~ archived since 2018 ~

What's the one thing you disagree regarding TRPW theory?

September 5, 2019

I think that this is a great sub and I can honestly say that it has been extremely eye opening and actually contributed to the success of my current relationship. If there was one thing I'd say I disagree on, it's the "not living together before marriage" rule. I feel like screening the compatibility by living together with your SO before actually getting legally married is important to avoid a possible divorce down the line. I am not saying to start living together without having assessed that you both want marriage down the line and you are very serious about each other.

What about you?

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RedPillWomen.

/r/RedPillWomen 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 What's the one thing you disagree regarding TRPW theory?
Author uniqueeleni
Upvotes 106
Comments 168
Date September 5, 2019 12:32 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link
Original Link

[–]Vellore9921 Star167 points168 points  (84 children) | Copy Link

I often see men in here claiming that education/career means nothing to men and that we shouldn't waste our time on that pesky PhD because it just gets in the way.

It may not make a woman more sexually attractive, but in gaining commitment from a certain (valuable) type of man it has a huge impact. My husband and his friends are all high status, educated men, and while they'll gladly have a fling with the cute waitress, when they marry it is always with an educated, successful woman. If these men are your target, you need to be able to keep up in their world.

Education doesn't matter to a certain type of man, sure, but this type of man isn't usually on an educated woman's radar anyway.

[–]covfefeismydrug57 points58 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this. To add to your point, education is important, regardless. What if the man is laid off or, God forbid, passes away unexpectedly. Women need to have a resource, whether it’s education or some other failsafe, that allows them to take care of themselves if necessary.

[–]Kara__El4 Stars21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, yes, yes. Being able to support yourself and your family is a must. I'd say we should focus more on doing it in a fiscally responsible way, than not doing it.

[–]dashdotdott11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or get he gets disabled. I generally agree, though a PhD might be excessive for if you're thinking about a failsafe. As someone with a (STEM) PhD, I would not suggest unless you plan on using it in someway post-grad school. It takes precious time away from decent pay and (more importantly) fertility. Unless you're crazy, like myself, and have three kids in grad school.

[–]secretladyaccount0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's your field? I dropped out of a math PhD (have my MA though) due to sudden-onset disability.

[–]dashdotdott1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Molecular biology

[–]Wolfssenger8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I would say that for most women, even if your goal in life is to be a SAHM, you should have a path to a decent career that serves as a second option should things not work out.

[–]paprikasegg5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention the wisdom that comes with an education. I think feminine wisdom is underplayed and undervalued. There's a reason for the saying "Mother knows best."

[–]Vellore9921 Star1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]artemis28619 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes! I'm currently a SAHM to my little newborn baby. But one of the things that really attracted my husband to me is my intelligence and education. I'm a nurse, working on a bachelor's plan for a masters, and have several additional certifications in various specialities (birth work, lactation support, etc.), and I'm 24. I always wanted to be primarily a mother, and to homeschool, but to do that well requires education and life experience. I've been working with kids since I was 12. I've studied child development and child psychology. And with strongly considering homeschooling, which has meant research into things like the Montessori and Waldorf methods...

Great example, my baby is having suck-swallow coordination issues. Because of my experience as a nurse and a lactation consultant, I caught it extremely early. It's been back breaking work to pump and partially breastfeed, and talk about time consuming. But because of my persistance, she's only gotten breastmilk her whole life, I'm pumping around 35-40 Oz a day. We've been seeing a more experienced lactation consultant, her pediatrician, and now an occupational therapist. She has been able to maintain a weight gain because I knew how to intervene and help her when she was showing signs of struggle.

I don't know when we decided that motherhood didn't require an education, but only 7 weeks into it and it has already challenged me intellectually more than just about anything else. The nclex exam has nothing on this! Then also having the knowledge and experience to try to take care of myself and still maintain my relationship with my husband on top of all of this and recovering from birth? Seriously, when did we decide that this was the easy job?

Even if I never returned to professional lactation work, which I do hope to do someday, the amount of help it's given me just in these first few weeks have already made the sacrifice for the education and experience worth it. I know it's certainly worth it to this little girl! Anyway off the soapbox, being a mother is everything I've worked hard to educate myself for!

[–]failingtheturingtest14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My experience shows the same. I dated someone from "new money" for a while, and her best friends were all "old money" who had taken a shining to her family so they were part of their social group. There is no way any one of them (men or women) would date someone who even went to a lesser university.

They all thought quite highly of me for achieving what I had without ever having done further education. I continue to hold them all in high regard.

The flip side is that I, as someone from neither new or old money, and without any higher education, find myself only ever seriously dating doctors, lawyers, scientists and professors. Not by some rule or expectation, but the ones that hold my interest longer are those with strong values, properly formed opinions, and the ability to share them.

[–]42gauge0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What was it that you achieved?

[–]Kara__El4 Stars55 points56 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree. My husband has told me, point blank, that he wouldn't have dated me, had I not had a bachelor's degree. His family is very successful and his parents still have that 90s viewpoint that college is a must, so while he'd take a waitress home, he wouldn't have married her. From what he's told me, his years of "fun" were spent with women totally different from me, women to whom he'd have never committed.

[–]Vellore9921 Star34 points35 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yep exactly. Men don't like to admit this, but they often have their own dual mating strategy not dissimilar to AF/BB. My husband had his fun with the simple cuties, but when he started looking for a wife his priorities and standards were very different.

[–]Tiger_Widow26 points27 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Men don't like to admit this to women. Because a lot of us are aware that it's quite offensive to openly share such objectifying opinions about women to women. I can attest to this, as a man, that men very much have a dual dating strategy and it's something that comes up in conversation in Male spaces quite often. The mutual understanding (between the vast majority of men) that there are women you want to screw and women you want to marry.

Women that are attractive, look easy and dress to arouse trigger the screw desire. Something about claiming a prize (that isn't too challenging) and moving on. Even men in committed relationships with no desire to cheat have these feelings and make these comments without acting on them. "I'd hit that". "Man you'd have a crazy night with her". etc.

And then to a man there's a totally different breed of women that tap in to a completely different mental process. The attractively groomed, classy, confident, not putting herself out there but dam sexy at the same time, owns her self kind of woman. These impress us. They make us aroused in a different kind of way. These are the women we see as our potential queens and the ones we marry. They're the kind of women we never slut talk about or say crass things about.We don't want to take them down town for a cheap and frisky night,we want to take them to a beach resort and put a ring on their finger. Theres an admiration and respect there, a suitors decency. We treat these women seriously, you could say they bring out the gentleman in us. It's not something we do consciously but its definitely a shared understanding between men that this is something that we seem to do.

I wouldn't have called it that myself, but a dual dating strategy is a good way of putting it.

[–]NicoleInBlue1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember Joe Rogan talking about the difference between hot and beautiful women and made the same distinction.

[–]Flesh_Pillow5-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You miss on the point of youth and chastity. If a woman has been around..she carries the aura of it with her.

[–]Tiger_Widow5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Maybe that's a cultural thing? I'm from the UK, we're way more secular/agnostic here (I assume you're American?).

"Chastity" has honestly never been a topic of conversation in my experience. Nor particularly has the amount of men she's slept with previously. The general consensus is we're all adults and have pasts. It's more about the demeanor than the tally.

Youth is always a bonus, because instinct and Genes, but again that isnt to say that a woman being older or younger necessarily puts her in o e group or the other.

It's pretty exclusively down to her personality and presentation.

[–]Flesh_Pillow5-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm from the UK aswell. What I'm referring to is a woman's biological ability for oxytocin based pair bonding. This pair bonding ability is diminished over time as partner count increases. If a woman has slept around a bit she's a much much higher divorce risk. There's scientific research showing this. Keep in mind there's also a movement in universities to encourage promiscuity In the guise of female empowerment. A woman whose educated through the university system is likely to fall into hook up culture. Now this is fine because I can see alot of women rely upon their men being bluepill to an extent. But things change.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Please define "pair bonding" when making this claim. This is an area where men feel a certain way about female promiscuity (they are completely entitled to this) and then try to force scientific explanations onto their feelings.

