According to Red Pill praxeology, all women, without exception, dislike the "nice guy"—the good, polite, and moral men; instead, they are attracted to jerks, thugs, and bad boys. Until their late twenties, or even their early thirties, they hang out with these men, engaging in emotional and sexual relationships. The relationships they experience are generally unserious and do not lead to marriage. Either the women leave, or the men they love leave them. When these women pass the age of thirty, they still want those men; if they had the chance, they would hang out with them for the rest of their lives. However, those men no longer want these women; they want young women in their twenties. Consequently, these women can no longer attain the men they desire. In this situation, these women either remain single for their entire lives, never marrying, or they reluctantly marry those nice, good, polite, and moral men they do not love just to settle down and have children. They do this because they are forced to; they have no other options. Their only choice is the men they don't actually find attractive. Later, for one reason or another, they divorce, bleed their ex-husbands dry under the guise of alimony, and live off their backs for life, or they cheat on their husbands with alpha males—the ideal male model of the red pill. In other words, they exploit the resources of their beta husbands and secretly have sexual intercourse with alpha males. In short, the most famous slogan of the red pill, "alpha fucks, beta bucks," comes true. They might even get pregnant by alpha males and foist the baby upon their beta husbands saying, "this baby is yours," which results in beta husbands unknowingly fathering other men's children for years, perhaps for their entire lives.

This is a highly pessimistic perspective. Could such women not have wised up as they got older? A woman might realize that every guy who comes along just uses her for sex, she gets sick of it, and now she wants stability; she wants to build a family. When God forgives those who repent, who do these men think they are? Unfortunately, there is a disease of generalization in Red Pill praxeology. Granted, this disease exists in all humans. Everyone assumes their own circle, the environments they participate in, are real life—the real world. However, generalizations can never be made about anything at any time. Making generalizations is a sign of incompetence. Yes, such malicious, incorrigible women might exist. But just because such women exist, to stigmatize all other women—what is that if not doom-mongering?

The situation I mentioned, "assuming one's own circle is the real world," is directly related to confirmation bias in psychology. The communities that defend this praxeology usually only share stories of cheating, divorce, and alimony with each other within their digital echo chambers, stories that merely confirm their own theories. Meanwhile, they label the millions of happy, loyal marriages built on mutual respect and fidelity across the world as "exceptions" or "ticking time bombs" and ignore them. This causes them to focus not on the entirety of the truth, but only on the dark parts they want to see.

While people generally seek excitement, adventure, and instant gratification in their early twenties, the need for belonging, trust, peace, and deep connections comes to the forefront as they age. The fact that a person lived a stormy life in the past and later desires a calm and orderly family life doesn't always have to be a "cunning scheme of resource exploitation" as the red pill claims. Most of the time, this is a natural consequence of psychological maturation. Ignoring a human's capacity to change, learn from their mistakes, and turn over a new leaf with pure intentions is reducing human nature to a completely mechanical plane.

Red Pill praxeology reads male-female dynamics entirely like a trade agreement or a battlefield. It assumes everyone has a hidden agenda, that love is merely an illusion, and the real issue is simply "resource transfer" (beta bucks) and "genetic attraction" (alpha fucks). It is almost impossible for a man who fills his mind with this template to build a healthy, empathetic, and trust-based relationship. Because such a person will constantly be on high alert, look for an ulterior motive in every innocent action of their partner, and ultimately create the very environment of mistrust they fear through their own paranoia.

As I said, making generalizations is an analytical inadequacy. Labeling an entire gender as potential opportunists or unfaithful is actually, for some people, the easiest way to bill the outside world for their own relational failures, communication deficits, or self-confidence issues. Saying "There is nothing wrong with me, the system is broken and women's nature is inherently bad" is a much more effortless defense mechanism than a person working on their own character and fixing their shortcomings.

Of course, there will always be people in the world who are manipulative, malicious, or who only think of their own interests, exhibiting those extreme behaviors they mention. However, taking these extreme examples and pasting them onto an entire gender is pure doom-mongering, and it ultimately condemns the person who adopts this mindset to chronic anger and loneliness.

So, in your opinion, what could be the most fundamental psychological wound or fear underlying why some people cling so tightly to such a rigid and pessimistic belief system?