You have to keep in mind what the ultimate purpose is. We are typically discussing sexual strategy here. Good strategy gives you a higher chance of a positive outcome. Let's look at chess for example. It's possible to lose by a 2 move checkmate (known as the Fool's mate). You should never do those open moves that exposes you to that situation. However, if you do it, you might be playing against a dumb opponent and you can still win. However, you are purely hoping that your opponent is a greater fool that you are. It is correct to say that you should never make those opening moves and allow your opponent the easy win, even though occasionally you play against someone dumb and you can still beat them because they don't see the easy checkmate. Since you have imperfect information and you don't know if your opponent is an idiot or not, your optimal strategy is to assume he is a capable opponent.

This is where "NAWALT" or "NAMALT" comes in. Sometimes you hear about how a woman is trying to lose weight, and some blue piller jumps in and says, "well, not all men are like that, some men like large girls". That adds nothing of value to the conversation. Everybody knows that exceptions exist, but intentionally being fat because 1% of men have a fat fetish is a poor strategy, and any sensible person would not even bother bringing it up. Maybe he should take a loaded gun to his head and pull the trigger because it COULD jam and not fire. When you have imperfect information, you have to play the odds. Since the vast majority of men prefer slim, fit girls, you have to recognize that eating well and working out is superior to eating crap and getting fat. Basically, you operate under the assumption that "all men are like that" (sure, Prince Charming might have a fat fetish, in which cause you would lose, but are you really going to bet on 1% odds instead of 99%).

You often hear TRP say that men should never date single moms because the guy would be stuck with child support payments and be ruined. We actually all know that this is not a common occurrence, it happens less than 50% of the time. But why do we use the word "never"? Because even if there is a 10% chance of it happening, the negative outcome is so severe that the optimal strategy is to avoid it altogether. It's the reason why you always wear your seat belts, you may have less than 0.1% chance of getting into a car crash, but if it happens you better have that seat belt on. It's the optimal strategy.

In real life, you have to make choices with imperfect information. There are too many people in the world and too little time to meet them all. Not all ex-convicts are bad, some of them are reformed, since you only have limited time and resources, you may choose to only invest into relationships with people who have clean records. Doing so is indistinguishable from assuming that all ex-convicts are bad, that may cause you some moral or ethical concern (it is a type of discrimination). But TRP is amoral. It is a very valid strategy to use, and I think most people would agree that it would likely yield a better outcome on average.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/201w35/awaltamalt_whether_youre_brand_new_or_a_veteran/

I've never seen someone say "AWALT" to a woman seriously, it's always in jest.

However, we do say AWALT in all seriousness to men when they're asking for an explanation: what is happening in my life, why is my relationship/marriage not working. Because men at that stage tend to get into a vicious cycle of self-doubt that must be broken somehow, we at TRP do it by saying:

All Women Are Like That

It's the most efficient way for curing Oneitis and the essence of TRP is to use what works.

The main reason we are critical of NAWALT on this sub has to do with the fact that women tend to reason away their faults, shirk responsibility, and will tell themselves lies in order to preserve their sense of self. We want women to be more realistic and critical of their behavior(s). When there's a problem in a relationship - it's always the man's fault. No one is perfect, but men are generally, far better about accepting criticism. Also, women have the perception that when you say something about one woman, you're actually talking about them as well as every other woman - we take things more personally.

Many of the women that come to this sub a bit on the raw side struggle to accept the role they play in creating the problems in their life. It's very hard for many to step back and understand all the different ways they undermine their relationships.

We don't let women get away with nonsense, and to be fair - the same goes for men.

Eh. Maybe it's because I'm a woman, but I do believe NAWALT and NAMALT (?), to a very limited extent.

Putting it in mathematical terms, let's say the general philosophy here is that AWALT because of some trait. Let's numerically quantify that trait somehow, with a random variable x. Assuming a normal distribution for x, the mean for x is then assumed to be very high, and the standard deviation is very small. In short, for that trait, statistically the bell curve is so steep that you can essentially claim that the vast majority of women exhibit this trait, and the ones that exhibit behavior several standard deviations below this trait's average are so rare that they are pretty much negligible, not to mention that they might still exhibit the trait, but to a lesser degree.

There are multiple traits. The likelihood that a woman exhibits NONE of the traits that define women is again, so negligible that it doesn't matter. Same for men.

[deleted]

What is NAWALT?

It could be attributed to the man not being alpha enough or too beta

That right there is men taking responsibility. If you, as a man, stop being attractive to your woman won't be happy anymore. Similarly if, as a woman, you stop being attractive your man won't be happy anymore.

Now as this all seems gender neutral, so why is it the subs seem to focus on women failures and responsibilities towards relationships? The reason is because part of what these subs are, are teaching mechanisms. For so long women haven't had to take any responsibility for anything. Like you said, in feminist circles, the script is flipped. We have to tell our story to represent female failings, because they've never been talked about, and they need to be out in the open. So that does mean emphasized to demonstrate the point.

But like I said in the beginning, in the case of RP, red pill guys are willing to admit their failings. They go to red pill after admitting their previous strategy hasn't worked, they focus on improving themselves, and admit when they have failed due to not being alpha enough. How many feminists admit that any failings in their relationships could be their fault?

NAWALT also means more than you think it does. When the red pill makes a generalization, and a woman claims she's not like that, it's virtually meaningless.

When we are speaking in generalizations, we are not talking about her specifically, so the fact that she, specifically, isn't like that is irrelevant.

The likelihood is, she's wrong anyway, the vast majority of feminists fall into the same traps other women do. Women are terrible at self analysis, they do things because "it just feels right", and have no idea how the mechanism works beyond that. When a woman says she wouldn't be into red pill tricks, I can't help but think how every single woman swoons over my SO. Feminists aren't exempt. The only time they stop liking him is when they get mad that they can't have him.

Ultimately even if she was right, and is an exception, so what? Women being a certain way is not necessarily a bad thing. And even certain things are, it does no good to tell these men that you're different, start treating men different and then they'll believe in the possibility for women to not be like that.

Men usually don't get all uppity over generalizations (save for the betas for the most part) and thus don't cry NAMALT. It would be unproductive for them to do so as they use their generalizations for self-improvement.

The problem for TRP is that constantly arguing NAWALT prevents people from making useful generalizations.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm curious, have you seen people here or at trp defend NAMALT? I haven't. A specific instance of anything is never useful in "disproving" a generalization

Perhaps it's less about the respective attributes of the males and females involved, or the communities talking about them, and more about the phrase itself. Maybe saying 'not all (x) are like that' is just a phrase that doesn't move anything forward, similar to 'Si eso si que es' or 'it is what it is'. It's less advice/information and more empty tautology. Simple fact is, people tend to interpret words and phrases according to their own mental models (rp frame, bp brainwashing, independent conclusions, 'common sense' whether true or completely unbased in reality, etc etc ad nauseum) rather than by the words definitions or the speaker's intent.

bottom line is: It seems odd to see this reaction mirrored based on speaker and audience because males and females are treated asymmetrically by both groups, and that asymmetrical behavior is oddly symmetrical BETWEEN groups. So I can empathize with you there...people are weird.

What say you? (and have an upvote for good observation and impartiality)