If a woman has two partners she is at a higher divorce risk than if she has three. Go figure.

Depletion of oxytocin based on partner count is highly unlikely. I've said it before but if this were true, then women would be unable to bond with each consecutive child (ie: if she is able to bond less with each man following her first due to oxytocin depletion, then she will be unable to bond with each child following her first due to same mechanism).

Stats show an increased risk of divorce based on partner count - they do not show causation. Every promiscuous woman will not end up divorced, every virgin is not a sure thing on the 'til death do us part' front.

It's perfectly fine that men find promiscuous women icky. There are some women who get messed up by easy sex (alpha widowhood, jaded from heartbreak, constantly seeking the NRE high, etc) but it is not as causal as RP (and especially MGTOW) want it to be.

If a woman has been around..she carries the aura of it with her.

You can't know this for sure. You can guess and you can verify with some women. Without going up and asking every woman on the street their n-count, you don't know the ones with a high n that don't 'carry the aura'. You do men a disservice by telling them that they should vet by n-count and that you can "just tell".

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Stats show an increased risk of divorce based on partner count - they do not show causation. Every promiscuous woman will not end up divorced, every virgin is not a sure thing on the 'til death do us part' front.

Correlation is not causation, true. But correlation is still important., especially when you can't isolate the actual cause.

Example: Single Motherhood correlates with so many failure factors for kids. It doesn't cause those failures in and of itself. But if you know about that correlation, you will strive not to be a single mother if you care about the outcome for your kids, even without learning what exactly about single motherhood causes your kids to be at higher risk for poverty, mental illness, suicide, depression, abuse, etc.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, men can vet by whatever stats they find useful. The 'sex depletes oxytocin' argument is one that I cannot get behind. My point was that if it were true we would see more evidence than merely 'increased risk.

But also, promiscuity doesn't have to tell the whole story. In this I'm not trying to convince men, I'm talking to women. While I'd never encourage someone to go in search of bedpist notches, it's not impossible to have a solid marriage just because you have them.

[–]42gauge0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean to argue for the oxytocin stuff, but both men and women do prefer their first child over later ones. And here is the study mentioned in the article:

[–]liarbirdy27 points28 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I also dislike how every decision a woman makes is presumed to be about wanting to attain a man. Like maybe I want to get a PhD because I fucking want to get a PhD and men have nothing to do with it.

[–]Vellore9921 Star3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol yes that too

[–]Taknock15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Successful men are more likely to marry women with degrees not because those women have degrees; but because those women who successful men want to marry are more likely to have degrees.

An education correlates with intelligence and men want a wife with similar levels of intelligence. Intelligent men want intelligent women and most intelligent women are educated. Men don't care about the degree, men care about the traits that allowed you to earn your degree.

You may however have more similar experiences and cultural background if you both have been to university.

If a women is well read, is culturally middle class and intelligent without a degree it won't hold her back on the dating market.

However buying a house on one income is very hard and unfortunately women should be able to make money because you might have to.

[–]RinoaRita5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s also relevant online dating. It sucks that it reads like a resume but that’s the truth. You could write a witty profile but people do look at degrees as a screening process.

[–]Vellore9921 Star7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If a women is well read, is culturally middle class and intelligent without a degree it won't hold her back on the dating market.

Among some men, yes. Among the ones I know, no.

[–]MoDuReddit2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True, I guess it really varies accross cultures.

[–]Dancersep381 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely agree.

[–]party_dragon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Indeed. If you're smart and want smart children, you need to find a smart partner. As employers have also figured out, having a university degree is a reliable indicator of (significant, thought not necessarily incredible) intelligence.

[–]Hannelore0101 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bachelor is just the new high school degree (and MA the new BA, etc)

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

My husband would not have considered me for anything more than a fling ever if I had not been college educated from a similar tier university as him. It would have been kind of humiliating in his social circle and in the eyes of his family to marry a woman who had not been to a good college. I don't have the highest level degree of the women my husband dated in the past (he never proposed to any of them). But, I had the best looks and was nearly done a degree at a school he (and his social circle) could respect. Even though I am not going to be using that degree for profit in the near future because of how involvement with him shifted my life trajectory, me having that minimum education level was crucial to him. I noticed, in general, that once I got into that specific school, the caliber of men interested in me as an actual dating prospect improved a lot. The degree or where it is from doesn't influence how much a guy wants to sleep with you, but it definitely can influence how much a guy wants to commit to you.

[–]RussianAsshole6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If that would’ve been humiliating to him, then he’s very weak minded. That level of insecurity is a huge red flag, couldn’t be me. And those first few sentences are just straight up negging lmao. Sounds like he and some of those that he knows peaked in college. I get wanting to date someone of similar socioeconomic status but this reeks of “people who don’t have the money that I was born into by luck are gross” (inferred by the word “humiliating”).

[–]secretladyaccount5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, that's very said. I have a graduate degree in a lucrative field and my partner dropped out of HS and does manual labor for a living, but he is THE most educated and the smartest person I know. No one has ever said anything to me about it, but if they did, they would rapidly discover that I don't give a single damn. (I did ask him to go get his GED just in case he needed it for some job thing later, and he did.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, to be fair, I was not interested in dating men without at least a bachelor's degree either. Been there, done that, and was over it. My husband definitely didn't peak in college although a minority of guys he knows did. That would imply that somehow his station in life or his ability to get women decreased after college but in reality it was the opposite. My husband has no issue defending me to his friends or family if necessary and is the only boy of the four in his family that can stand up to the parents. I don't think valuing education in a partner means a person is bad and the person who originally commented said her husband would not have wanted to be with her either if she was not educated. I did not want to marry a high school educated blue collar worker. I cared a lot about ambition, intellectual achievement, and financial success because those were things I was working towards in my personal life. My husband is not part of some old money family but every single last one of them was college educated. I did not come from money. I was able to go to the school I went to because I worked my butt off to earn large scholarships. Different women have different preferences. Most women on here wouldn't have wanted to be with my husband because his body fat percentage is too high, which I tend to see as a shallow and foolish stance in evaluating a partner. But many people swear by its importance. If that is an acceptable stance, there is no reason people can't have other traits that they value just as much. When I was on dating websites, I screened out men who were not college educated. I can't fault my husband for doing the same.

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

I agree, this type of people do not have a backbone in order to stand up for who they love and they care more about what their family and social circle believes, than their partner’s feelings and I believe this will show up later in the marriage,

[–]dangernoodle8810 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! I am often appalled seeing TRP users saying that a good career is a definite negative for men, because evolution blah blah blah. In my experience it has always been a neutral or a positive, and more likely to be positive the higher up in society you climb. Any reasonable guy knows that in today's society, both women and men need educations and careers to protect their financial security. Is a man who wants us to risk that security so he can feel more masculine really the kind of man we want to date?

Additionally, men who participate in TRP are not equivalent to the high value, successful men we are trying to attract. Especially ones who spend time giving advice in women's forums like this because tbh, that's a little weird. In fact, many men find TRP only after being significantly downtrodden in life. Therefore we must always take TRP advice with a grain of salt.

[–]melitele318 points19 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Well... I wouldn’t necessarily agree since my husband is quite an accomplished man, working on Artificial Intelligence and making more than enough money to support entire family on his own income. He has lived his entire life in big cities downtown.

Yet he married me. Girl who lived in mountains (without electricity sometimes), from poor family, without higher education nor status.

I think men do not care about your education, money or status as long as they feel you are compatible with them and they are attracted to you.

My husband always tells me how intelligent and smart I am. I don’t have any degree and I don’t think it defines how well educated you can be. Let’s not forget we have internet these days and anyone can attain knowledge without walking out of home.

[–]Vellore9921 Star24 points25 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about every single rich man ever. As a general rule in the circles I interact with (UMC to UC, intellectual, "old money" families) formal education is highly regarded and an absolute necessity for marriage.

