This began as a response to u/Stahlboden in the parent sub:
One shouldn't do the good out of intention of receiving reward, but one also doesn't have obligation to be good if all they get for their goodness is scorn, exploitation and the last place at the finish line.
I have modified my response slightly to make it a stand-alone post here and added a few additional thoughts.
In economic terms there's an old bit of wisdom that says, "You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax." (That's why the people who pull the cart tend to vote for conservatives and the people who ride in the cart tend to vote for liberals.) The principle has general applicability as well, and might be stated as, "You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish."
Leaving aside questions of morality and religion for now, and acknowledging that the vast majority of the effort that "pulls the cart" is done by men, and acknowledging that the main incentive for men to expend all that effort is closely tied to improving their chances of reproductive success, it makes sense to examine what's being rewarded and what's being punished, and by whom. In a stable society the reward for women is the efforts of men (because men are human doings). Women get to live in a safe, comfortable society that protects their interests and ensures their welfare. The reward for men is the women themselves (because women are human beings), and the more successful a man is the greater his reproductive success, with the measure of that success being the number of women he gets, the youth and beauty of those women, and the degree to which he has exclusive sexual access to them.
But that will only remain true as long as the incentives are organized that way. (An even better way is to have men and women pair off exclusively and assortatively, which creates the best possible society for everyone at the cost of sexual variety for women and the most attractive men, but that only works when we include morality and religion in the equation.)
When stripped of sentiment and morality (as we have foolishly chosen to do as a society), and examined purely in economic terms (because after stripping away the moral aspects that's all that's left), it becomes clear that putting young women exclusively in charge of who would father the next generation was a terrible idea. We know that simply by watching them: what gets rewarded? Who gets a bevy of young beauties lining up to hop into his bed... the "gangsta' rapper" or the chemical engineer? The dope slinger or the accountant? We all know the answer. When it comes to winning the prize - sexual access to large numbers of attractive young women - it's not the guys pulling the cart. (Again, it's much better if nobody has sexual access to multiple partners... patriarchal monogamy is by far the best method of maximizing everyone's stake in creating a better society, but that social compact cannot stand in the absence of a common moral code that prohibits a sexual free-for-all.)
So what is our intrepid chemical engineer or accountant to do? If the reward is measured in the number of women he gets, the youth and beauty of those women, and the degree to which he has exclusive sexual access to them, he made a very poor decision by expending all that effort to become a good cart-puller. Number of women? He will be expected to be faithful to one (if that). The youth and beauty of that woman? He gets her only after her youth and beauty have begun to fade in earnest. Exclusive sexual access? He doesn't even get that, because she's already given that away countless times, and we have decreed that even husbands do not have any rights... she may (and almost certainly will) deny him at will, and he will be shamed for even asserting the existence of such a right. (For centuries the idea of fully reciprocal sexual obligations within marriage was known as "conjugal debt" or "marital debt," and was codified in canon law and influenced civil law both in Europe and the New World. That obligation was explicitly rescinded in the 20th Century.)
As I and many others have noted before, feminism has always been about allowing women to tear up their half the social compact while expecting men to hold up their end. The social compact was very efficient at producing cart-pullers (which benefited everybody), but now that feminism has succeeded in changing the incentives, we're seeing a lot more men refusing to put their necks into the yoke in favor of other pursuits. The men who can become Chads and Tyrones are doing so in record numbers, with many of the remainder being content to "ride the cart" themselves. There are still men who, for various reasons, are choosing to become cart-pullers, but each year there are fewer and fewer of them, and as a group they are aging out of their cart-pulling years and are not being replaced at the other end of the pipeline. Much of the movement of the cart even now is just the momentum from an earlier time when the incentives were less skewed.
I like your analogy about the "finish line." There are standard ribbon colors for races: the first place ribbon is blue, the second place ribbon is red, etc. If ten guys run a race, each one will get a ribbon, but we don't consider the guy who finished in tenth place as being "the tenth guy who won" as he receives his gray tenth place ribbon. We certainly don't consider him to be the guy who really won because his "victory" eclipsed those of the faster runners. Yet our gynocentric society has no problem telling the chemical engineer or the accountant who shuffles down the aisle with a post-wall woman with a couple of brats that he "won in the end."
WiterS2 4y ago
If women really wanted what is deemed "good men", then all PUAs and the entire red pill would be about how to be the best "good men" possible.
kyledontcare 4y ago
The term "good" is highly subjective. Ultimately, a "good man" is the one who is the most utilitarian for a woman at the moment she needs him. If the car she's driving has problems, the good man is the one who stops and helps her. If she's hungry, a good man will take her on a date and give her free food at a restaurant she likes with no strings attached and no expectations of any commitment in any form from her. In the end it's a very raw deal for men and it's in a man's best interests to be good for himself. I know that sucks but that's life today.
db14ck 4y ago
tl;dr - just me pointing out the obvious
Rescinded by the church(es) or by the state? Both?
I'm assuming the state, since Western religion hasn't been unified for a long time.
With that assumption in mind, I notice that it corresponds to the time period in which the same state abandoned laws guarding marital fidelity (e.g. stopped enforcing laws making adultery a crime, replaced divorce-only-for-cause with no-fault divorce).
The two are opposite sides of the same coin. Vows of fidelity were not meant to be a stranglehold to give one partner leverage against the other. But when one side is allowed to abandon their side of the social compact without consequence while the other is held to it, that's what it becomes.
scaramellozzi 4y ago
Women are simply monopolizing the sex market as the only group that can sell it and for this reason they can fix any price they want.
A landwhale with goblins can be poliamourous because there are no legal prostitutes to compete with her.
This is feminist "sexual liberation" , where everything should be their way or the highway. Men are starting to choose their own highway.
arokosi 4y ago
Very important part of a healthy society. They’re an equalizer of sorts. All women are prostitutes, but the ones we call prostitutes are honest about the terms of service. The price is clear; the contract is finite and you will actually get served.
In no other field but LTRs with women (marriage or otherwise) do men pay so much to receive so little. We’d never allow it anywhere else.
scaramellozzi 4y ago
The real origin of the "man up" was used in the past to push a man to marry and stop going to brothels. Parents were usually the ones saying that because they wanted grandchildren and the man should then start investing money in the new generation becoming the new head of the family, thus "man up".
lurkerhasarisen Mod 4y ago
There's always been a lot more overlap between "alpha" and "beta" than the PUA community admits to, but the "Sexual Revolution" divided men into those two distinct catagories to a greater extent than before. I think the result you're describing is that women got to call the shots when it comes to the 80% to a greater extent than before, but at the cost of giving the other 20% the pimp hand. That is NOT what they expected: they were supposed to get the best of both worlds (AlphaBucks), but instead they had to settle for AF for a while then BB when they got kicked off the carousel. The end game is that they only the lucky ones even get BB anymore, and some of them only get BF.
scaramellozzi 4y ago
My point was more about the resources that BB provide in hope to get sex. In the dating market women have the upperhand because they can spend their resource of youth to get sex while men cannot spend money to get sex because of social pariah.
"Sexual liberation" is just another safty net for bad behaviors, women can be sluts because some guy will always be so desperate to pay for leftovers.
What would happen if men were liberated to pay for sex without shame? Women will not have the assurance to get married after the cc. It's just like welfare for single mothers, it just enable them to fuck without thinking.
Women fear only one thing, consequences.
houseoftolstoy Mod 4y ago
A post well made.
One problem with society these days is the measurement of how good a man is based on the responses from women. That is, if a man is unsuccessful with women, it must mean that something is wrong with him (based on the notion that a man's internal personal qualities are absolutely critical in him getting dating success). This of course does not hold up to scrutiny when you see the various immoral men get success with women while the more positively productive men of society such as the accountants and engineers get poor results.
As a response to this inconsistency, the justification is that the latter group of men "win in the end" if the women who previously ignored men like him reach their epiphany stage and choose him after her best years are past her. Because apparently, women just should not be held accountable for seeking a hedonistic lifestyle before deciding to "settle down" and make the man play the waiting game for at least a decade. I make a statement on accountability not with the idea that those women who squandered their youth and beauty not seeking a good man will see the light, but rather that they serve as warning for what will happen to women if they do not prioritize marriage and family if they have that as a future goal.
WereNotGonnaFakeIt 4y ago
Lemme simplify this for you; women don't know what they want. You could hand them a million dollars and they'd still bitch. STOP TRYING TO PLEASE THEM
Yoda300 4y ago
If you give them a million dollars, they will suspect there is more where that came from. It will then become their life long mission to take the rest of it whichever way they can.
Unusual_Chair 4y ago
This is exactly it!
Sake99 4y ago
Does being Chad and Tyronene have anything to do with belonging to a particular profession. I think if you know the game well enough, you can do it irrespective of your profession. A Chad doesn't have to be a drug dealer.
smfuel87 4y ago
This sub always seems to have superior content to the sister sub "WAATGM". Its too bad the membership here isn't higher.
mvlock 4y ago
In short alpha fks beta bux
alpha was needed always biology to be the protector to be the protector alpha need to be bad thats why the females going after him, they need to feel secured but they need also money and resources so that what the betas come to do
biology dont cares about our needs its working as a hive...and lying to us everyday
zerofeetpersecond 4y ago
Some of the men I know who are most successful with women have never held a job longer than 6 months and are basically useless for anything besides picking up women. Could it be some women are also losers? Can we admit women who pick idiots are losers and not try to wife them up post wall? Jonas Brothers selling a lot of records doesn’t make them more talented than Jimi Hendrix.
mvlock 4y ago
woman see sex and the world as hierarchy
when she see man that works hard she see him as lower rank in society
and she think that those jerks that doesnt work at all are having something in their life, control others and no need to work at all like a king
​
their behavior didn't improved thru the years like men, that had wars endlessly
as one cell organism becoming full multi cells body its took for ages
now we are more unite but women are still with their old habits
moorekom Mod 4y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/96iini/what_good_men_are/
RICEand420 4y ago
I completely understand the hikimoris of japan
Svartanatten 4y ago
I'll just be honest. I was working hard, making good money, pulling the cart so to speak.
Only women showing interest were a few gold diggers (I got mail that they had checked my credit....). Lived for the career and kinda accepted being lonely, a few shorter relationships that just were awful.
Then I got exhausted from work and entered a new phase. I did manage to land a GF but wasn't well enough to realize she was using me.
I got no intentions to return to work if I can survive on my investments, some tax scams and other less moral ways.
I got used at work, women rejectets me no matter what it seems. There is no gold at the end of the rainbow. I got official test scores way above IQ 140,could easily return to pull the chart, finnish med school or whatever.
I got what's needed but you know what? I got no insensetive. I live in Sweden and am around 30-35yo. Our state ideology is feminazism. Most women are unbearable, entitled and got no interests. They don't go for money the same way since hey, welfare works for women while male suicides are rising fast.
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree that giving women full control has failed. Now I lack an answer of how to solve this issue. I don't want to rob women of their freedom in anyway. But I realize this generation of women were not raised in a way that makes them capable of understanding long term consequences.
I believe it would be possible to raise good women, if they were informed about consequences and without the "pussy pass". I got that much faith in our species. That women could adapt to the sexual revolution brought by birth control, but not in my life time. The question is if enough "cart push or pullers" will get to father children otherwise this might be the beginning of a sort of dark age.
Because most progress men has made is in one part or another to get higher chances to reproduce. If the way to success gets to far astray from positive progress and the worst men keeps spawning bastards... Guess what, that's what humanity will become.
Women deserves freedom of choice but our society were not ready to teach them the backside of their "new" freedom. We are probably not even half aware of a society of the consequences that this will have in a few centuries.
I truly hope women can be taught responsibility, if not then we are screwed.
FalsePositiveRethink 4y ago
I was in your position too, back in my Blue Pill days.
Good position, earning well (and paying loads of tax), smart, easy-going, zero dramas and zero baggage guy, saving as much as I could and living frugally.
Zero interest from women. Zero. They didn't want to know me.
Friends and acquaintances of mine who were nowhere near as stable and responsible as me were getting as much quim as they desired.
I couldn't work it out. What the hell was this?
After a couple more years of this, I realised I was getting nowhere. Couldn't play the games needed to get promoted, taxes ate deeply into every pay rise, house prices rising faster than my wages and savings, and not a speck of interest from women.
So I said 'screw it' and walked away from the plantation.
Best decision I ever made.
Society and its leaders have no idea what they are doing to men. They just take our service and sacrifice for granted, then demand more. They are so stupid and greedy they don't even realise we have the option of walking away.
Nobody-Zero 4y ago
If you don't do it, Mohammed will.
How can you still think that?
We don't need women's consent to save the West https://www.bitchute.com/video/lmdIaDV9Vms/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/Cb14zujVclk/
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Svartanatten 4y ago
Haha good one. Those are the core issue...
Good_Old_Friend 4y ago
We need to start farms that do this, LOL.
Svartanatten 4y ago
I think we need to go through hard times before it's even a possibility. I might be a (chosen) pessimist but I don't see the current generation as salvageable.
My hope comes from that once it gets bad enough, say two generations into the future, the consequences of breeding with trash and discarding the productive men might become apperent enough for the women to learn from their mothers failures.
Good_Old_Friend 4y ago
Have you ever watched the movie Idiocracy? I found it frightening. And funny.
[deleted] 4y ago
The scariest part of an idiocratic future is...people will be too stupid to realize the problem and fix. It's a self-perpetuating problem
[deleted] 4y ago
I know this is a relic of a bygone Marriage 0.9.5, but damn do I wish it was socially acceptable to tell my boss to fuck off because my wife insists on having sex. But since that’s not a thing, and of course, Marriage 2.0 is rather unbalanced between a husband and wife, that’s one reason why I’m not married.
DicamVeritatem 4y ago
This is an issue that continues to confront my religious faith.
What can you say about women - a creature that, at its base nature, instinctively rewards the worst male behavior, while simultaneously punishing the best?
It is as if they are satan’s active agents on this earth.
Responses welcomed.
db14ck 4y ago
From C.S. Lewis:
Women have the potential to be truly amazing when they do the things that make them into Good Women.
But the other side of that coin is that if they go the other way they will become horribly corrupted and awful.
Blogginginvicecity 4y ago
They way I see it, it comes down to humility. Non-humble men suck, and non-humble women suck. I suck when I'm not humble, and that has been been my primary spiritual battle.
A huge part of the general trend of the female's lack of humility is the female instinct to bitch (hey it's supposedly for the good of the tribe and the babies). On top of this, we have our instinctual benevolent sexism: simping. This is not checked in the pop culture because, well, simping gets votes, sales, and self-congratulatory validation.
Now I'd like to say this. Guys these days also validate the worst of female behavior. Sluts are glamorized. The chicks that dress like whores get all the attention. We are social creatures, but especially women. So women look to media (supposedly representing the sisterhood, especially in our atomized society) for their role models, and the chicks in media are hoes!
So it's female nature to bitch, but our media/society doesn't much promote good behavior.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 4y ago
From a Christian-theological perspective we're no better than they are... we all have "feet of clay." It's just that we're more capable, so the damage a woman does tends to be more "personal."
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
Islam is right about women.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Yoda300 4y ago
"Any group led by a woman is doomed to failure" is what Mohammad said. This is why it was/is frowned upon to give leadership and decision making to women.
Ireallyreallydontgaf 4y ago
What does social compact mean? I get that it means, mutually agreed upon trade / deal in this context, but I don't understand why it's called 'social compact'.
