~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
stonephilosopher68
[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
It was always at least more that way with women than men. Now, with women act like it is a zero sum game so it is usually a negative sum game from the guy's perspective.
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 40 points41 points42 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I've dated women with good paying jobs who still expect that my mission in life is to help them financially.
[–]Chikubakidon34 points35 points36 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It is, you misogynistic shitlord. With womens products being so much more expensive, its your duty to financially support them. How can they be expected to support themselves when the capitalistic patriarchy makes their shoes cost $400 and makeup cost $100?
Don't give me any bullshit arguments about how there are cheaper shoes and makeup. What, you want your girl to settle for scraps? To have the cheap items for peasants? You're just cheap, and don't deserve a girl with a high paying job. In fact, if youre not willing to treat her, you don't deserve any girl at all, you cheap, selfish, creep.
I'd like to continue this discussion further, but I have to go buy dinner for my wife and her boyfriend. Have a nice day, loser.
[–]dakturis8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for making this for us. <3 It was absolutely delicious
[–]deplorableinWV5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't forget a very generous tip so you don't appear to be a cheapskate and embarrass her,
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That was the best smile, yet, today.
[–]CursingWhileNursing19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Which is why even more women will stay single forever.
The new dynamics in society, with women entering high paying jobs, will utterly destroy the hypergamy game. Apparently women in those jobs are too stupid to realise two simple truths.
First, that they simply will not find a lot of men outearning them.
And second, that men who actually do outearn them will usually have no interest in a career woman. And why should they? They want either wife material that does not put career before family or they want bragging material that looks sexy and is around when they need her.
I am a nurse and I have seen so many male physicians hooking up with nurses and marrying them, it's insane. But now german hospitals are flooded with female physicians (which are a losing bargain for society anyway) and not even once I have seen a female doctor hooking up with or at least showing interest in a male nurse.
Because they are all looking for something "better".
[–]Stahlboden3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Women deserve to earn wages net total on par with men, but I deserve a man earning more than me to take care of me".
[–]TheYekke2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We are going back to a state of nature and it will be glorious. Once Hypergamy got released on society it is just a matter of time before it collapses to a lower level. Das Schicksal rechnet nur ab :-)
[–]Griever1148 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They are actually the worst. The SHEER resentment in their eyes at the fact that they earn more and have a burning desire to be "taken care of" fucking eats away at their soul.
[–]GoodVibesMGTOW24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I wish men would stop believing in it, but unfortunately many (most) men still believe in the Disney and Hallmark definition of relationships and love. I don't think females ever believed in that definition of love or relationships. Their hypergamous nature doesn't allow them to. That's why men are the true romantics, and that's why men get screwed over. I hope my brothers wake up soon!
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Disney movies have propagated a warped perspective of romance.
[–]pnwhomebrewer25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Dating is dead. My older relatives don’t even believe me when I say it’s easier to get laid then get a committed relationship. If you want a relationship as a guy and the girl doesn’t your considered weak and needy. If it’s the opposite you’re a player douche bag. It’s a zero win game. Don’t play and go your own way.
[–]Sir_manalot7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The mating game has become absolutely insane and idiotic.
If you try and have a LTR with a girl, you are to weak for her to ever love you. She will only love you if you do not want anything but sex.
If you care about her, she will never care about you. You can only get a girl if you do not care about her are all.
You either have to keep faking it until you make a mistake and she leaves or only chase girls that you do not want a relationship with.
Unless you want empty sex, it is a waste of time.
[–]LegitimateApricot41 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sometimes you meet a unicorn/Nawalt, then reality happens and the awalt comes out. Hopefully it happens before you tie your lifesavings and future earnings ring on her finger.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Guys who go on dates are literally free dinners for these girls.
A lot of these guys are handsome, polite dudes too. Women 100% prefer an ugly, high status thug to a handsome, low status regular guy.
It's idiotic how an 8/10, fit engineer has to pander to a 5/10 girl, just for her to reject him for being a square.
[–]DangZagnut11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's certainly always been my approach to sex.
Whoever orgasms first wins.
[–]throwaway_worthaway1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They need to git gud.
[–]Vinniikii5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Whisper is a great place for Phils sophistry.
I think any time of economic inequality will probably have a more mercenary approach to love.
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Where did the idea start that women need men for much of anything? Why do they think we should be the providers?
[–]bluescape3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Most societal concepts are rooted in biological ones. The people that tend to bark constantly about "blah blah blah is a social construct" usually don't realize this and they tend to put the cart before the horse thinking that such and such construct exists because someone designed it rather than it being an extension of our nature. This nature can typically be addressed in the framework of "what does the lizard brain want that will help pass on DNA?"
So the "provider/protector" role that men inhabit comes from 1. men being bigger and stronger, 2. humans having a long gestation period where the females are extremely vulnerable, and 3. human children having long rearing periods where they are also extremely vulnerable. We now live in an age where there aren't really external threats, and resources are easier to come by, but our instincts haven't had time to catch up. Men end up as "selfless" while women end up as "selfish" because it's what makes the most sense when placed over the backdrop of cavemen having to defend themselves from big fucking wolves, while still having to procure food somehow and making sure the next generation grows up to do the same. If you have two villages of 50 men and 50 women in competition over overlapping territory, the one that makes its men disposable is the one that will win out over time all other things being equal.
A lot of human nature ends up going from good to bad simply when placed in a modern safe and abundant setting. We like fats, salts, and sugars because in nature they denote good sources of calories, or things we need that are hard to come by. Now that we have crazy abundance, those same drives result in us having an obesity epidemic.
[–]Vinniikii2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A lot of women don’t think men should provide, it’s less a predator/pray relationship and more a parasite/host thing. Economic inequality magnifies patriarchal man wealth, of course some people will target this easy host
Totally agree. It's parasite/host. There is nothing to be done for it.
[–]Orangecup057 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When were they ever mutually beneficial?
Never.
The only benefit is having kids to ensure to survival of the species and we don't even need to do that anymore. And that never benefited us, but all.
I take that statement as incomplete and it misses the point.
[–]Mephitus4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would say it's only partially correct. Things have devolved into a negative sum game instead. If men can benefit, then it has to be taken down even if women are helped too. If it isn't wholly gynocentric, then it must be torn down.
Lose/lose
[–]chalchium2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is never romance. This is pure modern garbage spewed out by conglomerates to waste men's money. In the past men kept women at home to take care of kids and housework so that they could concentrate on their own work. That's why women were discouraged to have education or their own career. Many places marriage or coupling was done by the parents, the children had no say.
Romance were just fairy tales for people to enjoy when they had free time. People just followed tradition and procreated. No men gave a fuck about soulmate or significant other as if women were divine goddesses that saved his soul like modern simps do.
It is the modern day megacorps' greed for blood money that created this romance fallacy then feed it to the gullible, so that men can be easily manipulated into slaves who always think his life is incomplete.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is how it always was. The only point in the past 1000 years where it wasn't like this was maybe 1950s America.
People coming out of the Great Depression didn't give a shit about one upping each other over petty bullshit, they were just happy to have their post-war prosperity.
[–]hmspain1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And perhaps it will be again once this terrible cycle reaches its ultimate conclusion.
[–]CanYouSeeTheWords1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
*thots
[–]JohnOrange21121 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men are just waking up to the millenia-old reality. "Beneficial romantic connections" was always feminized propaganda.
[–]JamesLucratif1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Capitalism plays a large role in that
Especially neo liberal capitalism
[–]trseeker1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"...where the female wins at the expense of the male." FTFY
[–]Griever1141 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nailed it.
[–]mechdemon1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
truth
[–]Cuck-WTF1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A bit wordy, but an accurate expression of relationships in the current day. They are taught that their partner is their enemy and that they must win, not only that but their partner must lose. Constantly, daily, or the relationship is out of your control.
[–]kaczan31 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thoughts? Thots!
[–]DimoneFreehold201 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This hasn’t been an organic development. From reading up on the history I’d say this has been directed by Cultural Marxists. If you’re lazy like me get LibriVox and listen to the Communist Manifesto. Feminists today are screeching the same delusional garbage Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels were 150 years ago.
[–]BananaWilly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It can't be 'zero sum' if one party always wins?
[–]lulz3r1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
At the expense of men. Otherwise it’s pretty spot on.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus. I mean you're not wrong but goddamn
[–]everythingisatoms1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don’t get married, your sum always remain with you. :)
[–]Cristi_Tanase1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
individualistic mindset gets you there eventually...
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 40 points41 points42 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chikubakidon34 points35 points36 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakturis8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]deplorableinWV5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CursingWhileNursing19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stahlboden3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheYekke2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1148 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodVibesMGTOW24 points25 points26 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]pnwhomebrewer25 points26 points27 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sir_manalot7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LegitimateApricot41 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DangZagnut11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]throwaway_worthaway1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vinniikii5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluescape3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vinniikii2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Orangecup057 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mephitus4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]stonephilosopher68[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chalchium2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hmspain1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanYouSeeTheWords1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JohnOrange21121 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JamesLucratif1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]trseeker1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1141 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mechdemon1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cuck-WTF1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kaczan31 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DimoneFreehold201 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BananaWilly1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lulz3r1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]everythingisatoms1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cristi_Tanase1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link