[–]melitele32 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I think that families like those do exist. However majority of women don’t necessarily desire to be in such families and with such men, so getting a PHD isn’t a helpful, universal advice.

I am sure that there are women, who see such families or environments as highly desirable, so then advice to get a PHD or higher education would be helpful to them.

Most men do not care about the degree. Men in your circles might - but what percentage do they represent in the scale of all male population?

Circles like that might have status and might have prestige, however if they refuse to regard someone as part of their family (someone who might have identical character traits, social skills and knowledge) just because of lack of some paper, it isn’t very “intellectual” to me.

[–]Vellore9921 Star7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree that of the educated, successful men only a minority care about a degree. My circle is perhaps at the more extreme end of that, and a PhD would be overkill for many, but I maintain that most successful men would prefer an accomplished woman.

I'm glad you found a man it didn't matter for.

[–]melitele32 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it can vary based on personal experience.

My husband works in the department where all men are graduates of Ivy League schools. We have been invited to couple of dinners and dates with few of them and wives that I met stay at home, they don’t have a career or degree. That is why I have made a statement like that. I talk from my first hand experience and from observing my surroundings.

Maybe in your life, the men you have met stated they do care about higher education or accomplishments, that is why you disagree with me - which is okay. I guess all men are different and you can find accomplished ones who care and the ones that don’t.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I grew up working class. Until maybe three years ago, I had absolutely no idea just how UC my husband actually is.

We met when I was getting my Ph.D. and at one point, when I was feeling discouraged, I asked him how he'd feel if I just got my MA and didn't do the dissertation. He made it very clear that if I dropped out, that would be a dealbreaker. (He was right to do so.)

Maybe "men" don't necessarily care about a woman's Ph.D., but I didn't marry "men." No woman marries "men." The particular man that I did marry cared and cares a great deal.

Circles like that might have status and might have prestige, however if they refuse to regard someone as part of their family (someone who might have identical character traits, social skills and knowledge) just because of lack of some paper, it isn’t very “intellectual” to me.

Just "having" character traits and knowledge isn't enough for families like my husband's. You have to do something with them. They have a multigenerational tradition of achievement and accomplishment and are rightfully invested in wanting that to continue. My Ph.D. showed that I could be trusted to do that, and could be trusted to ensure that our children would do that. This is why dropping out would have been a dealbreaker.

[–]melitele34 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think all of this is true when it comes to your specific circle and beliefs.

I just think what you say is related mostly to your experience and circles of people you engage with. I don’t think it would be helpful for most women, so statement like: Men care about PHD - is not true, because most men don’t. Your husband did, you married him, but he is quite an exception. If you made a statement as: Men in High Society care about PHD, then it would be true and I wouldn’t wrote a comment that I disagree.

Since I am from different country I probably can not relate to most things you said and I do not understand what kind of traditions you have to carry and what kind of duties you have as a wife, that PHD is the only guarantee they have you will be able to fulfill them.

[–]failingtheturingtest7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The statement was that contrary to popular opinion here, some quality men DO value education. It was not that ALL quality men value education, or that some men value only a PHD.

[–]secretladyaccount4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

>I asked him how he'd feel if I just got my MA and didn't do the dissertation. He made it very clear that if I dropped out, that would be a dealbreaker.

Wow, that's really hurtful imo. What would happen if you had to for some reason? (Medical crisis, family emergency, etc.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If I had had to drop it (or, more likely, take a sabbatical) due to some outside circumstance like that, of course he would have been fine with that. But he still would have wanted me to finish it as soon as possible.

You're not the first person to tell me that what he did was hurtful, but I didn't perceive it that way at all. We have been married for close to twenty years, and there have been plenty of times he has comforted me. But all of those times have been following events beyond my control, such as miscarriage or the death of my father.

This was not an event beyond my control, and he was right to respond the way he did. His philosophy towards this kind of thing is probably best described as "I will defend you from others to my dying breath, but I will never save you from yourself." That is fine with me.

[–]secretladyaccount0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Welp, it's your call of course. I agree that someone shouldn't save me from myself, but I expect to have total discretion over things like my university subject and degree path without punishment. I guess I just can't imagine relationships based on anything but personal chemistry. I get that some people match up more based on life path, but I'm not like that. I went to grad school; my man dropped out of HS. To each their own as long as it's not interfering with my finances.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well I think that this type of men appeal to women who want to get a PhD anyway and not even to all of them either (personally I would be put off if my SO’s family had such a mentality and he didn’t have the backbone to stand up for me if I wasn’t how they would want me to be).

But getting a PhD to find a husband like that would be silly; you would need to want to do it anyway.

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

he didn’t have the backbone to stand up for me

You're assuming that my husband disagrees with his family, and you're assuming that I disagree with my husband. He was right to tell me it was a dealbreaker. If I had dropped my program, it would have been a strong indicator that when the going got tough, I would do the easy thing instead of the right thing.

At any rate, I did want to do it anyway; we met after I had already started the program. It was a moment of frustration and discouragement, but instead of "there-there"ing me, he kicked me in the ass, which, at least for me, was the correct response. Edit: And I stated as much in the acknowledgments section of my dissertation.

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

What I was trying to say is that the majority of women I’ve met wouldn’t want to get married into a family of elitists, and since having a PhD matters mostly to this kind of people, we shouldn’t correlate finding a decent guy with having a prestigious degree in general. Your case is the exception, not the rule.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As I said, when I met my now-husband, I had no idea that his family was UC. I thought they were middle class, maybe UMC. Part of that was the fact that I was very unaware of certain class markers at the time, and part of it was the fact that they are what is sometimes referred to as "top out-of-sight." They are not conspicuous consumers at all. And obviously they are not elitists, or they would not have welcomed a working-class Pole into the family the way they did, regardless of her education or achievement.

I am well aware that I am an outlier, but the point that I (and others) are making is that for a certain type of man, education and achievement is a basic expectation for a wife, not some kind of nice bonus (or red flag). My BFF is a Persian aristocrat married to a Air Force veteran who grew up in a trailer park out West. His upbringing could not have been more different from my husband's, but they have this expectation in common. It is obviously not the only trait they seek in a wife, but they wouldn't pick a wife without it.

[–]Wolfssenger11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I think this is because quality people will (try to, and usually succeed to) marry other high quality people. It takes a certain amount of intellect, tenacity, etc. to become educated and successful. However, the selling point is not the degree, it's what the degree implies.

I think it's highly unlikely that the quality of women has drastically improved in the last half of a century (I might even argue otherwise), so we can agree that there were high quality women 50, 100, 1000 years ago as well. Despite this, it was a rarity at these times (increasing as we go further back) for women to be 'successful' and 'educated' as we would measure today (note: today success is viewed almost completely in masculine terms). However, many of these wmen were heads of households and displayed competency equal to or greater than women of today.

Similarly, the mass integration of women into the work force has cheapened the cost of labor further, making single income households less plausible. This combined with a cultural shift towards androgeny (as viewed in any dying empire) can explain why men are more comfortable or even see it as a positive for their wives to make lots of or more money than them.

My point is, it's not really the degree or how much you make. It's the quality of person that you are, and those things are a proxy for some of that in today's culture.

To use myself as an anecdote, I'm a PhD student, and my life plan is to find a suitable partner in college who otherwise would be getting a degree (bonus points for a graduate/advanced degree) but is willing (or better, hoping) to become a SAHM with the option of working part time or from home, should she so desire. My reasoning is that I want someone who is comparably competent and who reasons similarly to me or in a way so that we can understand each other. This is all because relationships and raising children are momentous, important tasks.

However, if I meet someone who can prove they posess these traits, then I would value them the equally, because as I mentioned before, all these things are a proxy for the qualities of the individual.

[–]Vellore9921 Star13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

However, the selling point is not the degree, it's what the degree implies

For some people like yourself, yes. But culturally among certain circles a degree does mean something in its own right. The men I'm talking about are concerned with the prestige and social status that can't be attained without a degree. The best man from our wedding goes so far as only dating women from a certain calibre of grad school. You might think it's pointless, but we're all from intellectual families with "old money", so if you want to be embraced in these circles you just need to at the very minimum have a degree.

