TRP doesn't give men what they want. It just convinces them that they don't want it.

Cyralea · 2015-12-15T15:45:12+00:00

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

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

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

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

exit_sandman · 2015-12-15T12:05:22+00:00

I like you, Cora, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

grendalor · 2015-12-15T13:46:30+00:00

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

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

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

InformalCriticism · 2015-12-15T15:02:45+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

Women stand to benefit more...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacksambuck · 2015-12-15T12:08:23+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

your_mom_on_drugs · 2015-12-15T14:54:41+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheGreasyPole · 2015-12-15T13:03:56+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

your_mom_on_drugs · 2015-12-15T11:50:54+00:00

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

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

ThrowbiWan · 2015-12-15T16:20:37+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

[deleted] · 2015-12-16T03:45:08+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T16:20:08+00:00

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

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

ppdthrowawai · 2015-12-15T17:46:26+00:00

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

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

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

ThirdEyeSqueegeed · 2015-12-15T20:16:43+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totally agree with that.

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

Totally agree.

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

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

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

TheGreasyHole · 2015-12-15T20:19:53+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T22:28:03+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Ronin11A · 2015-12-15T14:38:16+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it_is_not_the_spoon · 2015-12-15T11:48:21+00:00

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

When you say men here it assumes a certain quality and for the most part won't apply to the bottom X%. At least not the way most men are conditioned to believe.

adrixshadow · 2015-12-15T13:04:13+00:00

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

That is because men in the old days had absolute power over distribution of wealth.

Without that they have no value. The beta dream is gone.

Being rich isn't a factor anymore as they can just steal it.

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T16:56:11+00:00

Old BP story of thinking the world is a fairytale. Why do you think love is really what men want? I have had all the love in the world from my mom and dad, but ZERO sex before I came to TRP. I wanted sex. I didn't want love from any girl.

Xemnas81 · 2015-12-15T19:32:01+00:00

Hey Cora, liking this. You should repost this shit to r/PunchingMorpheus :)

kick6 · 2015-12-15T21:50:34+00:00

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. While there are undoubtedly some girls willing to play by the old rules (ergo, they genuinely love men in a reciprocal way), I think the forces of liberalism and feminism (really one in the same) have conspired to ensure that there aren't nearly enough of them to go around.

TRP isn't preaching that it's impossible or that they don't want it, just that the odds are low enough that it is far better a plan to create a life assuming you won't find it, and to be on guard against any woman who appears to offer it.

czerdec · 2015-12-15T22:08:08+00:00

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

None of that follows from any of the premises you gave. It's outright wishful thinking.

cxj · 2015-12-16T00:50:00+00:00

Possibly the best post I've ever read on PPD. Saved, will give to ppl as a RP primer. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, which does not seem to logically follow from the body of your post, and at the very least seems unsubstantiated. The conclusion might be better accepted or debated if you provided some substantiating evidence or argument for it, because the rest of your post seems to contradict the conclusion.

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

This is the main reason I hypothesize a huge rise in male suicides in oncoming decades. I actually want to work on a post using this idea with a somewhat optimistic hypothesis for long term social outcomes.

midnightvulpine · 2015-12-15T14:36:02+00:00

Personally, I don't think anyone should tell men what they want. Just like no o e should tell men what they want. I'd prefer to keep the days of defined gender roles firmly in the past so men can look at themselves and feel free to be who they want to be.

The way to fix this is to let us, as people figure it out. Period. But getting other people to stop telling others what they should and shouldn't be is the hard part. Some think they have it figured out and everyone else is wrong. Those people need to learn to let others just be.

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T21:47:45+00:00

There is a lot of truth in there. I think most men would like to have a natural relationship with a good loyal wife, sons, white picket fence, etc. Thing is with societies blank check written for girls bad behavior and the stock of women so debased that it is almost impossible

Its also worth noting that ever since gender equality girls have reported more and more unhappiness in their lives.

Basically both genders have been sold a false bill of goods where both are being made less happy.

damaskrose · 2015-12-15T22:20:10+00:00

The idea of subsidizing their loss of value with an obsolete female role is understandably unappealing to them.

I don't think the role of the housewife, house-husband, or stay-at-home parent is obsolete quite yet, because most professional workplaces are still structured around the full-time provider. If workplaces started offering flexible hours, and part-time or job-sharing positions for professional jobs, then there would be less of a reason for parents to stay at home full-time. Some people also receive more personal fulfillment from a carer role than they would in a traditional workplace, and I don't think that's likely to change. Different people are different, and achieve self-actualization from different sources.

They hope that without sustained enforcement of gender roles, entropy will take over and roles will be distributed equally across the sexes. However, neither men nor women seem eager to head in that direction.

I dunno, I'm a feminist and this is not what I'm hoping. I believe in making the playing field as even as possible and then letting the chips fall as they will, if that makes sense. More like the Dutch model of feminism. American feminism places a lot of emphasis on money and financial independence, because that's an American (not inherently feminist) value.

Other than those (rather nitpicky) details, I think your post is pretty spot on. Most men and women still want love, companionship, and long-term monogamous relationships.

nomdplume · 2015-12-16T02:24:14+00:00

I don't have time to post as thorough a response as what others have already posted, but I thought I'd just chime in to say how much I appreciate what you've written here. It's great to see someone make a post that prompts (mostly) thoughtful responses from both sides. That's a rare achievement and certainly worth commending. I wish PPD was like this all the time...

Limekill · 2015-12-15T15:04:18+00:00

women know how to be good women.

Wrong. Femininity is being lost.

Women stand to benefit more from this dissolution of gender roles than men,

I believe this a con. The best option for women would to have their cake AND eat it too - i.e. be able to take time off to raise children and have the option to work IF they wanted to. However that option was lost. Now the ONLY option is to keep working.

My guess is that feminism was supported by corporations, as it would massively increase the labor supply and create a new army of customers. I am not suggesting a massive conspiracy theory here, but what I am saying is that Western Governments keep making it easier to palm off someone else to raise a child other than the mother (via daycare handouts), while discouraging mothers from raising their children (no tax credits for example, etc). Property prices in most western countries are so expensive (Sydney: $1Million+) that BOTH parents now have to work full time just to keep a roof over their head, where as before it was one parent.

However in some ways it is even worse for women now - for example in Australia Tony Abbott introduced the idea of 1 year for mother on her full salary to raise her child. It was going to be paid by a 1% tax on the biggest 200 companies (the biz tax rate was ment to fall from 30% to 29% but the top 200 would of kept paying 30%). This imho was an achievement because it was FULLY funded (which if anyone knows about Government budgets is almost always impossible to do). BUT for some reasons feminists hated the idea (mainly because they hated Tony Abbott - also there was an argument against its cost (even though it was fully funded) but that was BS strawman argument. The criticisms of the policy seemed to get a lot of traction in the media and I partly guessed that big business (and the media is also big business) disliked the idea, and would of rathered had a tax rate of 29% and not encourage mothers to be mothers.

The disappointing truth of the matter is women will NEVER, ever get that chance again. It was theirs for the taking and they literally threw it away with their "I hate the misogynist Tony Abbott" criticisms. I still cannot believe how women were so stupid for criticizing that policy - I mean it really is THE definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The men that didn't have much to offer to begin with are hit especially hard. The affection of women disappears along with their need for resources, leaving men feeling used. Men, seeing themselves as disposable, envy the seemingly inherent value of women.

All very true. It doesn't matter how much you earn, or how much of a nice guy you are - if your 'Zyzz' women will not give a shit about anything else.

It starts to change when they want a child - most mother would prefer to have a father to HELP raise the child - then they are looking for the "nice" guy. IF the tingles then disappear then "nice" guy will pay child support, etc.

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

Don't worry - its coming.

but I know that men's dream of having a woman that loves them is not impossible.

Don't worry - its also coming, just not in the way you or anyone here imagines it.

There is a way to get men what they really want

No there is not. IF a woman stops having tingles = Sexless marriage = screwed relationship. You cannot make women keep having tingles for their guys.

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T11:34:34+00:00

This is a very interesting post.

It's sexist (by definition) but it's neither hateful nor misogynistic. It's probably similar to my thinking where it's painfully obvious there is something completely wrong with relationship dynamics in Western society, but Redpill seems unsatisfying to say the least, and I genuinely feel it's a red herring or a psychological trap.

[deleted] · 2015-12-15T18:37:34+00:00

You've correctly identified the fundamental role that gender plays in creating a stable and secure society. Predefined roles allow people to be content in their station and to have realistic expectations for how their life and relationships will play out.

Understanding that, when we destroy gender roles what we are really doing is destroying culture and tradition itself. The progressive seeks to replace these social constructs with unbridled individualism. While we may gain some ostensible perception of increased freedom what the majority of people actually get is more uncertainty, stress, and self-doubt.

The truth is that all human desires are not equally conducive to promoting the health, welfare, and progress of society. Great societies have uniformly subverted the less desirable proclivities of humans through the use of culture and force. By employing these strategies we have reached new heights as a species.

However, in the post-modern times our traditional notions of dignity and purpose are eroding. Replaced by a form of raw hedonism and in-the-moment pleasure seeking that can only be a long-term impediment to the continued progress of humanity. Unfortunately, the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. So my friends, I say, let us enjoy the decline.

RareBlur · 2015-12-15T15:34:47+00:00

You know the old song lyrics money can't buy you love? Well it's true. If a woman doesn't freely love you then she never did. There's no exchange of love for resources.

Why is a persons self worth only in their gender? TRP needs to learn how to find individual self worth. Your "role" in life is what you define it as, not what anyone else or society says it is.

wtknight · 2015-12-15T13:09:32+00:00

This is an excellent analysis of The Red Pill.

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

It's impossible the way The Red Pill approaches it. TRP outright rejects egalitarian partnerships, and this is the only way that the problem you've so eloquently outlined can be fixed. Learning to accept egalitarianism takes a lot of mental and emotional work, work that TRP men are not willing to do. Instead, it's much easier for their philosophy to just suggest physical work (lift, eat well, then lift some more), something men have traditionally excelled at, than to suggest that they mature and accept women as equals.

LUClEN · 2015-12-15T22:58:26+00:00

Interesting post. I agree with most of it, and it is well described, but I have a few caveats.

Regardless, men and women are still looking for their identity, and a niche value associated with their sex.

I think this would be very much cultural. Living somewhere with a very homogeneous population I've noticed people with closer ties to elsewhere or more recently arrived here do not really have this issue.

They want to be valued for who they are. They imagine the best way to be loved is the way women are loved, for their inherent sexuality.

This is funny to read because TRP seems to accept the notion that men have a higher libido than women, which would work against them being valued the same way. Instead of embodying other aspects of masculinity they go for the one that is most difficult to achieve their aims.

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

You say the above, but prior to it said

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

If you don't know the answer, then how do you know there is one? Seem to be begging the question a bit

donit · 2015-12-17T12:53:06+00:00

Women -appear- to benefit from the dissolution of gender roles because we are thinking of them as individuals, as if they were just another type of men.

But they're not men. They are not the masculine half of the human equation. They are the equally-essential feminine-supportive half of the human family equation. What happens when you pull that support beam away?

The loss is shared equally between them.

coratoad · 2016-04-21T18:19:02+00:00

Quick question.

As I understand it, you said that women don't love loyally/affectionately/deeply, and therefore men strategically refuse to commit to women in order to increase their own value somehow.

If women don't love men in the first place, though, then why would women care if men refuse to commit?

Sorry for the annoying question; I'm just confused about the logic that was presented here.

I get the part about men's value being threatened as women start to earn more, but I have no idea how the male counter-strategy makes any sense if women don't love them (and therefore don't care about commitment) in the first place.

Maybe there's some reverse psychology here that needs to be untangled and parsed.

Title	TRP doesn't give men what they want. It just convinces them that they don't want it.
Author	coratoad
Upvotes	65
Comments	297
Date	December 15, 2015 11:01 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3wxbwy/trp_doesnt_give_men_what_they_want_it_just/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-doesnt-give-men-what-they-want-it-just.277872 https://theredarchive.com/post/277872