"Macho tokens" theory

Yesm3can · 2019-05-31T06:21:27+00:00

Men don't have rules like this and women can be vulnerable and lean on their man whenever they feel like it and don't have to worry about ruining his vision of her, in fact in many cases it might even make him feel protective and turn him on.

Caretaker fatigue is a thing affecting both men and women. Don't worry, I used to think like this too.. Until my (then) BF asked to break up with me because of it. No, he was not an asshole, he was kind. His view of me just changed, because who wants to have a weak partner that you have to take care of? Most people don't.

Think about your female or male friends that always coming with poor me, pity me attitude whenever you two hanging out. She/he is no fun to be around.

I need someone who can handle that and not lose attraction.

Some women will be able to handle that and some women won't. Just like friends too. Some won't mind you bare your soul to them, some will see it as you being down at a supposedly fun time.

I_like_the_word_MUFF · 2019-05-31T11:54:28+00:00

All the men I have been close with, be they friends, co-workers, family, lovers, and spouses have all cried in front of me. My boss once cried in front of me.

The only thing that happened was I felt closer to them all for it. Sometime those friends became lovers, but overall nothing but comforting happened. Nobody woke up the next day feeling less of themselves, nor did I of them.

Maybe it's me, as a woman. Maybe it's age, younger men have a harder time due to proximity to enculturation. Maybe that enculturation spreads over younger women too, rare is the older woman who is that gender specific regarding human emotion.

Maybe it's an American thing. I was raised in America, but my family is from Europe and maybe it's different. It could also be worse in places like Greece or Italy where masculinity is a big culture point. But my Dad is Greek, and he's cried too.

Maybe its generational, my first lover cried in my arms when he realized he was going to do hard time in jail for a drug charge. I was 18-19, he was 24-25 and it was the early 90s. I remember it like it was yesterday. He cried until he fell asleep in my arms and I just sat there and watched him sleep, tears still on his face. We stayed in that place for awhile, making love and being emotional. Then a few weeks later he went to local and then state prison for 3 years. He did pretty hard time for a bullshit, non violent crime. He did that time too and got out. He wasn't a soft man in the least...he survived.

I do know that I realized my ex-husband was truly done with me and our marriage on the last day I saw him. I was picking up our dog and three cats because he didn't want them in his new life. I, of course, was emotional but not anything overly. He was stone cold. The man who cried in front of me a hundred times (and I a thousand times), whose hand I held when he was afraid (and he mine), whose ass I wiped when he was sick (and his mine), whose whole adult life had been a part of mine (and I his)...was not crying. Even when I kissed him my final goodbye, he didn't move. He just said, "I hope we can be friends one day.."

So...I'm not sure what world you live in. I do believe you when you say this is your world. I believe you when you say or believe that life is that straight, narrow, and people that rigid and cold. That you feel this pressure is very real. However, life's not that straight, narrow, nor rigid, nor cold.

And all the men in my world cry. Can you believe me as well? Can you believe that without judging those men? Can you believe me without categorizing me in one of those convenient 'personality files' that trp sorts people into?

If you can't...then it's you.

If you can...then it's trp's universality that's suspect.

Exis007 · 2019-05-31T13:33:05+00:00

Let me posit an alternative: what if it has nothing to do with gender?

My view of this is that there are, of course, people in the world who play damsel in distress. There are also a number of men out there playing wayward gentlemen. There are people out there who push forward a emotional vulnerability and brokenness consciously or unconsciously. People find it attractive. It makes them feel capable and necessary to have a partner who seems to need them, who falls apart without them. It's a love story trope through and through. Let's also consider that the red pill has a lot of reason to be interested and invested in this trope because the entire philosophy is based around being Alpha. The strong, protector man finding the weak but charming woman is kind of their shtick. Since AWALT, all men are kind of stuck with playing the dude that gets a kick out of being the strong protector. But as you've determined, not all men are like that, because not all anyone is like anything. It turns out we're all individuals with different needs and wants, which makes loves a confusing and difficult alchemy.

With that in mind, you'll find a lot of other people arguing what I'd argue. Namely, that everyone (women and men) have a right and responsibility to come to a relationship being mostly okay. Early dating is about being your best possible self. There's a reason you shouldn't lay out all your trauma on a first date. You shouldn't be a fall down mess, you shouldn't "need" anyone, and it is inherently unattractive to be lost and alone in the woods waiting for someone to come and save you. Ideally, people should be fully-functional adults capable of their own emotional regulation before the relationship starts. The whole RP idea is predicated on the notion that it is totally okay to date a woman who is renting billboards for her emotional baggage, and I'd argue that it isn't.

Yes, we all of us have emotional baggage and vulnerabilities. That's still real for everyone. We have broken places and a need to express that and feel comforted. My experience is that the process of this is built in middle and late-game relationships. Early dating is about showing good boundaries and emotional regulation; that's important when first getting to know someone. Its a mutual display of maturity and control. Once you get past that, however, those vulnerabilities and the support they require can and should be exchanged. That's the nature of intimacy. The Red Pill never gets here because its all about frame and control; you never get to just be you, it's always just a big production. Never mind the fact that their process of partner selection and going after the damsels described in the first paragraph would never really allow for the parity I'm describing. The process of real romantic intimacy is getting to know all of someone's vulnerabilities and insecurities and helping to balance those out. It shouldn't dominate the entire relationship, but it is an essential component. Its not the damsel sense of this of needing to manage someone or complete them; they were already a complete and functional human before you came along. Its more about being excellent support and occasional backup when things get really tough, as they will on and off for the rest of your life.

You can see this mimicked in non-romantic friendships. You don't become friends with someone whose showing up to the party sobbing and falling apart. You don't really get an intimate friendship with someone who does nothing but talk about their problems and their struggles and ignore yours. You stop hanging out with that dude, right? It's not gendered, its just bad emotional boundaries. You want a friend who comes to the friendship mostly whole and okay in and of themselves. But after you've been friends for a long time, you start to know each other's vulnerabilities and you talk about your baggage and the shit you've seen. You learn each other's weak spots and broken places. They can call you and say, "I'm having a fucking awful day" and you can be there for them. Romantic relationships are a more amplified version obviously, because you might have money and household responsibilities and kids all tied into that mix--there's obviously more intimacy--but the same basic format applies.

That's what I think. I've been with my husband 11 years now and that's how it feels. He doesn't earn his right to be stressed or sad or scared in tokens. I don't earn my right to be frustrated or anxious because I'm a woman. Mutual, effortless, free-flowing emotional support is the bedrock of my marriage. But inside that is the equal responsibility to be functional adults too, to be able to be functional human beings both inside and outside our relationship. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's how I look at it.

rrroqitsci · 2019-05-31T13:49:06+00:00

This is a case where the Red Pill took something reasonably true, the idea that the two sexes have some biological programming towards attraction, and bastardized it into complete BS. And this is why RP shit is so confusing, that is, it’s somewhat right but also so very wrong.

Yes, women tend to be better at emotional stuff, and men better at physical manipulation and “making shit happen”. I wish I had links, but there are studies that identified these trend in toddlers. For example one study confirmed that female toddlers picked up on emotional cues better than male toddlers. (Of course, without a reference, you shouldn’t believe me. )

It seems pretty logical that nature would encourage an integrated pairing between the soft skills ( emotions, communications, nurturing) and the hard skills ( action, manipulation of the physical world, creating change) to support reproduction and propagate the species. Sorry, I don’t know of any studies there.

Here’s the deal. It has to be an integrated pairing. That means the male has to be able to operate in the emotional arena at times, and the female has to operate in the active change arena. Otherwise there’s nothing to keep the relationship together.

Now TRP took this concept, and like typical clueless children, gamified it into macho tokens that have be earned before the tokens can be spent on emotional integration. They’re trying to use man-think to operate in the woman-emote arena and achieve connection. And that just doesn’t work.

Of course, TRP is too stupid to realize that. But you’re smart enough to see there’s a problem, so you’re way ahead of them.

Edit: removed link because it doesn’t add anything

Semi_Wise · 2019-05-31T05:42:04+00:00

This is just untrue. Women in general don’t think like this, and just because some do doesn’t mean we all think the same way.