I no longer work, when we married I left my technical career to pursue my art full time, but the fact that I hold a PhD is important to my husband and his family.

[–]Wolfssenger1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you're getting at, but the fact of the matter is that that is something that is heavily if not entirely bred in that culture. If anything humans are adaptable, and society has the power to mold them. At one point in China, having feet that fit into ridiculously small shoes. That was specific to that culture of people, yet isn't relevant to most people today. The notion of red pill is to address things that are universal across cultures. Similarly, the possession of a degree means nothing on its own. You can technically possess degrees of varying sorts and be incompetent sheerly through favouritism, neoteny and other things of the like.

By your own admittance, this is something endemic of a very small subset of society. I wouldn't frame this as a general truth that applies to the majority of the populace. Especially since that, while the notion of elites only marrying elites is not new, the notion that women require advanced degrees or lucrative corporate positions to be considered elite is something very, very modern and a symptom of an increasingly androgenized society (as mentioned before).

My point being, getting a PhD/lucrative corporate position probably isn't the path to securing a high value man, and it's likely time better spent on other things if your goal in life is not to marry into an elitist family.

[–]Vellore9921 Star5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

the fact of the matter is that that is something that is heavily if not entirely bred in that culture.

Of course it's cultural. I never said otherwise.

The notion of red pill is to address things that are universal across cultures.

No, it's not. Cultural norms are very relevant to red pill.

By your own admittance, this is something endemic of a very small subset of society. I wouldn't frame this as a general truth that applies to the majority of the populace.

I admit that my circles are at the more extreme end, but I know that the mentality exists across a much larger group. I maintain that most educated, desirable men prefer an educated woman. Many women here are hoping to land such a man, and these are the women I'm talking to.

the notion that women require advanced degrees or lucrative corporate positions to be considered elite is something very, very modern

Upper class women were always formally educated. They were privately tutored in many fields. The only difference now is that women are permitted at universities. Had they been allowed to enrol in the past, I guarantee they would have.

My point being, getting a PhD/lucrative corporate position probably isn't the path to securing a high value man, and it's likely time better spent on other things if your goal in life is not to marry into an elitist family.

Your point is simply personal preference. There are huge swathes of very desirable men unlike you, and many women who are interested in securing one.

[–]Wolfssenger0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think we functionally disagree on much, so I'll just mention a few points.

Upper class women were always formally educated. They were privately tutored in many fields. The only difference now is that women are permitted at universities. Had they been allowed to enrol in the past, I guarantee they would have.

Equating a degree from a university nowadays to in house tutoring of the past is erroneous. Specifically when it comes to graduate degrees (especially the doctoral degree today), they are heavily research focused and are a measure of one's ability to contribute to the intellectual community.

Your point is simply personal preference. There are huge swathes of very desirable men unlike you, and many women who are interested in securing one.

Seeing as only 2% of Americans, 3.6% of UK residents, and 3.3% of Germans (US being a baseline, the following two being the highest rate of doctoral degree per capita) have doctoral degrees, and being generous and assuming an additional exclusive 6% hold corporate/government positions of equal or greater prestiege, that's only 8-9.6% of men in this "huge" category. Adjusting for increased male variability (let's use a factor of 40% for simplicity). Let's use the upper estimate giving us 13.44% of men in this category. Now let's assume 80% of these men require that you have an advanced degree and that leaves 10.8% of the male population at most in this category.

Even if we use these upper estimates (admittedly the corporate prestige estimate was a guess, doubling the % of millionaire households in the U.S.), we'd have to assume every single one of these men is attractive in other facets as well to justify "huge swathes of very desirable men", which is unrealistic.

That being said, I'll amend my point that perhaps an advanced degree isn't one of the primary focuses to acquire a high quality man.

Edit: my adjustment for male variability was likely too low as well, but I think it was compensated for by using higher base population percentages.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My sister and I both graduated from Seven Sisters colleges where the elite have been educating their daughters for over 150 years.

The upper classes have always valued education and competence in their wives and daughters.

[–]Cannowli0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

By calibre of grad school, do you mean Ivy league sorts? I want to go to a prestigious school, as I have the grades, but being in Florida, my options for prestige are somewhat limited. Paying out of pocket for an out of state tuition wouldn't be ideal.

[–]goukaradi 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link


Source: Top 1% male.

Both parents MDs

Ex-wife had degree and was Army Officer. Also low class.

Current SO has no degree but is 1000x the person.

She’s a special kind of woman that they don’t seem to make anymore.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I was going to leave up your attempt to AMOG until your edit. The downvotes are an indication that the community does not think your comment relevant to the discussion. Your edit shows your butthurt over that fact. I'm removing male butthurt from this thread today.

[–]goukaradi 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck does that mean?

Bitches and their made up rules.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

All rules are made up.

[–]MoDuReddit2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Gets me every time.

[–]Vellore9921 Star4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Source: Top 1% male.


[–]unn4med1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]ImTheDoubleGreatest2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Education doesn’t matter in the sense that you don’t need a PhD (or even a bachelor’s tbh). Just don’t be an idiot i.e. dumb blond type. That’s basically it. You don’t have to be ‘educated’ in the formal sense.

[–]Vellore9921 Star2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are plenty of men who require formal education. My husband is one of them.

[–]ImTheDoubleGreatest2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The exception that proves the rule. I'm striving for higher education too, and all of my male colleagues who are doing the same don't really give a crap about a woman's formal education either as long as she is sweet and isn't a bag bricks in the head. Formal education is just a sign of not being dumb (usually, there are always exceptions to this as well), but if she doesn't have it, it doesn't mean that she's dumb either.

[–]sonder_one1 Star1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is not a disagreement with TRP. At all.

Attraction and commitment are different things. Education does not make a woman more attractive to a man. At all. But TRP never said that rich, successful men will marry the hot waitress. Only that they want to have sex with her.

Of course men consider the resume before marrying. But the conversation about marriage never even begins to happen if attraction doesn't exist, and attraction is a totally separate thing.

[–]unn4med0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing – subbed!

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it’s more of a socioeconomic equality thing.

I’m not saying that people who are in different earning brackets can’t be together, but it does put a strain on both parties for sure. Either one party has to deal with the “can I afford to keep up with his hobbies?” Train of thought, or the other has to keep up with the “should I help her out financially?” Train of thought. These types of ideas can put massive stress on relationships.

I think moreso than education, the high earning men care about whether the women are going to leech or not. There is a significantly lessened chance of divorce rape, or gold digging in couples earning similar amounts.

[–]Greenveins0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad I have a spouse that wants me to better my education. Right now I'm stuck working a minimum wage job and forced to work cruddy hours that never allows us to see each other. There's a place offering CNA classes by our house and once I get certified I'll be able to not only make more, but will be able to find a job that allows me home by 7pm and off weekends. hell, for once I'll be able to have health insurance. Win win for both of us!

[–]wolfouttanowhere0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I (M) agree with you

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Education doesn't matter to a certain type of man, sure, but this type of man isn't usually on an educated woman's radar anyway.

A man who wants an educated spouse doesn't need the credentials to prove it; he just needs to speak with her for five minutes. He'll know pretty quickly.

My feminist ex-wife has a master's. My current wife has an associates (and knows a LOT more, despite being 15 years younger). I judge by what's in a gal's head, not her resume.

EDIT: And yes, I have a graduate degree as well and value both intelligence and education. Actual education. Too many degrees are worthless these days, to boot.

[–]Vellore9921 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes that's nice, but it has nothing do with what I'm taking about, which is men who value formal credentials as a social marker.

[–]SentientApe 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sapiosexuality is really an underated sentiment amongst many.

I (42m) don't apply any further consideration to a Master's or PhD, other than what a possible SO has considered for their own work or desire, but it certainly doesn't detract from my interest in them.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are going to break the "no 'male here'" rule then you need to do it with a more insightful comment than this.

