That's not a comparison of X is more loyal, or Y or more promiscuous, but rather at a core level, at our genetic behavior, a woman's life is worth more than a man's. That's why 'Women and children first'. A tribe can lose 50% of its men overnight and return to full strength in less than a generation. A tribe that loses 50% of its women is crippled. That was so strong an influence in our culture that it's deeply ingrained in all of us. If man and women were completely equivalent, that's wouldn't be the case. Im guessing you might be thinking 'Of course, because one man can knock up 10 women, but 10 men and one woman leads to no more children than 1 man and 1 woman.' And you'd be absolutely right, so much so that the tribes who valued women over men reproduced so much that the egalitarian tribes didn't get any influence over the gene pool. That's a genetic behavioral, and completely sexist, trait. It was the winning trait, which is why we all have it, along with its brother 'Men go to war/protect the tribe and family.'

Now, that's a trait that is commonly accepted as truth/fact. It's also entirely immoral, from a 'no difference outside of minor organs' view of sexuality. But there it is, a genetic behavior that is sexist and immoral and commonplace, because it was a behavior that produced the strongest, and most supported offspring.

Now, if there was some hypothetical mating strategy, like hypergamy, that led to stronger, and most supported offspring, wouldn't that also fit all of the same criteria? Immoral, but successful. We believe so, and we see a preponderance of evidence that suggest hypergamy is a very real trait in existence, and the reasoning behind it as a successful mating strategy is sound.

If so, then wouldn't it be fair to say women (who display hypergamy) would be less loyal than men (who display self sacrifice for women)? There's no bitterness in this, and it really doesn't even paint women as 'less' on any objective scale; it paints women as less by a man's scale, because women would not be showing the same loyalty in their practice of hypergamy behavior than we show in our practice of self sacrifice behavior. It'd be just as valid a reasoning as women calling men stupid because they'd die to protect a different women instead of making certain his kids were properly protected and raised. Two view by two scales based on their inherent behavior priorities.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (36 children) | Copy

To your first point, I haven't been on this subreddit for 5 hours because I'm unwilling to see another perspective. I'm genuinely willing to be proven wrong. I'm not rejecting everything you all are saying. I do believe some of the things you guys believe in, but where I take issue is with the following:

Saying that women are less loyal than men is the behavioral equivalent of saying women are smaller than men.

How does one measure loyalty? How is a woman less loyal than a man? What about the men that cheat on women? I can trust and understand (though not agree) with the statement that this belief doesn't come from malice or bitterness, but what I fail to understand is where it actually does come from? Facts, science? Show me where you can prove this and I'll believe you. I get the feeling that it might be a rehashed, stale defense.

We're saying women aren't men.

And everything that I've read up to this point is, in one way or another, saying that women are less than men. This sub's most upvoted post, these quote: "But I find it helpful to also look at what women are: is there a point trying to interact with a dog, an ocean wave, or a computer game?", "The best way to put it is that they're overgrown children."

Those things say that women are innately lesser than men. Straight up. We are like children, like dogs.

If so, then wouldn't it be fair to say women (who display hypergamy) would be less loyal than men (who display self sacrifice for women)?

Do men not display hypergamy? Particularly in today's society? I don't see how men don't do the same exact thing.

There's no bitterness in this, and it really doesn't even paint women as 'less' on any objective scale; it paints women as less by a man's scale, because women would not be showing the same loyalty in their practice of hypergamy behavior than we show in our practice of self sacrifice behavior.

Right, but the rhetoric surrounding this entire concept of "The Red Pill" implies (as I already cited above, and can cite more if you'd like) that men are more important than women, that what they say goes, that they're stronger and means for survival, that they are superior. If you're superior in the most primal of ways, how then, does this not make women 'less' in a general light?

I just feel like none of you all are recognizing the privilege that comes with being a male. Women and society have been so shaped by this and they try to compensate: making wages more equal, women's rights groups, "anything you can do I can do better" type stuff. Do you all believe that that's a big hunk of poo?

Another question (and I appreciate your responses!):

Aside from the obvious 'keeping humanity going', what good are women?

[–]selfsufficientnigga2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Do men not display hypergamy? Particularly in today's society? I don't see how men don't do the same exact thing.

I'm sorry these convos were hard for you; I'd just like to use your point to try to explain something: most men are indoctrinated from very young age to NOT see women as equal, but as these special, pure creatures that we need to work hard to please. After years and years of that, and fruitless trying to please those creatures, we learn the harsh truth: women are hairy, stinky, selfish, manipulative mammals just like us. They lie, deceive, manipulate and cheat (disclaimer: just like men). On top of that, they are not bound by the thing we are bound: this code/sense of honor that was pushed on us together with the 'women are special' brainwashing. And I am being 100% serious - it really is brainwashing, most of us really spend most of our young lives trying to find that special princess and please her with our acts of valor. When you take 'the red pill' and realize the truth, it's hard to not be bitter, disappointed and angry.

Just don't mistake that anger for hate. It mellows over a few years, and most 'red pill' men realize there is no purpose in wasting their time on anger after that, and devote themselves to enjoying their lives.

And please don't judge us too harshly. =)

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

I get the concept, I do, but over and over again the guys here have proven to me that what you just said, which is fine and I agree with, is acting as a veil to disrespect women. I'm not like a dog, an ocean wave or an overgrown child. I'm just like you. We're biologically and physically different--our brains are wired differently and we react to certain situations differently, yes, of course! But I'm not something that is innately less honorable or less loyal than any one of you. That's simply not true, let alone completely baseless. This is where I was getting so irritated with you all because you're throwing marriage statistics at me to say that "Look! Women are less loyal"...but if I point out that maybe women are abused, living with alcoholics (this was why my mother divorced my father), abandoned, cheated on--then I'm just rationalizing their behavior...WHAT?!?! If you're going to believe something so strongly, you should at least be willing to address its weak points.

The guys here can be angry and call me a fucking bitch or a broad, whatever, that genuinely doesn't bother me (I think it's kinda funny actually), but do not say women don't have a sense of humor, don't bring anything to the table, are just a pair of tits and do not liken me to a dog or overgrown child, ESPECIALLY if you're calling me names and refusing to see holes in your own argument. I know that maybe these guys are still in their "angry" phase, but wow. That's past anger or hate they have there, that's straight up disrespect and that's where I have a problem with this school of thought.

[–]selfsufficientnigga1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

shrug I myself don't agree with a good deal of it; it's just that to overcome something, you have to push through 100%. Let me give you an example: I train a martial art/sport. When I'm in a competition and about to have a match with the other guy, I don't think 'Oh I just need to get a joint lock or choke and I win', I think 'I will fucking murder him and rip his head off', otherwise I relapse into 'ok, let's have a nice practice session' mood and I invariably lose then.

Just like that, when I tell and repeat to myself 'women are assholes', it's to not relapse into the default that was taught to me for 20 years, 'women are sweet princesses and I must treat them as such'. But, my actual attitude is, like I mentioned, 'women are not much different from men'.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself well. All I wanted to say is that yes, there are many misogynists here, and there are regular non-angry ok guys who have just learned they need to be careful with the intersex dynamics. But in the middle, there are guys who might appear as misogynists with the words they say, but are simply still very angry, and/or they just feel the need to go overboard lest they relapse back into 'Nice Guy'(tm) behaviour.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill9 points10 points  (32 children) | Copy

How does one measure loyalty?

Excellent question; pick one. Specifically in the area of pair bonding please; I make no claim on the loyalty of a woman towards her children compared to others including men. Easiest one to find is the rate of divorce filings initiated by women vs men, which was around 70:30. I hear people want to treat it more as 90:10 because of women who have abandoned the relationship but couldn't be arsed to actually 'man up' enough to file, but that's a tenuous assumption and could go both ways and doesn't have enough information behind it for me to accept. If you have other ideas for how best it should be compared, I'd love to hear them, but that one is long established, clear cut, and beyond statistically significant.

Those things say that women are innately lesser than men. Straight up. We are like children, like dogs.

It's phrased that way for the reader to understand the concepts. We can't say 'treat a woman like a woman', when the entire point is that we think they are already treating women incorrectly. Ironically, it's impossible to NOT treat a woman as a woman or a woman as a person because they ARE a woman or a person. It's an almost tautological statement and doesn't impart the point that needs to be made to someone that is treating them like they've been incorrectly taught to treat them to reach their goals. Once they've seen the differences and understand the reasons behind them and see the changes in women that comes with it, they can say 'I treat women like women, and women like people.' honestly and truthfully. They won't say they treat women like men though, same as they won't say they treat children like adults nor dogs like people. Getting through that point, that treating women with same expectations we expect of men, that's the point, and one impossible to get across without a comparison like that.

Do men not display hypergamy? Particularly in today's society? I don't see how men don't do the same exact thing.

Assuming the end of the relationship is initiated by the hypergamic partner, doesn't the divorce rates show it's far more present in women than men? There's also a report that shows the income changes from first marriage to second that showed a crazy high correlation to a woman marrying up while the man marries down. If you'd like to see the numbers, I'll try to dig it up. If you'd like anecdotal, consider the number of high value men who cheat; very high. Now consider the number of high value men who cheat AND file for divorce to marry a new woman. It's rare to the extreme. More common is the woman grabbing what she can and filing for divorce, followed by the Kobe of waiting another three years and then filing for divorce. Karma, maybe, but not a sign of hypergamy on the male's part.

(please also consider the context that this is a concern for pair bonding/marriage, not dating. The common held belief is that women are the first to want to 'settle down', and the first to want to get out. I make no claim for the behavior during the courting period before, and don't know or care if men are more likely to drop and run and trade up potential partners than women. I have my suspicions, but nothing to back up any claim. )

Right, but the rhetoric surrounding this entire concept of "The Red Pill" implies (as I already cited above, and can cite more if you'd like) that men are more important than women, that what they say goes, that they're stronger and means for survival, that they are superior. If you're superior in the most primal of ways, how then, does this not make women 'less' in a general light?

You're assuming there is some cosmic need to be some way of balancing things out, some way of putting male traits on one scale and female traits on the other so the scale balances out perfectly for the sake of harmony. There's no reason to believe there is any such thing on my side, and I implore you to come up with a reason there should be. Take bees. Queen, drones, workers. Queens have one job, lay eggs. Drones have the sole purpose of mating with the queen. Workers do all of the work. Pick any measure you like, and one will come out on top over the other two. Workers bust their ass for a purpose, but don't mate. The other two are there for reproduction only. Are there some qualities each of the three posses than make them equal on some cosmic scale of morality? Workers will die for the hive, the queen wont. Does that make them more loyal? The queen doesn't work to gather pollen, does that make her smarter? No, they just are what they are, and identifying the differences doesn't negate the importance of any of them. All three are needed, but I'd rather have a beer with a worker than a queen.

I just feel like none of you all are recognizing the privilege that comes with being a male.

Most of us would disagree that male advantages outweigh female advantages on the whole. We do agree that our social value and reproductive options, if we pay attention to reality instead of falling to beta behavior that society seems to be teaching us, are greater and longer lasting than womens; such as 'the wall'. We also see a greater number of disadvantages, especially in the legal system in regard to divorce and any number of laws that affect mating behavior. But frankly, I think most of us that aren't die hard MRAs are just trying to see and accept the current reality as it is, and use it to our best advantage for ourselves and our offspring and our mates. Trying to live by rules any different than what actually is reality would be a massive disservice to all three, and our own fault. If you want to believe that we're privileged, that's fine, there's no way anyone can convince you otherwise and the topic is too beat the death most of us don't care to fight it anymore. Most aren't trying to change the system, rather understand it well enough to make the best choices for us and ours, and that remains true regardless of who thinks the deck is stacked against whom.

Aside from the obvious 'keeping humanity going', what good are women?

Between the problematic 'Why does there have to be any good in women outside of reproduction' reality check, and the lifetime of 'women need men like a fish needs a bicycle' rhetoric, you may have difficulty finding an answer there. Sex, companionship, child baring, child raring, company, frivolity, and two for one dinner specials. Almost all of which could be performed by a man as well, but I prefer how women smell. But this is an irrelevant question; we're aren't here to say why women are awesome, we're here to understand why women are the way they are (the behavioral aspects), why men are the way they are, and how the current socio-political environment affects our mating imperatives so we can all use optimal strategies. How it paints whom is irrelevant and not a concern, only the facts. The church may not like evolution or heliocentrism, but niether of those theories were pressured to add in 'not that the church isn't awesome, too' clause, so I dont understand why you're expecting one here.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (31 children) | Copy

And the couples that never divorce? About half of them? The female's loyalty in that relationship counts for nothing, then. I'd also be curious to see what women claim to be the reason for divorce. I think your school of thought sees the initiation of divorce solely as a lack of loyalty, and I think you all fail to take into account that there are often good reasons--abuse, alcoholism, abandonment, infidelity, etc. You all are taking that statistic and reading it one way without considering the entire spectrum of possibilities. Sure, she could've gotten tired of him...but he also could've been beating the shit out of her nightly. shrug Just a thought.

It's phrased that way for the reader to understand the concepts.

I'm not sure I buy that. If you liken a woman to a dog or a child, a newcomer to this theory isn't going to take that with a grain of salt nor are they going to see it like you explained it. I think they're going to go out and see women as less than them. This is what matters. They can be treated like people, sure, but she's still a woman--a woman that is innately lesser in all aspects (and I understand that in many ways we are, but how outrageous and entitled it is for men to assume that they are in no way lesser than women in certain aspects--there is a total inability and denial of this fact in this subreddit). You can chalk that up to me trying to find a balance, but I think a lot of the guys on here are turning a blind eye to their own behavior.

There's also a report that shows the income changes from first marriage to second that showed a crazy high correlation to a woman marrying up while the man marries down.

I know this is me personally, but my mother divorced my alcoholic father who had a job on Wall St. and married a garbage man. It's simply not true in all cases.

Workers will die for the hive, the queen wont. Does that make them more loyal? The queen doesn't work to gather pollen, does that make her smarter? No, they just are what they are, and identifying the differences doesn't negate the importance of any of them. All three are needed, but I'd rather have a beer with a worker than a queen.

That makes sense in terms of bees, but women have more to offer than our biologically purpose. There is more to us than that. I fail to see how saying that someone is less loyal, smart, or honorable in terms of men isn't degrading.

Most aren't trying to change the system, rather understand it well enough to make the best choices for us and ours, and that remains true regardless of who thinks the deck is stacked against whom.

The 5 hours I've spent on this sub have proven otherwise. Everyone has their own privilege in their own way, but the psycho paths who have verbally accosted me (I'm apparently a "fucking bitch"...I didn't know that!) make me believe that maybe that's not so true. I'd like to believe that you all are looking out for yourselves, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that, but there's a way to go about that without degrading women and looking down on them for having sex (which so many of the guys on this sub seem to be after).

Sex, companionship, child baring, child raring, company, frivolity, and two for one dinner specials.

No one seems to think women are worthy of companionship. I just had someone tell me he'd rather marry a daft cheerleader who can cook than a lawyer (something like that, I can't quite remember but that was the sentiment). How is that true companionship? It's not. It's degrading! If a woman wants to be a lawyer, why can't she? Because it makes her less feminine? Maybe she doesn't care. Maybe she's just as 'enlightened' as everyone else in a different way.

Almost all of which could be performed by a man as well, but I prefer how women smell.

This is the only reason you keep women around?

And if you think I'm here to talk about how great women are, oh my god, I've wasted my entire evening, I swear to god, no. I think women are giant assholes sometimes, but so are men.

Honestly, out of all of this, I'm just trying to say just like women are inferior to men in someways, men are inferior to women in others, and that does not detract from either's intrinsic value. We all have a role--different roles! But one is not more important than the other. That's the crux of my argument.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

You're not approaching this rationally, but rather rationalizing why the data doesn't fit your world view. Bring up evidence to support in a way that encompasses large groups of people (non-anecdotal evidence). Because of this, Im going to have to reduce the amount of time you put into it until it becomes an argument and not a venting platform.

And the couples that never divorce? About half of them? The female's loyalty in that relationship counts for nothing, then.

Moving goal posts: This tangent was because you wanted a quantification of loyalty in women versus men and I presented one. The female's loyalty counts for no more than the male's. So we have less than half of all marriages ending in death; draw. Of the majority of marriages, the majority are ended by the women. Conclusion: Men are more loyal to continuing the marriage than women. I don't see what's complicated or inflammatory about this.

I think your school of thought sees the initiation of divorce solely as a lack of loyalty, and I think you all fail to take into account that there are often good reasons--abuse, alcoholism, abandonment, infidelity, etc.

Rationalizing the facts; would you be putting the same thought forward if divorce was more often initiated by men? No, because it would fit your worldview. Why am I saying that's your worldview? Because you're using it to rationalize why women divorce more, when all of those are performed by both sexes. Like I said in the first post, back your thoughts up with facts. How you feel about the implications of the facts are irrelevant.

I think they're going to go out and see women as less than them.

And you feel that is an incorrect strategy, when we're saying it is the successful one. Im not here to discuss the morality of it, only the success of it. I can't think of any way to back it up with numbers, but Id love to hear ideas on how we could check the 'aloof vs respectful' strategies. The best I have off hand is the logic about why it works. A man who is aloof has sexual options; he didn't invest heavily in a relationship. A man who has sexual options is a man of value and a higher value catch than one who doesn't. Therefore, more attractive. Clinton was on the phone with a diplomat for his BJ; do you think he treated the intern like an equal? Does Tommy Lee treat the hot n cold running floozies in his house as equals? Did Arnold treat his maid as an equal? If one of your hottest celebrity crushes showed up on your doorstep and said 'Do me.' would you insist on having him meet your parents first?

That makes sense in terms of bees, but women have more to offer than our biologically purpose. There is more to us than that. I fail to see how saying that someone is less loyal, smart, or honorable in terms of men isn't degrading.

Again, no one cares if you find it degrading. We care if it's accurate. Saying women arent like bees is silly; Im trying to prove a point that it's the height of arrogance for anyone to try and force the facts to fit an ideal that men and women are equal, equivalent, and interchangable. I still haven't heard a reason WHY they have to be or why you expect them to be. If you agree that there is no reason for any kind of cosmic equivalence between the bee castes, a vastly simpler organism, then how can you expect there to be such a thing in humans?

I'd like to believe that you all are looking out for yourselves, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that, but there's a way to go about that without degrading women and looking down on them for having sex (which so many of the guys on this sub seem to be after).

I'm ignoring your irrelevant negativity; it wasn't me and I don't care. You're jumping again away from the point and making a whole lot of assumptions. You're making the assumption that not treating a woman with the same respect we default to in men is degrading. You're also making the assumption that degrading women is bad. Both assumptions are wrong. Both may offend your notions of morality, but that's irrelevant. I care about what works and why. You're telling me what you don't like, when I asked you to tell us how we are incorrect. - As for the sex comment, yes, women with a long history of many varied partners are less suitable for having children with than those will few. There are physical health reasons for this conclusion, there are psychological reasons for this conclusion, and there are genetic behaviors that reinforce this, so the same thought worked for our ancestors. All else being equal, I'd mate with the women who has had two partners over the one who has had 200 partners, in the blink of an eye. I simply do not understand why this would be a sticking point for you. It seems obvious and instinctive to me. For just sex with no children, who cares, just double wrap it if her number is too intimidating.

If a woman wants to be a lawyer, why can't she? Because it makes her less feminine? Maybe she doesn't care. Maybe she's just as 'enlightened' as everyone else in a different way.

She can be a lawyer, and we encourage her to do so. But it makes her less desirable a woman to have children with, and it has to be made clear to her the simple fact of life that responsibility has consequences. She can try to have a career and a family, but both will suffer because of the split focus, just like working two jobs and full time schooling will probably affect your grades. Because of her biological imperative to reproduce, we want to warn women that her own biology may end up making her miserable if she doesn't have children. As long as she accepts this, its her life. We just wish there wasn't so much pressure on women to try and do the full career because it lessens the number of optimal mates to raise children. Given the choice, I'd rather my kids had a full time mother in a classic nuclear family scenario. But that's too much of a risk nowadays.

But one is not more important than the other. That's the crux of my argument.

I'll happily agree that it takes two to make a baby. But other than that, you haven't shown anything to back that up. You acknowledge that men and women are different, and since you haven't refuted it, Im assuming you agree that those differences include behavioral differences and mating strategies. If I'm wrong on that assumption, say so and we can clear out this cruft and get to the heard of the matter and build up from there. You refuse to acknowledge that those differences in behavior can result in a man's view of women's standards and behaviors by a man's measure, or vice versa, could cause them to not meet up to their expectations of their own sex. Let's work on that point and build from there.

Two hypothetical religions; Group A believes that pigs are sacred and loves hamburgers. Group B believe cows are sacred and love bacon. Everything else, they agree on. Does it not make perfect sense that these two groups would believe that the other aren't as good and noble and spiritual as the others? These are two exceptionally minor differences in the context of religion, superficial really, but they differences exist and they both feel the others dont meet up to their standards. If physical strength was the only criteria that mattered, how could you not agree that men are better than women? Men are on average, bigger and strong. If mamary size was the only criteria, we'd have no problem saying women are better. If we assume that men are stronger on average, and women are more socially adept on average, and that men believe strength to be far more important than social skills and women believe social skills to be far more important than physical strength, how could you not accept a man believing a women is inferior and the woman believing a man is inferior? Different traits, different criteria.

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

I appreciate your argument and I read everything you wrote, but there are certain points that I simply 100% fundamentally believe you are wrong. We are not going to see eye to eye and there's really no point in continuing an argument.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (9 children) | Copy

No one seems to think women are worthy of companionship. I just had someone tell me he'd rather marry a daft cheerleader who can cook than a lawyer (something like that, I can't quite remember but that was the sentiment). How is that true companionship? It's not. It's degrading! If a woman wants to be a lawyer, why can't she? Because it makes her less feminine? Maybe she doesn't care. Maybe she's just as 'enlightened' as everyone else in a different way.

This kind of shows you don't get it. Women are worthy of companionship but not in the same way male friends are. If I want to talk through a problem I go to my male friends, I don't tell the women I'm with at that moment because of a number of reasons.

You make the assertion it is degrading - why? If both people are happy and enjoy each others time and company then surely that is all that matters

She can want to be a lawyer but this does make her less feminine. The law and courts and dedicating long hours to your job and the competitive combative nature of the system of law is masculine in essence. Women going into that must generally be somewhat more bolshy and have some more masculine traits. She doesn't have to care but she should be aware pursuing a career like that makes her a less attractive option to men looking for a wife who would look after their family.

That 'daft cheerleader' is more likely to spend her time with her husband than the lawyer woman who is staying late at the office trying to find a way to win a case or prove to her boss a woman can do it all. What is better companionship?

[–]TRP Vanguardlegendofpasta2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The blue pill people are invading, I thank you for holding the line

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (7 children) | Copy

I understand what you mean, I do, I just disagree with it on the most basic of levels.

I think it's innately degrading that men companionship is different than female companionship because of the rhetoric of this entire subreddit. I've seem SO many posts likening a female to a dog, an ocean wave, an overgrown child. That's not true and it's degrading.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy

I think your school of thought sees the initiation of divorce solely as a lack of loyalty, and I think you all fail to take into account that there are often good reasons--abuse, alcoholism, abandonment, infidelity, etc.

First I want to address that you are implying that women have no agency in their actions. Either they make decisions and are responsible for them, or they are objects. What ever happened to "for better or for worse?"

but the psycho paths who have verbally accosted me (I'm apparently a "fucking bitch"...I didn't know that!)

I will defend this. A lot of guys here are sick of being told what to do when the general advice given in our society leads to a miserable life for them. This place is what we'd call a safe-space if we were fembots (which we're not). We don't just ban everybody willy-nilly, but understand that in our safe space, we'll use what ever language we want and we will not be tempered to serve somebody else's purpose.

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

What ever happened to "for better or for worse?"

I haven't seen it thus far on this sub. Explain it to me so I better understand, please!!

we'll use what ever language we want and we will not be tempered to serve somebody else's purpose.

Cool, but name call? And women are the overgrown children? That's silly.

[–]TheIslander8293 points4 points  (28 children) | Copy

[–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

If dolphinhunter is a woman, I don't expect it would help. It's a great smack upside the head for men because it reflects was many of us felt, but I expect almost every woman and every feminist to disregard it as inflamatory tripe. They dont understand the feels in it, and would rather label the author a violent woman hater rather than empathize with the pain so thoroughly laid out. "Here, read this and then come talk to me' works awesome for guys, but not at all for women in my experience.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (26 children) | Copy

Damn, that was a great read.

Explains a lot that I didn't understand, thank you.

I still think that the lack of respect is wrong, that women have just as much of a right to do whatever the fuck they want with their vaginas. If they want sex, they can do whatever they want to get it, just like these enlightened Alpha males are doing. No use in shaming that when you all are doing the same thing.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

They do have the right to do whatever they want. Not one person here ever said otherwise.

They don't have an entitlement to an outcome they want. Nobody does.

You deal with the consequences of your actions.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy

Grand, and I agree, but I'm having other people tell me that they should be reproducing and the fact that women like having sex just as much as men, is a detriment to society...but the men who sleep with over 400 women are okay. How does a man sleeping with a woman show loyalty or honor?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Loyalty and honor is between men. Loyalty to one's wife exists. Loyalty to a one night stand doesn't need to exist.

That's like saying a man is not loyal because he beheads his enemies. Loyalty in itself isn't just blindly adhering to everyone- but instead upholding a certain code to the people you respect. Respect is earned.

I would be loyal to my wife if I had one. I don't want a wife.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy

So loyalty can only be measured in terms of marriage? I don't think so.

[–]TheIslander829-1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy

If they want sex, they can do whatever they want to get it, just like these enlightened Alpha males are doing. No use in shaming that when you all are doing the same thing.

But we didn't start this way. We were brainwashed into thinking monogamy was the way to go... that's why M (the guy that wrote the story you just read) suffered so much.

do whatever the fuck they want with their vaginas.

What about the good of our culture and society? See? This is why we say you have no honor or loyalty. This is the most selfish shit I've ever heard. Newsflash, babe: we need to reproduce at a ratio of 2.0 children per woman to endure our society and culture. Right now we're keeping right at 2.0 in the US because of latinas and immigrants that pop 3 and 4 kids. When the fertility rate drops below 2.0, society starts to implode.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy

This is why we say you have no honor or loyalty.This is the most selfish shit I've ever heard. Newsflash, babe: we need to reproduce at a ratio of 2.0 children per woman to endure our society and culture.

Because women like having sex as much as the man whores on here who have repeatedly professed to sleeping with 400 women? If you're a male in your early 30s and sleeping with 400+ women...where is there loyalty in that?! Where is the honorability in sticking your dick in as many women as possible?! That seems pretty shitty to me. Maybe he should settle down and start being a provider and make babies with his unambitious and daft wife...That is how I'm understanding what you are saying.

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

how is being a mother and raising children unambitious? is raising children in a healthy environment not more important and fullfillfing than a career that is just about making money?

and marriage is horrible deal for men which is why many men do not want to marry.

[–]TheIslander8294 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

Where is the honorability in sticking your dick in as many women as possible?!

80% to 90% of the men don't do this, and can't do this because they lack the skill to do so.

I'm that 10% that got tired of being nice and punished for it.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (12 children) | Copy

I'm talking in terms of the men on this subreddit. Loyalty only applies to marriage as redpillschool just told me..........loyalty is a trait that doesn't apply to just one thing. You are a loyal person or your not. Sticking your dick in 400 women is kinda shitty.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy

Disloyal, fickle, uninteresting, shallow, just a pair of tits, really, that only use men as a means to get what they want.

And your comment history is nothing more than a repetition of the above. How am I to take you seriously when you've given nothing to disprove the above assertions?

Also, since you're such a huge fan of generalizations, perhaps you shouldn't be making them of the entire subreddit. Many men that first end up here are extremely disillusioned due to abruptly being forced to learn the true nature of women, and their comments may reflect a sort of hatred. There is no one here that will deny this, but the subbreddit and its content is only about discovering those truths and learning how we can manage to survive them in the future. This has absolutely nothing to do with hating women, and everything to do with coexisting with them.

It's not really our fault that modern day feminism has placed us in such an awkward position. Where on one hand we would love to be devoted husbands and fathers, but on the other hand, we must think about how we could possibly survive a world where divorce rape, cuckoldry, and general sluttery is actively encouraged throughout the entire female population. These things exist, and the subreddit is a reflection of the collective thoughts of men on how we can approach these issues to make the best of a bad situation.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (18 children) | Copy

How can you possibly discern that I am disloyal from my comments? Or that I'm shallow or fickle? You can't. You've drawn that conclusion because you refuse to see women any other way. You've already decided that I am those things.

