In this post I will describe how parents are supposed to raise their children, due to their biological programming. Parents instinctively play different roles in the family's life. When reading this post you may recognize how your parents might have failed to take on their respective duties when they were raising you.

The mother is the parent who is biologically programmed to nurture and teach their children when they are young. The father's biological role (if he sticks around. Some fathers do, some don't) is to prepare his children for entering the adult world.

Women think emotionally. First they experience an input, then they react to that input. They react accordingly to how the input makes them feel. Women are easily scared by any potential threat. When they encounter a foreign animal (e.g: a spider, a rat, or a dog without an owner, etc.,) they easily enter a "fight or flight" mode. They prefer to flee, especially if there is a strong, confident, and supporting man to take care of the threat.

Being frightened by other unfamiliar animals doesn't only apply to different species. They react similarly to same-species approaches. Other men and women who approach the family are seen as a potential threat, until they can prove otherwise (guilty until proven innocent: sound familiar?). Women flee if possible.

A nice example of how women react to foreign animals can be seen on The Dog Whisperer show. Women simply can't control their dogs. Cesar - the main dude, who tries to rehabilitate the dogs, and teach its owners how to dominate their dogs - attempts to tell women how to dominate their own dogs. Women see dogs as funny, or cute creatures, and simply !!can not!! understand (to put it more correctly: they can't internalize) how dominance works. Not even in interspecies conditions. They can try to emulate dominance, but they remain reactive to the dog's displayed emotions.

But when a mother's children are present, they will offer the best protection for them. Women scan all approaching animals (remember: a human is an animal as well) for behavioral cues. If the approaching animal isn't seen as a threat, she will let the animal as close as she feels comfortable, to further examine the intentions of the approaching animal. In other words, she reacts to the approaching animal's emotions. If the animals behavior is calm, perhaps friendly, the mother will act accordingly. If the other animal displays aggression, the mother will be aggressive too.

Unfortunately there are unhealthy examples of a mother not protecting her offspring: if a mother hates a child's father, she may abandon the child. Some of you may have experienced this.

A woman, as we can see, lives in the reality that is introduced to her. She teaches her children to be aware of threats. Threats can be social threats as well. On a deep subconscious level, every human interaction is a biological and psychological action or reaction (even the most mundane conversations about the weather have a deeply rooted psychological purpose.) A woman's subconscious reacts to emotional displays and social situations a lot better than a man can. Women do this innately. It's in their genes. It's instinctual. Men need to learn a lot of what comes naturally to a woman regarding social interactions. Women respect authority, so they teach their children to do the same. They have higher empathy for other creatures, so they teach their children how to empathize with other creatures. They use altruism as a social tactic, which, for the weak is a valid strategy. This is not at all a bad thing, I'll tell you why. Until a child (particularly a boy) is capable of protecting themself, it's better if they avoid high level threats. They need time to learn how to avoid said threats, and in many cases they must learn how to confront these threats.

Here enters the father. A man percieves the world as is. He will try to encourage his children to take on the world. He tries to lead them into unfamiliar situations, where he forces his children to develop by expanding their boundaries and trying new things. Traditionally,he would take the boy from his mother, and begin to teach him how to hunt, fight, how to socialize with intent (i.e.: how to be present in a conversation,) and ultimately, how to seduce women. Basically he tries to pass on every one of his skills to his sons (and a few to his daughters.)

Of course, a man may have been mislead throughout his life, thus he believes the world to be different than it actually is. He will still attempt to teach his children his skills, even though these skills may are faulty and incorrect. Such is the case with modern Western society, and its female imperative.

Never letting boys become men, leads to boys raising boys, if they can even raise them at all.

In a more modern, traditional family (not the West's common present-day model of a family,) the father won't remove his son from his mother's presence. He gradually takes over the role of pushing his children into situations where they can develop rational skills.

A father will instill his own worldview on his children. This worldview hopefully differs from the mother's worldview, otherwise the children will experience the world in a feminine way. Even daughters can be raised to better understand the world, or in other words, be more self-aware in society.

In some cases when I use the term "society," I also think of small tribes, or any other organized form of coexistence. The term can be applied (in its most literal sense,) to any group, where individuals rely on each other.

Evolution has lead fathers to be replaceable. It is not ultimately necessary for a boy to have a father so he can survive in the harsh environment we call the world. But it helps a lot. Not having a father, or father figure, leads to pussies for adult men. Either the boy has the incentive (or is forced by some condition) to experience the world first hand, OR he has a father-like figure to show him the ropes.

Unluckily, but thankfully, men (YOU) can find TRP. Men (YOU) can choose to start experiencing risks, thus forcing themseves to dominate even in the most uncomfortable situations. Leading them to become dominant, alpha men.... THESE MEN CAN BECOME THE TRUE LEADERS OF THIS WRETCHED SOCIETY.

Don't understand something? Disagree? I will be happy to answer any and all questions directed to me (do not expect me to respond too soon though, I've got shit to do ;) )

Edit: I would like to endorse u/Sdom1's comment, it elaborates on fathers being replaceable, the main argument is: all individual men are replaceable.