"There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don't love anyone; it is quite hopeless."
That's the source witticism you may have seen going around the Manosphere in a condensed form. It might come as a surprise, but it doesn't come from an "enraged" RedPiller, neither a "bitter" MRA. It comes from a Mrs Alice Thomas Ellis, a British religious conservative female writer of essays, novels and cookbooks. This is a woman declaring what is, in my opinion, the essence of The Red Pill: that it is hopeless from a man to expect love from a woman.
I'm not at all sure the second part of the quote, "Women love children", is true, though.
What if this terrible fact is true: women don't love anyone, not even their own children?
Obviously, the truth or lie of this proposition depends on the definition of "love". But despite the millennia-old discussions around it, the essence of "love" is not difficult to define. It is, simply, what people think it to be: sacrificial love.
Love is willingly sacrificing your own interest to further someone else's.
If your "loving" behavior is just an action in an ongoing transaction of give and take, people (correctly) don't consider it to be love. So, if you are giving a gift in order to get one back, there is no need to involve the notion of love therein. "Commerce" or "exchange" would suffice. If you are caught being nice to someone because you expect him to become successful and "reciprocate" by paying back many times over, you will not be considered "loving", but rather a damn good investor. Etc etc you get the idea.
There was that old hypothesis that all "love" evolved from the relationship between mother and child, which somehow got transferred to men due to the similarities in the human organisms. Like nipples. This doesn't seem to be the case. Nowadays there is a clearer picture. Female and male love, in general, are different. And it is male love that corresponds to what people think real love is. Female, not.
In the discussion about the evolution of "true love", as in the discussion of true altruism, there was, up to recently, a missing link: (this is extremely interesting, watch:)
"What The Fuck. If you do a real favor, without the expectation of return, you are giving away a capacity which could be spent more wisely furthering your chances of survival and reproduction. It is stupid. You are undermining the potential of your genes. Evolutionary, it doesn't make sense. Therefore, true altruism, and true love, cannot have evolved."
It fucking makes sense, doesn't it?
Well, only if you ignore sexual selection.
Sexual selection is what drives evolution, much more decisively than natural selection. You cannot ignore it.
And sexual selection is predominantly about how females choose their mates.
Females choose their mates by observing their capacities. And the most reliable indicator for a huge capacity is wasting it nonchalantly. "Prodigious waste is a necessary feature of sexual courtship. - G. Miller."
Essentially, it's the good-old handicap principle at work, here: giving without return is damaging, and that's why females could use it as an indication of true abundance. Only, to have the full picture, you have to take it one step of thinking ahead: Human groups that evolved a pro-social mode of displaying abundance such as male love, out-evolved the ones that used anti-social ones, such as bashing each other's heads.
So: the capacity for male love evolved as a pro-social display of abundance.
(Note the word capacity. It is a potential that may not become a reality. Individuals, like whole societies, might be underdeveloped. But I will omit this important discussion for brevity's sake.)
What about female love then?
First important observation is that females don't need to display abundance, so their not loving any person, i.e. not expanding their own effort and convenience for anybody, is a pretty logical consequence. I won't go into details. What is much more interesting is what happens with women and their own children. Do they "love" them? Do they display sacrificial behavior towards them?
There are some very vivid examples that show that this is not the case. The most characteristic one, (a feminist destroyer story, really), is the Albanian sworn virgins: Girls that upon the death of their father and the resulting widowhood of their mothers, they were coerced by their mothers to denounced their sex and dress, behave and live as a man for their whole life, "because if you get married I'll be left alone, but if you stay with me, I'll have a son.". (source: Wikipedia).
How's that for motherly "sacrificial love"?
What we are observing in that example is a pronounced female trait reminiscent of an "arrested development". As there is an evolutionary explanation in men developing the capacity to care for others without expecting return, there is an evolutionary explanation in women prioritizing their own selves before their offspring - contrary, perhaps, to popular idealism: before the institution of marriage as a pro-female means of ensuring continuous providing for the woman's children, females were the main, if not the only, providers for their children. If they perished, their children did also. It was kind of like the oxygen masks in the airplane: first help yourself, then your child. Women being so ancient beings, this female solipsism, even in the context of the mother-child relationship, is so deeply ingrained in her biology that no amount of assurances and social institutions is able to root it out: early human bands were highly egalitarian regarding food distribution, but still, women left on their own devices would gravitate towards the behavior I described.
The example with the Albanian sworn virgins, although illuminating, may seem extreme. We don't have to go to an obscure country to observe such things, though. Doesn't today's single mother phenomenon in the West clearly echo this primal female nature? Upon given absolute sexual freedom, women proceeded en masse to fuck up their children's lives, by depriving them of their fathers and their sense of stability, because "mother should be happy; only then child will be happy too." Mothers raise their sons to be Blue Pill Betas, setting them up for a life of failure and agony, in order to serve their own (sex's) sexual strategy. They antagonize their own daughters, simultaneously keeping them emotionally tied up, an easy target for their emotional vampirism. They do these things not because they "truly love their children", but for the exact opposite reason: women are programmed to receive, and in the absence of a strong male frame, they will cannibalize their own children to feed their pettiness.
Women are quite an obsolete model of a human being. There are hardly any female evolved behaviors that are conducive to modern society. Not even motherhood.
fuckyou18769 4y ago
This is absolutely wrong and your own quote demonstrates why: "Prodigious waste is a necessary feature of sexual courtship. - G. Miller." Sexual selection is the cancer of species, caused when it gets fat and lazy. It arrises when there is excess energy, because it can (Murphy's law). Sexual selection is limited in species where the environment is harsh, species death is getting closer and adaptation can provide a huge benefif. In species that got it made, like us, no adaptation can AMOG the wasteful sub populations because its almost impossible to extract more energy out of the environment in a way thay is meaningful for the species. In other words, the species is so well adapted to the current environment it starts wasting its excess energy and can't be pushed out by change that would curb that excess because in the current environment, the excess is just that: excess.
Human evolutionary history is devoid of sexual selection. This is why practically every culture is monogamous. Only today is it arising, for a variety of reasons. Most of human sexual history was arranged marriage, which is way women like strange men and being raped. Often times on the wedding night an older man she hardly knows was going to fuck her whether she liked it or not.
So how did prosocial "male love" develop? Simple: frequency dependent selection. Male love is love for the tribe, period. The tribe thrives when it is composed of loyal males that love it and will sacrifice themselves for its continuance. Men did not have to compete for a woman's desire. The tribe either kept women and rotated them like a Chimp squad or later in our evolutionary history, possibly when civilization emerged, arranged marriage was instituted, a somewhat different strategy but devoid of sexual selection nonetheless.
Ok you're wrong on this too and it's easy to explain why. We all know motherly love is real and it's the only love an individual is ever going to recieve from any other human, given that male love is love for the group, not a particular member. To explain your example of the sworn virgins, realize that MOTHERS LOVE THEIR SONS MORE THAN THEIR DAUGHTERS. You have heard of China, right? The reason is simple: a son can have 50 million kids, a daughter can have 10 max. So mothers love both their children but if they have to choose one, it's their son.
This concept explains that shit to the extent that it even needs an evolutionary explanation. So as for the reason you have mommy issues, which is your unresolved Oedipus complex whereby you blame your mother as a symbol for your sexual frustrations, realize this: a mother's love is expressed by her wanted the best for her children. Hence, her love is dependent on what she thinks is best. A mother can therefore be convinced to eat her own child alive if she thinks that is the only way to save him from sure eternal damnation or something. Less extreme and more obvious are mothers who raise their sons to be nice guys because they really think that's what will serve the son well. Same with taking him away from his father, who she surely hates at a visceral level.
[deleted]
TheRedPike 4y ago
Only warning you are going to get about concern trolls.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Reunn 4y ago
I liked this subreddit better when it was actionable self improvement and sexual strategy posts rather than armchair evolutionary psychologist doomer blog posts. Why on earth is this stickied?
PhantomCowboy 4y ago
Not saying it doesn't exist, but my experience of "love" has been that it is ALWAYS transactional, and usually the person pushing the love narrative is the one getting the better end of the deal.
ex_addict_bro 4y ago
TBH this fits my history a bit. And I also thought about that, while fucking a girl who wilfully left her children hardly attended.. then divorced the guy and moved out, leaving her children with him.
Only recently I understood, why my mother somehow preferred my abusive, drunk dad than my own wellbeing. She had 2 options, which I will present here, very simplified, because that's how the lizard brain operates in my opinion: option 1, leave and be out there with a small kid, prone to danger or option 2, stay with an abusive drunk, eventually having her child (me) killed, but she would be better, she would not be required to be "out there" in the wild, doing sexual favours to the "alpha male".
The truth (lizard brain truth) was, being 20-25 yo she could have as many kids as she wanted, she could spare one or two in exchange for protection.
See child abuse in Aboriginal societies. See Moloch.
Recently I wrote some comments being a bit anti-social, but no. I love society. Currently society gives such women a change to leave such "drunk alpha", to leave abuse and to have her children and her survive. Why there's family abuse? Because women, because we still act as a fucking animals that we are. Some people thought about this and they created some institutions to help such people in need. What we do (also here at TRP) is we despise such institutions.
Women don't love. They conditionally attach to the best male around (that's the "female monogamy") and stay as long as they perceive him as such.
Children is just a mere by-product.
This is my opinion based on my own early childhood but also based on whatever the fuck happened in my life in recent 5 yrs.
[deleted]
asfarley 4y ago
This is the real blood-red-pill here
ex_addict_bro 4y ago
Maybe “god” is just a super male invented after our image just to make bitches controllable........
IV78 4y ago
There's nothing wrong with asking what if, as in 'what if' women don't really love their children. But be skeptical of claims made when they are untestable. An untestable claim may be true, but it's not scientific in the sense that it can be falsified. A claim that's falsifiable means there exists some evidence in theory that could confirm or deny it. The claim that the universe is more than 100 years old is testable, the notion that it was actually created last week in perfect detail right down to the false memories in your head and old scars on your arm is not. It could be true, it's just that there's no way to distinguish the two scenarios from one another.
Saying women who profess love for their children and who's behavior is consistent with that love is basically saying that those two lines of evidence don't count. Unless there's some other way to measure that love aside from of the subject's behavior and reports from the subject, then this is an untestable claim and I'd be careful about basing any important decisions on it. It might be correct, it's just that there's little in the way of helping us distinguish between the two scenarios.
MasRock310 4y ago
Holy shit if this isn't the most incel post I've ever seen. Not even on a incel subs did i see shit like this lol
Nofapislit 4y ago
I agree, recently realizing my mother and grandmother have raised me and are trying to force me to be a beta. I will not go for this and have started to set need boundaries.
frykidse 4y ago
I am witnessing a grown woman fuck up her own tweenaged female child. I'm pondering whether it is the female nature or just trauma on the adult's part being passed down over the generations. At this rate, the child will pass these same traumas down the line.
Yes it is a single mother in question. The tween child is a very early bloomer, so she *looks* like an adult but is still a child as far as maturity is concerned.
This statement I can fully agree with.
However, I think you have reached the correct conclusion, just not the true root causes. You can observe an effect without understanding the cause. Take the biblical restricted foods as an example: you don't eat shellfish because the parasites kill people. You don't eat pork because undercooking it leaves the trichinosis alive. You don't have to understand *why* to know it is bad. You just have to deduce the effects and then prevent the undesirable behavior.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
The case where women resent their elder daughters is widespread, perhaps catholic. Daughter enters the sexual game just when mother is getting old and leaving it. Mother feels that her daughter, by becoming a woman, steals her youth, and antagonizes instead of nurturing her.
frykidse 4y ago
I do not agree with the phrasing of pettiness vs needs. Pettiness implies hateful intent. Needs are basic Maslow's hierarchy. We can argue the order of the hierarchy, yet we cannot argue that there are fundamental human needs. In this specific case, I can confirm that mother's needs are not being fully met. I do agree these unmet needs are being cannibalized from the child.
There is still a motherly love and concern there the majority of the time, just tempered with something "else" other parts of the time. As I am watching this situation unfold firsthand, I will gather more data for analysis. From a masculine perspective, I just see two girls bickering.. simply one is old and one is young.
As with most human interactions, it is not a simple binary situation. I have a vested interest in both females, so I'm working on a solution here. I'm not convinced that it is just "female" nature. Or I could be trying to force the wrong abstraction over what is simply an emotionally fucked up human mother. At this point, I'm sharing a data point.
I can say the whole situation triggers my masculine needs to protect and care for close females.
[deleted] 4y ago
Disagree. Most Mums will legit die to protect their kids. Some are garbage...addcicted to pills or something. Most mothers are admirably protective of their offspring.
Build into their DNA... they fucking destroy you as the Father though.... so theres that... :)
[deleted] 4y ago
I think it is immensely important not to generalize and state this as being a quality of all women, but just as there are a lot of fucked up fathers, there are a lot of fucked up mothers - and this is the way they will behave.
McLuhanSaidItFirst 4y ago
Albanian sworn virgins is parallel to modern women turning their sons into fake ' girls ' to get attention: it's another case of Munchausen's by Proxy.
Kipling had it right a hundred years ago:
She's a baby factory, and that is the only significant factor in the Darwinian, genetic logic behind her behavior. Men evolved for generosity, females evolved for selfishness, because if she doesn't get her oxygen mask on, there will be no next generation. This means that the man must be extremely strong to make sure that he is strong enough to account for and overcome the negative effects of her genetically imposed behaviors.
The shrew must be tamed, for the good of us all.
yomo86 4y ago
Women stop 'loving' their kids when they turn 13 +/- a couple of years, in my opinion. Yes they adore them still but not this unconditional love. The child is, biological speaking, self-aware and able to provide for himself or get provided for in case it's a girl ie being ready to bear children and get a women scheme going. I think the aggravation of mothers at kids in puberty is not so much one of puberty itself but more along the lines of not being able to get pregnant again by having resources drained from them by a kid who is, biologically, not needing those resources. My relationship with my own mom cooled off when I was 14, I was so domesticated that puberty was not an issue, yet I was emotionally abandoned while my younger sister 5yo was the middle of my moms life.
throwabcdaway4 4y ago
Why is is stickied ? Evryone is calling bullshit.
brabg 4y ago
Frankly, I don't know what do women in general really feel. But I know women who abandoned their children with the father, and ran away.
Also I know women who mistreat, abuse and betaize their own male children. Maybe are narcissists. It doesn't make evolutionary sense to hurt their own children to the point of leaving them incapable of spreading his DNA.
Lorioyama 4y ago
Your point is at least interesting and I have thought about this for a while. We just need to dig more into it, a good example is how political abortion has become, and most of the support came from women. If was a natural genuine love for their children abortion shouldn't be a question in the first place. Love doesn't change with time, try to compare motherhood in a different culture and time, you will see that tradition and religion have a big influence on how women treat their children, remember women is a heavy social creature if her tribe (Suruwahás north of Brazil) kills children in the river because they have not born 'perfect' or it's ok left your child in a daycare to work all day, mothers from others tribes or civilization can have a completely different behavior. In western civilization the difference if more evident when we use the element of time, back in the day when Christianity was really strong the respect and care women have to their child was no way near to what we see today, abortion was not even an option, in the middle age a thing like this was more than enough for the church execute her. See? This female 'love' is too flexible they don't step up against their group and say -No! That's my child. And I will rebel against my own people to protect him with my very life- sounds unrealistic even. And we all know how many empires were built and destroyed because of men's love, and no matter the time, no matter the culture, we have endless histories of men who sacrifice themselves for what they loved the most. What women really have is a deep respect for the children of the man who promised commitment to her.
SilenceIsGolden321 4y ago
This is an underrated comment.
farendsofcontrast 4y ago
Actually an observation I made revealed a great irony to me. The strongest supporters of abortion are women who never had children or have any intentions or having children in the first place. I felt like it was jealousy or envy, they have the chance to deprive other members of their species an ability which they lack. Misery loves company no?
[deleted]
cfrules3 4y ago
I'll provide a simpler hypothesis:
Your mother didnt love you.
OneInAZillion 4y ago
Why is this pinned to the top of the sub as an "annoucement". I think he 9 points in 4 days speaks for itself.
Holy fuck this sub has gone so downhill.
ex_addict_bro 4y ago
This is called "meritocracy" and thank God (and RPS, but somehow I start to believe they're both the same person) for that.
There's a magnitude of forums out there. You don't need to read this particular one.
OneInAZillion 4y ago
This guy has barely contributed anything to this sub. How is he endorsed? And how does that undeserved endorsement prove that this sub is a meritocracy? BTW I've contributed more to this sub than 99% of subscribers (including this guy) so by that logic of a meritocracy I should be endorsed too lol
ex_addict_bro 4y ago
Many endorsed guys had different usernames and had to change them because things. Your lack of understanding of such subtleties is exactly the reason for creation of this sub.
And the fuck you did contribute, I never heard of you
Edit ah I see your contributions. What do you do with armpit hair. Do you even lift bro?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
My contribution to the manosphere is basically this.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
It's probably meant as an exercise in the value of trying to wrap your mind around an idea that seems controversial but is reasonably argued, instead of taking the female way out and bitching about the emotional stress it produces you.
OneInAZillion 4y ago
That explains why you wrote the post not why it's pinned to the top of the sub
Lateralanouncer 4y ago
I don’t think it is that complicated. When a woman gives birth oxytocin is released into the brain. Which is the love drug. Also when a woman has sex for the first time oxytocin is released into the brain. So woman can love man. When woman sleep around they fuck up all the biology of love. Woman know sex leads to love. I was having a chat with a woman and she said when she has casual sex. She put her head to the side, uses a condom and avoids kissing. I’m guessing this is to avoid falling in love.
[deleted] 4y ago
I wish this was nailed to a cross on the front of a well-known relationships sub (I can't link to it for fear of breaking quarantine rules) - but alas that will never be thanks to the shitshow of liberalism that has turned out to be.
max_peenor 4y ago
Women can nurture children and do all sorts of wonderful mother things, but there is one ugly truth about us animals. No one baby is more important than a baby factory. Women need a way to (figuratively) dispose of a child for the species to survive. Now indeed, it isn't as important now that we have drastically lower infant/child mortality, which probably is why the idea is so repugnant to us. However that doesn't remove a million years of evolution from us after just five generations.
** No, you lurking dumbshit simpletons, I'm not saying women need to be able to kill babies to survive. But I fucking guarantee you there is some bloop that would have read it that way.
ex_addict_bro 4y ago
Exactly. My exact comment, different words.
red_philosopher 4y ago
To be perfectly frank, the dumbshit simpletons have a kind of point, but for the wrong reasons. Just look at Abortion and Safe-Harbor laws. Women do, and have been, killing and abandoning their offspring since forever. One kid absolutely doesn't mean shit. And women have always had this evolved need, and they exercise it on the routine, and that's why they deeply and fearfully resent laws that prohibit them from abandoning or killing their offspring.
Hell, even after the child is legit born and considered a human being, it's not fucking murder if the mother kills the child. That's the extent of the influence our instincts have on our laws.
red_philosopher 4y ago
This question is thought provoking, and in a sense touches upon a concept that is likely to rile up the bluepilled, "purplepilled", and "blackpilled" in great amounts.
That concept? Love is fake.
It's a word we use to describe the instinctive bond/bonding process between people, and what we want to believe that bond entails. Instead of seeing it for what it is, and how it instinctively guides our behaviors, we package it up nicely and put it away in the closet.
Props. Ignore the naysayers and the retards who aren't willing to test the boundaries of TRP. Research is performed at the edges of the comfort zone, where people are afraid to ask questions and seek answers.
djexit 4y ago
how is it possible to love someone who cannot love anything other than their selves
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Nature doesn't have the human morality.
djexit 4y ago
love is something humans made up amirite?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Nope.
You can do as you will, but not will what you will.
psykhe27 4y ago
The overuse of generalizations here is hilarious. Some women don't care about their children. Some women are gold digging whores. Some women are borderline personality gaslighters. Some men are weak and get railroaded by their wife.
RStonePT 4y ago
Maybe wrong, maybe right ..
I'm just having a hard time seeing this as in scope. Let's say this is true, what are the takeaways from a man?
And if it isn't?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
I don't believe I'm saying something new. Psychology has been supporting that parents (read: mothers) have been fucking up their children by using them for their own psychological needs. I'm just connecting this with its (very ancient) evolutionary origin: mother the sole permanent caregiver, focusing on her own survival more that her children makes sense.
