TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
219
- Hide Preview | 154 Comments | submitted 4 months ago by adam-l [Post Locked]

Here's an issue many men have a huge difficulty grasping:

Why on earth are women unable to appreciate a man's paternal investment?

Most of them women, once they reach the Wall, are frothing to have a baby. And once they do give birth, instead of becoming a warm and loving creature, appreciative of their family bliss, they become manic harpies, always demanding and never happy.

This behavior goes as far as to overwhelm and wear out most men, even undermining their capacity to provide to their own family. A few years into that procreation event and it's high-season for divorce.

It doesn't make sense, does it?

Why would women have such a behavior that would ultimately undermine the well-being of their own children? Why would they leave their children fatherless?

Now, there is this theory in TRP about the beta-ization process, re-interest in Alpha men after the Epiphany stage etc. These are all valid. But I believe there is a deeper, evolutionary reason for all this. It goes back to the mating pattern of the primates.

Brought down to their very basics, the male sexual strategy is to impregnate, maybe provide for a few months, and re-do. There is such a huge evolutionary benefit for males in that strategy, that spending your life providing for your own children instead of seeking to impregnate other fertile women is essentially only damage control, a desperate measure. I don't think it can be even dubbed a valid male "reproductive strategy".

The human feeling of being "in love", "eros", gives us a great insight into all this: It only lasts one to two years - i.e. just enough for the man to impregnate and maybe provide a little bit.

Have in mind the very crucial point that the first homo-sapiens did not consciously know that sex lead to procreation! - just like other primates. Men didn't know who their children were, in fact they probably didn't even know that they fathered children at all.

Now, imagine human society before institutionalized marriage, i.e. man's obligation to provide for a woman and her children for all his life. You fall in love, this is such a potent feeling, you mate, there is childbirth, the "in love" evaporates, and you fall in love with another women.

"In love", again. That potent feeling we mentioned. With another woman.

Why on earth stick around the first one?

Imagine now being a woman back then. You get impregnated, and you only have a couple of years to milk the man for all he's got, before he runs away to greener pastures.

So, you evolve to be a harpy.

The fool is in love with you, and will try to please you, doing everything in his capacity - and more. Granted, this is a sort-sighted tactic, it can only last a few months before it will explode and he'll say "fuck this" - and leave. But, hey! he'll leave anyway! His evolutionary urge will get him there anyway.

So, yeah, why on earth don't milk him for all he's got for a year or two?

Of course, modern day institutions are different - and have been so since the advent of Agriculture. Paternity is recognized, men are obliged by law to provide for their children (their wife's children, in any case) for 18 years or more. This is all right and correct, in a logical way. Problem is, woman's emotional hardware never evolved to appreciate that. Women, being very close to mother nature, their animalistic origin, emotions rather than logic, etc etc, still operate on the premise that they have to squeeze men dry before they run away. They view their children's father as a product with an imminent expiration date, that they urgently need to take advantage of.

So, what can we men do about it?

First thing to do, understand it. There are many repercussions about fatherhood, our sexual strategy etc, but unless we understand how deeply woman's incapacity to appreciate men's effort runs, all our efforts for the best in relationships, love, etc, will only be remedial.

TL;DR

Woman are fundamentally incapable of appreciating all your parenting efforts. Plan accordingly.

[-] vfb14 59 Points 4 months ago

Do not cohabitate with women. When something or someone becomes predictable, it becomes boring. If you manage to keep things unpredictable, you can make a relationship last longer, but always keeping in mind that it only is your turn. Why do you think there are so many women who constantly trash talk about their deadbeat partners, but end up getting pregnant by them again? Because those men do not cohabitate with them and their offspring, thus constantly maintaining the security anxiety alive.

[-] SeamusAwl 19 Points 4 months ago

Do not cohabitate with women

This advice is just to keep the red pilled man from getting screwed over and reduce the complications in his life that cohabitation and/or marriage brings. Even Rollo Tomassi says that if you are going to cohabitate then you should only do so if you are planning on marrying the girl within 6 months. If a man wants to marry a girl, so be it. But it should be what he wants to do and not be coerced into it.

[-] vfb14 10 Points 4 months ago

Exactly, if a redpilled man makes the concious decision, it's because he is well aware of the risks, but I still wouldn't recommend it. Plugged in men that get married or cohabitate with a women can't even begin to grasp the risk, and do so with little to no frame, which is the recipe for the perfect storm.

[-] SeamusAwl 9 Points 4 months ago

I still wouldn't recommend it

Nor would I. It really is TRP on hardmode. My wife is my "one and only [wife]" as I will never get remarried.

Unplugged men that get married or cohabitate with a women can't even begin to grasp the the risk, and do so with little to no frame, which is the recipe for the perfect storm.

It is a recipe for a life of hell and a descent into feelings of worthlessness.

​

[-] vfb14 2 Points 4 months ago

Thanks for pointing out my spelling/misuse of word.

[-] j_arbuckle2012 3 Points 4 months ago

Cohabitation is marriage.

Cohabiting with a woman should only be done if you're ready and willing to be married to her, live in that marriage, and have kids.

[-] polyspastos 2 Points 4 months ago

Excuse me, why would you prolong it then?

[-] vfb14 7 Points 4 months ago

Long term sexual prospective.

[-] nicethingyoucanthave 41 Points 4 months ago

just enough for the man to impregnate and maybe provide a little bit.

You can nail down the duration a bit more precisely by looking at what activities it supports. I would state it this way: the purpose of love (in males) is to bond a male to a female long enough to bare a child and ween it.

You said two years. I would say more like three. But we're on the same page. I just disagree with this part:

there is childbirth, the "in love" evaporates, and you fall in love with another women

I suspect that if there were two tribes, and in one of them the males fall out of love with the women as soon as a child is born, and in the other tribe the males stay in love and continue to protect and provision their mate until the child is weened - I suspect the latter tribes leaves more and healthier offspring.

Doesn't that make sense to you too? The longer duration of male effort results in more children surviving.

I also disagree that falling in love with another woman is a better strategy (meaning, a strategy that leaves more and healthier offspring) than would be falling back in love with the same woman. This is one of the reasons I estimate the typical duration to be three years. It provides a nice buffer during which the woman becomes fertile and receptive to sex again. She gets pregnant again, and the male love clock resets.

[-] CainPrice 63 Points 4 months ago

The duration in modern time is about five to seven years. The "seven year itch" where some women suddenly feel compelled to cheat on their husbands or get divorced is a real thing.

Seven years coincides with 1-2 kids being born and old enough to walk and be fairly independent. Around that time, a hands-on dad becomes less of a necessity and more of just a convenience.

If dad makes good money, treats mom like a queen, does housework, and does childcare, mom may muscle through the itch because dad makes life easier for her and it's better for the kids, but she'll still be a sexless demanding bitch to dad.

If dad is an amazing guy who kept in shape and turns women's heads everywhere they go and eradicates mom's shit tests and mom genuinely wonders why he stays with her when he could leave for a hotter woman any time, she'll behave a little better, but it will still be a struggle for her to do so.

[-] Imperator_Red 7 Points 4 months ago

Should replace OP’s post with this. Makes much more sense.

[-] NathanHollister 2 Points 4 months ago

Hypergamy, my man. No matter how awesome you are, there is always a guy who is better than you.

​

There is always a buffer man

There is always a handsomer man

There is always a richer man

​

etc

​

It's good to be the best self you can be, but expecting to keep a woman just because you're in shape is blue pill thinking. Remember, she isn't yours, it's just your turn.

[-] BewareTheOldMan 1 Point 4 months ago

If dad is an amazing guy who kept in shape and turns women's heads everywhere they go and eradicates mom's shit tests and mom genuinely wonders why he stays with her when he could leave for a hotter woman any time, she'll behave a little better,

​

You would think that fact ALONE - that he could leave for a hotter woman any time, would be enough for women to behave...

[-] CainPrice 5 Points 4 months ago

Nah. Because any time she wants to, she can take the kids, the house, at least 50% of the bank account, and get a check for 25% of Dad's salary every month.

Sure, Dad can get pussy if he wants, but she still has him by the balls.

It's an eternal power struggle. What's worth more today, this very minute? Dad being the best Mom can do and having the ability to fuck, or Mom having the ability to take the kids and money and get a guy who's not quite as good as Dad? If Dad slips up and takes his eye off of the ball for a single second, Mom has the power, and if she's in the mood that minute, it's done.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] CainPrice 3 Points 4 months ago

Nah. You wacko incels are the minority. Being a man, itself, doesn't give you any power any more.

This is the way life is going to be now. Learn the system or die unloved with your dick in your hand.

Women carry guns now. Any one of them can shoot a deranged incel in about 2 seconds. And the ~25% of us who are having casual sex with women can kick your ass pretty easily. And the ~25% of men who are feminist white knights are also eager to get in line to kick your ass. And about 90% of you incels are cowardly internet keyboard warriors who aren't going rise up or do anything anyway. And you're getting more cowardly with each generation.

So the tiny fraction of you weirdos who fantasize about some kind of male uprising are going to get your shit kicked in by armed women, men who actually fuck, and white knights.

Just learn how to work within the system. You'll be a lot happier sticking your actual erection in an actual woman than getting a hard-on for some kind of fantasy male uprising.

[-] BewareTheOldMan 0 Points 4 months ago

I can't argue against your points - nor do I wish to try Good Sir.

I constantly see TRP and similar forums rail against marriage.

​

"Mom having the ability to take the kids and money and get a guy who's not quite as good as Dad? If Dad slips up and takes his eye off of the ball for a single second, Mom has the power, and if she's in the mood that minute, it's done."

​

It's easy to see why men are hugely reluctant to the institution.

[-] adam-l 6 Points 4 months ago

You said two years. I would say more like three. But we're on the same page.

Yes, same page indeed. In any case, it is certainly less than the 4-5 years required for the kid to acquire a minimum level of independence.

Doesn't that make sense to you too? The longer duration of male effort results in more children surviving.

This would indeed be the case if providing came exclusively, or largely, from the actual father. But this logic would bring us back to the "nuclear family" model: Father, mother and children.

What seemed to be the case was a tribe-wide, or more correctly a band-wide (i.e. not ~150 persons, but around 30) economo-sexual exchange. Common table, common bed - with favors and preferences to allow for in-band differentiation according to mate quality.

So, as a hunter, you'd bring the deer to the common table, but keep a rabbit on the side to give to your favorite woman - and she would participate in the band orgy, but seek you out to bang you when she was ovulating.

This model accounts for both in-tribe evolution, and inter-tribe evolution.

Regarding the issue of falling in love with the same woman: each woman could raise about two kids, back then. She would probably have a first child from a "more Alpha" father, and would fuck "more Beta" men in order to raise it - eventually bearing a second child to one of them. The younger the woman, the largest the gains for the man. Not much incentive to fall back in love with the same, aging, woman, as I see it.

As a side-note, most males in a band would be blood-related anyway, which dovetails nicely with the above explanation: common genes - common table - common bed.

References for this viewpoint, apart from my own book, include Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind, and Chris Ryan's Sex at Dawn.

[-] beachbbqlover 11 Points 4 months ago

Interesting how you've got your own theories on human behavior. Why not just look at the empirical evidence already?

3 year increments are a thing. Just google it.

Families used to get much larger but many of the children died. Out of say 11 kids, my great great great grandparents kept 3 alive. In one week they lost 6. Vaccines changed all that. My grandparents had 9 kids and 8 survived. My parents had 3 kids.

Now for my theories:

What's likely is that humans bred like rabbits for a long time but had a huge mortality rate due to disease, famine, and war. The evolutionary reasons you'd want to fuck around was to reduce the chance all your kids were annihilated at once, and to keep people around you interested in your wellbeing.

If you have a bad week hunting but have five baby daddies and still put out like a champ, someone is likely to feel like helping you. But if you've stayed with Franz the last 4 years, it's all on him.

[-] adam-l 6 Points 4 months ago

Don't give examples from post-Agricultural societies when making Evophsych hypotheses, like the number of offspring.

The rule of thumb is: if it wasn't the case in pre-history, it probably isn't an evolutionary development, but a social one.

[-] beachbbqlover 6 Points 4 months ago

The argument was that child mortality plummeting is a recent change, so the forces acting on reproductive success were different.

[-] Nicolas0631 1 Point 4 months ago

You don't need that many generations to change DNA. With only 20 generations you can make big change... A generation for human is 20 years. The last 10 thousand years are about 500 generations, enough for evolution to happen.

[-] TheObservationalist 1 Point 4 months ago

The rules in human societies regulating providing for offspring and sexuality go back so much farther than you armchair darwinist morons think. Look at Stone age cultures like the Inuit, or Amazonian tribes, or the last hunter-gatherers of Africa. There are either restraints in female sexuality, or else mores that ensure male providing. Humans thrive in harsh environments where resources are limited and intelligence is a massive advantage. To live in such climates requires longer support of offspring than just the infant years. Even animals in extreme climates take years longer to raise their young. Western society grew up in the cold. That's where our habits and commitment mores come from: the fact that without male investment from birth to puberty, children could not survive.

[-] Imperator_Red 2 Points 4 months ago

and she would participate in the band orgy, but seek you out to bang you when she was ovulating.

Lol, just lol. Also Sex at Dawn is awful... absolutely awful. It’s not RP at all in the sense of how we recognize men as being polygynous and women as being hypergamous. It basically argues that life was one big polygymous orgy. Why is this guy tagged when he argues points that are directly contrary to TRP philosophy?

From the Wikipedia description of “Sex at Dawn:”

According to the authors, before agriculture, sex was relatively promiscuous, and paternity was not a concern, in a similar way to the mating system of Bonobos. According to the book, sexual interactions strengthened the bond of trust in the groups; far from causing jealousy, social equilibrium and reciprocal obligation was strengthened by playful sexual interactions.

This is what TRP EC’s are pushing now? Don’t be jealous if your best friend plows your girl. It’s just playful sexual interaction that reinforces social bonds! I’m getting more and more pissed as I type. Why do we even have EC tags at this point if you can be an EC and push something so completely contrary to the sidebar material and our common understanding of sexual relations in this sub?

[-] TheRedPike 2 Points 4 months ago

You didn't actually explain why it is bad. You just waved your dick about ECs. I'd welcome the former. Don't to the latter again. Only warning.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago
[-] Nicolas0631 2 Points 4 months ago

I don't think women were having just 2 offspring back in time. It seems even not that long ago, women tended to have many children, basically untils they died. So 3, 5 or even 6-8 was common. But most children would never reach adulthood. At least half of the chidren would die in early age.

[-] redpillschool 5 Points 4 months ago

I think it's worth noting that the "out of love" period tends to take place after ~3ish childless years.

If you never have a child, the detachment happens (most likely as an evolutionary protection against either one of them being infertile).

But after a childbirth, I think the clock resets after each child.

[-] nicethingyoucanthave 5 Points 4 months ago

If you never have a child, the detachment happens

Note the implications of this principle for a couple using birth control. I'm starting to think that hormonal brith control (which not only has this effect of "running out the clock" on the instinct of love, but also alters a female's preference for certain types of males) - I'm starting to think that these pills are actually more of a problem than the ideology of feminism.

To put that another way, I suspect that if you handed me a devoted feminist, and she's never used hormonal birth control and she's (miraculously) a virgin, I suspect we could have have happier relationship (with me using the basic RP principles, etc) than a woman who is not a feminist but is on hormonal birth control.

[-] j_arbuckle2012 2 Points 4 months ago

DING DING DING! Correctamundo.

Who'da thunk that women ingesting an alien hormone into their bodies that changes the very thing they were put on this Earth to do would cause problems?

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

clock reset

I've never come across that "clock reset" notion. Haven't noticed it either, in any of my acquaintances.

Where is it discussed?

[-] nicethingyoucanthave 4 Points 4 months ago

Well, do you have kids? That's what we're saying resets he clock.

[-] adam-l 2 Points 4 months ago

I am not from the US, and I have never heard this thing discussed in my cultural circles. Also, I have done quite an extensive research in evopsych, and I haven't seen it mentioned. Unless I'm missing something big time, it seems to me it might be an American urban legend. Or an American culturaly influenced behavior, at most.

What is clearly visible is a definite deterioration of the relationship after childbirth - even in cases the man is quite alpha.

[-] redpillschool 1 Point 4 months ago

I read about this a long while back. Statistically couples would stay together longer when they had kids, but that once they stopped having kids the count-down was essentially the same.

I will have to dig this up. I'll get back to you because I don't 100% remember where I read it.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

If it is about prolonging couple life, possible.

I much doubt it has anything to do with resetting the love clock, though.

[-] redpillschool 3 Points 4 months ago

I mean not that there is a physical clock, but that the brain's release of oxytocin diminishes with no new active children after a while.

[-] Nicolas0631 3 Points 4 months ago

It is also maybe a problem of morality. Your social circle and you code of conduct may prevent you from separating when you just go a new child even through the life is now much harder.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] KeffirLime 5 Points 4 months ago

The longer duration of male effort results in more children surviving.

Not necessarily. Child rearing is a collective task in tribal environments, championed by the mother, but participated by all.

The nuclear family model is very much post-agricultural.

In a tribe as an alpha male, fathering multiple children on a long enough scale would ensure genetic superiority for a wider portion of the tribes young.

He would play a role in raising his young, but would ultimately be far less involved than their mother in the entire process.

I suspect this is why a mother is not biologically inclined to deal with excessive male presence. Because he's foregoing his seed spreading strategy, he is most likely presenting himself as a beta, therefore less attractive to her, and receiving worse treatment.

She no longer has to treat him favorably to vie for his seed because she's already got it, add in the excessive comfort given by a dedicated father and you've got a grouchy woman.

[-] inferno1234 1 Point 4 months ago

I also disagree that falling in love with another woman is a better strategy (meaning, a strategy that leaves more and healthier offspring) than would be falling back in love with the same woman. This is one of the reasons I estimate the typical duration to be three years. It provides a nice buffer during which the woman becomes fertile and receptive to sex again. She gets pregnant again, and the male love clock resets.

Have to disagree here, there is very much an evolutionary pressure to hedge your bets in the gene pool. Polygyny (one male mates with many females but females mate with one) reduces genetic variance but promiscuity on both sides would lead to the highest number of offspring with the highest amount of diversity. This is shown by females engaging in extra pair copulations

Secondly, while polygyny reduces the populations gene diversity, it is extremely beneficial for the males fitness as it dramatically increases his personal amount of offspring. This would likely be the reason it is the predominant mating strategy in the animal world (90% of mammals!)

It is also signified by extreme sexual dimorphism with males being larger and stronger. This can most certainly be seen in humans and is a strong indicator that it would be our traditional mating strategy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_in_animals

[-] UnleashYourLife 1 Point 4 months ago

The strategy of leaving women after childbirth is very simple; spread the seed and hope that one of them turns out well. Obviously, the latter part is just along for the ride with the former. Focus is on spreading your DNA not on hoping that children turn out well.

This is where beta dynamics come into play. Chances are that she will find a provider willing to support her and the bastard children. Things turn out well(for the most part) either way right?

[-] Self-honest 26 Points 4 months ago

My brother got married 1.5 years ago and had a child 7 months ago. His wife is already going through the process of distancing herself from our side of the family. I can tell that she is struggling through events like Christmas. They have been together for 6 years and this year we were not allowed to exchange gifts, she did not plan to be around for the holiday, and only decided last minute to ride it out with us (with no enthusiasm she previously showed). My brother had a birthday recently. She began to organize a party, ultimately leaving it up to my father to plan and carry out. On the day of the party, she felt bad and decided to take the baby to her grandparent's house while my father and my brother's friends and their ladies (her supposed friends) all gathered.

The writing is on the wall.

[-] openoids 25 Points 4 months ago

My brother's wives ratcheted their entitlements a few notches after they had now become ..MOTHERS. They hardly interact with my side of the family since then.

[-] NohoTwoPointOh 37 Points 4 months ago

Why should they? Primary goal has been achieved. No need for the charade anymore.

[-] openoids 20 Points 4 months ago

Because my brothers will discover they impregnated reptiles from another planet. And also ...I'm not going to leave much inheritance to the children of couples who bothered to get together with me once in a decade. They disgust me.

[-] TheLaughingRhino 25 Points 4 months ago

All men started as little boys. Little boys learn fast that not all your feelings are valid. At some point, you have to stop crying and figure a way to deal with your own shit.

All women start as little girls. Little girls learn fast that EVERY LAST FEELING they have is validated. At some point, if you cry and complain and there is always a validation/resource based response in your favor, you have no concept of dealing with your own shit.

During caveman times, people died. I mean they died every single day and died wholesale.

A woman's entitlement is also a product of material abundance and "safety" Nothing will stop the way modern women behave until our social order collapses ( not saying I want that) When people are starving and dying in the street and people are getting slaughtered and brutalized whole sale and there are no cops, no government, no social welfare system, then and only then will most women today adjust their strategy.

Will they be grateful? Will they appreciate things? No, they will CHANGE THEIR STRATEGY.

I've run into some skilled ass hard core gold diggers in my life. I mean women who could reel in a CEO type and a guy rolling in cash and trick him into think spending on her is his own idea. You know what those women do? They realize if they give just 5 percent, just 5, that the man will give 95 percent and be so happy that he's with a woman who is not giving zero percent ( like the rest of them) Just like lifting and trying elevates most men here out of the dreaded 80 percent range, because the bar is so low, that a woman who chooses not to be fat and can show some civility skyrockets in opportunity.

They will never be grateful. They will never appreciate anything you do. As soon as you get crippled or laid off or injured or go through something really bad, they will jump on a new dick.

If any adult guy here thinks he's met an adult woman who truly appreciates him, you've met a man who has fallen into a woman's frame. It's just a different strategy. The average guy on the street is TOILET PAPER Use if you can and wipe and toss. The soon to be reeled in guy falling into her frame is a TAMPON. Not just one wipe. Not just one squirt. But soaking that shit all up. Then she will toss you. The guy who is nuts enough to marry her IS A DIAPER. Some diapers can soak up a gallon of piss. Think about that. A fucking gallon.

The difference between Alpha and not Alpha is how long she decided to hold back pissing on you. That's it. This is why "It's Just Your Turn"

Fuck marriage. Use a surrogate. Have the dignity to be no one's motherfucking toilet.

[-] politeAndLevelHed 9 Points 4 months ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you rush into marriage, or even a long term relationship, and you will regret it.

Fast relationships come from insecurity and selfishness. It is latching onto something to fill a need - be that a need to feel wanted, or a need to have fun.

A long term relationship only lasts when two people want to be together, as opposed to need to be together. And that is why you let a relationship take time to form. It shakes out the needy because they will run along to satisfy their need if you stall them.

That's why a clever lady makes a guy wait for sex, that's why a clever man makes a lady wait for commitment. It shakes out those who are needy and will desperately latch onto someone else.

There are good women, there are good men. There are shit women, there are shit men. And TRP likes to dwell on the more animalistic nature of the purely selfish, both male and female.

It's good to be wise and understand how the animalistic and selfish operate - so you can defend yourself against it - even play it if you want to be animalistic and selfish yourself.

But don't delude yourself into thinking a marriage cannot be successful. It absolutely can - but the question is - are you willing to put the time into testing yourself and the other person and the relationship for something sustainable and lasting?

[-] tempolaca 1 Point 4 months ago

If any adult guy here thinks he's met an adult woman who truly appreciates him, you've met a man who has fallen into a woman's frame. It's just a different strategy. The average guy on the street is TOILET PAPER Use if you can and wipe and toss. The soon to be reeled in guy falling into her frame is a TAMPON. Not just one wipe. Not just one squirt. But soaking that shit all up. Then she will toss you. The guy who is nuts enough to marry her IS A DIAPER. Some diapers can soak up a gallon of piss.

Holy shit this sounds like an angry bitter bastard. Problem is, being already 40, I have to agree with every word of it.

[-] jalapenotrp 20 Points 4 months ago

I've been married for 14 years and I have never experienced such a thing with my wife. My father was also married for a very long time and I don't remember him having major issues with my mom.

One thing is for sure, women will always put their kids before you, or at least that's been my experience and my observation.

What you described here might be a cultural or a specific instance in my opinion, but it's definitely not the rule.

[-] AriesAsF 19 Points 4 months ago

I sometimes wonder how horrible the mothers of most of the men on here must have been that so many RP men cannot even fathom a world where men and women relate in a healthy way to one another or that marriages can be happy and productive. It is possible. My parents and grandparents are examples of that. But of course those were very different times, and my father and grandfather were as redpill as they came (no online forum necessary).

I would definitely agree that women tend to put their children's needs before their husbands, but thats just nature.

[-] jalapenotrp 6 Points 4 months ago

That's how my father was too, as redpill as you can get. Everyone knew who the man in the house was, and when he was pissed not even a fly dared to move. When he passed, my mother died soon after, she couldn't fathom a life without him.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] SeamusAwl 13 Points 4 months ago

Same. Married for 18+ years and my wife just eats it up when I spend time with my girls and is extremely supportive of my investment to them. Of course, she also gets a little jealous if I spend too much time with them instead of her.

[-] adam-l 8 Points 4 months ago

it's definitely not the rule

Actually, it does seem to be the rule. Maybe your case is the exception.

In fact, the debate in the scientific community is not whether women become harpies post-birth, but why they do. It is precisely this paper from D. Buss that prompted me to write my post. He hypothesizes that women do it in order to drive the man away, so that they can trade up to a better mate.

I believe that doesn't compute: Why would she be able to trade up to a better long-term mate once older and burdened with a child? The explanation that she tries to squeeze as much juice as possible before he bails, as an evolutionary adaptation, is more consistent.

[-] SeamusAwl 10 Points 4 months ago

He hypothesizes that women do it in order to drive the man away, so that they can trade up to a better mate.

Now that is ironic. A better mate wouldn't go for single mothers. But for women, logic is lower on their list of drives under wildly erratic emotional excitement.

[-] Imperator_Red 8 Points 4 months ago

It’s not “ironic,” it’s senseless and imbecilic.

[-] HardTruths83 3 Points 4 months ago

Isn’t it ironic?? My ex wife became cold and distant to the point that I walked away. She’s 43 with 4 kids, pretty (but overweight), educated.

I’m 35, fit, educated and loving father, trying (and actively moving towards) all of the RP goals (fit/jacked, popular, financially solid) and I really don’t think she’ll do better than what I currently am. However, she will def find a guy who is more alpha-type than the beta-ized pussy I was up until I walked out.

It was amazing, the first alpha thing I have done in a couple of years was to walk out on her and fuck another woman the next night who I did not know prior to leaving. Less than a week after I walked out, she was wanting me to have sex with her.

I’m afraid of getting into another long-term relationship for fear of becoming a beta pussy again. It wasn’t until we had a child together that I became beta-ized though. I have two children now and I am going to get a vasectomy. Not having any children with any future women should leave them all towards the disposable side which will make me less likely to become beta-ized again, right?

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

Just remember, no need to tell them about your vasectomy.

Doing a string of 5-year relationships until you are around 50-55, breaking up when the women start harassing you for a baby, is one of the most effective ways to play the sexual marketplace, these days.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] RealisticKiwi 1 Point 4 months ago

I am going to have my first child ever. What should I do to not get into full beta mode? I am already noticing that I have more beta traits than a couple of months ago.

[-] RedHoodhandles 1 Point 4 months ago

You should see 'better' as just a new man with new genetic material and unburdened with providing for a child. He doesn't need to be better SMW wise per se.

[-] ex_addict_bro 18 Points 4 months ago

Solid post is solid. Congratulations for coming up with such piece.

Artifical rules imposed by religion or government or both for forced monogamy just to keep betas in check... but thanks God our nature takes over.

So many unhappy people trying to bend to unrealistic expectations created to control them...

I found TRP but divorced many years after just because I was so fixed on sticking to my words, oaths, etc. Nonexistent bs designed to keep me in check.

Thanks!

[-] oldrunnerguy 15 Points 4 months ago

Excellent post in that it explains well what transpired in my own marriage. I know that my son definitely benefited from being in a house with both a mother and a father. However, after his birth, and in spite of my commitment to being a good father, my ex- was always critical of any efforts I had made in trying to be a good husband and parent. In fact, she made every effort to ruin the intimacy between us, downplaying every Blue Pill effort on my part to demonstrate my abilities in those capacities. I am hoping that your post can shed some light to younger men in realizing this truth about female nature and can enable them to deal with it much better than I was able to.

[-] adam-l 4 Points 4 months ago

I'm sorry to hear about that, mate.

Keep strong, and happy, so that your son sees you that way when he has his awakening.

This thing happens to all men, Betas, Alphas, Blue Pilled, Red Pilled... It's a thing women do. You might be able to mitigate it some times, but in some cases there is not much you can do to avoid it.

[-] Opioidus 14 Points 4 months ago

Polygamy is the only answer, two wives will keep each other jealous and in constant competition forever and you'll never lose alpha credz.

[-] inferno1234 9 Points 4 months ago

In my opinion, true abundance starts at three as even after losing one option you will still have multiple options.

[-] errrzarrr 5 Points 4 months ago

At 4 indeed

[-] Gr0o0vy 4 Points 4 months ago

my coach used to have a hard harem; 4 of them in the same villa that did not even belong to him. The richest one of the women used to own it.
And yet she preferred having 3 other women living with them instead of having some wimp all for herself. This was back in the 70`s. As Red Pill as it gets.

[-] snowmoose1 3 Points 4 months ago

Abundance in other words.

[-] RedHoodhandles 1 Point 4 months ago

You wanna get divorceraped not only by one woman but by two? And you allow them to get fucked by other men, too while providing for them? Why do you imbecile get upvoted?

[-] The_Red_Trooper 1 Point 4 months ago

You might have a point.

[-] Bear-With-Bit 11 Points 4 months ago

Understanding the reason isn't as important as admitting the existence of the problem. Women can't appreciate fatherhood-- your fatherhood. Let that sink in. Even if you were okay with a sexless dead bedroom and even if you provided and cared for the family very well, the mother of your children would still give you hell, death by a thousand passive-aggressive pricks.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] ex_addict_bro 31 Points 4 months ago

This is a woman who encourages cuckoldry in her other posts. Reported.

[-] adam-l 19 Points 4 months ago

Reported.

Let her (or him) be. Τhe Blue Pill response promotes dialogue.

I find intriguing that this reply got so many upvotes in here. It's a good thing: it means that there are still many readers in here that are not comfortable with RP truths. Seems that the quarantine is not working that well...

[-] camal_case -2 Point 4 months ago

First of all, thanks for promoting discourse. It is important, definitely in our community.

Second, my point is exactly that your post is not a "RP truth" at all, it's a rant.

You can't make up something and call it truth. If you want to suggest that "Woman are fundamentally incapable of appreciating all your parenting efforts" , then I don't think some empirical evidence is out of order.

​

Have you read any evolutionary theory from actual scientific literature?

This isn't a judgemental question, I just hope you can be honest about the answer to yourself. If you haven't, then please do before making wild assumptions on what "huge evolutionary benefit for males" are, or what "the first homo sapiens" did and didn't know.

[-] adam-l 4 Points 4 months ago

Ok, /u/TheRedPike, granted, he's an idiot. Ban him.

[-] TheRedPike 5 Points 4 months ago

Boom. Headshot.

[-] TheRedPike 11 Points 4 months ago

It's an old "friend" with a new account. I'll leave it for a bit if anyone wants to take a crack at why it is idiotic.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] CainPrice 14 Points 4 months ago

Read for context. Daughters appreciate their fathers. Wives don't appreciate their husbands.

When the children are babies and a hands-on dad is a necessity, mom will be a raging bitch to keep dad in line and handling shit for her. When the children are walking, talking, and independent, mom wants a divorce. She doesn't need dad anymore, just his monthly check. The kids will suffer without dad, but it's more important to mom to stop having sex with dad. And maybe become available to other guys.

[-] SeamusAwl 3 Points 4 months ago

When the children are walking, talking, and independent, mom wants a divorce. She doesn't need dad anymore, just his monthly check. The kids will suffer without dad, but it's more important to mom to stop having sex with dad. And maybe become available to other guys.

This is so far off base from RP truths. Most mothers would rather suffer a life with a beta-provider for her children, not the other way around. She doesn't need a divorce to stop having sex with "dad". She just does and then will do her best to find a perceived alpha to have that sex.

Read for context. Daughters appreciate their fathers. Wives don't appreciate their husbands.

​

Another RP Truth.

  • Men love Women
  • Women love Children
  • Children love puppies
  • The dog better respect you
[-] CainPrice 7 Points 4 months ago

Times have changed. Women would muscle through a sexless whiny marriage with a weak-willed husband in the 80s and 90s, but in 2019, a 35-year old mother of 3 who's not too fat can generously grant her husband 50-50 custody under the guise of playing nice in the divorce, which gives her every other week to fuck guys from various online dating sites.

Divorce happens a lot more often than dead marriages and cheating women nowadays.

30s and 40s single mothers who work out like fiends, have a mortgage and children half the time and no time to shit around with games, and can't wait to be fucked hard like their husbands never did are crazy-abundant. Online dating is like shooting fish in a barrel with those women.

[-] Self-honest 13 Points 4 months ago

The main point of the OP was that women drive men off instead of reengaging them in the love cycle and keeping them around to help raise (in best interest of) the children. You said nothing to refute this.

I have only few friends (girls) whom do not appreciate their father. Some of them even consider their father as a true friend, calling him often to ask advice etc.

Almost every woman you know has a high level of respect for their father in comparison to their mother well after their first few years of life.

One close friend even left her mother a year after her parents got divorced, to go live with her father.

Was her mother not acting like the loving and caring parent she should have been? What was it that drove her away?

Plain BS. In many animal species, the father stays and helps in raising the children.

The post was about WHY fathers stay and when/why they inevitably leave.

Mountains Gorillas play an important role in his offspring’s socialization, and support infants during times of weaning. That supports OP's theory.

Pygmy Marmosets live and parent in groups. This small amount of information isn't relevant.

Artic Wolves alpha male and female of a pack mate. The whole pack pitches in to help raise the pups, and the father is responsible for guarding the den and hunting for food. Pups can travel with the pack at about five months. Time frame supports OPs point. The whole pack helping changes the dynamic too much to make a valid point.

Emperor Penguins spend two months balancing the egg on his feet in the harsh Antarctic winter. Then they leave. This says nothing about staying and helping to raise the children.

Also, none of these animals KNOW they are the father. And many of their efforts are probably for other male's children.

With exception of the Sea Horse which is an oddity and still doesn't support staying around and helping out.

[-] MeToo2020 6 Points 4 months ago

I just watched animal channel describing two very similar rodents with promiscuous or (other rodent) faithful mating patterns stable over time based on the resourcefulness of the environment. Where resources were poor the faithful ones flourish because of stability improving offspring survival in harsh environment. Internally the brains were differently chemically wired (oxytocin receptor location if i remember correct) for longer lasting bonding (love addiction) than the other rodent. None of the mating patterns were conscious - the environment was selecting for better fitting brain wiring - or rather weeding out the less effective strategy via higher death rates.

Modern welfare states don't have the selection pressure benefitting faithful long term bonding. Broken relationships actively flourish due to no negative consequences for dysfunctional behavior or are even encouraged by welfare benefits only accessible for single moms. In the middle class divorce industry thrives making bad behavior (after geting a one time "yes, i do") inconsequential due to "no fault" rulings.

PS: it was tv animals channel on pluto tv, "the seven sins of animals", part jealousy/envy.

[-] weroafable 5 Points 4 months ago

We're primates not many animal species.

[-] BloodSurgery 1 Point 4 months ago

So, what is your point? It seems I'm stupid and can't see what you are getting at lol

[-] SeamusAwl 10 Points 4 months ago

Why on earth are women unable to appreciate a man's paternal investment?

Most of them women, once they reach the Wall, are frothing to have a baby. And once they do give birth, instead of becoming a warm and loving creature, appreciative of their family bliss, they become manic harpies, always demanding and never happy.

This behavior goes as far as to overwhelm and wear out most men, even undermining their capacity to provide to their own family. A few years into that procreation event and it's high-season for divorce.

​

This is just a fallacy because women do appreciate a man's paternal investment. What they do not appreciate is the family-beta with the thing the women love most in the world - their children. The beta is fine as a provider, but they want their children to have the best chance at surviving and the beta does not inspire confidence to do just that. So they ramp of the shit tests and get pissed as the beta fails time and time again. until the beta gets overwhelmed and gets worn out trying to make it work with a harping bitch of his own doing.

[-] Iceklimber 9 Points 4 months ago

the first homo-sapiens did not consciously know that sex lead to procreation!

[Citation needed]

I have read this before but have doubts of its truthfulness. For example, Lions kill cubs of other males then impregnate the lioness.

Perhaps their method is a simpler apparatus than "knowledge", but even animals have a way of figuring out who their offspring is.

[-] adam-l 2 Points 4 months ago

Lions kill the cubs of the lioness that they didn't have sex with. It is no "knowledge" of their own offspring.

the first homo-sapiens did not consciously know that sex lead to procreation!

Citation: Sex, Time and Power, Leonard Shlain.

[-] Imperator_Red 4 Points 4 months ago

Do you actually believe that cognitively modern Homo sapiens did not understand that sex leads to baby? These people had language, fire, tools, art, and probably rudimentary religion.

[-] KeffirLime 8 Points 4 months ago

It has alot to do with the Alpha/beta dynamic in my opinion and how a women views either.

Showing excesive investment for years on end, while foregoing your inherent strategy of spread your seed will only present yourself as a beta male.

A women grows resentful and harpy towards a beta male.

Partly why competition anxiety generally leads to better treatment. She is aware that there are multiple women vying for your seed and has to present herself in a favorable manner.

Once she has your seed and are now acting beta what reason does she have to please or behave favourably towards you.

It should now be the role of the "tribe" to ensure safety of the child. You should not be there as an Alpha male, and if you are there, you certainly wont get treated like one.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

I think we largely agree. The thing I want to emphasize is that women are hardwired for a "greedy" strategy of "using up" their lover, once they give birth. Even if he's the most alpha male possible.

Cultural influences might mitigate it, but it is there as a tendency.

[-] KeffirLime 1 Point 4 months ago

Another hypothesis that's crossed my mind, is the possibility of infanticide.

In chimps, females are very sensitive to changes in power ranks. If new males rises up the hierarchy, they're likely to kill off young that aren't their own.

Therefore, political stability is a good sign for the odds of her infant's survival.

What's a bad sign is the father of her child slipping down the ranks.

Hence a possible, "What are you doing here, go be an alpha male" type attitude, because beta behavior quite literally endangers her child.

[-] WhistlingDead 7 Points 4 months ago

And once they do give birth, instead of becoming a warm and loving creature, appreciative of their family bliss, they become manic harpies, always demanding and never happy.

BS. Some do, many do not. That's far from being a universal truth. Many women become more tender upon having a child.

This behavior goes as far as to overwhelm and wear out most men, even undermining their capacity to provide to their own family. A few years into that procreation event and it's high-season for divorce.

False again. Childless couples divorce more than couples with children. If anything, having a child makes a couple stronger, not weaker. 90% of couples have children, yet they represent only about 60% of divorces.

Now, imagine human society before institutionalized marriage, i.e. man's obligation to provide for a woman and her children for all his life. You fall in love, this is such a potent feeling, you mate, there is childbirth, the "in love" evaporates, and you fall in love with another women.

(...)

Imagine now being a woman back then. You get impregnated, and you only have a couple of years to milk the man for all he's got, before he runs away to greener pastures.

So, you evolve to be a harpy.

It sounds like men have evolved to care for their children nowadays, but women haven't changed? Why do you think this is?

[-] CainPrice 12 Points 4 months ago

Couples with children don't stay together more often because they're stronger as a couple. They stay together for the children. Couples who hate each other and never have sex will sometimes put on a brave face for their kids and the outside world. Then divorce once the child is older.

Couples without kids divorce readily because there's no kid being affected and no child custody to lose. The logistics are a lot easier.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

90% of couples have children, yet they represent only about 60% of divorces

Having children is such a huge life-changer, that I would refrain from analyzing childless couples together with parent- ones. A divorce of a childless couple, especially in countries where there is no alimony, is a trivial matter.

It sounds like men have evolved to care for their children nowadays, but women haven't changed? Why do you think this is?

Okay, I'm trying to paint the big picture, so necessarily some crucial matters don't get enough focus.

Of course, men have evolved to care for children.

Did they evolve to care for their children?

I would do wrong to the question trying to answer it in a couple of lines. My main point: Most of male fathering is actually mentorship. A male scientist, for example, generally puts in more energy training his assistants, than raising his children. All pre-class societies had "men's houses", where boys were raised to be men - by the other men of the tribe, not necessarily by their own father. Other men, which were mostly blood-related, in any case.

I see the modern man's preoccupation with fathering more as a compensation for their lack of a tribe, their lack of a belonging. As a man, today, you are on your own. Except, maybe, if you have kids? (Don't do it, doesn't cut it, btw).

[-] Imperator_Red 3 Points 4 months ago

Of course, men have evolved to care for children. Did they evolve to care for their children?

Stupid beyond belief. My mouth is hanging open at the sheer stupidity of this statement.

[-] ARUKET 1 Point 4 months ago

I see the modern man's preoccupation with fathering more as a compensation for their lack of a tribe, their lack of a belonging.

What the hell? What do you think a tribe is?

Do you honestly think men wanting to raise their own children is the result of some kind of social conditioning?

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

What do you think a tribe is?

A tribe is a community of generally genetically related humans. The tribal behavior helps propagate its common genes.

Do you honestly think men wanting to raise their own children is the result of some kind of social conditioning?

I'm not sure about the "wanting" part, but it is certain that men expanding so much effort raising their wife's (and, possibly, yes, their own) children is certainly a socially conditioned skew of their reproductive strategy towards beta-ization, i.e. a "losers" strategy.

[-] ARUKET 1 Point 4 months ago

Most men are not really interested in raising another man's children, perhaps unless that child has lost his parents and is part of the tribe. I can agree that those who do are victims of social conditioning (and desperation for that matter). With that said, there is nothing a man, alpha or beta, can naturally feel more invested in than his own genetic legacy. The man cares for the tribe because it is, as you said, his extended family, but the notion that a man would care more for his cousins and their children than his own children doesn't follow. There's no reason to think that this is the case or that it has ever been the case.

I think you are making an assumption that humans are a purely r selected species when this idea doesn't line up with our biology.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

It takes us way far from the main point of my OP, that women evolved to expropriate man's paternal investment in a "greedy", consuming way, but here goes.

Human reproductive instincts evolved before the conscious knowledge of the reproduction mechanics. There was probably a lot of inbreeding, and a large degree of genetic relation within the tribe. In such contexts, as an evolutionary scientist put it, "the idea that a child has more than one father is closer to reality". Consider e.g. having a child with your cousin. Her brother is somewhere midway between an uncle and a father to this child.

Now, consider that cooperation is more beneficial that antagonism, within a tribe, as regards the common Gene propagation.

All in all, I think we can identify a more persistent patern of tribal behavior in men, than the modern notion of (nuclear family) paternal behavior.


As a side note, exactly this tribal behavior is appropriated by authoritative regimes (e.g. wars etc). And as a, well, footnote, man's cognitive capacity can allow him to operate in a wider than a tribal setting, while women can operate at the tribal level, at maximum - e.g. the global sisterhood "tribe": men can have a notion of "humanity", which is beyond tribalism, women cannot, because their maximum horizon is the female "tribe".

[-] errrzarrr 5 Points 4 months ago

Because there's the welfare state and the many laws to support it.

See, the man traditionally seen as the protector and provider have been made obsolete by a tool designed by social-democratic and Marxist politicians, the Welfare State. This means that you as a father aren't needed anymore (at least materially) because she can go for subsidies, which are depending on the country you live in: birth attention, healthcare, school for the kids, food stamps, school and many more.

Accompanying the Welfare State subsidies are the divorce laws: no matter what she did, no matter how a good father she keeps the kids and to her goes 50% of what you've earned in a life time of dedication.

[-] DeathtoTraitors117 2 Points 4 months ago

Correct, Communism in all it's forms from Marx, Lenin and Zionism etc are heavily subversive and aimed at stifling reproduction.

[-] CraftyPragmatism 5 Points 4 months ago

You gave a reason as to why men, in your opinion, do not want to stay around to raise a kid and why that’s not a “natural” strategy, or a desirable one. Furthermore, you’ve highlighted, in your opinion, what’s the underlying reason for the latter. Not why women in general do not appreciate fatherhood rendering the title quite misleading.

[-] Dravous 6 Points 4 months ago

yes he did. they don't appreciate it because they instinctively see it as temporary, so they push as hard as they can until he's gone. they're trying to to get as much utility as possible in the time before he bails.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

That's a much better TL;DR than mine. Kudos.

[-] adam-l 2 Points 4 months ago

Very perceptive comment - but I think you missed the connection to my main point.

Men's tendency to optimize by skipping paternal investment made women seek a greedy, let's-eat-the-cow-instead-of-milk-it strategy. (Hypergamy, as well, of course).

Today's fatherhood is a way bigger investment that any prehistoric woman could ever hope to get from a man. That's why her primitive mind cannot appreciate its value as a long-term investment. Add-in the fact of compulsory child support, and you get the full picture.

[-] CraftyPragmatism 2 Points 4 months ago

I would argue it’s the opposite. I think men adopted that strategy as a mean to prevent their unfulfillment. It still puzzles me as to why so many men and women are unfulfilled in their marriages, personally I have no experience, if some of you could share some of your experiences I’d be most grateful, but as far as my experience goes, most of it is due to the lack of stimulus, mostly from variety and excitement.

Given this and that (IMO) men get the short end of the straw when marriages end, this would be a preventive measure, not women’s strategy per se. Additionally it would render a bigger investment from a men, assuming it would be the party that has most to lose.

[-] adam-l 0 Points 4 months ago

Stick around, read up.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] MattyAnon 4 Points 4 months ago

So, you evolve to be a harpy.

I'd argue it's the other way around: if the guy can leave, she's incentivised to be pleasant.

But our modern society controls men, shames men, divorce rapes us and then lets the woman take our children.... and to make it worse the beta male response is to try his best to appease her: "happy wife, happy life".

It is this female control and subjugation of men that leads to the harpy syndrome that OP is talking about.

Not getting married, saying things like "no" and "sure, take the kids, be a single mom if you like" and flirting with other women shows women that they are not in control of our lives, and suddenly they are sweet and warm and lovely again.

They can be nice, they just need the proper motivation.

[-] Neutral_User_Name 4 Points 4 months ago

And once they do give birth, instead of becoming a warm and loving creature, appreciative of their family bliss, they become manic harpies, always demanding and never happy.

This behavior goes as far as to overwhelm and wear out most men, even undermining their capacity to provide to their own family. A few years into that procreation event and it's high-season for divorce.

AMEN BROTHER

I can also see a parallel with the urge for "cock carousse riding": once a woman found a "good one" it is not in her genetic interest to mate with the same set of genes: she is best served with finding a +1 in terms of genetic value.

[-] inferno1234 1 Point 4 months ago

I can also see a parallel with the urge for "cock carousse riding": once a woman found a "good one" it is not in her genetic interest to mate with the same set of genes: she is best served with finding a +1 in terms of genetic value.

And so is the man of course.

[-] iamrsj 3 Points 4 months ago

Some truth to these theories for sure.

I have a simpler take on why women change a few years into marriage after babies.

I see this happening in households where both parents work, before we used to have grand parents and other family around/co-habitating - but this is much less common.

Both parents are working and the Father ends up picking up the slack in most cases.

It's hard to be Alpha when you're changing diapers, vacuuming, and preparing dinner - its actually a battle to not turn into a beta at this point. It's been a battle for me, as I often have to switch characters - being supportive and caring for my baby and not as soft with my wife to ensure boundaries are respected.

I'm often having to chose between my baby and my wife, its nothing super dark, but being around more forces me to take more of an active leadership role at home too. Before when men worked and women ran the home, I doubt this dynamic would be the same.

I'll wrap this up. I think the whole women harpie thing is men's fault.

Women have this built in them, but I feel it only comes out when men lose their way a bit. It's natural for men to serve and want the best for our kids. But part of this domestication makes us Beta. Women don't respect this.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but I'd argue from experience that it's take a lot of conscious effort to fight against this domestication, maintain some distance and be a leader at home

Feel free to share your thoughts, as I'm simply sharing my exp

[-] j_arbuckle2012 3 Points 4 months ago

You have the right of it.

A woman is either awesome or terrible depending on the quality of man she is with. If he sucks? She sucks. If he's awesome? She's great.

Also, being a good dad and a high SMV man are not mutually exclusive. I would ask you why are you changing diapers?

[-] iamrsj 1 Point 4 months ago

Also, being a good dad and a high SMV man are not mutually exclusive. I would ask you why are you changing diapers?

Agreed 100%. Changing diapers because I have too (good Dad column and my wife works as well - we share baby duties)

I would also add, Good Dad, High SMV and being a great Leader of the family are all separate things. Possible to be a good dad and not the other two or vice versa in the other cases.

[-] solor84 3 Points 4 months ago

Excellent post, I explored these hypotheses long time now, due to personal experience.

While I knew TRP and practiced many of its principles like lifting, having personal goals, meditating, take care of my looks and hygiene, keeping frame, I never managed to beat the beast of women's cultural and biological programming.

The biggest red flag that I was always blind for, was that she never appreciated anything I did. Not because she did not see the importance of what I did, but because she did not want to give me this appreciation. As Freud studied, two motives exist in humans, sexual urge and the need to feel important. Both of them used from mainly western women to "control" their relationships. We men sign up for the marriage as a subscription to sex, to satisfy our sexual needs, in exchange of our loyalty and care. The need of feeling important was easier to be covered when society accepted clear roles for each gender, but nowadays men cannot bring enough to the table. Therefore, women especially those coming from broken families, have no real incentive to show appreciation for the tangible and intangible things men bring into the relationship. This leads to men trying harder and harder to please women, in order to get a tiny drop of appreciation. That is the key point. Either you feed the beast more and it grows bigger, or stand up, walk away on the first instance you feel underappreciated.

That's a win win for men because they either exercising dread that will put her on the right mindset, or moving on and surround themselves with people who appreciate them.

Tldr: humans have two basic motives, sex and feeling of importance. Women who don't give enough of both, are to be avoided at the first instant

[-] Imperator_Red 2 Points 4 months ago

Brought down to their very basics, the male sexual strategy is to impregnate, maybe provide for a few months, and re-do.

Was hoping for a satisfying answer to this mysterious question, but unfortunately I cannot accept this explanation. This is basically a lighter version of the “humans = chimps” argument. This makes zero sense though. A chimp infant is capable of grasping and holding onto its mother’s hair as she forages for food from a very young age. A human infant is helpless for years. A mother needs a provider for years and years, not a few months.

This doesn’t make sense for another fundamental reason as well. If fathers were not meant to invest in the long term care of their children, then fatherly love would not exist because it would never have evolved. Fathers simply would not give a shit (chimps do not know or care that they are fathers). Yet we see divorced dads bankrupt themselves and fight tooth and nail just for visitation rights to be part of their childrens’ lives.

I doubt that “lifetime monogamy” is a valid model for our hunter-gatherer brains, but the model presented by OP is face value absurd. More likely we are merely seeing the manifestation of open hypergamy. Women would rather share an alpha than marry a beta, but eventually almost all women are forced by social convention to hop off the cock carousel and marry a man who will give her exclusivity. It’s neither natural nor desirable to the average woman to surrender herself to the average man, and so she does not enjoy it.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

You are thinking in nuclear family terms. Human evolution happened in a tribal setting.

Here are some things to consider:

  • Human reproductive rate in prehistory was about 1:1. The population increased very slowly, every woman was expected to have two surviving children on average.
  • Evolutionary, raising e.g. 5 nephews trumps raising two offspring.
  • Hunter-gatherer bands consisted largely of related males. "Band of brothers", metaphorically and literally.
  • Cooperation inside a band is evolutionary more beneficial - for the whole band - than internal strife.

Most of the child-rearing care men did back then was socially mediated, indirect rather than direct: common lunch, common defense, and most of all, a men's house to raise boys into men, managed by the best men of the tribe.

Granted, we don't have experience of many insights about this type of child-rearing nowadays, but you cannot understand the past using only today's notions.

Btw, one comment when you disagree is perfectly fine. Spamming around is bad etiquette.

[-] Nicolas0631 2 Points 4 months ago

I am not sure this is actually how it works. A few points:

Are we sure that the unit of socialization was really the nuclear family ? Only directs parents and a child ? After all is only maybe the latest century that we actually started to do that. Not saying we always had big families but this nuclear family isn't a given.

Physically a child is still a child for more than, 1-2 years. A child wouldn't be able to be independant without adult supervision to learn, help and care before like 10-12 year old and is only when the child become a teenager at like 13-15 that he start to want to be on his own and to recent his parents.

Are we sure homo sapiens was so dumb and even animals and didn't get how babies are made ? I think this is something that was know for a very long time, more than enough for the behavior toward that knowledge had the time to influence our DNA. You don't need millions years for DNA to evolve, experiments even on insect show that after a few generation (like 20) you can really select and evolve the group. So 10000, 50000, or more year we had likely understood how babies are made is more than enough to influence our behavior.

If I had to make an hypothesis for bad behavior of the woman and short love duration, I'd say it is the social presure with mariage. Each patner is stuck with the other until very recently so there no need to be kind actually. Actually, it may be more efficiant to be agressive and to insist until you get what you want, your partner finally comply because it cost him less than to argue with you endlessly.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

Are we sure homo sapiens was so dumb and even animals and didn't get how babies are made?

About animals, yes, we are sure. In fact, not only lesser animals, but even primates don't understand how babies are made. Their whole reproductive behavior is instinctual, not cognitive. Check out Sapolsky's Human Behavioral Biology, on this.

So, there was definitely an evolutionary period in Human's history when there was no cognitive knowledge about reproduction. During that period, our reproductive biology was formed.

[-] AutoModerator 2 Points 4 months ago

Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] nebder 2 Points 4 months ago

I read a study that I cannot find again. The meat of the study was that men could accurately and much more quickly identify their own children out of a group of children especially compared to the mother of the same children. I recall that the study in question used children in similar outfits like in a school uniform group setting so that clothing was not the identifying factor.

If we suppose that I’m not just making things up and this study exists, would you consider that ability to be an evolutionary response or simply an extension of one of the differences between men and women whereas men are generally more detail oriented and/or faster on their feet at identifying patterns/objects in the environment.

Changing gears, major kudos on this post. It’s had me thinking on this for a few days now.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

That reminded me... I was driving downtown, once, and I caught a girl walking by the street, with my peripheral vision. First thing that crossed my mind "Wow, this chick is hot". A few moments later, I realized "Hey, that's my girlfriend!"

I don't know how much this connects with the study you read...

In any case, there are definitely adaptations in the male psychology in order to favor your own children, and in generally your genetic relatives, over random people, even when there is no conscious knowledge of that genetic relationship.

[-] Synthetic_Citizen 1 Point 4 months ago

Well done, an interesting read and i can see that you are mostly if not fully unplugged just by reading this. In this day and age people are conditioned to not only despise their natural animal instincts but full on deny that it even exists. Instinct, the animal inside, is your most valuable asset as a man, it never lies and is always on your side, you must never ignore it. The defining point is that one should master his instincts and not be controlled by it.

Take for example the instinct of jealousy, it is an overwhelmingly powerful compulsion that few learn to control, a compulsion that consumed you with the drive to take action and lash out with indignation. While learning to controll the compulsion is beneficial, trp teaches us to ignore its existence which is not ideal. While it is important to maintain composure during jealous compulsion one must never ignore it, it is your animal instinct telling you that something is up and you should act now in order to prevent foreign seed from impregnating your conquest. Jealousy is based in self preservation and refined over hundreds of millions of years to become the sure sixth sense it is today, if even a twinge of jealousy is felt you can be sure something is up. It may be minor or something youll never be able to prove or confirm but you can be sure and trust that there is good reason for being alerted by your instinct no matter the situation, garunteed. Never be consumed by your instincts but always acknowledge them, make them work for you in todays society.

Oh and allow me just one point, animals, or mammals rather, are well aware of their own paternal offspring, if that is the case with animals then it should be as such for early humans as well.

[-] jonpe87 1 Point 4 months ago

I already had a woman tell me that she wanted a child of mine, but did not want me to be the father/close to her. For her the child is her property. So i said: Well in fact the child is produced in my balls, you only serve as a recipient so I can going do more childs, bitch got crazy!

[-] NathanHollister 1 Point 4 months ago

Men have no inherhent rights in the usa. Only she gets to choose if a child comes to term. She can opt out of motherhood, you can't opt out of fatherhood. She gets to choose if you get to see your kids. Remember guys, if you have kids, they are HER kids under the gynocentric society. Then you have to kiss her ass to get access to them

[-] cuteshooter 1 Point 4 months ago

5 years into child-rearing is about right. Think outside the box. Maybe just move out without any legal paperwork, and live as near as possible, maybe even in the same building or complex.

Paying two rents until the child is a legal adult would be a "burden" offset by privacy, sanity, etc. Versus the "gamble" of submitting to a judge's alimony plan.

So you'd have the wife and kids in one box, and your own life and friends in another box.

[-] Feelinggood702 1 Point 4 months ago

Have you ever had children? What makes you so sure about this?

You’re really thinking that having children is not for you but for the woman only, aren’t you? You’ve written as if you’re having children to placate the woman and not to spread your genetic bloodline. Your focus is on YOUR children, it’s simply your woman who cares for them while you provide. If you really think you’re becoming less of a man by caring for your children (in which case you’re implying that you’re doing it for your woman, not for your kids) who are the extension of your legacy, that’s incredibly sad.

Typing this, I feel fear as no one seems to talk about this. This is the reason why you stay centered in your self. This is the reason why you don’t give in to women’s demands. It’s not simply for you. It’s for your future generations.

Edit: affection does not equal love, numbskull.

“Men didn't know who their children were, in fact they probably didn't even know that they fathered children at all.” Ok, this is definitely a troll post. Male gorillas don’t know they’ve had children?

[-] IAMABIASEDSCIENTIST 1 Point 4 months ago

“Woman and children can afford to be careless, men can not"

[-] TheDevilsAdvokaat 1 Point 4 months ago

Interesting and seems to make sense.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] DancesWithPugs 1 Point 4 months ago

You make some good points, but I don't think driving away a protector / provider / companion makes sense as an evolutionary strategy. I think it is more a new mother's focus is hardwired on the newest baby by default. She sees the real world warts and wrinkles of an ordinary man, contrasted with the unconditional love for a baby overwhelming her body and feelings. Then if the father becomes whipped, weak, boring, or overbearing, and the relationship gets stale, there will then be new people to build wart-free fantasies around. Yes there are exceptions, but humans do fall into some broad patterns.

[-] adam-l 2 Points 4 months ago

I don't think driving away a protector / provider / companion makes sense as an evolutionary strategy.

If he is expected to bail anyway, there is all the incentive in the world to get the most out of him, before leaving.

This doesn't seem to make sense today, when fathering is expected to last 18 years, but I argue that it was indeed the case in the human "era of evolutionary adaptation".

[-] ArdAtak 1 Point 4 months ago

So, yeah, why on earth don't milk him for all he's got for a year or two?

I get this in the modern context but not sure what it would translate to in caveman days. Other than fighting off predators and bringing home the meat, what can he do? How would being a harpy influence that? Without complex language and social constructs I don't even know how a female COULD be a harpy.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

Other than fighting off predators and bringing home the meat, what can he do?

These two are HUGE in the prehistoric context.

Picture this: The woman you are in love with, is unhaaaapy and treating you bad. You skip beer with the lads and do some extra hunting in order to bring her some meat, for her and the children. She feels unsafe. You skip beer with the lads and build her a stronger hut. And so on and so forth.

[-] ArdAtak 2 Points 4 months ago

I think we're in agreement. Beer with the lads, poker night, boys trips, long days at the office, work travel, gym, etc. did not exist in caveman days. Men were wired to hunt and protect regardless. A shitty attitude by your female would give you ZERO incentive to provide her with more resources or protection. There was no divorce industry, no moral code, no shame in the community. I just don't think a cave woman would drive ANY benefit by being a cunt to her man and the father of her children.

[-] adam-l 1 Point 4 months ago

A shitty attitude by your female would give you ZERO incentive to provide her with more resources or protection.

You are forgetting the main hypothesis: That you are in love with her. This is incentive enough.

[-] ArdAtak 3 Points 4 months ago

Might have a point there. I honestly don't know the dynamics of a caveman in love.

[-] sealift 0 Points 4 months ago

Hierarchy of love: Men -> Women -> Children. Women are wired to always choose the babies over men; and men will never be unconditionally loved (physical protection, nourishment, and behavior validation) by any woman other than his biological mother. Whereas men can unconditionally love women AND kids.

When the wolf came to the door, the man went to fight, they didn't sacrifice the baby. If the man didn't return, so be it. Why wait for the stars to align and another 9 months for offspring? The wolf would be back next winter.

[-] peaceful_strong_man 0 Points 4 months ago

Some truth, but not fully true. Children are to stay with the father, not the mother, upon divorce, and men being polygamous is normal. A man should provide for his wives, but divorce is OK. That is God's natural system.

[-] mp111 6 Points 4 months ago

The post seems to be describing women with poor relationships with their father. I've met some crazy harpy unfaithful women, and I've met some ridiculously incel needy m'lady guys. The common denominator, no male role model and a chip-on-her-shoulder single mother who prioritized procreating over getting her shit together.

[-] Onein1024th 0 Points 4 months ago

it doesn't create the most well adjusted people, but it effectively gets the genes passed on; hence why its so common

Well, at least the women. The incel men probably didn't fare as well

[-] Atheist_Utopia 0 Points 4 months ago

That is God's natural system.

You threw any and all credibility in your text down the drain with this statement.

[-] peaceful_strong_man 1 Point 4 months ago

No, your usernmae loses you credibility for this comment.

​

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago
[-] Merica911 -1 Point 4 months ago

That's why I believe Marriage is super important when it comes to impregnated. I get what TRP tells about marriage, but it's like what Dr JP says "if you're not all in then you're not in at all "

At least the marriage will tell if the woman is fully committed. In 2018 I had 3 plates asking me to be impregnated them with ZERO marriage talk. Yes these were all soon-to-hit wall girls but they act like let's start a new chapter for THEM with zero consideration of what I wanted. And all 3 of them said they just not sure or interested in marriage, but they were super interested in having a baby.

Lucky for me I have a conscious seeing that these girls are only interested long term with me is my gens for their unborn child and probably Financial support via child support system and I probably would of been in a situation in just seeing my child 4 hour per a week but paying $600 a week on it.

I have zero issues supporting my child but not like that.

Also I only recommend marriage after 5 years in dating a girl. That way you full know what's good.

[-] youngandaspire -2 Point 4 months ago

This post has some alarming racial undertones.

[-] [deleted] 4 months ago