This whole “macho tokens theory” thing falls under what we would call toxic masculinity and feminists don’t agree with this at all. Toxic masculinity describes the set of expectations that men are socially expected to uphold, including but not limited to stoicism (or not showing emotion), physical strength, aggressiveness, etc. It’s not that all of these traits are inherently bad, but they’re bad when pushed to the extreme and when men are pushed to emulate these qualities regardless of their natural disposition.

Feminists believe that men should be free to express themselves freely without having to adhere to these rigid gender roles. Some men are more emotional than others, and they shouldn’t be shamed for expressing themselves.

truespirit89 · 2019-05-31T09:57:22+00:00

Yeah men probably have to show less vulnerability. But I can stand being around a woman who is always crying about shit. So there’s a limit to how much weakness a woman can show.

On the other hand I’m dating this woman who is better of career wise. It makes me want to see her less when she talks about her career as it makes me feel inadequate. Honestly whenever she shows this strength it makes me want to end things.

So it goes both ways or it can be the same coin different side.

DitaVonCleese · 2019-05-31T14:09:57+00:00

your main problem imho is that you are trying to find a set of rules or patterns to generalize womens behaviours and then behave according to those. but there are none. you are overanalyzing this to an extreme

SimplySynful · 2019-06-06T08:07:41+00:00

I believe both sexes show vulnerability in different aspects of life. When that short chubby kid is being bullied in class and he forgoes confrontation even if it would benefit him, he is showing vulnerability. When a truly masculine man cries for his daughters wedding or when his child walks down to get their diploma, they are showing vulnerability.

It is not unnatural to be human.

It is not a burden to have some semblance of emotions.

Despite all of that there is some merit to the words you have said. Some vulnerability is appreciated while other types of vulnerability are shunned not only by women but in the public eye.

"Man up" is told to little boys when they are going to get blood drawn when they are just a few years old, or "boys aren't supposed to cry" at an early age we teach boys to not show emotion DESPITE wanting to show emotion. I believe a lot of men of today lack being stoic. It isn't to be a statue made of stone to not show emotion, it is to elicit the correct emotion when it is required. I cannot see myself with a man who always is in a vulnerable state, while I will do anything in my power to help a partner in a vulnerable state, it is ultimately up to him to pick himself up to not be an emotional person. I want my partner to be that pillar that supports me if ever I am down, as I have and will continue to be for him.

I know that he is a man and as a woman there are things that he faces which I will never understand but i strive to continue to learn how to be a better girlfriend and provide for him in the small ways that I can. I also know that he is a strong person and his stoicism and initiative to react when situations arise are why I am there to wipe a tear if ever he has one. It is something I cherish when he does it because it shows me that side of humanity he reserves for me. He tells me these words and I hold them to heart "if you ever need to cry, do it in daddy's arms so he can wipe the tears away"

he has time and again been my rock and i will continue to be that place of solace for him to rest his head when he needs it.

in short, yes we appreciate a bit of sensitivity but we, or rather myself, prefer a man who can play that role AFTER he has played the role of a stoic emotionally reliable man first.

Criticalthinking346 · 2019-06-10T14:03:50+00:00

My husband cries more than I do, and I still find him hot as fuck. In reality he is the healthier one for it, I am avoidant attachment so rarely let anyone in. I understand this is just my experience but it’s does illustrate that this is not always the case. I personally believe those opposed to overly emotional situations are probably having trouble with processing emotions in general.

msphit · 2019-05-31T06:18:28+00:00

I’m married to a macho man and really, really wish he would express some emotion besides anger once in a while, I’ve always felt this way about him. His most endearing moments to me are when he cried over some serious life issues, but it wasn’t because he earned it, it was because he let the manly man personality drop and acted like a real human being for once. He won me through love bombing and then turned into a hard ass, redpill type and I hate it. Don’t form your opinions of our entire sex off some anonymous comments on the internet. Some women like sensitive guys, some don’t. It’s that simple.

Jalakee · 2019-05-31T13:00:50+00:00

I think the concept of "earned" expression is off-putting and not accurate, but think of it this way:

Say you have a man who is really emotionally expressive. Highs, lows, crying, outbursts, and vulnerability. He's functional, but not much of a restraint mechanism. At first this may be endearing or even refreshing for some women. Over time, a bit of compassion fatigue may set in. You can get burnt out from constantly tending to an emotionally weak partner. Why cant this guy be on an even keel for a while? Why is he crying more than me? I dont want a statue but I also dont want to have to coddle him...

Then on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a level 9 macho man. Super masculine, stoic, not communicative, rarely expressive except for anger and laughing at jokes. Maybe not the most skilled at actually dealing with his feelings, because we all have them after all. The woman might be really attracted to him in a polarity sense, but also might wish he could be more of a human being and show a bit more range than normal and angry.

Guy A's vulnerability is wearing down his partner. Guy B's stoicism is making it hard to have a human relationship with him.

These are extremes of course; some women like more sensitivity some less. I didnt cry in front of my wife until we had been married almost 4 years. My standing has not dropped in her eyes. I'm also not crying all the time or constantly needing validation. I dont ask her permission for things but I do discuss things. I dont check in on every detail of my day or tell her about every anxious thought I might have. But she is there when I need her and I'm there when she needs me.

bluescrew · 2019-05-31T14:35:37+00:00

Just because you might get turned on by feeling needed, doesn't mean all men are that way. And just because a woman might have a low tolerance for having a partner who's a downer all the time, doesn't mean all women do. And there's a difference between being honest and open and vulnerable, and being a high-maintenance mess. The latter is not typically desirable in a relationship, male or female.

Personally I steer clear of people who drain my energy by wanting me to play therapist too much. That's a personal preference and I apply it equally to men and women. So does my boyfriend- he is honest and affectionate, but not particularly excited by the idea of a woman being too emotionally dependent on him and he advocates therapy instead of romantic partners for dealing with recurring or extreme issues. The theme I'm trying to get at here, is that it's not a gender thing. People just color it that way because they're biased.

bright-morningstar · 2019-06-13T20:38:10+00:00

I understand you feel you won't be able to prosper with women because you're emotional and hence you feel bad, but you're understanding it wrong. I mean you can question and examine yourself that if you're really inherently emotional or you have some particular mindset and thought patterns around it that makes you that way. As a very unemotional man, I know that from experience that , the "integrated" and "balanced" man wins this game of women. You need to be tender and manly. That means you need to be emotional to show that you're human after all, and you also need to show that you can take shit and not react, as a sign of your manliness. We need both, and you need to stop playing games and inherit these qualities. Humans are not born one way and they are permanently goes on with that trait. I've transitioned from one mask to another mask, life changes you. So welcome the change and adopt, or you lose, this is life, no one said you will get equal treatment.

Cvevea3 · 2019-05-31T04:41:06+00:00

Deapite what everyone wishes, this is the reality for most men and women, even if a man doesn't give women emotional support she can find it in other guys whereas a guy has to keep all his emotion locked up as it is inherently and at least subconsciously unattractive for a guy to show emotion.

This goes to genetics and all the back to the stone age, if a guy was emotionally weak he wouldn't be able to reproduce and as much as people want to pretend the past and genetics don't exist nowadays, they do. Girls still like strong masculine men.

The problem with redpill is it goes to far in most cases, but the general foundation of it is somewhat on track in general speaking. Sadly, men and emotion is one of the very real and unexaggerated truths of trp.

Despite what some women will tell you, 99% of women don't want men to actually show emotion. Even if they tell you it's OK, subconsciously they still wouldn't fond a man as attractive when showing emotion.

Of course it's not a deal breaker and a lot of women will still date a man with emotional baggage, but it does still have an impact. It's honestly sad but that's just how it is.

My advice is too get a therapist to talk everything out and then try not to bother girls with your emotions.

PoeDameronski · 2019-05-31T13:45:39+00:00

Therapy, "No More Mr. Nice Guy", "How to Change Your Mind" go crush it, buddy.

Title	"Macho tokens" theory
Author	MascTokenThrowaway
Upvotes	15
Comments	31
Date	May 31, 2019 4:02 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/ExRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/bv2v8e/macho_tokens_theory/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/ExRedPill/macho-tokens-theory.299748 https://theredarchive.com/post/299748

Comments