It's not the hatred that I find so offensive, but the apathy, the belief that there is NOTHING else that women have to offer, the belief that they are just for sex, that they only use men, that there is no point in interacting with them, that we are overgrown children.

divorce rape, cuckoldry, and general sluttery is actively encouraged throughout the entire female population.

What?! How?!?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy

How can you possibly discern that I am disloyal from my comments? Or that I'm shallow or fickle? You can't.

The number one logical fallacy women make when arguing their point is solipsism. Look it up, learn about it, and stop using it as a debate tool, it makes you look like a fool.

It's not the hatred that I find so offensive, but the apathy, the belief that there is NOTHING else that women have to offer, the belief that they are just for sex, that they only use men, that there is no point in interacting with them, that we are overgrown children.

Who said they only have sex to offer? If you inferred this somehow, then I'm guessing it's because you want to believe this is what we think.

What?! How?!?

Really? You're going to make me do your research? Stop being so fucking lazy, there are a billion articles out there highlighting the details. Cases of men paying child support and alimony to women who bore children of other men / were cuckolded, etc. Women who simply divorce because they know they will end up getting a huge payoff of child support, alimony and full custody. Women who slut it up because their friends are constantly telling them how they "can do so much better," and shouldn't settle. Focusing on their careers till they hit the wall and have no option except to slut it up. etc. etc. etc.

I realize this shit is hard to swallow, I didn't want to believe it either, but take it from someone who has witnessed this behavior countless times first hand, it exists.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy

The number one logical fallacy women make when arguing their point is solipsism. Look it up, learn about it, and stop using it as a debate tool, it makes you look like a fool.

I'm not using it as a debate tool at all. Why do you think I'm in this subreddit? I'm 100% willing to be wrong and I'm genuinely trying to understand the reasoning behind this sub. But you're failing to show me how I am. Instead you're name calling and being pissy.

Who said they only have sex to offer? If you inferred this somehow, then I'm guessing it's because you want to believe this is what we think.

The comments that insinuate women are to be tolerated and that the 'sex' card is the only power they hold over men? Because the highest upvoted piece of content in this subreddit details how to get laid?

I asked you so we could have a common text so that we're not pulling stuff out of our asses. It's not encouraged among women. As a woman, I am telling you that women who do that are shitty and none of us strive to be that way--slutty (whatever the fuck that even means since I've seen more than a few men in this thread using this theory as a way to sleep with women), thieves, money hungry bitches, women who cheat on their husbands. I think it's sad that you devalue the entire gender because of women like that.

As a totally different question, what do you expect women to do? If men like you put no value on women, that they are not to be respected, how the fuck do you think we should act? What do you expect from us?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy

I'm not using it as a debate tool at all.

Yes, you did, reread your comment.

I'm 100% willing to be wrong and I'm genuinely trying to understand the reasoning behind this sub.

LOL.

The comments that insinuate women are to be tolerated and that the 'sex' card is the only power they hold over men?

Without sex, men would have no reason to interact with women. It's a binding force between humans. And it is one hell of a card that women hold. I don't see why this is getting you pissed off?

Because the highest upvoted piece of content in this subreddit details how to get laid?

What's wrong with getting laid?

I asked you so we could have a common text so that we're not pulling stuff out of our asses.

Fine, divorce rape, cuckoldry, and general sluttery.

I think it's sad that you devalue the entire gender because of women like that.

My opinions were formed because I have experienced it myself. It's actually a sad story that will likely make you think I'm a bitter man on an endeavor to seek revenge on women, but here it goes:

The first 5 women I dated seriously as a young adult cheated on me and left me for someone they perceived to have higher value than me. The last time it happened was the straw that broke the camel's back, because I was madly in love with her and was basically planning to marry her. When she cheated on me, and told me about it, it sent me through a phase where I stopped caring about women, and just used them for sex. During this period, I never had another woman cheat on me, not once. The opposite happened when I stopped caring about them, they fell madly in love with me. This opened my eyes to reality, and honestly it made me want to throw up. When I was younger, better looking, more motivated, and faithful, not a single woman would treat me with respect. I went through a period where I despised women as a whole, then eventually recovered and now I do actually have respect for them, but I also have respect for the differences between us. I realized why they couldn't accept me when I was so willing do anything for them, and why they wanted me so badly when I refused their love. I also began to realize the lies that society was feeding me and everyone else. How it impacted my thoughts and took me on one hell of a ride through life. I was ashamed that I had been made a fool of and I didn't know what to do to get what I wanted in life, because a part of me still wanted the fairy tale ending. This happened 8 years ago. And while I realize it is nothing other than anecdotal evidence, but every day of my life after this event, has been another day reconfirming all of the red pill knowledge you will find accumulated within this subreddit. I can't sit through another day telling myself there's no place like home when everything stares me in the face and reconfirms the broken world we live in.

As a totally different question, what do you expect women to do?

This is a great question, and is still largely unanswered. I don't think it's women that are at fault for the way things are. I think it's a combination of things that both men and women have introduced into society. In fact, it's mostly men that have enabled female hypergamy by absolving women of responsibility for their actions through law and order. Men are the ones who write laws on child support and divorce. They write and enforce laws on domestic violence. They gather around in support for women's rights at rallies and conferences. And they do it, because men are constantly trying to shine the best light on themselves in hopes of getting laid. It's men that need to wake up and realize that they are giving away their rights in the hopes that they will receive sex in exchange for it.

Nonetheless, this won't change anything, men will not wake up, because they are largely blind to their actions. Women will, as they always have done, fight for more power in both relationships and within the state. Honestly, until something truly tragic happens I don't believe this cycle will be broken. I'm sure I could hypothesis all I want, but since a man's role within the family has been replaced by the state, women won't turn to men for support until they need it again. This is also why most men turn to pickup / seduction. If we can't get what we want in life: a stable family, legitimate children, and a supporting wife, then we will take option B: just the sex.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy

What's wrong with getting laid?

Nothing, but the post I'm referring to insinuates that that is the only thing women are good for. This is it here if you'd like to look at it.

Without sex, men would have no reason to interact with women. It's a binding force between humans. And it is one hell of a card that women hold. I don't see why this is getting you pissed off?

Because it's just tolerance. It's the fact that men are more worthy of interacting with than women. It's not the sex card that bothers me.

Thank you for the articles. I can't find statistics, but I would imagine that the amount of women who do those things (which are totally shitty things, yes. My step-father who pretty much raised me was completely fucked over in his original divorce and it almost ruined his life) are quite small in comparison to the women that do not--that are loyal, not slutty (which again, what even is slutty!), etc. I think it's silly to say that all women do this. Men do it too, you all know that.

Your story is unfortunate. Honestly, it really does suck and I can't imagine how shitty that must've felt. I'm glad you found something that works for you, but you're right when you say it is completely anecdotal evidence. While you see women playing men like fiddles, don't you also see or know giving, kind women? They're real. They exist and they are not useless and disloyal. Maybe the blame lies with men, too. That seems to be a reoccuring thing throughout this sub--there is virtually no blame placed on men except that they have allowed themselves to be blinded by the ways of women for so long. Why doesn't anyone address the fact that certain personalities attract certain women? And that that could have something to do with a string of failed relationships. You start to get at it in your second to last paragraph, but I don't see any in between ground here which is irrational.

I agree that women need to stop thinking that they deserve everything and that men should bow at their feet, but damn. This just seems like you all want women to bow to your feet and realize that they're good for nothing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy

Why doesn't anyone address the fact that certain personalities attract certain women?

Because this is completely untrue. I've been all kinds of different women at this point in life. Alpha attracts women, beta repels them. Period, there is no evidence pointing towards anything else.

And that that could have something to do with a string of failed relationships.

It could explain this, but it doesn't explain my extreme success afterwards now does it?

This just seems like you all want women to bow to your feet and realize that they're good for nothing.

Really? It seems this way? Most men I know want nothing other than a healthy relationship with a woman they can trust. Giving and taking, supporting each other's strengths and weaknesses. Mutual respect, etc. It seems this way because this is what you read in between the lines.

[–]ThatsNotScholarship0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Alpha attracts women, beta repels them. Period, there is no evidence pointing towards anything else.

all evidence points to looks being the primary driver of attraction for both sexes. if you mean alpha as in naturally muscular tall good looking symmetrical etc., then yes, that attracts women.

if you mean alpha as in reads PUA blogs obsesses over powerlifting and eating paleo and libertarian economics, no that is just a garden variety nerd.

basic reality is that PUA/game does not work, guys do not magically become attractive by reading up on game techniques or embracing inner game, if you were not attractive and popular and sexually successful in your teen years (something that most PUA gurus were definitely not) then you never will be.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

Because this is completely untrue. I've been all kinds of different women at this point in life. Alpha attracts women, beta repels them. Period, there is no evidence pointing towards anything else

How do you explain successful relationships between "betas" and women? If you're saying that there are Alpha and Beta males, why is it so hard to believe that there are different types of women that go for certain types of guys? Also, there's no evidence supporting anything anyone is saying in this whole mess.

It could explain this, but it doesn't explain my extreme success afterwards now does it?

Uh, the fact that you changed your behavior does.

Really? It seems this way? Most men I know want nothing other than a healthy relationship with a woman they can trust. Giving and taking, supporting each other's strengths and weaknesses. Mutual respect, etc. It seems this way because this is what you read in between the lines.

I can't understand how they can subscribe to this school of thought and respect their woman. Not even in a bitchy, asshole way. I genuinely do not understand how that is possible.

I've already done it, but I can cite again to show you that I'm not reading between the lines.

[–]logicalmisologist4 points5 points  (101 children) | Copy

There are a good number of men here who have been badly burned by the circumstances of modern society. Cuckoldry, unfair divorces, general disenfranchisement.

For many of them, they will go through a natural period of anger toward woman before emerging on the other side. Then they learn to accept that women are inherently different than men. Not better or worse, just different.

I don't condone misogyny, but I would ask that you endeavor to be sympathetic and keep an open mind for people who are in a difficult period of transition.

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

Nice, you and I posted almost the exact same answer at the same time ~

Well played mate =]

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

This is exactly. I was one of those men. When you first come to realization that everything you were told growing up was lie of course there is going to be frustration and anger. And what better way (at least at the time) to direct that anger at the one gender who propagates those lies, women. Today, 4 years later I love women now for what they are, rather than how I think they should be. It was my flawed thinking when I was younger that was wrong and caused my deep rooted frustration.

Here in this sub-reddit, we are trying to educate men to see the world for what it really is. There is no anger here, there is no plotting to make women look like wicked witches of the west. Once you let go of the vision of the world that is shoved down your throat, amazing things occur. I for one can say that ever since stumbling upon the manosphere, I have become a better man in every way conceivable. The best part is I'm only 23, so I'm not even close to reaching my potential.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (41 children) | Copy

I'm really trying to understand it, but the further I delve into this subreddit, the more I feel saddened and offended.

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy

At its core though, it's just guys trying to understand women and regain some semblance of leadership in their relationships

And likening me to a dog, an overgrown child, or an ocean wave does this? I don't think so.

If it were as simple as you just put it, I don't think I would've spent so much time here arguing. You are the dead opposite of feminazis, yes, 100%.

I'm not innately less honorable or loyal than anyone of you. You can through marriage stats at me and say that women initiate divorce more often, but there are often reasons behind that, not because she was just tired of him or wanted to suck him dry. And the 50% of marriages that do work out is a entirely different thing--their loyalty counts for nothing.

I understand that men and women are not equal, but that does not mean men are superior in all ways. The sole purpose of women is not to reproduce and be a companion. We're allowed to have careers, choose not to have families, and do whatever the hell we want.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

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

If that is the premise, just that, and not a facade for disrespecting women, then I am with you all the way!

That makes sense to me. And I agree with it! Thank you for being rational and not calling me a fucking bitch because I didn't understand your point of view, and thank you for taking the time to explain it in a neutral and calm manner.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy

Of course not all women are like that. Our theories are probabilistic not deterministic.

[–]FountainsOfFluids3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have to agree with her on this point. Way too many posts imply that all women display X behavior trait, when the truth is much more nuanced. Many posts also fail to acknowledge to obvious reciprocal negative traits in men, which makes it appear like we are talking about men as being perfect. I know on an intellectual level that this is not usually intended, but for somebody who has not yet swallowed the pill, it is extremely off-putting.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Maybe you should tell that to the rest of your subreddit...

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

You're the outsider who hasn't read the sidebar!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

I did. And what you just said in no way addressed my point.

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

Not to trying discredit your views or anything, but a true feminist would be about equality, not man-hating and demonizing male sexuality. The feminazi type you've experienced are extremists/radicals, not true representatives of feminism.

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

[–]brosephthebroengine1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy

Oh, you are sad and offended. Sorry to hear that. That clearly proves that everything on this sub is wrong and you are right. Let's go home guys, discussion over, we lose.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy

You're being childish. I'm being logical. I dare say you are...acting like a woman!?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (18 children) | Copy

The reason he's commenting on this is simple: Saying it saddens and offends you is a shaming technique. In public discourse, nobody wants to be that guy. Around these parts, we've learned to stop giving a shit.

Saying you're offended doesn't mean anything to us when women use faux offense to manipulate men all the time.

Edit: For example: Men here are learning how to be more successful with women. You say you're offended as a way to dissuade guys from doing this... how disingenuous does this make you? Saying you're offended that we've actually learned how to be successful makes you appear just as manipulative as the lot of them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy

What?!!? I love that you guys can go out and be succesful with women. I really tink that's great because men have been shit all over for a long time, but there's a way to do that without devaluing women. We're not disloyal and we're not uninteresting. If you think that, I'm not going to be able to get through to you in anyway. I want men to have a hand up in a relationship. I like it! But don't think that requires me to stay at home and cook. I really think you can respect a woman, and be an asshole so she'll sleep with you, if that's all your after. She's not less valuable as a person because she doesn't fit the man standard.

[–]FountainsOfFluids3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy

I really think you can respect a woman, and be an asshole so she'll sleep with you, if that's all your after.

A man cannot authentically be an asshole to someone he considers an equal. He must perceive himself to be a leader, with superior judgement to those around him, and have at least some disregard for their feelings. This is exactly why so many men are failing so badly in the dating game. We have been raised to respect women as equals, and it just isn't attractive.

She's not less valuable as a person because she doesn't fit the man standard.

Please look at your own words. From a man's point of view and judging people by a man's scale, when a woman doesn't fit the standard that absolutely means she is a lesser person from his point of view.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (11 children) | Copy

We have been raised to respect women as equals, and it just isn't attractive.

This is terrifying to me. I cannot fathom it, I really can't. I get your logic but holy shit, I couldn't feel more different.

Please look at your own words. From a man's point of view and judging people by a man's scale, when a woman doesn't fit the standard that absolutely means she is a lesser person from his point of view.

That's what I'm saying. Why does everything have to be in terms of the man scale? There's no human being scale?

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

Here's my expectation in a relationship; I can't straight up tell my woman to go work out, keep fit and be loyal. I do not expect her to comply.

I can, however, influence behaviour and this is where I think a lot of the responsibilities lies with the male.

For one - I need to keep fit myself. She has to know that I could get other women. That she's not my only option. This will hopefully be an incentive for her to keep herself attractive to me. If not, she's out.

Second, I do not expect her to be loyal if I don't add value to her life. Her value comes from attractive company and sex, hopefully with a nice personality as well who can hold fun conversations, but it's not a requirement. If no such value is given by me and I lose status in her eyes, status which reflect on her, it comes as no surprise if resentment grows and cheating occurs.

I would prefer a stay-at-home mother to my children while a career woman would be a turn-off and this is where we differ I suppose. But keep in mind through all this I have to work at keeping her comfortable in the relationship. In many ways I work for her, not the other way around. How do I keep her comfortable? By being a source of strength. By not following her every whim or being easily manipulated. By taking charge.

I think a woman can be loyal. If I still bring value to her life and respectable status. That's my responsibility. Unfortunately men are taught the wrong things these days. A paycheck isn't enough. It's not really value. She already owns that paycheck and the rest of them for 18 years. Actually, she's better off divorcing and living on the state, maybe even re-marry someone richer. This is where Game comes in. Recognize the biological nature of men and women and directly affect your relations with the opposite sex for the betterment of both.

If girls no longer agree with this kind of view, that's fine. I won't be looking for a relationship then. Maybe some fleeting month long ones. Pump and Dump it is.

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

Well I've listened to all of you and I'm hearing the same thing over and over. We don't agree and we're not going to.

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

No, you're being emotional. Do you see the difference?

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

You decided well before you messaged me that I was being emotional because I was a woman. You refuse to see me any other way.

[–]phattsao0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Assumption is based on your previous 50 posts in this thread, not gender

[–]zionController0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

oh... My... God...

We offended someone! With words! Call Scotland yard immediately

[–]TheCuriousDude-5 points-4 points  (56 children) | Copy

It's this "inherently different" nonsense that saddens me. How are women "inherently different" other than the obvious, superficial differences (genitals, average height, etc.)? Like Dolphinhunter, all I've seen on this subreddit is misogyny. Just because you dudes say something over and over again doesn't make it true.

[–]RedSunBlue2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy

So you think that besides differences in appearance, men and women are inherently the same?

[–]logicalmisologist1 point2 points  (45 children) | Copy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.

Differences between the sexes began evolving a long time ago, and modern neuroscience demonstrates that the disparity in traits are more than superficial.

Here are some fairly mainstream websites that discuss how men and women's brains are different:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201207/two-myths-and-three-facts-about-the-differences-in-men-and-womens-brains

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

And I haven't even begun to delve into differences in attraction...

[–]TheCuriousDude1 point2 points  (44 children) | Copy

None of those links state any inherent differences other than superficial ones. You don't have to have a medical degree to know that brain size in humans has very little effect on intelligence. It's the structure of the brain that matters. Hell, the second link says "MYTH 2 - Sex-related brain differences explain behavioural differences between the sexes", which kinda disproves the point of this subreddit. The third link says "Bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter." It also says "Women, as a whole, may also be better than men at controlling their emotions" which contradicts the "women are dumb and emotional" message you guys have going on here. And that last link looks sketchy as fuck. I wouldn't believe anything from such a mediocre-looking website. Now that I mention it, do you have any sources (other than the Wikipedia link) that AREN'T blogs?

I can understand if some dudes have been disillusioned by society in regards how to be a man or how to get women, but the way this subreddit goes about confronting that is so wrong in various misogynistic and sexist ways.

Not to mention that the post this thread links to holds such a sad, self-defeating message. Why not just improve your current self to get women, rather than putting blind faith into the idea that you'll automatically be deemed attractive when you're older?

[–]logicalmisologist3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy

I never suggested that men are on average smarter than women. However, there has been a good deal of evidence suggesting that female intelligence tends to hover around the mean, while male intelligence has many more outliers, geniuses and simpletons included. This can probably be explained by how genetic expression is muted in females, due to the presence of two X chromosomes. In males, a mutation is far more likely to be expressed - or have a greater level of expression - than in a female, since there isn't another copy to "take up the slack".

I agree that my linked blog entries are somewhat shoddy, though that doesn't necessarily invalidate my point. Of course, it is politically incorrect to suggest that there may be sex-based behavioral differences between men and women.

It's not about women being able to better control their emotions than men, it's about our society teaching them the message that they should follow their feelings, such as destroying their family when the romance starts to wane. Feelings are taught to be a justification in and of themselves for carrying out actions.

No one here is advocating that men should wait until they're older to become magically more attractive, rather than working on themselves now. Stating a statistically-supported generalization that men will reach their peak Sexual Market Value around the age of 32-35 doesn't imply that men should be lazy sacks of shit and wait for women to one day fall out of the sky and into their laps.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy

You make the common mistake of assumming it's our job to prove the differences, when it's your job to prove the equality and to disprove the rhetoric that we lay out.

"Women, as a whole, may also be better than men at controlling their emotions"

Men can be equally dumb for relying on logic. Like assumming that a human actually wants what it says it wants.

Now that I mention it, do you have any sources (other than the Wikipedia link) that AREN'T blogs?

Do you have any links disproving any of the content here? If you just want to circle jerk yourself into disbelief you will succeed, science hasn't advanced as far as we'd like to believe it has. So inherently there will be holes that you can point to and say "look! it hasn't been proven!"

[–]TheCuriousDude-2 points-1 points  (16 children) | Copy

What are you talking about? If someone puts forth a rhetoric to follow, the burden of proof is on that person to prove it, not the person (me) asking why he should follow it. If I started a subreddit saying Indian people are clearly the superior race to all, people would sure as hell expect me to provide actual evidence to prove it. As for your other point, science operates on a "if we can't prove it, we're not going to accept it as fact" basis. So, just because we can't prove/disprove the existence of aliens doesn't mean the default belief is to believe in them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about you jumping in our subreddit, getting hit in the face with links supporting our claims. Then whining like a little bitch that we need to give you more fucking links. At this point it's your fucking turn. Get some proof of your own. If you want more proof, read through the submission history, there's been plenty submitted over the past few months.

"if we can't prove it, we're not going to accept it as fact" - actually a lot of science relies on building up evidence to discredit a claim. Something you should be working hard on doing.

But this shit has been said 100x before: http://www.returnofkings.com/5855/game-does-not-need-science

Your (flawed) approach to steering the conversation towards scientifically verifying all of our claims plays out well in your head I'm sure, but simply because there is no lack of proof or disproof of something doesn't change the nature of it's existence. While I agree, we should work hard to verify as much of our claims as we possibly can, you and I both know that not all of it can or will be proven. Thus you rely on this fact to distort the nature of the argument to: science hasn't proven it! It doesn't exist! If I can't see the boogie man he can't see me! Which we all know is patently bullshit.

[–]TheCuriousDude-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy

I wasn't aware that blog links were legitimate sources of proof. Tell you what, why don't I go get a temporary domain name and type up some bullshit as proof for you?

As for your nonsense about science, I don't know what you learned in high school or college. Because, clearly, as part of the scientific method, if a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. Since your hypothesis (basically that women are inferior and should be treated as children) hasn't been proven through satisfactory evidence, I shall discard it.

[–]logicalmisologist0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Just because certain notions and beliefs are implicitly held by the mainstream doesn't make them any less subject to analysis and critique.

Should we have ignored the obvious disparities that first wave feminism justifiably set about correcting by going against the mainstream of the time?

Likewise, now that the pendulum has begun to swing the other way, should we ignore modern society's implicitly held feminist beliefs?

Everything should always be open to analysis. Political correctness is a way of stifling dissenting voices.

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

Everything should always be open to analysis. I have no problem with that. But, if you're gonna make generalizations and unsubstantiated claims without providing evidence and support, what reason do I have to accept your claims?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (31 children) | Copy

On the contrary, we love women who embrace being an attractive pair of tits.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (30 children) | Copy

And that's all you guys think that women should strive to be? Just a pair of tits? You don't think we're good for anything else?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (29 children) | Copy

No, it's called a fucking joke. Learn to laugh DP hunter.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (28 children) | Copy

Well, no, it's not a joke when there is shit like this all over this subreddit:

  • "If you expect women to be men with tits, you'll be sorely let down by them all the time. Their lack of honor, their lack of courage. Their lack of dedication to truth, justice, or loyalty."

  • "At the end of the day, you'll remember she's a child."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (27 children) | Copy

Yes, it's a joke, and I laughed. Don't get your panties in a bundle hun ~

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (26 children) | Copy

SO alpha.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (25 children) | Copy

Oh, I wasn't joking. I do love women who embrace being an attractive pair of tits. If a woman wants to be more than that, she has every right, but I won't be attracted to it. All your intelligence, success, and power mean nothing, absolutely nothing to me. I would take a Captain of the cheer squad who can cook a mean dinner over an equally attractive Harvard educated business woman in a heartbeat. I don't want a woman who wants to compete in the world of men, because she has to lose most of her femininity in order to do so, and I'm not sexually attracted to masculinity.

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

Well, it's funny because it's true bro ~

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy

Welp, I think that's fucked up. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[–]westcoastwiking16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

Reading through this mess makes one think of contrasts...

When we talk about things like the fickle nature of women and and other general Red Pill related topics, I think we often make the mistake of generalization.

Sure, the fundamental sexual and psychological principles applies to all women the same, but I'm sure we can all agree the "nurture" aspect can vary greatly.

Much of what we describe as general 'female' characteristics are present only, or to a large extent only, in very attractive women. The less she can coast on her beauty, the more she has to develop a real personality and make herself useful, sociable and reliable. Make herself more like a man, in general.

Only beautiful women can live the life of an oversized child, getting free passes for her BS at every turn. Non?

We often talk about these women here, since they're the ones we go after and the ones who's idiosyncrasies we marvel and mock.

I pose to you, that these are not the women of Reddit. Nor are they the women of the men of Reddit. In general, of course.

In other words, when you talk about "women" to the general redditor, you might imagine a gorgeous, spoiled womanchild (who needs a firm hand). He might think of his frumpy, 4 of a wife; loving, caring, honest and a bit of a geek.

Obviously your idea of women will sound (to him) way out of whack, and the logical thing is to label you as a misogynist.

[–]FountainsOfFluids5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm still fairly new to the manosphere, but I've come to the conclusion that a huge part of it is finding explanations for why women have hurt the writer so badly. They take their experiences and generalize them to all women. In many ways it works, but in others it doesn't. I think it serves a very good purpose in that the psychology of a woman who hurts men is acting on impulses that many women have but suppress. And if we can learn to avoid or counteract bad behavior from women, we will be happier, and they will be happier.

From what I can find, 40 to 43% of marriages end in divorce. That means 57 to 60% of women have not dumped their beta men in search of the alpha cock. So when I think of "hypergamy", which is talked about A LOT and is assumed as a foundation for female behavior, I just remind myself that the author is talking about base desires, not the actual conduct of all women everywhere (whether he thinks that or not). Just as men are pushed biologically to fuck anything that moves, women are pushed to mate with whoever will provide for them the best life. This doesn't mean they'll actually dump you for the neighbor with the nicer car and fuller head of hair. Women can display amazing feats of loyalty. We just need to be mindful that loyalty is not necessarily a base drive for behavior, but a secondary. In other words, she would have more fun if she divorced her quadriplegic husband, but she doesn't because she knows she'll feel horribly guilty about it. But if there ever comes a time when something causes that to shift in the other direction, she's gonna be out of there. Men are the same way. We resist the urge to bang the co-worker because we know we won't be able to face the mother of our children when we get home. But that doesn't mean the urge isn't still there, and it doesn't mean that we won't fail to overcome that urge one day.

Anyway, that's just one aspect of how I "translate" what I read around here in order to make it fit with the real world and my own experience. Wanted to get that off my chest.

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

The less she can coast on her beauty, the more she has to develop a real personality and make herself useful, sociable and reliable. Make herself more like a man, in general.

This is actually the complete opposite of what I've seen. The entitled hambeasts as described by Heartiste are the norm and I've actually found that attractive women you meet outside of alcohol-heavy venues are generally pretty nice people. Especially the educated ones. Either that or I scare them into behaving.

I'm still young too so that might be it.

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

I notice this as well sometimes, although I agree that uglier women are less inclined to exhibit such behavior.

[–]synnndstalker10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

Did you just advertise your own post?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

On my own subreddit. I'm going for the trifecta.

Yes I promote good red-pill material, as one of the curators here.

[–]TRP Vanguardlegendofpasta5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

You've got the srs archangls following your posts now baha you're clearly wielding more influence than those bovines care to admit

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm bigger than Jesus...

[–]brosephthebroengine1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

You gotta admit though, Jesus was alpha as fuck in some ways

[–]TRP Vanguardlegendofpasta1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

100 percent agree.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Almost.

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

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

Welcome to the fray Rollo!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Since when is this sub reddit filled with women hate?

And just typical for women in debates to resort to ad-hominem and strawmen,

[–]TheIslander8291 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And just typical for women

And manginas... don't forget the manginas.

[–]RedSunBlue1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

This series of threads is very interesting for me because it displays a phenomenon that I've been noticing more and more in my interactions with men both on and offline: an inability to have a debate based on facts and logic.

Example:

Dude: "Hockey is a much better sport to watch than Basketball."

Me: "If that were true, more people would be watching Hockey than Basketball."

Dude: "It is true! They score too much in Basketball! It makes the events meaningless! I'm just being objective here."

Me: "Everything you just said was subjective..."

Dude was Canadian, btw.

[–]thro_way1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Man, you need to do some serious introspection. Your example of sound logic is one of the most common examples of shitty logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

Your example of shitty logic, on the other hand (that more points scored devalues the worth of each individual point) is perfectly valid.

[–]RedSunBlue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Guilty. Time to hit the logical fallacy books, eh?

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

No true Scotsman.

[–]logicalmisologist3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's just called "being a dumbass", an affliction that affects both sexes.

[–]logicalmisologist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're a brave man, redpillschool. There is a 1% chance that you'll reach one person on that board.



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

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter