TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

I want to be a RPW but the adage that men are more logical doesn't really resonate with me. I'm interested in PPD's thoughts on the topic especially any RPW if they're here.

_pomona_

November 13, 2014
3 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title I want to be a RPW but the adage that men are more logical doesn't really resonate with me. I'm interested in PPD's thoughts on the topic especially any RPW if they're here.
Author

_pomona_

Upvotes 3
Comments 68
Date November 13, 2014 2:10 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2m51fp/i_want_to_be_a_rpw_but_the_adage_that_men_are/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/i-want-to-be-a-rpw-but-the-adage-that-men-are-more.284375
https://theredarchive.com/post/284375
Red Pill terms in post
RPW
Top posts by _pomona_

Husband (SAHP) Says He Would Rather I Dote on our Child Than Him When I Come Home.

11 upvotes
November 24, 2014
/r/RedPillWomen

Comments

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you should give us a bit more information. Why do you want to be a RPW? What is your goal?

[–]_pomona_[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I want to be a redpill woman because I like traditional gender roles I guess. My husband is a traditional man in a lot of ways and I want to be a traditional women to match him and talk about that goal without the scorn or eyerolling that exists in modern mainstream society.

[–]_whatdreamsmaycome_Non-Red Pill10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Red Pill is a little above and beyond your standard gender traditionalism, though. If you prefer taking care of things at home while your partner works and takes care of the finances, keep doing whatever you're doing. If you want to internalise ideas about your being an emotional teenager and literally being lower value than your husband, forsaking any stake in your own person, then go with Red Pill. But don't be fooled into thinking Red Pill is just about traditionalism. That's an insult to traditionalists.

[–]mykidisonhere8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't need red pill to have a traditional marriage. You can also have a relationship as equals and still have a traditional marriage. I can't see why you would limit yourself, or your husband, to fit into that tunnel vision of a view that is RP.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm with you there, but the tenets of RP go way beyond being traditional. It generally assumes that you, as a woman, have an inherent privilege (and are essentially worthless after some absurd age like 25) and that your only purpose in your life should be to support your husband. And, like, don't get me wrong, that's a huge part of my existence but what if he leaves me? I've seen that question posed to RPW and they can never seem to come up with anything other than "Well if he leaves you he leaves you." Not particularly helpful.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want to be a traditional feminine woman, but don't like the eyerolls and stigma, I say do it anyway. You can show others that femininity is not a weakness by not letting their shaming language change who you are. Fuck'm. People are going to judge you no matter what you do with your life. There's always a group of haters. That's just how it is. Don't worry about them and focus on what makes the man you love happy. I'm not saying to lose sight of yourself and whatever else you want out of life, but your relationship is with your husband, not the haters.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you on the younger end of the spectrum?

I find that very young (<25), single, particularly idealistic women tend to be the ones who roll their eyes at the thought of traditional gender roles.

Women who have stable marriages, homes, and families themselves may have decided that traditional gender roles are not for them, but are too busy trying to keep their own homes and families together to spend much time poking their noses into everyone else's marriage. They get how hard it is just to pull off marriage and kids, and generally don't begrudge other women for wanting to focus on those aspects. They get how important being a mother is, and if you're a good mother, that's all that matters.

That's just been my experience. And I live in a pretty liberal city.

[–]_pomona_[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm 25 and you're totally right. I work with older married women and I just get along with them better. I married young (22).

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It gets better, that's all I can say.

Hang in there and do your own thing with no apologies to anyone. It's your life - you are the only one who has to look yourself in the mirror everyday.

[–]17b29a15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Adopt whatever resonates with you instead, then? I'm not sure what your issue is.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Psst, they aren't.

You can get into all sorts of gender related slap fights over who can do what, but for all men often get good results on logical reasoning tests, they are also more strongly effected by impulsivity. So it all comes out in the wash.

I like men. Men are awesome. They are not however, anything other than human. You can if you wish find a man who is more "logical" by how you define it, and assuming he wants you, have fun and he'll probably enjoy the pampering.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Psst, they aren't.

You said you were an Aspie, you don't count.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not using myself as the example.

Also my vast experience with being aspie and being around aspies is that we are just as emotional, only about different shit. You are talking about a cohort plagued with anxiety disorders who often uses rigid structure to avoid discomfort.

I am not a robot. Some of my social processing is twisted, but I still fall in love, weep, bounce around like a grinning happy idiot, etc.

[–]Cartesian_DualismPurple Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's strange to me...there appears to be this pervasive stereotype that Aspies are less emotional/more logical than the average individual, when my experience is entirely the opposite. I've met quite a lot of people on the spectrum over the years and it seems to me that mental disorders, especially anxiety disorders, are a lot more common in Aspies than the general population.

They're just different in how they process and react to stimulus, which I suppose is why they can be perceived as being cold or robotic at times.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's because many Aspies have a problem processing social concepts, so you need to explain things to them in very emotionally neutral terms- or that they will typically be simultaneously observant about some things but miss social cues or make incorrect behaviour predictions, leading to lousy levels of tact.

The media stereotype is a rigidly locked droney genius, generally with a good heart. This is nothing about how it feels to be in an aspie head, which is often bursting with emotions- just not necessarily universally relateable ones since it might be the joy of reciting all the pokemon in Blue, or flights of whimsy caused by taking an idiom literally, or a deep abiding sense of wrongness because it's too damn bright in here.

[–]Cartesian_Dualism 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

or flights of whimsy caused by taking an idiom literally

Oh, I've had plenty of good fun with that one. I remember this one time when I took "it's raining cats and dogs" literally, hah!

[–]babyguineapig0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Horseradish confused this aspie as a child. Watch a person with ASD have a meltdown, then tell me they're not emotional, lol.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty much the whole reason I'm not RPW. I wanted to find some female version of TRP that focused on self-improvement, acknowledging that men are by and large shallow and looks-oriented while giving practical, ugly-but-true tips for keeping a man and having a happy marriage. But RPW often seems to be more about atoning for the original sin of being born female, as well as actually trying to give the man the upper hand in the relationship, which isn't really my thing at all. Sure, I like to be with a confident and assertive man but if I had the lower hand in the relationship I'd be miserable because I'd constantly worry about him leaving me. It'd be nice for him but sucky for me, so why would I aspire to that?! Plus I'm pretty sure I already have the lower hand in my marriage, which is the only problem I have with our marriage. I'm also not buying the RPW assertion that women are (in so many words) inferior to men, less honorable than men, or prone to cheating any more than men are. In fact I am almost positive men cheat the same or more than women and our goal should be to prevent it. Kinda like TRP....

And while I prefer semi-traditional gender roles for myself, I don't think it's my place to push them on other people. So, no RPW for me. Still searching for this magical semi-RP forum for women.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I think that this adage only applies specifically to sexual/romantic dynamics, and even then represents a tenuous generalization.

When people are in love/lust, they DO NOT operate logically with regards to the object of their affection. They get swept up in the emotions of the moment. They make utterly illogical decisions (for example, "I know he/she is no good for me, but I just can't help myself! I want him/her soooo badly!").

This applies to both men and women, but since RP is focused on maximizing the man's role in a sexual dynamic, it's prudent to remind men that they are not dealing in the realm of logic (things that should make sense, don't) but of emotion. Given that, taking the logical approach to the dynamic will never yield the same results as taking a more emotions-based approach.

Also, women (and men, but RP isn't concerned with them) who are perfectly logical in the rest of their life will act like giggly schoolgirls when it comes to sex and love. Perhaps even moreso than men.

Being in an open relationship for many years, I saw this at play with my wife, who is, in her day-to-day existence, a woman who prizes logic and stoicism and strength in herself more than any other woman I know. But, in the heat of the moment with an object of desire, she became, yes, a weak-willed, emotional little spaghetti noodle. It was hilarious (and, sometimes, a little disconcerting - I wasn't used to having to step in and help direct her towards her goals, lol).

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not the bible, you dont HAVE to believe that. Just understand that men on the whole perceive women on the whole as such. Also, I think they use "logical" to mean "rational" as opposed to emotional, not logical as in math or argumentation. I think most women reading trp dont understand what the AVERAGE every day hot young girl that men are trying to hook up with is like and takes TRP too personally, especially reddit girls, who seem to be at the far right tail of the bell curve more often than not.

[–]OfSpock18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

People empathise with others who are like them. Men don't feel that getting angry at someone who wronged them is an emotional overreaction. It's the logical thing to do in that situation. when they are screaming abuse and slamming the phone down they are behaving logically, not emotionally. Another man watching can empathise with the situation. When a woman gets upset over something that wouldn't bother them, such as their mother calling them fat, the woman is behaving in an incomprehensible, overemotional fashion. Generally, people can't examine their own actions particularly well.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, we always have a reason for our own actions. But we perceive other people's mistakes as part of their character. If I cut someone off it's because I'm late, if someone cuts me off it's because they're an asshole.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's the logical thing to do in that situation. when they are screaming abuse and slamming the phone down they are behaving logically, not emotionally.

Hell sure they are behaving emotionally - it may be rational to feel offended, acting out on it isn't. Men may be more likely to relate when another man lashes out, but that doesn't mean that they think the guy isn't emotional.

The gap between men being emotional and women being emotional, however, is as you say indeed the inability to emphasize with the opposite sex. A men who is reacting emotional isn't necessarily perceived as being irrational. Women on the other hand (especially when they display behavior that's subject of redpill analysis) are perceived as irrational.

For example when a guy has an argument with his partner, consciously or subconsciously uses the by now discussed-to-death dread game, she becomes turned on again -> hot makeup sex (in an ideal scenario). This reaction for example is utterly irrational and borderline impossible to relate to for men, which is also the reason why many men (especially if they hate butting heads) rather try supplicating their partner when they're having a row instead of standing up. For them (being more peaceful personalities), the rational reaction after meeting the partner halfway (or more) would be being sufficiently soothed to be happy again, and not being even more pissed off.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Since when are men more peaceful personalities?

I'd also like to see some scientific proof of the dread game works thing. Having an argument with anyone makes me upset and less likely in the mood for hot sex. I'd believe that certain personality types are more prone to it (everyone knows that one couple with loud personalities) but I really would be surprised to find it's everyone.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since when re men more peceful personalities?

I am talking specifically about those men who "hate butting heads", i.e. want to avoid arguments. Saying these are more peaceful in general, and specifically also more peaceful than their partner should she be of the quarrelsome kind, is pretty self-explanatory, I guess.

I'd also like to see some scientific proof of the dread game works thing.

It was an example for irrational behavior in the eyes of men, but if you can come up with a better one, feel free to do so. However, there's a reason why men always complain that they "don't understand women" - and women behaving counterintuitively when it comes to arguments (reacting poorly when treated with compliance; reacting with increased interest when being treated with a certain condescension) would be such an example - hence the perception of irrational behavior

[–]_pomona_[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OK, well thanks for your comment. I was kind of confused because it seems like redpillwomen are the type of women who are pretty self aware when it comes to emotions and I also feel that I am that type of person. I feel like my brother and I are both similar in this way even though he's a man and I'm a woman and we both seem to choose partners who are more emotional. So I feel like the rational vs emotional thing varies more person to person than having a gender based tendency especially to the extreme that the main redpill sub seems to see it.

[–]theglassistoobig8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thinking rationally and having feelings aren't mutually exclusive and neither of those things have anything to do with the role you choose to play at home. Be who you want to be. Just because you subscribe to part of a philosophy doesn't mean you have to buy the whole thing.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Men are to some degree encouraged to be more logical than women by society.

Society rarely discourages women being illogical.

Women and men are all humans and thus all have the capacity to be rational. Women simply aren't trained in rationality. They're never told to ignore their emotions and think; they're encouraged to throw temper tantrums until someone soothes their feels.

Not that men are necessarily trained to be rational. Rationally-tempermented, levelheaded men are rarely sex symbols. We have entire subcultures based on mostly-males with intellectual temperaments who get socially ostracised for thinking too much and not fitting in (nerd culture, essentially), and traditional masculinity is full of brutish tribalistic dumb-jock behaviour which hardly involves anything logical.

I'm neither Redpill (although I think RP is partially correct to some degree) nor a woman, but I don't think women are naturally less rational than men. They are, however, clearly less encouraged towards rationality than men (e.g. "don't sound so smart! You'll scare boys away!"). I'd chalk up the rationality gap primarily to culture, not nature.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Every "it's nurture, not nature" argument has the fundamental problem of "where did it come from then".

Did the men organize a global Patriarchy Meet in 2451BC where they just decided to create a culture that treats men as rational providers and women as emotional supports?

For the cultural stereotypes that are global in nature, there really is no other way to explain them except assuming that they stem from our biology in the first place.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Did the men organize a global Patriarchy Meet in 2451BC where they just decided to create a culture that treats men as rational providers and women as emotional supports?

That is not what I'm alleging.

I reject Patriarchy Theory, and simply proposing some sort of social constructivism doesn't imply radical feminism. And for the record, I'm a biosocial interactionist, not a pure social constructivist.

Also, I don't think culture necessarily describes men as rational given how intellectual males are typically socially emasculated, how rage and anger are seen as VERY MANLY things, and how the idea that men-should-be-stoic-and-unfeeling is not entirely universal (the Norse believed that the passions were properly masculine).

For the cultural stereotypes that are global in nature, there really is no other way to explain them except assuming that they stem from our biology in the first place.

Or you can suggest that they're the result of our responses to universal features of the human condition (which would be a biosocial interactionist argument).

For instance, only half the population can bear children (women). Bearing children is an expensive and arduous process which requires lots of resources and poses risk to the mother. However, back in the days of tribal living, the only way to get more hunters/warriors and thus more resources was to breed aggressively, particularly due to the fact that most children wouldn't live to reproduce themselves.

The result: a massive responsibility had to be borne by only one half of the population, meaning that all other responsibilities got transferred to the other half (specialization). Women had to spend extreme amounts of time and effort being baby-factories to ensure any sort of population growth. Because women were occupied with that, men had to provide the resources and the protection and security.

These were economic strategies, not instinctual strategies. The facts of the human condition, some facts about non-psychological human biology, combined with facts about the economic conditions humans faced in the distant past, are sufficient to explain how the gender roles originated.

You do not need either biological determinism or conspiracy theories.

Since these gender roles were critical (at the time) to human survival, they got morally mandated in human institutions. Hence the proliferation of warrior gods and mother goddesses.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that the same strategies apply today, right? Nothing changed about the fact that only women can bear children and that it's a massive responsibility.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that the same strategies apply today, right?

They don't apply.

Children are far more likely to survive until reproductive age than they used to be. Ergo, females don't need to spend nearly as much time knocked up as they used to in order to keep the population stable or growing.

Finally, the importance of population growth is in part tied to the fact that in the past, physical labour was the primary means of economic production. These days, we use capital (machines/factories), which multiplies the productivity of labour and thus allows one man to produce more than one thousand men used to produce.

All of the economic conditions which necessitated maternity-centric femininity are over.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Children are far more likely to survive until reproductive age than they used to be. Ergo, females don't need to spend nearly as much time knocked up as they used to in order to keep the population stable or growing.

Do you really think that women in the past though that way? "Oh, every third child I squeeze out is going to die, and I have a quota of 4, better get down it it"?

Finally, the importance of population growth is in part tied to the fact that in the past, physical labour was the primary means of economic production. These days, we use capital (machines/factories), which multiplies the productivity of labour and thus allows one man to produce more than one thousand men used to produce.

So? It doesn't matter if you spend 8 hours every day hunter-gathering, farming or doing data entry. You lose 8 hours of your life either way.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Do you really think that women in the past though that way? "Oh, every third child I squeeze out is going to die, and I have a quota of 4, better get down it it"?

Apart from the fact that in the past the quotas were significantly higher than that, the pressing concern to have someone to take care of you when you're old and dying, or maybe having someone around to help do more stuff in general, was probably the motivating factor for any specific individual.

So? It doesn't matter if you spend 8 hours every day hunter-gathering, farming or doing data entry. You lose 8 hours of your life either way.

The point I was making was what those lost 8 hours produces. In the past, 8 hours would've produced 8 units of output, and these days those 8 hours can produce 800 units of output. Ergo, the product of one person can support a lot more people than it used to be able to (again, speaking very abstractly). This, in turn, lessens the necessity of breeding to increase productivity.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Okay this is getting off track. Let me just go back to this for a second.

These were economic strategies, not instinctual strategies. The facts of the human condition, some facts about non-psychological human biology, combined with facts about the economic conditions humans faced in the distant past, are sufficient to explain how the gender roles originated.

Except we lived like cavemen for hundreds of thousands of years, and we lived like civilized people for not even a thousand. When we were cavemen(bronzemen, ironmen, medievalmen), we evolved to the traditional family model because as you said, that's what worked best. You say it's just "economic strategies" but that's exactly what evolution is: economic strategies applied biologically.

So we evolved to be hunters and caretakers, then only recently(very recently in the evolutionary sense of scale) we progressed where that model is not necessarily needed anymore, but the "instinctual strategies" as you call them persist because they're, well, instinct.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Except we lived like cavemen for hundreds of thousands of years, and we lived like civilized people for not even a thousand. When we were cavemen(bronzemen, ironmen, medievalmen), we evolved to the traditional family model because as you said, that's what worked best. You say it's just "economic strategies" but that's exactly what evolution is: economic strategies applied biologically.

So we evolved to be hunters and caretakers, then only recently(very recently in the evolutionary sense of scale) we progressed where that model is not necessarily needed anymore, but the "instinctual strategies" as you call them persist because they're, well, instinct.

Your post misses the context.

You challenged me to explain how the traditional gender roles came about without resorting to either patriarchy theory or biological determinism.

I made an argument based on the (non-biological) evolution of social norms to address certain economic challenges. I explained the gender roles without recourse to biological determinism. I answered your challenge.

You're just asserting that "but its biology." I've offered a perfectly reasonable alternative theory. In order to prove your theory is better than mine you need to point to something which my theory cannot explain, but yours can.

Until you do so, I'll hold to my theory.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your theory basically amounts to a bunch of animals deciding they're going to breed not because it's in their nature, but because they're acutely aware it's economically preferable that way.

The best I can say about this is that it's "a" theory.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd chalk up the rationality gap primarily to culture, not nature.

I would chalk it up to temperament. I've met many logical females. I don't feel attracted being that I'm a logical male. Opposites attract and can benefit from complimentary gain, even though a union of opposites creates more potential for friction.

Someone in the design industry once told me how they would pair work teams together of creators and organizers. Even though these people were polar opposites, they inevitably did better work and delivered projects on time.

The overall number of logical males is probably higher, and culture most definitely would play a part in skewing that. But in observing large families, the wide variance amongst siblings seems to indicate nature plays the bigger role.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would chalk it up to temperament. I've met many logical females. I don't feel attracted being that I'm a logical male. Opposites attract

As a logical male myself I feel very differently. I hate irrationality and could never be attracted to someone with that kind of temperament.

I also think "birds of a feather" is a more accurate model of human relations - people get along more with those they can understand and relate to. I don't think people want the opposite of themselves; differences can certainly be fetishized and the like, but I think cravings for opposite-ness are mostly based on physical traits. Temperamentally, I'd suggest Birds Of A Feather is more accurate.

At least IMO.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When it comes to friendships, social settings and general conversation, I agree. I don't think I would have any trouble chatting with a dude like you for hours on end.

As far as teamwork goes, I've found that diversity brings strength. The best pairings are often opposites rather than close fits. They don't start off as well, but as long as they respect and appreciate the diversity, they soon start to thrive.

A sexual relationship can be based on friendship and similarity, but from what I've seen, that fizzles out. The polarity of genders and personality traits brings this tension and vibrancy that keeps things alive. But the couple has to maintain their polarity, because there's a tendency for some partners to merge into a blended identity.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As far as teamwork goes, I've found that diversity brings strength. The best pairings are often opposites rather than close fits. They don't start off as well, but as long as they respect and appreciate the diversity, they soon start to thrive.

If we're talking about cognitive style though, the problem is that there are some cognitive styles which are right and some cognitive styles which are wrong. Example: the SJW "feels > reals" is wrong. To argue that diverse cognitive styles brings strength is polylogism, which is just the same postmodernist drivel which gave birth to SJWism.

[–]GayLubeOilTrue Red Pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are also stronger than women but that doesn't mean ALL men are stronger than ALL women.

[–]_pomona_[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah but I think that rationality is a little more evenly distributed than that.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are in general somewhat more logical than women. That said, the women at RPW are not representative of most women, and most of them are probably significantly more logical than the average man.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't sympathize with this desire to make oneself fit the standards of a label, especially on such a detailed level.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It seems to me that on average, men are more concerned with logical propositions when making romantic decisions (Does she have a boyfriend? Does she want children? Is she a gold digger?), whereas women are more influenced on average by emotional concerns (Do I feel happy? Do I still feel that spark? Why do I feel sad when he is around? Why do I feel anxious about our relationship?).

That doesn't mean that this is true 100% of the time. There are certainly logical women out there, and certainly emotional men.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I somewhat agree with this, but men will "Hamster" their way out of numerous red flags if the girl is hot enough. I know men who have falsely imagined personality traits that they don't even know someone well enough to find out, just because she was hot. Women certainly aren't any better (in fact I feel like a great degree of attraction for either gender is unfortunately based primarily on looks) but men definitely have their own illogical romantic notions.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

men definitely have their own illogical romantic notions.

I completely agree. I just think the illogicality is manifest in different ways between the sexes.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I think there is a lot of validity to this.

I have tried arguing the logic behind a lot of our family decisions (from getting a dog to upgrading our house to having kids, etc.), and have often had them fall on deaf ears.

It's not that my wife doesn't get the logic, she just isn't as swayed by logic as I am. She doesn't try to make her big decisions by only using logic, as I do.

Sometimes that's a bad thing, and sometimes it's not. We have missed out on some good opportunities (in hindsight, of course) because I couldn't make them work logically, and sometimes my logic has prevented my wife from making some really costly mistakes.

And sometimes, things work despite the logic. Almost every logical argument I had against having kids was correct. In fact, it was even more of a nightmare, logistics-wise, than I ever imagined (my son may kill me yet, lol).

But, ultimately, it has been one of the most amazing journey's I've ever embarked on. If I had stuck by my logic, it would have never happened, and I would be the poorer (or richer, as it were, lol) for it.

That's why men and women can complement each other so well in life, and it's important to keep both lines of reasoning in a healthy balance. We sum up our dynamic as "she's the gas pedal, I'm the brake." She comes to me with whatever crazy idea important dream she has, and I see if we can make it work. We both ultimately appreciate that dynamic, even though I've we've suffered through our share of screaming matches in the process.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not that my wife doesn't get the logic, she just isn't as swayed by logic as I am.

Bingo. I think a lot of people misinterpret the phrase, "women are less logical than men" to mean that women aren't capable of understanding logic to the same degree as men. That's just demonstrably false. Some of the best students in my Symbolic Logic class were women. The question is, what informs the decisions being made more often than not?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

IMO this is more of a social conditioning issue. In my experience women are rational when they are forced to be by circumstances. This doesn't happen very often because girls are bombarded with so much attention in their teenage/young adult years that they never have to learn to be, so when they do its either because they were driven internally to be rational or forced to for some reason.

[–]_pomona_[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In that case maybe I think more like a man because I'm not very attractive especially wasn't when I was a teenager. I think TRP should consider that attractive women and unattractive women experience the world quite differently.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

TRP does say this, all the time. But even ugly girls are still in demand because they have vaginas, at least as long as they're young. Just not as much as hot ones

[–]_pomona_[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly they think just because both are on one side of the sexual market they develop the same entitlement but it's much different. Pretty girls are fawned over and put on a pedestal by men and women. ugly girls are sometimes catcalled at by a drunk middle-aged townie.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yes, ugly girls go into a different category than average girls, and are really only the bottom 20% or so of girls.

An average young girl is pretty cute and desired by most guys, since youth heavily correlates with attractiveness to the male perception.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are more likely to be systemizers whereas women are more likely to be empathizers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory

That doesn't mean than any particular person is going to be one or the other based on their gender, just like men on average are taller than women but there are many, many cases of women who are taller than the average man and men who are shorter than the average woman. A generalization (assuming it is actually correct) tells you something about populations, not individuals.

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Empathizing–systemizing theory:


The empathizing–systemizing (E-S) theory suggests that people may be classified on the basis of their scores along two dimensions: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S). It measures a person's strength of interest in empathy (the ability to identify and understand the thoughts and feelings of others and to respond to these with appropriate emotions); and a person's strength of interest in systems (in terms of the drive to analyse or construct them). A system is anything that follows rules. Key classes of systems including mechanical systems, natural systems, abstract systems, and collectible systems. Rules in turn are defined as repeating, lawful patterns. [citation needed]


Interesting: Empathy | Autism | Autism friendly

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reasoning from emotion vs. emotion from reasoning.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

With that statement you aren't very logical(rational), because it makes no sense.

No amount of RP or non-RP or whatever will make a person logical or not, you either are logical or you are not.

This is the case for men, they either are or they are not.

First inform yourself of what logic means, apply it to yourself and question how you handled a situation, event or conversation.

If you find that its logical, congratulations, if not questioning yourself will get you to be more logical.

Also no amount of believing will make you more logical, you may think you are a logical person but in reality be the farthest from it, rationalization is the opposite of logic.

[–]ms_kittyfantasticothe great wall of vagina1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No amount of RP or non-RP or whatever will make a person logical or not, you either are logical or you are not.

I don't think this is what OP is saying. They want to know how to justify the statement that differences in gender imply differences in rationality.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do not have to justify anything.

The question is simple, are they logical?

Its simple generalization, are the percentage of women high enough that are logical?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You will have to define what you think logical is and provide some examples. Personally as a man I would say it has to do with hormone levels and how they affect your decisions. Mens hormone levels affect them and cause them to want to fuck woman. In a mans mind this is logical. When a man observes a woman going crazy because of her hormones there does not appear to be a clear goal on why they are acting why they are so it appears illogical to a man. I imagine you have an opposite conclusion based on your point of view.

[–]_pomona_[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah hormones. Of course this makes us seem crazy. I actually have recently started getting my period while breastfeeding and the hormone fluctuations just... suck. There's no other way to say it. I guess I can see why men think women are crazy. They really affect your mood.

[–]mykidisonhere5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hormones also affect a man's mood. They are swayed by the testosterone in their bodies too.

They are no better or worse than women.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, just different. That's why RP recommends ditching the attempts at approaching women from a logical (i.e., men's) point of view.

If a man ever fully understands a woman's logic in any given situation, then he might have a chance at relating to her from the basis of logic (hers, in that case).

That's why women have a hard time explaining their logic to men. Women think they are being entirely logical, and men see that logic as well, not logical at all.

Solipsism, as it were, at play.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, men definitely have their "periods." Men also seem to be affected more by fluctuations in their career while women's mood can be affected by other factors just as much. Different but equal, which is always how I've felt.

[–]daxx211 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do hormones always control emotions or do emotions control hormones?

I am interested in the research.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

hmmmmm.......... I have no idea to be honest. I think womans hormones are mostly regulated by their menstrual cycle. Not sure about men but I know diet and exercise can affect your testosterone levels.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter