~ archived since 2018 ~

most Men that feel nostalgic of Patriarchy are coping

April 3, 2023

I'm mainly talking about Redpilled and Incels, some of these guys think that Patriarchy could solve any dating issue by giving a woman to each man. However they are coping because they fail to consider that Patriarchy doesn't guarantee Physical Attraction and attraction in general, they want to delude themselves into believing that under Patriarchy women would genuinely care for them and lust for them in the bed (LOL)

If you are Blackpilled and see reality for what is is you'll know that these types of feelings are irrational and only being considered Physically Attractive by your gf/wife can guarantee intimacy and good sex, you cannot force them by culture or education.

It feels to me that these types of men are actually jealous of Chads and likely want to be one deep down, but since they can't they cope with advocating for an obsolete societal structure that "worked" in the past, deluding themselves into believing it would give them what they want. As the cherry on top some are also unironically misogynists, which is just another cope.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title most Men that feel nostalgic of Patriarchy are coping
Author l00ks-p1lled
Upvotes 21
Comments 25
Date April 3, 2023 8:27 PM UTC (5 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link
Original Link
Red Pill terms in post

[–]LainselBluePill 8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Thing is... men in the past didn't really care about whether their wives were attracted to them or not. They had bigger stuff to worry about and they wouldn't be comparing themselves to chads and tiktok pretty boys because they wouldn't even know what the lives of these people looked like. Also, people lived among their own races and were cut off from the rest of the world. That guy in his village in Punjab wouldn't be seething over some Nordic chad in 1700 because that was not his competition

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

men in the past didn't really care about whether their wives were attracted to them or not

This is another intersting topic, honestly idk if it's true and I don't even know if we have enough resources to find the answer.

However my post is mostly about the men that advocate for patriarchy nowadays, they cope with the belief that such a society would make them feel fulfilled. I understand them actually, because the competition we have today is really fucking dehumanizing

[–]LainselBluePill 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, I mean you'd rather be a white normie in the 1950s USA than a white normie in USA in 2023. I think that's logical

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Rationally agree, even if for me it's difficult to relate because I don't share those values. I'd argue that being a Chad in the 21st century easily trumps everything else

[–]princess8inch1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

punjab could stay on his own country and marry a girl of his ethnicity but dark skinned men are such parasites that they freeload white countries and then bitch about white dudes and not getting white pussy

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Racist garbage is not allowed here.

[–]princess8inch1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

just tired of ethnic men feeling entitled to white puss

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're going to wind up getting banned from Reddit if you keep this bullshit up.

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

The men in patriarchy were rewarded with the best women through having the best careers or being the biggest contributors to their community. And work conditions were more harsh and brutal than today, those who couldn’t work or produce got nothing.

Who you were, what you did and what you stood for counted way more than it does today.

Guys weren’t a pack of bums surfing Internet forums, they were out there in coal mines, on top of buildings with no safety gear, were fighting wars, were running businesses, were innovating and inventing, were building, were farming, were harvesting. There was no welfare state safety net or mums basements to dwell in. If you didn’t produce something for society, you were on the streets and begging.

A conservative patriarchy is the opposite of the black pill, becuase it does what black pill is opposed to……puts responsibility square on men’s shoulders through hard work to create a quality of life worth sharing, one where you can provide and protect for her offspring.

I don’t know why fantasising about the past is such a pastime in incel circles. None of you black pill boys would last a minute in a conservative patriarchy.

[–]too_lazy_to_register 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to say this, but your view of the past is even more idealized than the stereotypical "incel view" that you're bashing. The past wasn't "the glorious time of the Real Men (TM)", the people were just poor, and that's basically it. Most of the societal differences here are the product of economy and technology differences. If you make people very poor, and remove all the welfare, you'll get the same society in a matter of a few generations.

Do you really think a coal miner wouldn't change his wonderful life of hard work, breathing coal dust and dying at 45 if he's lucky to the dull and uneventful existence of an office worker?

No one cared how much you contributed to the community, they cared how much money you have, which isn't always the same. If anything, an office worker with a coal miner's salary would be more preferable as a husband, because life of a widow isn't that nice.

You're assuming the people who can't find a partner have no job, and it's partly true, just because many of them are the age when no one has. There's been a lot of incels who make good money (I remember a guy who made like 5 times the median income in his country), it just doesn't change much today.

The mistake those who dream about patriarchy make is thinking they'd get a loving wife. I believe, most of them could get a wife (in the conditions of extreme poverty), but the loveless marriage would be much worse than being single. Basically, because no one would see or care if your wife doesn't sleep with you or even sleeps with other guys (it's a private matter), but the society would care if you're not supporting her financially.

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

How the fuck is pointing out that people had to work their asses off idealising the past ? If anything,I was idealising the present, comparing how much more cushy it is now that we have welfare state and family homes are bigger and can accommodate. Thats why there are more incels. Easy times create lazy, weak men, men of no value. Hard times create strong men of value.

There were incels back then too, but they’d be homeless due to not being strong or motivated enough to get a job and wouldn’t have spare rooms in mummies house to sit about and surf

Nothing you’ve said negates anything I’ve said, most of what you say confirms what I was saying

[–]too_lazy_to_register 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Easy times create lazy, weak men, men of no value.

In a society where everybody has to work their asses off to survive, the only value a usual working guy has is "if you marry him (and you work your ass off too), you probably won't starve". In modern society women have this even without a man. The "strong man of value" you're talking about wouldn't have any value at all now, if he was ugly.

There were incels back then too, but...

Again, you're repeating the stereotypical bullshit about the incels who don't work.

Marriage doesn't equal love, it's a financial thing first. Work doesn't equal love. Living in the hard times doesn't equal love, hunger just lowers the quality threshold of a person you agree to live with.

[–]CrabBucketSecurity 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've said everything I wanted to say,

If you disagree, fine.

[–]KayRay1994 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

man refutes emotional men calling themselves reasonable by being an emotional man calling himself reasonable.

The title was so close to making a coherent point, but the text loses the plot entirely. Patriarchy does indeed hurt men, but not for the reasons you stated, not in the slightest.

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy does indeed hurt men, but not for the reasons you stated

I'm sure there are also other aspects, but why don't you consider my argument one of the biggest one?

[–]KayRay1994 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

because “lusting and caring for men”, especially when women literally could not survive without men is a null statement. You’re trying to give women the power of choice while in reality the biggest choice they had is “is cheating worth the potential consequences” IF they were even in a position to cheat, which many were either afraid of or socially shamed not to. So what i’m saying is, your point isn’t really a point to begin with.

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Honestly it seems to me that your view aligns with my post. My point is that Patriarchy managed to give most man a woman, but it didn't guarantee attraction, lust and intimacy because women were not free in their choices.

However I have a different opinion on why women didn't cheat. I think most didn't because their sexuality was so much suppressed that they didn't even understand what they were attracted to. Now that women sexuality is free and empowered they understand what they like (Good Looking Men)

[–]KayRay1994 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

no…. we don’t align, what i’m saying is most men shouldn’t be “given” a woman, nobody should be “given” to anyone. Your statement seems to be “patriarchy is a cope because women were forced to be with men they didn’t want, and you won’t be the man they want” - implying that it would be okay if we could somehow control women’s lust, I think patriarchy is bad for everyone, men and women - and it isn’t bad for men cause women still had agency over who they were attracted to, its bad for men for reasons unrelated to women’s love/lust

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

implying that it would be okay if we could somehow control women’s lust

No wtf, don't put words in my mouth. I think it's bad and delusional to try to actively make women feel attracted to what they are not. Even if (hypothetically) patriarcy managed to make women lust for men it would be bad, however in this case I wouldn't consider those Redpilled copers because they would have a point.

Btw it already exists a way to "control" women's lust: having an attractive face

[–]CrabBucketSecurity -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It didn’t give men women, not in the west.

Even in arranged marriage culture, families would give their daughters to the most successful men.

The black pill is wanting women to be with you with no effort required, but in the past….youd have to work ten times harder than you would nowadays just to make ends meet, if not then you’ll get the bottom scraps….or nothing at all if you don’t work at all.

It wouldn’t be a simpler solution, it wouod be a far far harder solution

[–]Gomdgomd -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

doesn't guarantee Physical Attraction

Even assuming not getting railed by hundreds of Chads before settling at 36.6 makes no difference whatsoever ...who cares, at least she's locked down when she's hot, at her best

[–]ComfortableOk5003 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure if serious, due to unironic use of Patriarchy

[–]_Duriel_1000_ -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The truth is that women are attracted to various traits: fame, looks, confidence, convenience, familiarity, etc. And women can let any one of them fuck her. The situation is that these same women accrue bodies, and not one man view these women as wifey material. They are low value women.

[–]l00ks-p1lled[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

only Looks can make them wet though, the others traits can make you get women only on a superficial level, you don't get their heart/pussy without good looks

[–]infinitofluxo 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think most men miss being the only provider of a family, they miss the family, the wife, the stability.

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

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter