All Girls Are Spoiled Children

April 5, 2013

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/askTRP.

/r/askTRP 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 All Girls Are Spoiled Children
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 19
Comments 22
Date April 5, 2013 9:37 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/askTRP
Archive Link
Original Link
Similar Posts

[–]Sybarith 0 points0 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, "girls" does refer to children... otherwise, complete bullshit. Plenty of quality people out there, they're just rarer in this day and age, but definitely not completely gone.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Take your NAWALT elsewhere. I've never met an attractive woman that hasn't displayed that kind of behaviour, even if it is subtle. Looking for "the one" that isn't like that isn't the point, the point is just to be aware of this behavior.

[–]zionController 20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

someone discovers this subreddit every ten minutes and they always feel the need to tell us that nawalt, as if it adds anything of value to the discussion.

95% of women behave like x. "yeah but nawalt, mmmkay?" every single thread

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

TIL NAWALT means not all women are like that.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

TYL AWALT with degrees.

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

I think, that is really the best way to describe it. I feel as though masculine and feminine characteristics are expressed in individuals much the same way as heterosexual and homosexual tendencies are expressed on the kinsey scale.

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

My eyes have been opened.

[–]Travis_McGee 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy Link

By calling "complete bullshit" are you trying to discredit the entirety of the article simple because it generalized "all girls"? Are you trying to imply that because there are the rare few quality women the article is complete trash? If so I'd suggest you rethink.

[–]Sybarith -1 points-1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm "implying" (you know, by outright stating) that "All girls are spoiled children" is an incredibly stupid and naive thing to say. The article's correct about a certain type of individual, common though they may be, but the sheer blindness of insisting everyone's like this comes from poor anecdotal experience only.

[–]Travis_McGee 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you are wrong. Generalizations exist for a reason. These women do exist. And there are many of them. It's not poor experiences by one person who then wrote an article. It's a common encounter. Don't discredit an entire article because you haven't seen the people the article is trying to address.

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

If they were trying to make a statistical argument, they should have replaced the word "all" with "most", or "a lot", but then I guess that would ruin the glorious simplistic stupidity of their claims.

[–]chowder138 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, not all are like this. Only most.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I was about to say...when I was a teenager, my parents would not have tolerated the behavior this article claims is universal.

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

Red Pill theory is probabilistic, not deterministic.

[–]RedSunBlue 5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I like that you post here. You're cordial when expressing your opinion and it's very important that we have dissenting opinions here so that discussions do not devolve into variations of "Hamsters gon hamst" circlejerking.

However, what you're suggesting here, i.e., that the generalizations of the OP are invalid because of your personal experience, demonstrates the red pill theory that women have a tendency for solipsism.

From the linked article, because Tomassi is a far better writer than I:

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

From a formal logic perspective, a single counterexample is considered sufficient to disprove a theory.

And yet, this brings us to a question I rarely see asked here: where did the author of this article get his points from? Did he garner it from his own experience? Did he take surveys? Is he making assumptions based on social axioms? Did he look at consumer data (for instance, about women always wanting the latest, most popular gadgets)? The answer might be fascinating.

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

It's always important to consider the intent of any piece of writing. We can assume that when the author titles his article "All women are spoiled children" he doesn't literally mean "every single women on the face of the planet earth." It's a blog and it's a common practice to make hyperbolic titles in an effort to garner page views. We can also safely assume that the "girls" he's referring to are Western women. By "all", he most certainly intends to mean "most". And for the sake of someone who's username is "I'm too literal", let's assume that "are" means "behave like". So let's rephrase the title to "Most Western Women Behave Like Spoiled Children."

From a formal logic perspective, a single counterexample is considered sufficient to disprove a theory.

An example:

I say, "Everyone has two arms and two legs."

You say, "No, I know someone who was born with a birth defect that left him without arms or legs. Your theory is false."

Yes, technically my theory is false if taken literally. It does not mean it is without merit. If the OP was posted in a scientific journal, you would have every responsibility to disprove the conclusions that the author is drawing. But again, this is a posting in a medium that is akin to a digital magazine. Dismissing the observations of the author based on hyperbole of the author is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion.

Further more, most theories here are not absolute. Any theory dealing with something as fluid as human behavior is going to be a matter of degrees.

where did the author of this article get his points from?

The first clam, "Trying to be up in everything", can be observed merely by looking back through history. One glaring example is the military. Jack Donovan has written at length about it Also consider videogames: women wouldn't touch videogames with a 10 foot pole back in the 80's, now we have Anita Sakrisian raising thousands of dollars on kickstarter to produce videos about how games are being sexist.

The next two claims I assume are observations made by Thumosis and many other "PUAs" like him who have noted this behavior in the multitude of women that they have interacted with.

The claim, "Are copy-cats" can be verified by just going to your local starbucks, having a seat near the sidewalk, and people watching.

The last claim is most likely a specific dig at feminists who, despite claiming "strength" equal to that of a man, in the end utilize males or male institutions -- instead of mano-a-mano, the manliest means of conflict resolution -- to enforce their agendas.

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

From a formal logic perspective, a single counterexample is considered sufficient to disprove a theory.


Even logic is no longer safe. AWALT

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.
created by