[–]Vellore9921 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's nice. Thanks for sharing your personal preference with us.

[–]jrr6415sun-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it means nothing, but it's definitely not the most important thing. It's a very small part of the value.

[–]Flesh_Pillow5-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But the PhD will come at the cost of your youth. Youth being the most valuable thing on offer alongside virginity/chastity

[–]masterofthebarkarts1 Star24 points25 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is just me being nit-picky, but: I agree with a lot of the observed phenomena of TRP, but not necessarily the explanation for it. It is, after all, just a theory, and "evolutionary biology" is a damn hard thing to prove empirically. I don't think it necessarily matters, though. Did I branch-swing in my youth because I was hypergamously seeking the best Alpha? Or because I was a serial monogamist and afraid of being alone? Or because I recognized that my current boyfriends were not right for me, and I was young and hot and could start dating someone else immediately? Ultimately, who cares - the important thing is to recognize the behaviour in myself and work to correct it so that I don't keep fucking up my life and relationships forever :)

[–]Sayeesa1315 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The emphasis on looks.

While I agree that taking care of oneself is highly important, I think we get way to down about our looks and then that gets in the way seeing our true value, or it becomes an excuse to not look at our other facets that truly need the work (like sometimes our attitude for example).

I feel as though I've been on the chubby side almost my entire life- I don't fit any of the beauty norms, and it's messed with my self esteem the whole time. Even while getting compliments from friends and high value males my entire life.

The man I'm currently dating is as Captain as they come, and he works out at least 5 days a week... But since we've been dating I went from somewhat thinner than my normal size to what I feel is very chubby again- I have a little extra on my belly, my thighs, my arms, etc- but he adores me! Every day he says he loves my body, my womanly curves, he worships me, etc. And his attentions follow his word perfectly. I've never felt more cherished in my life.

I do some kind of physical activity every day, and I watch what I eat usually (although we do have nights where we eat junk or a heavy meal) so I'm not using it as an excuse to be lazy, but it's shocked me over and over just how different the ideas of attractiveness are between men and women.

I remember when the Beyonce and Jay-Z scandal broke (which I have no real opinion of), all the women at the office where I worked were so shocked and disappointed, saying "if that goddess can't get a man to stay loyal, there's no hope for me!" And then one of the men said something I'll never forget "it's not about how a woman looks, it's about how she makes her man feel".

I've found that it's very true. A good, healthy man would rather be with a woman who is objectively a 5 but who is pleasant, makes him feel useful and admired, etc., than be with a 10 with a bad attitude.

Self care is important- but we have to use it for everything, not just our looks. Doing things that relax us and make us happy is just as important as working out. Having a beautiful personality does wonders.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The emphasis on looks is there more because it's easier to work on than the rest, I think.

Looks matter more in early stages, they catch interest quickly. Especially useful for shy introverts. Later on, men see letting yourself go more as symptomatic of diminished love. They don't typically mind pregnancy tracks.

[–]dashdotdott6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that we are our own worst critics. Guys (on average) are pretty forgiving of weight/chubbiness. Just like women are. The average woman doesn't need her man to have a model's body but she also doesn't want someone who is 400lbs. A nice body is a perk but not the end all and be all. Also: they totally get "she's had my kids" glasses. I'm pretty sure my husband is more attracted to me after having three kids than before.

[–]Next_Flow11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've found that it's very true. A good, healthy man would rather be with a woman who is objectively a 5 but who is pleasant, makes him feel useful and admired, etc., than be with a 10 with a bad attitude.

Its crazy how many women truly believe personality doesn't matter to men. My greatest desire romantically is to feel fucking desired by a girl I find attractive, there's no need for her to be a super model, realistically a little chub is preferable. Not to say I'd date a morbidly obese girl, but so long as she's not ridiculously fat, I'm happy to give her a chance.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor47 points48 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The women who end up here too often are anxious-preoccupied and take these 'rules' entirely too seriously. Life should be fun. So I disagree with all the rules anytime people look at them as being 'rules'. This is a toolbox. Use what you need, toss the rest and ENJOY YOUR LIVES!

The point of being a great wife is not to earn awards or save society. It's to have a great marriage which is also not an end-goal. The end-goal is joy. Too many here seem to forget...

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

The thing is that many women come here because no man that they like wants to commit to them. They feel used when they get told that the guy is “not looking for something serious” for the 10th time, after they had sex.

And there are some very useful rules, such as “don’t sleep with the guy before you get some sort of commitment, if that’s what you’re looking for”.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're more like guidelines, anyway.

I broke that one. Ended up happily married.

[–]stay_rad2311 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

On Married red pill threads I've seen some men (I've definitely see other men voice their disagreement) talk about that they pretty much don't even try and hide cheating on their wives. They justify it by saying that they are otherwise good providers, fathers, and husband's so their wife will turn a blind eye. I just personally am in an monogamous marriage and don't think this is high quality behavior that I would tolerate.

[–]dangernoodle888 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of those guys have shitty wives. Don't think it's behavior any good RPW should tolerate.

[–]DoneBeenHadBeenDone4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the same degeneracy that they often accredit to feminism. They prattle on about how women are promiscuous, no one prioritizes family because of feminism...then they destroy their families chasing promiscuous women...

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I was not willing to move in until marriage was definitely on the horizon. We made an out of state move a few months before the wedding. I told my husband early on that I have my own life and goals and was not willing to uproot my life without a ring. He was surprised because in his peer group girls regularly move in with their high earning boyfriends without a commitment beyond girlfriends and those girls have yet to end up married to any of the guys. They cohabit for a while (sometimes years) before ending up dumped. This had even happened to a couple girls who relocated for their boyfriends careers. I told my husband while dating that I was not going to agree to something like that because I was not foolish, but if we were committed I would be willing to shift things around to support his aspirations. We dated for a year and a half living separately prior to engagement. We moved in together in my home state about four or five months after getting engaged. We moved out of state together three months before the wedding, a bit over a year after getting engaged. I think that ny boundary of refusing to cohabit without a ring helped ensure my husband actually proposed. He would not have been particularly motivated to do so if he got all the wife perks without actually needing to commit. Once you cohabit it is easy to live as married people for years without ever making that step. Sometimes I wish I had waited to move in until just prior to the wedding because we got less of that newly wed stage since we had already been living as a married couple for a year prior to the wedding. We figured out our compatibility though before we moved in together. It's not that hard if you are observant and pay attention to details.

[–]dangernoodle886 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad that holding out worked for you, but I also think this is not such a black and white issue as painted in RPW. Ideally, we should vet for men who are not in the mindset to pull the whole "move in and I'll reap wifey benefits without every committing" card. Outside of reddit, there is a sizeable population of men who actually desire getting married instead of viewing it as this thing they have to "give up" in order to gain something.

I think a level-headed RPW can safely move in before engagement if she feels sure he's commitment-minded and they have at least talked about moving in as an explicit step towards marriage with a rough timeline outlined. She also needs to be prepared to up and leave if things aren't progressing in the timeline she wants. No woman "accidentally" spends 6 years with a guy who won't propose; there is clearly a lot of rationalization and denial that goes on in there.

I think there are many men who would not get engaged to someone they haven't lived with. Divorce rates are high nowadays, and it's very typical advice given outside of TRP/traditional circles.

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

This was a pretty unique situation, but I think it was definitely a wise choice and I am glad it worked out well for you!

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the circumstances were terribly unique but our approach to them was different than the current social norm of moving in while just dating. Perhaps less of an income disparity between partners is a more typical dynamic on average, but in my husband's peer group the thing that was unique was that I was not willing to move in prior to engagement. His peer group is very secular and career focused, quite a few committed to the idea of never marrying and just keeping a rotation of girlfriends. There have definitely been guys that vaguely gave the idea to their girlfriend that maybe one day somewhere down the line they might consider proposing, but it is basically just a tactic to get the fiance/wife perks for a time without having to commit and being free to bounce with minimal repercussions when things are no longer fun. I don't think that mentality is terribly uncommon among young men in general these days. I think the only unique thing about our situation was that I refused to play the game that way despite religious affiliation not being the driving factor in my decision making. I just didn't see the point in pretending to be married and attempting to build a life with someone when there was no promise on their end that they were invested in it lasting. However, I get the sense that for you the moving in prior to marriage stems from a desire to have a trial period prior to investing for real. I didn't want to significantly rearrange my life for anyone without a solid shot at permanent stability and security. The trial for me was before we moved in together and the vetting period was sufficiently long. We lived close enough to each that seeing each other three nights a week was possible and seeing the other person's day to day habits was possible. I genuinely do not feel like either of us encountered any surprises after moving in together because we both vetted thoroughly for a long time. We have never really fought about day to day household issues or finances either because we discussed it all at great length prior to moving in and followed through on what was agreed upon...but I have gotten feedback that these kind of in depth conversations prior to moving in are less common than would seem senisble. I guess vetting prior to moving can be more sloppy if the stakes seem lower (i.e. I can easily get out whenever)? We were extremely thorough because once we were in, we were going all in. And again, I think it may have been even better if we actually waited until closer to the wedding day. Blending our lives was pretty smoothe once we set the plan in motion, but by the time we got married a year later the newness and excitement had worn off somewhat. I feel like the actual getting married would have felt more momentous if we hadn't already been living together for that long. The wedding day was just a break in our regularly established routine as opposed to feeling like truly starting a new chapter of our lives. But, certain circumstances made moving in sooner make more sense, so it is what it is.

[–]Kara__El4 Stars37 points38 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree that relationships are as formulaic as we sometimes portray them. For example, I married a very alpha man and we go toe-to-toe a lot more than I imagine this sub would condone. If we didn't, though, we both know that he would steamroll me. Sometimes I have to remind him that he is not the only grownup in this marriage, at a level of insistence he will actually hear, despite what Laura Doyle might advise.

[–]healthyelegant9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that screening before getting married by living together is a good option for some people. I chose to live with my now husband after being together for 4 years. We knew within 6 months of dating each other that we would marry, but we were very young and going to college, so we discussed waiting until after we both graduated to move in together and get engaged. Once we moved in with each other, I made it clear to him that we needed to be engaged within the next 1.5 years. So he was able to save enough money to afford the ring and then we even waited another 1.75 years after that to actually get married, because weddings are expensive and we wanted a big one. It worked for us because we were always in communication about our futures and expectations. The only reason we held back was due to money and age.

[–]pyrehoula32 points33 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you on the cohabitation thing. My granny was the most “red pill” woman I’ve ever met in my life and her biggest piece of advice to me was to live with a man before marrying him.

My grandfather was extremely kind to her until they moved in together; he became verbally abusive and extremely controlling two days into living together in their first home after their honeymoon. She made it “work,” meaning kept him as content as possible without making herself or her children live in constant torment, by picking her battles. She fought to be able to read the Bible and go to church, to keep her children safer than they otherwise would have been, and to keep him from killing her cats, and that was it. Now, I don’t believe that if someone posted here asking for advice about this exact situation that anyone would tell her to stay and make it work, but her mindset was that divorce wasn’t an option and when you go into marriage with that mindset, like most RPW do, you need to make 100% sure that the person you’re marrying is worthy of being married to. You only really know someone when you live with them.

Anyway, here’s my answer to the actual question: The major disagreement I have with RP theory is the belief that the feminine gender role is an innate part of being biologically female. I didn’t come out of the womb with a desire to wear dresses and mascara and no human being is born submissive. Almost all of of the traits we associate with femininity are unnaturally assigned to the female sex. Were they not, then why are women raised in more traditional households more feminine, and men raised in more progressive households more feminine, and vice versa? Something that is innate is something like our desire for companionship because nearly every single person desires it in some way, and those who don’t are typically traumatized or have other serious underlying issues, and a lot of the time these people do need it but don’t know how to accept it. Not every woman is feminine, and many women are perfectly content being unfeminine.

Society reinforces gender roles (yes, even now in our more liberal society, and IMO even more so - the more things change, the more they stay the same) therefore there are benefits to “playing the game.” Taking the red pill is about playing the game because it benefits us. Despite not believing that mascara is a biological need, I wear it because I’m treated better when I do. I enjoy being feminine because I enjoy being treated the way feminine women are treated. It’s a trained response, really. It’s easier than going off course and there are incentives to sticking to the status quo.

You can view this as a good thing or a bad thing; these aren’t value judgements, they’re observations. Whether it’s good or bad, however, the facts remain that women who act feminine will be treated differently, and I, and others here, enjoy the benefits of being feminine. Even if someone does see gender roles as harmful, we’re not going to see a societal change in our lifetime or even our great grandchildren’s lifetimes, so why not “play the game” of femininity if we enjoy the results?

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I read in a JBP book that measurable gender differences are actually greater in Sweden. Didn't check the source (his list looked legit though), but you directly contradict that fibding. Do you have a source? Wanna compare? (Just curious, not trying to start a fight)

[–]NotALawyerButt44 points45 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Women age like milk, men age like wine. Also, men not caring what kind of money women make.

I’m a professional, single lady in her late twenties. My single professional male peers are mostly dating women like me, not 22 year old virgins. Some of the married ones have drunkenly bragged to me about landing a wife who brings home good money.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 35 points36 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I agree, especially with your first point. The number of men going bald, having a belly and generally letting themselves go (especially when they get married), is far greater and more intense than the women equivalent, at least in my experience.

[–]CantBanFacts 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy Link

That first one's not a choice, and shouldn't be held against men.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 18 points19 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Of course I am not holding it against them, but it is something that makes men objectively unattractive in the eyes of many women (especially if you combine it with other things such as being unfit). I didn’t say they are to blame more than women’s boobs becoming saggier with age for example.

[–]unn4med5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Surprised with how reasonable this community is. Thanks for not being hostile – wow, this is surprising to even type out. But most places on reddit won’t host this kind of civil, level headed discussion.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t consider myself an important part of the community; I equally enjoy TRP, TBP and the purple pill. It’s almost of a sociological interest for me to discuss this sort of things, I find them entirely fascinating.

[–]unn4med0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know exactly what you mean. I’m a man btw

[–]Vellore9921 Star4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

She didn't say it's a choice. She said it's a thing that happens to men and makes them unattractive.

[–]CantBanFacts 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

She plainly conflated it with the others which are, and she even indicated that it happens especially after marriage, which also groups it in with the others and, as I stated, is factually incorrect. My criticism is plainly valid and obviously needed.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is not plain to me that these things are conflated or your criticism is valid. You come across as butthurt more than anything. I am now directing you towards our rules for men posting. If you are not older/LTRed and a participant on TRP then you should be posting elsewhere. RPW is not a discussion group for men.

[–]jrr6415sun-4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

having a belly and letting themselves go doesn't have to do with age and can be fixed. A women getting old can't be fixed.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess you do have a point, but most of men don’t ever try to fix themselves, so it doesn’t really matter irl.

Of course I guess that the flip side is that being a 50 year old man who has decent genes and takes care of himself automatically puts you on the top 5% of the men your age, so you have plenty of women to choose from, even sort of younger ones (35-45), especially if you have a decent income.

But most 50 year old men look VERY bad, even worse than 50 year old women.

[–]masterofthebarkarts1 Star15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

In my experience 80-90% of all people age like milk. I do think that women tend to (not always, of course), age more drastically, possibly because of motherhood or menopause. Or maybe it would be better to say that the sudden aging happens at different points - a lot of dudes I knew in highschool gained weight and lost all their hair by 22-23, but otherwise look the same 10 years later. A lot of the women I knew looked more-or-less the same until they had kids or started to put on the cubicle 50 lbs (25-35).

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like cheese tho

[–]jrr6415sun1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

late twenties isn't when women age.. it's the late thirties that they age.

[–]melitele37 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you.

I have lived with my husband before marriage. We have been dating for 3.5 years online before the move and we could never experience spending time and getting to know each other in real life because we were on different continents.

I decided that marrying a person that I have never spent time with for long time in real life, just to be able to live with each other would be irresponsible and unwise.

I didn’t start living with him to keep my options open before marriage or to decide that if I don’t like something about him I am going to dump him. I did it because there are people who can play and put a facade of who they are. They can lie about habits or beliefs. They can hide debts or addictions. They can hide being abusing or aggressive. You don’t really know the person entirely before you start living with each other. And especially for cases like mine - dating online - it is so easy to create an ideal image of yourself.

What if I married a man who didn’t share same values as me and wouldn’t want to work on these aspects or wouldn’t want to create the life that he promised? Life is a gamble indeed but I prefer to eliminate stupid mistakes. I am not religious, I am an atheist who has conservative views and I as well do not consider a divorce ever - UNLESS the man I married would commit some horrible crime or absolutely deceived me and did something threatening to our family behind my back.

I do not criticize women who prefer to wait till marriage as it is their life choice and it doesn’t really matter if I consider it a bit light headed.

Thankfully for me my husband turned out to be exactly the same and even better and we are now married :)

PLUS: I don’t agree a man won’t be motivated to propose to you just because he already gets the wife benefits. My husband was the one who was keep talking about getting married and asking when should we do it while we were already living with each other. He wanted us to be a family not only relationship.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The "No Feminism" rule. I think feminism has its place and while some things aren't great (i.e. encouraging hook up culture) some things are (like women being able to vote). I just think that, like everything else, you have to be a critical consumer and recognize when the message is dumb.

[–]dangernoodle886 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! I don't get why we even have a stance on feminism. How we behave in relationships should be apolitical. I'm not going to make decisions in my relationships based on how feminist or anti-feminist that move is. I'm going to do what works. I feel like all this does is scare of women who could gain a lot from this sub. Plus, many aspects of feminism do align closely with RPW values - for example, making motherhood more accessible with better maternal leave policies.

[–]redwatch956 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m a feminist. But feminism shouldn’t play a role in my marriage. Cause we’re a two person team.

[–]gretawasright4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I was taught that feminism is the idea that man and woman are equal in my women's studies class in college. My understanding is that feminism asserts that people should be able to choose how they live their lives. A woman should not be forced to stay at home to care for the kids if she wants to work, but conversely, if a man or woman chooses to do this, they should be welcome to do so.

I really liked the idea that everyone gets to pick for themselves how they live their life. What concept of feminism is eschewed by RPW?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are many things to be thankful to feminism for. The problem is not with the core values of feminism; it is a perfectly rational and socially beneficial philosophy to believe in the equal innate value of all people. The problem is with the way that political feminism explicitly or implicitly pushes biological sameness and silences even well-worded and rational dissenters.

James Damore, the author of the contentious memo in which he suggested that we may never have a 50:50 ratio of female:male engineers at Google due to several innate differences sourced from scientific papers, was fired. While Google is within its right to do this, the story of the "disgusting sexist memo" broke around the world, and last I heard he was effectively blacklisted in Silicon Valley.

It's not even about his opinions being correct, necessarily. Many scientists whose studies he cited responded and said that, while the studies were correctly interpreted, they didn't agree with the final conclusions. The problemis the fact that feminist ideology is actively silencing opinions that compromise its narrative. I don't even think that evolutionary theories are incompatible with the core values of feminism at all, so this political feminism I'm talking about is its own creature.

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism makes sense in 3rd world countries and some Asian countries. In the US, Canada, and most of Europe women are legally equal (if not favorable).

The right to vote is important, but women already have it in first world countries. What does feminism for you fight toward?

First and second wave feminism were great! Third wave feminism is almost a request for legal and social superiority it seems.

[–]foreverrryounggg5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How about the right to maternity leave & accessible & affordable childcare? How about protecting the equality hard won by first & second wave feminism?

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maternity leave is a good one.

Affordable child care is not a feminist issue, it is a familial issue. Child care is not solely a woman’s role anymore (unless you want it to be).

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We should totally like end womens suffrage.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess I should answer the actual question, which was what I disagree with...TRP says that women can not love men the way men love women. There is this idea that men are free from utilitarian thinking and can truly love unconditionally. I take the stance that men and women can be equally opportunistic, pragmatic, and utilitarian when it comes to choosing a partner. Men can also be just as prone to having an affair or wanting an upgrade as women can. I think the way men talk about their female partners over on the men's forums showcases that they are plenty capable of assessing a relationship as a cost benefit analysis as opposed to embracing a sense of truly loving any of the women involved. In fact, loving a woman seems to be discouraged in a lot of ways which begs the question, does it even matter if TRP believes men are capable of a more genuine love if it actively discourages it? I am a cynic and believe almost all humans, regardless of gender, are prone to egoism. This belief is reinforced by both TRP and RPW posts. The reason I have enjoyed the material in these communities is because I feel it gives a framework to circumvent this weakness in human nature when applied properly.

[–]imanewwoman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This. On top of what you said, there are cultural difference that also play a part. For example, in latin america the most heard story since forever is that men are more likely to cheat. Especially in older generations, it was the most common thing that women suffered alone at home while men went out and cheated. Grandmothers accepted it like something most women had to endure, with some lucky ones who found a man who loved them profoundly and didn’t hace eyes for nobody else.

[–]secretladyaccount4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Monogamy being requisite (if you TRULY don't want that; no one should be forced into nonmonog but I would be miserable monog), and the appropriate timeline for marriage. The majority of people in my immediate family dated their partner for over 10 years before marrying, and I am very likely to do the same. I think that by say year 4 or 5 you need to be on the same PAGE about eventual marriage and family life, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen right then.

[–]Throwaway2303069 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You make an interesting point--the not living together until marriage advice may be wise in theory, but it's similar to staying a virgin until marriage--very difficult to do in the Western, secular world. You will not find a lot of secular guys who'll take you up on that.

I live in the Midwest (middle of the road conservative/moderate environment), and nearly everyone I know who's married lived together before marriage/engagement. The only exception I'm aware of is a conservative Jewish couple in my circle of acquaintances who went from first date to wedding in 7 months.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not just about finding a man who agrees to do it; I am not willing to marry a guy that I haven't lived with at least for a year.

[–]happilyever2315 points16 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Premarital cohabitation has higher rates of divorce.

[–]pyrehoula25 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Higher rates of divorce are not necessarily a bad thing.

When domestic violence shelters became legal in the US, divorce rates skyrocketed. Many said that domestic violence shelters were causing divorce and should be shut down for ruining marriages. However, we know that marriages weren’t being ruined by shelters; marriages that were already ruined were now escapable by victims of abuse. The higher rates of divorce were proof that shelters were doing a good job of helping victims escape their abusers.

There’s also the issue of correlation =/= causation. People who cohabitate before marriage tend to be more socially liberal, and people who are more socially liberal tend to be more apt to divorce their spouses. These same people would have the same attitude towards divorce whether they lived together beforehand or not. The divorce rates are due to the attitude of the people, not the cohabitation. This can be a good or a bad thing depending on the situation.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Higher rates of divorce are not necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, they are, when you factor in the impact of a divorce on children.

As for what ruined marriages, that would be the widespread adoption of No-Fault divorces, not shelters for battered women. Only a VERY small percentage of men batter (or have EVER battered) their wives; it's an order of magnitude more women who initiate divorces against husbands - and RP tells us it's most likely due to hypergamy.

[–]pyrehoula1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Divorce is not the worst thing that can happen to a child. Living in constant turmoil, picking up toxic interpersonal habits, or witnessing and/or being a victim of violence are much, much more damaging.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce is not the worst thing that can happen to a child.

Did I say that? No, nor implied it.

Living in constant turmoil, picking up toxic interpersonal habits, or witnessing and/or being a victim of violence are much, much more damaging.

True, but derailing and not the topic. This isn't a victimhood/trauma competition.

[–]pyrehoula0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Did I say that? No, nor implied it.

Yes you did.

I said,

Higher rates of divorce are not necessarily a bad thing.

to which you responded,

Yes, they are, when you factor in the impact of a divorce on children.

You said that higher rates of divorce are always bad because of how they impact children.

I really don’t like having to break down what someone else said for them because they either put such little effort into a response that they forgot the words that are right in front of them or can’t admit that they misspoke or were uninformed. Pick a stance to disagree with me on, voice your opinion, and stand by what you say. If you can’t do that, I ask that you don’t respond to my comments.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said that "Divorce is the worst thing that can happen to a child."

I said that "Yes, they are" regarding higher rates of divorce being a bad thing.

Not "the worst thing", a BAD THING. Divorce is never a good thing for kids. Even if getting rid of a bad parent is bad in the long run, a marital dissolution is always stressful and negative in impact, at least in the short run. Often it's necessary, but it still hurts the kids. But then, so does staying in an abusive relationship, or "Living in constant turmoil, picking up toxic interpersonal habits, or witnessing and/or being a victim of violence".

All of those are bad. I took one stance, and one stance only: Divorce is always a bad thing. It may be the best of a set of bad options, but it's always a negative, and it's always a failure.

If you can't understand the difference between "Divorce is always a negative and harmful" (what I said) and "Divorce is the worst thing that can happen to a child" (never said or implied) then your reading teachers failed you in a spectacular fashion.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Probably because people who live together before marriage are less likely to be super religious and completely against divorce

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

In that case, that could mean that they choose to stay in an unhappy marriage just because they are against divorce. If that's true, then I am not sure that not living together is better, but I am not religious at all and only interested in dating non religious people (luckily they are the majority in my country) so I might be biased.

[–]Theendisnearornot6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are some studies that show long term most people don’t regret staying in an unhappy marriage. Meaning it was an unhappy period that they got through. And most people that have been married a long time did go through some bad times but stuck it out.

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

That's actually a very interesting perspective, thank you!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would think living together is better because you can find out how compatible you are before making a big commitment. Anyway, I think getting married later in life is correlated with lower rates of divorce, so if your goal is to avoid divorce maybe it’s better to be pickier. I’m talking about the US though, it could be pretty different where you are.

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

That's interesting. Why do you think that is?

[–]NotALawyerButt11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Here is the report from the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project. Their theory is that people who cohabitate are more likely to “slide” into marriage than intentionally decide to marry compared to those who don’t cohabitate, and that it’s the “sliding” that leads to less happiness and more divorce.

[–]Kara__El4 Stars6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is my general thought on the subject. "If you're already living together, why not?" isn't as compelling of a reason to marry as "I want to be with this person, always." Living together makes breaking up a lot more difficult, so I was always an "all or none" gal. It worked for my husband and I.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the link! I looked into it and it was definitely some food for thought!

[–]DissonanceBadger8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Probably because living together before marriage correlates with “I’m keeping my options instead of going all-in” mentality. In other words, correlates with people who are more likely to fix by replacing than to fix by mending.

[–]dangernoodle880 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Idk, I feel like it could also correlate with "I take marriage seriously and want to get a deeper look at our day to day compatibility before diving in."

I think the explicit reasons of moving in needs to be discussed. Many couples will move in together due to financial/convenience reasons before their relationship is mature enough to handle it. They're honeymooning and just wanna see each other all the time, have lots of sex, and pay less rent. Once they've moved in, it becomes such a sunk cost that they ignore issues and marry. These people might also be more likely to have a more irresponsible, impulsive, and/or socially liberal attitude in general. These people skew the statistics towards divorce.

There is definitely a responsible way to approach living together before marriage.

[–]DissonanceBadger2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the living in together before marriage period is short, then fine. My comment applies to long living-together-before-marriage periods (multiple years).

[–]just_a_mum6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe that all women should follow rp, that is should be a choice. I also don't believe that, as others have said, being rp is biological for all women. The fact that there are gay women is proof enough of that.

I also don't think that your past should affect your future. But that might be just because of my personal situation.

I agree with the sentiment that serious couples should live together before getting married. A good friend of mine had serious issues with marriage right now which she says is because they never lived together first and she regrets it.

[–]masterofthebarkarts1 Star8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have female friends who absolutely should not be married with kids. It would be hell for them, their partner and their kids. I'd glad they can go be CEOs and head their own law firms, because it would be stupid to force them into either poverty or a marriage that would be awful for everyone involved.

However, they represent like 5-10% of the female population. I think our mistake was assuming that the outliers represented the norm.

[–]uniqueeleni[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course not all women are meant to follow TRP; I don’t even believe I am a good example of a RPW myself. I am not religious, don’t really care wether I get married or not (I just see it as a party and I don’t really like parties), I don’t like housework (my BF does most of it) and I don’t regret having slept with multiple people.

But I do believe that TRP can provide some knowledge on how certain things work; it’s not full proof of course but it has helped me personally.

[–]just_a_mum0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't aware that being religious was part of RPW. I knows that usually religious women follow rpw, but I didn't think that all, or even most rpw are religious.

[–]Whopper_Jr1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree on the point of cohabitation, and would also add that there should be experimental periods during which hormonal birth control (and possibly SSRIs and other similar substances) should be abstained from in order to fully gauge compatibility if you are seriously considering marriage.

[–]NicoleInBlue1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I don't diasgree with the theory per say, but I think there are exceptions regarding high n-count. If your SMV is high enough and you have strong girl game, you can get away with promisucous reputation. I'm not sure if it's them being lucky or exceptionally beautiful or a combination of both, but I know ladies who have had their fun in their 20s and still managed to marry successful men with options in their 30s. Go figure.

[–]jacksheart6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe in Red Pill being rooted in biology/evolution. For me all gender roles are constructed. I don't believe that men and women are born different with different attitudes towards sex, mating, etc.

RP is still helpful for me. It doesn't matter to my daily life whether gender roles are a construct or not. Following RP guidelines helped me to more fulfilling relationships and a better understanding of men.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree but I love your reasoning.

[–]dangernoodle882 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think biology/evolution is overvalued in RP, especially when discussing relationships strategy. I do think there is a good amount of truth in there when it comes to sexual strategy though.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Go watch some Jordan B. Peterson with an open mind and see if you still hold this belief afterwards. We are not blank slates.

[–]Sunshinegirl8860 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with the multiple partners being a turnoff for men thing. When I met my then husband to be, I'd only slept with three people. Not only was my husband surprised, he also wished I'd been with MORE guys. Even to this day he lets me know that if I ever want to, we can talk about it and make it happen.

Everyone has personal preferences and in this day and age, I think a lot of men don't really care about your number, they care about how you make them feel. Just my experience.

[–]ThatStepfordGalEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess this is the more modern angle of things - that women can be domestic, at home, having more time there only after they’re married/have kids. It’s not an unlockable in a game. Women can be domestic and spend more time at home doing domestic work if they want to. No matter what time of their lives. People, usually Western people have comfortable, high financial standards of living (saying this as I grew up in a third world country) compared to most of the world. If you live in a first world country, you can survive on one income or one and a half if you live simply. It’s such an extreme-capitalist way of judging a woman’s work ethic and skills to just count outside, money-wage work and not household work.

Women who want to should be allowed to do their domestic work and have more time at home, even working part time, married or not. It’s achievable and should not be considered lesser than someone that works full time. Both are work and earn equally important things. It earns time for those they live with.

What if they live with family and want to look after them domestically? What if they want to do that with friends? What if they want to do that with their spouse even without children?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

So how does this stay at home single woman afford her apartment?

[–]ThatStepfordGalEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t say just do domestic work. Yet another assumption. It’s like people can’t work part time and share house or live with family and close friends. Live simply and you can. I am. Partially stay at home, doing domestic work, living with lovely family and have good amount of savings. 👌🏻

Living alone, unless you have the extenuating circumstances that you have to, is a waste of money. That money could be put away for the future.

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

I think that also depends where you live. Some places have a really high cost of living.

[–]ThatStepfordGalEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, like I said it’s living simply and not in the middle of the city. I’m financially very comfortable in the Melbourne suburbs now.

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

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