As a matter of.fact, I actually don't believe that this was women's mode of operation back in prehistory, because hunter-gatherer bands were much more male-primary than any other society we have known. Men kept the band healthy by not allowing women to behave as spoiled bitches.
A takeaway? Here's an example: my beta buddy is looking to get married and have children, both underestimating the chance to get separated, and underestimating the chance that when he does, his ex will fuck up his children. I believe women fucking up their children is the default, and loving them is the exception, not the other way around.
CorpseCollins 4y ago
I believe women only love what they think they have control of, for example my ex baby mama cheated on me and left me for another man in our apartment while our child slept in the other room. She pursued a relationship with this guy and for 6 months would use our child to her advantage when she wanted to go off and do something with this guy, only allowing me to see our son when it was for her and it would help her like I was a type of baby sitter. A few months down the road and this new guy she was with physically abused my son, whipped him until his legs went purple. She hid this for over two weeks because she didn't want her new boyfriend to leave her, its like her heart never broke for her son, like she never even cared or loved him....eventually they broke up anyway because he realized how crazy she was and was probably the reason he snapped and hurt my son in the first place. Long story short, baby mama pleaded guilty to lying to police and neglect to protect our son, the fucking courts have now given her joint custody and 50/50 of our son, the court system and everything about it is trash and women rule over it. I now fear for my sons life everyday he isn't with me, she is riding a thin line but still received more forgiveness from the female ruled courts than she should have. She is a lying manipulative devil that will get what she wants even at the cost of her own child.
throwlaca 4y ago
Some women seem to love their kids, but after 40 years of experience, having kids of my own and looking at other families, the sacrifice a loving mother would do for her children is less than the sacrifice than even a absent-father would do for them. They really think mostly about themselves.
raggot_the_legendary 4y ago
Love = sacrificial love
You should improve on the definition. Something is off...
redpillcad 4y ago
I don't really agree. I do think a mother loves her children and she has more instinctive knowledge on stabilizing biological needs of small children. Sleep, food etc
Later, when young adults dont need this anymore is when I do see mothers manipulate their kids for their own needs. Strong fathers are happy to see confident mature offspring out in the world succeeding
red_philosopher 4y ago
I think we need to stop judging women by what they say and completely by how they act.
My ex, for example, says she loves our kids, but when we were going through divorce, the bitch kidnapped them and held them away from me. I basically had to threaten financial apocalypse for us and her parents, and only then did she relent and understand that I meant business. What woman "loves" their kids but isn't going to provide them access to their father who demonstrably is a requirement in the raising of good strong children? Definitely not a woman that loves their kids in the truest sense of the word the way we use it.
If women loved their children, they would never get used as pawns in a game of hate against their fathers. They wouldn't alienate their children, they wouldn't fight over custody, they wouldn't do any of those things. But they do, and it's most definitely not out of love, but out of primal fear that their children can't be safe if they aren't being monitored.
In those situations, the mother is an emotional wreck, and so she is in a hyperprotective state, projecting her fears and her feelings into the world to protect her investment from the percieved threats that have made her feel the way she feels. That's not objective, rational, love.
That's female solipsism doing what it does best, keeping her and her investments alive.
SeasonedRP 4y ago
And your experience isn't uncommon either. For some reason otherwise RP men have a hard time accepting this reality.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
it's because she's programmed to get positive feelz out of playing with dolls.
destraht 4y ago
My father resents the hell out of me though because I rejected his life by choosing to do very different things, not simply working in another field. He worked at a company for 40 years. While it was stable there are huge problems being that static in life and we didn't need that level of stability. In fact he passed up several highly lucrative advancements and other jobs to be so stable doing what he wanted to do at that moment. Fine, but I decided that it is a sort of death and so decided that ideally I'd go big corporate never once. Now elevent years into living out of a bag while working in my field as a programmer I basically don't have any relationship with him anymore. My life is a supreme rejection of his life and he takes it personal.
So I said all of that the say that I think that fathers often want to see their children excel in a way that is some sort of mutated reflection of their own lives. If father was a doctor then the son being a lawyer is fine too. Hmm though, if father is a doctor and the son is an artist who sleeps in late, works sporadically, then there might be a problem here. There is an implicit statement there that the father's life was spent in a undesirable way.
Aggressive_Beta 4y ago
No, the essence is that women love men, just not the way that men expected to be loved.
And that's why your proposition misses the mark because you are erroneously equating "true love" with altruism. True love is the love that one feels towards someone below them in the Men<Women<Children<Puppies<Men hierarchy.
"True love" is inherently self-centered, we can only truly love someone if it is in our own self-interest to do so. That is not altruism at all. That's not to say that we won't have altruistic thoughts and feelings towards someone we love, but the entire basis of true love is selfish. This is true for both men and women.
A woman who is incapable of truly loving her own children is the most damaged kind of woman possible. But I have no doubt that most single mothers have the best of intentions for their children. The problem is, the path to Hell is often paved with good intentions - they simply can't raise children properly without a good father figure in the picture.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
so you are re-defining the word love to suit the solipsism of women?
GraveApparition 4y ago
he isn't redefining it, he's just saying that it's a different type, opposed to the mentioned in the post
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Wow!
Epic comment! :)
[deleted]
monsieurhire2 4y ago
Money quote from my own mother: "It was your father who wanted to have children...." said in passing while discussing an unrelated topic when I was an adult.
Suggests she went along with it as part of the "job."
That's why I never bought into the men love women, women love children, children love puppies argument.
It suggests that men don't love children, and women do, etc.
I would say that most, if not all people are self-interested, and that the only variance is whether it is conscious or unconscious, and what the nature of the self-interest is, though I would say that the nature of self-interests relates to pleasure/pain zones, where people avoid pain and seek pleasure. Some people derive more pleasure from one activity than another, and others vice versa.
So, for instance: Some people's idea of pleasure is the 7 deadly sings: eating, drinking, fucking, fighting, sleeping, loafing, stealing. For others, it is living a virtuous life serving a greater good.
For many women, children are a means to an end. They see the wall approaching, they find a beta bux provider, and then they use children as a form of "job" security. The beta has to keep working to support the children. All the better if they are an alpha chad's children, but some children are better than being a childless spinster, unless they are especially talented at business or climbing the corporate ladder to the point that they prefer their freedom.
throwlaca 4y ago
​
I know many women over 40, at the top or near the top of the corporate ladder. I work in IT.
They beg for dates. I feel sad for them. They do not prefer their freedom, believe me.
monsieurhire2 4y ago
I'm talking about a rarified small percentage of misanthropes. They do exist, but they are VERY few in number. They do in fact prefer being single. Some of them had husbands or boyfriends for years, had children, so they have been there and done that. Others are introverts who find human contact painful. Others are jaded and jaundiced about human relations.
I'm sure there are plenty of corporate women who want out.
But I'm curious who they are begging for dates? Alpha Adam? Beta Brian? Gamma Gary? Delta Dave?
I'm convinced that any woman can find a man, even a half-way decent one, if she commits herself to the task.
Many are deluded and crazed enough where they think can get an Alpha Adam to chase them well into their fifties and sixties. Like, they COULD get Beta Bryan, if they were nice to him, but that's not good enough. They want Beta Bryan to wine them and dine them, instead of appearing cautious or ambivalent.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
what percentage of pregnancies would have been aborted if it wasn't for the father?
RStonePT 4y ago
0 in 40 years.
Women have complete control of the pregnancy
nobody_thinks 4y ago
but not of their emotions. many fathers / families / communities pressure women into keeping unwanted children. i don't presume to know the statistic but it's definitely not zero.
RStonePT 4y ago
Sure, 30 years ago. No one tells women to do anything now
nobody_thinks 4y ago
women can still be lead. even today.
SalporinRP 4y ago
Plenty of women get pressured into abortions still.
[deleted]
farminggil 4y ago
This is some incel bullshit. In reality (surprise, surprise), children complicate sexual strategy quite a bit. They complicate sexual strategy because women DO love their children. If OP is correct then women all over the world would be abandoning their children bc hypergamy.
This post is a false paradox. The logic seems to make sense if followed how OP intends, but it’s missing a glaring and critical piece that is causing the argument to break from reality.
LordFa9 4y ago
​
I did a quick google search for statistics to back me up but couldn't find any beyond these 2 anecdotal stories: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/mum-abandoned-her-children-for-a-man-she-met-1562348
https://philnews.ph/2019/01/11/pinay-ofw-abandons-husband-5-children-for-male-engineer-in-jeddah/
​
With how woman are I'm pretty sure it happens more often than not in the 3rd world, just that we don't get to hear about it because the kids get dumped on relatives
Satou4 4y ago
I'm not sure that's the case. Women would drag their children along from man to man bc hypergamy, because they use their children for narcissistic supply. When the man dumps her, she can fall back on her children to provide emotional support.
Have you ever been in a one-way conversation with a woman, where all she does is talk about her problems and she won't follow your thread for even a minute? Is that love or is she using you for herself?
farminggil 4y ago
This is a valid point and I do have personal anecdotes corroborating this argument.
TwentyEighteen 4y ago
I’m not saying I agree with OP, but his argument is a lot better than your trash counter argument lol
[deleted]
Virtual_silver 4y ago
Don't you love theories about evolution trough anecdotes?
farminggil 4y ago
Right.. thing is, people will always be there to take an ideology to extremes. That’s where the black pill comes in. This guy swallowed the black pill.. not the red pill. These meaningless anecdotes that just sway the new and impressionable in this community have no place here.
Virtual_silver 4y ago
i've seen more realistic black pills. this is just armchair philosophy about how things came to be trough quite messed up fantasies and delusions. it bothers me because OP sounds intelligent, like he read some stuff, but the post itself is garbage. anger phase galore.
[deleted]
BurnoutRS 4y ago
At a certain point the fledgling bird that has not flown the nest becomes a drain on nest resources. The newborns will eat, between 4 of them, what the, now essentially man-child fledgling will eat. The mother pushes him out of the nest. If he flies, good for him. If he dies. She dont give a fuck
nobody_thinks 4y ago
i might make my own post on this subject because it is a fascinating topic.
one point i'd like to throw out is that riding the CC hurts the women's future children in a variety of ways.
it lowers their genetic quality because by the time the woman is "ready" to get pregnant, her SMV is lower and therefore the genetic quality of the man she attracts will be lower.
I've looked up research on IQ and age and it is inconclusive because they don't control for the parents IQ going into the pregnancy. High IQ professionals have kids later in life. So I could never find any hard data on this issue but I am convinced that a 30+ year old woman is sub-fertile and the kids you are going to get out of her are not going to be of the same quality.
This strongly depends upon the lifestyle of the woman.
Another way to look at this is, if the probability of down syndrome is basically doubling every year after 30, do you really think the neurological and immunological quality of the child is remaining constant?
Anyways, once you accept the obvious reality of the biological degradation of the offspring of mothers with time, then you realize that the children pay the price of the CC with beta genetics, lowered IQ's and compromised immune systems.
Yep. That's the world we live in.
ShavedApel 4y ago
You make some really good points, I wonder if I would have been better if I was born to a 20 year old over a 40 year old woman.
She did ride the CC but still managed to get an Alpha to knock her up with no commitment though of course. Just because a woman's SMV is lower doesn't mean she cant still get impregnated by a a high quality man if he knows it wont cost him anything.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
There are exceptions so please don't take any of the following personally. Just speaking in the broadest generalities.
Not true man. For any woman over 25, the best guy she could bang a year ago is higher quality than the guy she can bang today.
I infer that you are somewhat sexually inexperienced from two things. (1) it is pretty hard to get a 40+ year old chick pregnant. A 40 y/o woman has a 5% chance of getting pregnant in a given cycle. Compare that to a 20 y/o at 25%.
Secondly, while some 40 y/o women still look beautiful and have nice bodies, all of the suppleness is gone. It's just not the same bro. Like a 40 y/o who might pass as a HB9 in photos with good lighting and filters is an HB6 once you get the clothes off. There is no such thing as an HB9 over 35. Really over 30 with the exception of girls with insane personal care.
Anyways, "alphas", even high betas, know this and simply aren't throwing out lays to 40 y/o women. on average.
Also there is an interesting thing that happens to women that we usually don't talk about here. Women actually have a minor second puberty in their early forties. As their bodies ready for menopause, their testosterone increases and they become more horny and domineering.
Domineering women usually make for terrible controlling mothers.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Such a research would be invaluable.
The media, and to a great degree also the researchers, are looking the other way from this unsettling fact.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
easiest way to implode your career. No way to present the research without triggering worldwide feminist ire. Except to bury it innocuously in some no name journal. maybe I just have to look harder.
in the hard sciences, you have to define everything in terms of measurements. The only meaningful definition of SMV is the quality of male that a women can attract ergo the quality of male that a woman can reproduce with ergo the quality of children that a woman can produce.
SMV is literally a measure of the quality of children that a woman can produce. That's the harsh reality. It's just presented as SMV to assuage egos.
chazthundergut 4y ago
False.
Women do love children, especially their own children.
Are their psychopath women out there who don't love their own children? Sure. But most do.
One of the million proofs of this are the expectations that men have going into dating. Men are looking for a woman who will love them unconditionally (just like mommy did), and we teach them otherwise. The fact that men have this built up expectation for how a woman should love them is proof that they were loved unconditionally by their own mothers
brabg 4y ago
I saw the opposite. Most needy men, if not all, lack maturity, because they are searching for a woman who gives the love his own mother didn't gave.
​
Lack of love causes low self esteem, and that's what women reject.
​
Loved men are far more alpha, because they don't look for female approval, since they believe that they are inherently lovable, because that's what a loving mother makes they feel since childhood.
chazthundergut 4y ago
Well, that's been my experience. I guess I am one of the lucky ones who had a mother (and father) who both loved me unconditionally.
And it was a bitter pill to acknowledge that no woman will love me the way I would like her to.
Satou4 4y ago
If most women love their children so much, why are their sons growing up to be blue pilled betas, when their mothers know that isn't attractive?
Her "thought" process goes something like this:
2.5) (Not sure about this one, but it's possible) Even though my son has not experienced shit tests, I will still choose to make him into a beta by all means possible. If he fails this shit test then his genetics weren't good enough for him to be anything more than trash anyway.
3) Most women are not attracted to nice guy betas. I need my sons to stay with me forever, because I don't have a retirement plan, so I will make them as unattractive to the opposite sex as possible, so they will become depressed and never leave me.
4) My son's happiness doesn't matter. My life is more important than his.
Women are master manipulators. Just because some young men can't fathom the possibility that their own mothers were pretending to love them, doesn't mean that their mothers' love was real. There is no proof of that. There is proof that mothers will allow their adult children to live with them far into middle age in a lot of cases, but whether that constitutes love is up for interpretation. In my opinion it's actually abuse to enable their adult children to stay past their mid-twenties, especially if that child is male.
Nofapislit 4y ago
Great point. Most men can't take the red-pill that mommy doesn't love them.
trollreign 4y ago
Why are you talking as if women were aware of their own inner sexual drives? Why do you pretend that women are these philosophical creatures that have boiled down the true essence of what makes a man sexually attractive?
What a BP Beta is is what society perceives a "decent, good, nice man" to be. If everyone would be consciously aware of what makes a man successful with women then TRP would have no place and no use. It's the fact that people - including mothers - are not consciously aware that makes BP men and that makes TRP necessary. This does not mean that mothers do not love their children and that they intentionally raise them to be unsuccessful.
Satou4 4y ago
I think you're confusing "consciously aware" with "willfully blind." Women generally hamster away their desires. Active denial is different from total nonawareness.
Denying that she likes bad boys because she's currently married to boring Bob the entry level accountant doesn't mean she has to raise her son to be a copy of boring Bob. Yes it might hurt the father's feelings but it's even worse for the mother to admit in front of her husband that she still prefers bad boys.
TheLongerCon 4y ago
Why the hell do you think she knows how to raise her son to be a bad boy?
empatheticapathetic 4y ago
My sister is raising her son to be an asshole after seeing the failure and anguish me and my brother have been through and the fact that she is married to a mega beta.
They know.
[deleted]
H0tTamal3 4y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head where you said that mommy pretends to love them unconditionally. I think that is the missing piece here. The arguement that OP is wrong because men are looking for the same unconditional love mommy gave them falls apart when you look at it this way.
Society tells women that no matter what you must love your children unconditionally. Women are scared to death to appear any other way than "my kids are my world and they are the best thing that has ever happened to me." Part of this is social conditioning, but part has to be the lies people tell themselves. She truly believes that she loves her children unconditionally and that they are her world because if she were to face the truth, that she gave up her life/freedom/tight pussy/and ability to attract as many alphas, then the crushing dread of realizing you made a life long mistake would set in.
Men and women love to talk about how their kids are everything to them, but I believe this is only because they want to protect themselves from how they truly feel. Every so often I can get people to admit that "sure, I love my kids. If I could go back in time I would never have them though".
This makes sense to me why men would grow up seeking the unconditional love they THOUGHT mommy was giving them. When really she was just giving a love motivated by self preservation. She gives a love that is only there because that's what society has told her she is supposed to give. They show this false unconditional love to convince themselves that it is true because the truth deep down would be too tragic for them to bare.
LordFa9 4y ago
umm duh. Mommy got P&D'ed by Chad/Tyrone, then she keeps going on and on about how daddy/men in general are deadbeat useless shitheads and little Billy here takes in it and grows up thinking that its the right thing to do to be a nice blue pilled ploughorse without realizing that it's the opposite of what will get him laid and/or a woman in her SMV prime
throwlaca 4y ago
I can think of a lot of examples were mommy didnt unconditionally love their children.
chazthundergut 4y ago
I can think of twice as many where they did
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Man, a society were mothers predominantly love their children is a healthy society. Is that what you are seeing around you?
SalporinRP 4y ago
Wow this is some terrible logic.
Plenty of single mothers, baby mommas, and trash mothers love their children deeply. That does not mean they will raise them to be contributing members of society.
Society is fucked for plenty of other reasons.
red_philosopher 4y ago
If they truly "loved" their children, why don't they invest the time to discover and contribute to the child's successful GROWTH as opposed to trying to find a man to do it?
The most refreshing thing a woman ever said to me was, "I don't love my children, I hate them, but I need to make them do well." The funny part? She's actually a pretty decent parent.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "love their children deeply" bit is female solipsism disguised in power talk.
Watch their motherfucking actions, not their words.
j_arbuckle2012 4y ago
This is bonkers off the mark.
Congrats on making the incels here even more afraid of women.
[deleted]
someonesopinion6969 4y ago
Even someone as questionable as my post history has to ask, how has this slipped through the cracks...i
Irtotallynotrobot 4y ago
I think the issue here is that you're operating on data that's faulty. Modern society is not a good condition for raising children. Women are encouraged to operate at their worst levels ie not in a male frame and hedonistic.
Women love their children. They love their babies, toddlers, preteens, teens. Then the children should be brought to the men to be transitioned into adulthood. Once a man is an adult, he is now above his mother and capable of giving back for the gift of life he was given (that's a happy experience). As an adult, the man takes a wife and family of his own to be enjoyed by those who brought him into the world.
Society has fucked that whole process up, every step. This is another possibility for what could be generating the phenomenon you're talking about. Like the Albanian sword virgins, something went wrong and women operated outside of male frame to make a shitty choice; predictably so. Female nature is fluid because that's the best strategy for their survival eg quickly switch mentality to adapt to invading males.
I don't think you're wrong in your analysis of modern society. There's just some causation and overlooked possibility issues that need to be considered. It's not that women intentionally instill bp traits, it's that father's do not alienate them from the mother at the crucial stage anymore.
It's not that women don't love their children, it's that they go insane without the right sociological constructs. Ignore tradition at your own peril kind of stuff. Also, Casey Anthony.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
There are many idiots that are unable to follow this discussion, but I'll star you as standing out, for your infantile quality.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
nobody_thinks 4y ago
lovely families is a euphemism for male dominance. When you only have experience with women who were fortunate to grow up under a masculine man with a strong frame, then your conception of female nature is highly biased because you are seeing the reflection of the ideals of the man whose frame they still (partially) live in.
When you know women who live outside of the frame of a strong man you come to have a better understanding of what female nature is actually like.
Women can be corralled into playing the part of a loving, nurturing mother, but it is not their default setting. Their default setting is solipsism and feelz all the way down.
Master777q 4y ago
I think the truth lies somewhere in between women being incapable of love and women being exactly like men in this regard. Women are certainly less inclined than men to "love" virtually anything, and under most circumstances women will only love for their own benefit and investment. But in terms of evolution once women grow too old to have children (due to not being able to or just very low sexual marketplace value) it would make sense for self sacrificial behaviors to develop. In nature you have examples of both incredible motherly sacrifice as well as equally "immoral" motherly behavior. For and example there are several species that die after bearing children, on the contrary there are species that will go into heat and mate with an alpha that just recently murdered her child (lions are one example of this). From my own observations woman are capable of both these extreme and seemingly contradictory behaviors. Make no mistake that a man is raised by a mother for her own benefit, if a man tries to abandon a single mother when she is old she will make it very clear that she is owed support and loyalty. Under most circumstances she would be morally correct in saying so but would a single father ever expect such a thing? Would a single older father expect to rely on his daughters, or be owed for raising his daughters? I have never seen it happen, normally a daughter expects support from her father until the day her father dies. However despite this type of behavior many women still put their children first, even if they expect many things in return. And although much of their love can just be considered an investment, there are some actions (such as acquiring wealth from a husband to give to their children after they pass on) that is quite selfless as she could not have a return on such an investment.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Weak men are like women.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Interesting points.
In my view, female "love" is typically self-interested. Atypical outliers might exist, of course. But even behaviors such as you describe, have a self-interested quality, in the sense of providing her a positive identity to live by.
Women are expert con-artists, and they can only pull that through by conning themselves first.
UncleEskel 4y ago
Just because you can explain something with some path of logic doesn’t mean it’s reality. See modern sociology.
Your points are weak, not at all enough to challenge the men -> women -> children flow of ‘love’ we generally accept. I can give an anecdotal example of a man killing his wife or explain some logical point that asserts men don’t love women, just sex. Doesn’t mean it’s reality. I’ve seen women do as many dumbass things for their trash children as I’ve seen men do for trash women.
I appreciate your post for the sake of dialogue but I don’t agree with you in the slightest.
trey_at_fehuit 4y ago
I don't even appreciate the post. It is just anger phase woman-hating.
WillemDabro 4y ago
It seems OP is saying children meaning the progeny at any stage of development, but I think the nuance that's missing is that children defined in the man -> woman -> children love dichotomy is this:
Children are humans before sexual development.
Free of society's standards for what an adult is, the animalistic definition of adult is an organism capable of reproducing. In many cultures 14+ aged children are treated as resources (even younger, considering child labor, which does happen before sexual maturity). After whatever age, the child is now a resource to be used for survival. Using her adult child as a provider doesn't mean she doesn't love children. Her children are grown, thus capable of providing her with food and shelter. Woman's capacity for mental manipulation disguises this exchange as a sort of familial love contract that she's owed in exchange for the life she gave.
This post is written from the perspective of a society that has been progressively delaying the development of its adults to the point that we have boomers still acting like middle school kids.
brabg 4y ago
I heard a psychologist saying that 30+ year old are still teenagers.
​
Frankly, I think that the entire concept of teenager is arbitrary, artificial and nonsensical. It is an extremely modern invention, which seems to be a confusion between adulthood and modern education (which takes longer and longer with years). If a person has not finished his education, is confused as non mature, no matter what biology does.
EkMard 4y ago
You've understood it. +1
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
If there is one thing that psychology got right, is its acknowledgement that parents (mothers - and weak fathers) use their children, more than the other way around.
The reluctance to challenge the notion of motherly love is, in my opinion, a tradcon remnant.
Project_Zero_Betas 4y ago
Munchhausers is a real disorder.
asfarley 4y ago
I think your original post raises an interesting and valid question/point. It's pretty tough to provide research-level justification for your claims here, and I don't think most of TRP is expecting every article to be accompanied by citations.
​
The criticism of 'too many people use ad-hoc evolutionary explanations' feels like a fair point as well. My take-away is: this question might be a good candidate for more rigorous investigation.
​
Feels like most of the criticisms against this post can be rephrased as: "I don't like your conclusion" or "not enough support" rather than "here is why you are wrong".
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
I did my research before learning about the existence of The Red Pill. It took me three years. It would have taken way less if I had found TRP earlier, but I'm now glad I didn't. I can contribute a viewpoint to the discussion that is thought-provoking to many. To the point of denial to some, as you can see from the downvotes and some comments :)
The downside is that the partial conclusions are not easy to present in a short post.
For the full discussion, I would recommend my book, the result of my research.
IHeartPussyGunsMoney 4y ago
Boom. So succinctly put.
UnbreakableFrame 4y ago
This kind of sentiment is so dumb. Women have a hypergamous nature that sometimes hurts the men they are with, but that's totally different from being incapable of love. If this sub doesn't stop degenerating into an incel hangout, I'm out. I'm seriously tired of this shit.
odaklanan_insan 4y ago
I disagree with the OP's point too. But don't you think calling him an incel is too much?
I don't see any hard emotions or women hating expressions in this post. He is just trying to understand and recognize women's behaviour and ending up wrong.
I didn't get much love from my mother. But I've seen other mothers loving their children at stupid levels. So, I don't generalize women-child relationships over narrow examples. Neither should the OP. That's where he's wrong.
NigerianChad 4y ago
Im neither for or against OP's theory, but this comment is so lazy. The guy posted his pet theory with a premise, evidence, and a valid conclusion from that premise. You setup a strawman and didn't even address his argument.
Did you even notice how he implies even male love is not truly love and simply a "pro-social mode of displaying abundance". Isn't that denigrating Men as well? That's too much reading for you I suppose. Please leave trp if you're that sensitive to discussion, nobody cares bro.
Gargantuar01 4y ago
This is dumb, challenging old preconceived TRP notions is a good thing for the growth of the community. Right now you're judging through morality which is against the rules.
GrandYam_HomeRun 4y ago
Please follow through on your threat.
chazthundergut 4y ago
I agree that OP's sentiment is dumb. So dumb it's easy to counter with logic.
RicoDunne 4y ago
LOl... unbreakable frame and afraid of incels
RedForEducation 4y ago
K
HumanSockPuppet 4y ago
So post good shit of your own. Field report, theory post, anything.
SalporinRP 4y ago
Not posting at all is better than filling the sub with posts like this that are akin to the rantings of a madman.
[deleted]
WillemDabro 4y ago
This is some ragecel level analysis.
Psychological_Radish 4y ago
This is far and away the most downright baffling essay that I've seen an Endorsed Contributor post to this forum. God Almighty. I truly hoped that this was a troll post, but I fear that this fellow is sincere in his belief.
[deleted]
[deleted]
nobody_thinks 4y ago
all you have to do is look at the consequence of single motherhood upon the children.
adminsaregayniggers 4y ago
that's because women are retarded not because they don't love their kids
nobody_thinks 4y ago
does the difference matter in practice?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
Precisely my point.
Aptote 4y ago
yep, especially when one considers that it is the mother that breaks the home because of her own 'boredom' and selfishness, using the kid's as a meal ticket, and inflicting huge emotional damage on them.
then promptly dumping the kid's in daycare, school, babysittters, etc, the first chance they get essentially having paid strangers raise 'her' kids
disgusting
nobody_thinks 4y ago
exactly. sad that you got downvoted by the manginas.
Aptote 4y ago
its ok, this sub is full of guys 'raised' by volunteer single moms and the paid strangers she uses so she can whore it up. they have the stockholm syndrome and indoctrination from their state paid "fathers"
this crap about mother's loving their kids more than the father is complete BS, they "love" them in a different way, certainly not "more"
and i don't consider child abuse an act of love, in any way, shape or form.
being raised by a single mom when there is a willing and able father is child abuse
nobody_thinks 4y ago
absolutely. well said.
Mother's love is self serving. It's just the way women are programmed. Evolutionarily, it worked for the kids if the mother was solipsistic.
nobody_thinks 4y ago
just noticed the scare quotes around raised. Nice shiv.
SKRedPill 4y ago
Dude, your very definition of love is utterly BP and naive.
What's the average age of TRP these days. 13?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
If you have a better definition please, enlighten me.
IHeartPussyGunsMoney 4y ago
I agree 100%.
Unfortunately I'm coming to this grim realization too.
Women being weaker have to be the more self centered gender, using whatever means necessary to secure survival.
Everything they do is for a reason. And if they do "sacrifice" something to love a child or a man, you will hear about it till your death. And even then that sacrifice is self serving.
Single moms are a perfect example of this. They turn their sons into beta Bux providers for their own sake. They teach their sons a happy mother is a happy son and then that thinking translates to "happy wife happy life".
I get that there are good mom's out there, but that in general is a function of having a dad (and other male figures) right there keeping her in check.
I'm sure that's why our ancient forefathers ridiculed the idea of putting women on a pedestal and seeing them as any source of meaning or love.
They are what they are. Keep that in mind.
destraht 4y ago
I've definitely noticed an inverse relationship between how well I'm getting along with my mother and how much game that I have with new women. If I'm off my game or not even in it then there is more beta there for my mom to work with. If I'm edgy and just slaying it then mom will be lashing out at me.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
nobody_thinks 4y ago
lol i think that's about right.
ZachMeadows 4y ago
Well of course it depends of the environment (aka the country you're at) and on a lot of others conditions.
I'm a father and I've seen a lot of mothers in my kid's school being torn between "of course I love my kids !" and "I can't believe I miss out so much in life because of it". I see them being super aggressive with their children. Sure they must be taught how to behave but they're just kids...
I also see a lot of people having kids like a fashion statement: "I have <any number> kids".
I just reply that I am a father.
Oh well, I don't have time for other people's shit, but I sure feel bad for the children sometimes...
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
There is this interesting phenomenon of the traditional lullabies that mothers sing to their children, in which several terrifying things happen. The kid breaks his leg, dies suddenly, etc. I've seen them in several lqnguages, and probably exist worldwide. This aggressiveness against their children has very old roots.
Soundmind78 4y ago
This comment gave me an epiphany. Once women have fulfilled their evolutionary and biological purpose, ie birthing children, they really are, for the most part, 50 shades of useless. Men on the other hand; as leaders, inventors, designers, hard-workers and captains of industry have every moment of their lives to contribute to their legacy...some guiding multinational concerns well into their 70’s (Reagan). Women grate at this power that they covet...yet, for whatever reason, are unable to achieve. It shows to me that the battle between the sexes is over ‘Legacy’. Legacy is the only way that even atheists must admit we have life after death.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
GrandYam_HomeRun 4y ago
You're being overly strident, it's not stupid thinking nor should it be deleted. Does it need more support? Yes. This is how you get the ball rolling in that direction, with a notion of something and build from there. If it does nothing else than force the reader re-examine a pillar of TRP thinking, good. We all need to review old concepts as a refresher.
I don't care If the "idiots" of this sub swallow it uncritically, I don't want things dumbed down.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 4y ago
The key point is the introduction of marriage.
Women before marriage did a ludicrously huge biological investment in children that only carried half of their genes. It was (biologically) "unfair", i.e. at a disadvantage, so they had to develop ways to compensate that. Therein comes female solipsism, their built-in primacy of the female, their limited care about things beyond themselves.
As knowledge and societies developed, men did acknowledge this unfairness. Marriage is partly an institution that remediied it. But as can be seen in its dismantlement nowadays, it was mainly an institution for the ruling classes to secure reliable production of their subjects.
When you combine the benefits that women accrued from marriage, now given to them also in divorce or just for having children, with their built in biological proclivities, the old situation gets reversed. Now it is clearly the women that are the (social) parasites.
Satou4 4y ago
This is why I think the group model of parenting is better than the marriage model.
In the marriage model, if both parents stay forever, they get resentful and cause problems, which leads to a bad environment for the children who are usually still very young when this fighting gets excessively bad. The father remains in the picture, which is good for the children, and he can somewhat control the mother and prevent her from being a complete asshole to her children, which is also good.
We can't go back to the marriage model as a society. What we can do though is encourage cucking and group parenting. I'm not saying that less attractive men shouldn't be allowed to have kids, nor do I really prefer the cuck model as it prevents the less attractive men from contributing their genetics to the next generation.
In the cuck model, alphas have children with the most attractive women. Some betas might have very few children with the least attractive women. And most betas won't have any children. The men who have the least mating prospects have more time and inclination to become more knowledgeable and pursue meaningful activities such as science, invention, and philosophy. Alphas generally leave after impregnating every woman in the group a few times, and go join a different group with younger women. The betas stay with the group and they are allowed to teach the children to use their minds. The children then have better genetics on average, but they are also trained in philosophy and so they are more capable of actually making contributions that benefit everyone and not only themselves.
Right now we have a shadow cuck model presenting itself as a marriage model of parenting. However, the children don't benefit from anyone and the single mother is generally detrimental to their growth. If the money from the state was given directly to the child in the form of food and shelter instead of giving it to the mother, the child would probably have a better mental health overall.
I don't believe men will accept the cuck model. Less desirable men will mostly give up and not pursue women at all. Therefore some system needs to be put in place to encourage betas to contribute to children who aren't theirs. Prostitution is one example that seems to work marginally, at least due to the fact that prostitutes pay taxes, therefore indirectly the children receive some support from the betas through welfare. However it is not a very good model either.
Less desirable men need a better reason to contribute to a society that doesn't want them.
AutoModerator 4y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
trpblacklime 4y ago
Ive seen both sides to this so I dont know. My mother when I was growing up put her own interests before my wellbeing many times. However, she puts my younger siblings before herself now. Perhaps the love you defined is taught and is something she learned as time progresses. Or perhaps something else is at play. I do know however, that men and women love their offspring differently.