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
The proper term is “social contract”.
I thought he made a typo, but he kept typing it that way, so I think he just got confused about the correct term.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 4y ago
See my explanation below. The correct term is compact.
Ireallyreallydontgaf 4y ago
Thank you. Social contract came to mind, but since he kept saying compact I assumed it was a term I wasn't familiar with.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 4y ago
The correct term is the one I used: compact. The term may seem a little archaic to modern ears, but we're talking about a social system that no longer exists, and the terms are not synonymous. A contract is a formal (often but not necessarily legal) agreement between parties, while a compact is more of an informal understanding. The two terms are similar but the differences are important. When we're talking about the roles that men and women were expected to fill in the broad context of society, compact is the correct term: which is why I used it instead of contract. There was a general understanding of what was expected of "respectable" men and women, but there was no formal list of universally-required qualities or behaviors.
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
Yeah I guess you are right about that one. Thanks.
Ireallyreallydontgaf 4y ago
Thank you!
ludwigdeutsch 4y ago
Out of curiosity then, what do you guys what women to do?
FalsePositiveRethink 4y ago
Stop rewarding losers and bad boys with sex would be a start.
Reward the cart-pullers with exclusive sexual access, love and commitment.
Not divorce their cart-pullers when they get 'bored' or 'unhappy'.
LotBuilder 4y ago
“Good men” are often a little boring and don’t hit their emotions. They will snag a good man when they are unstable and use him to get stabilized before getting bored and moving on to a new bad boy.
Thank goodness, I’m really messed up and women love it.
arokosi 4y ago
Lol kamikaze by words right there
Arthas93 4y ago
They dont. They want alphas for sex and social attention and effeminate, submissive, betas to pay the bills and provide for her monetary expenses.
They claim they want to be respected as a way to filter unwanted beta attention and still reap benefits of being respected/pandered.
arokosi 4y ago
For the same reason so many of us want to be healthy, and say we want to eat healthy food, and even claim to seek out only healthy food, but then eat junk food anyhow.
Bad men are more fun in the short run. “I’ll give you a good, stable life” just doesn’t excite women. And it’s not like they have hobbies to fall back on: emotional drama is their hobby; it’s their entertainment. That and hoarding useless trinkets. They’ve got nothing to fall back on.
So you offering them a life of anodyne calm and order, everything but the barely-functioning rational part of their being is repelled by that offer of what seems to them to be utter blandness.
We are a species that preaches salads and eats cookies. Women just do that with partners. They claim to want a sweet man but will always choose a spicy one if at all possible.
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
They don’t want a Le Happy Merchant. They want the 6’4” barbarian who crushes his enemies’ skulls with a large club. Because, for most of human history, that’s the partner who would be better able to keep her and her offspring alive. Society has only been here for a few thousand years, not long enough for those survival instincts to leave.
imakegreatmeat 4y ago
You don't undo 6 million years of evolution with a few thousand years of civilization.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
Women make the rules by default. Men want sex, women want society to reflect their vision, men mold society to get sex and on and on.
For men, the best solution is to learn the rules of the game and simply be better at it than women. Work hard, improve yourself, make money, build the life that makes you happy, and fuck women along the way. Give them exactly what they want.. guilt free, NSA, no judgement sex, and then move on. Is it possible for every guy to bang morally bankrupt 20 year olds? Nope. Is it possible to find a demographic of women worth pumping and dumping? Absolutely. And, if you're not interested in putting in the effort to fuck women there's nothing wrong with hiring escorts (cheaper in the long run) or going your own way.
The point is.. Give women the world they desire. They want a lifetime of promiscuity and hedonism. So, give it to them. Never judge them for their n count, mode of dress, or behavior. Maintain frame, become the guy women want to fuck, then walk away with your ass and your assets in tact.
Men win when women finally slam face first into the wall and find themselves begging for scraps. If you're enjoying the fruits of your labor debt and child free then you've already won.
WereNotGonnaFakeIt 4y ago
May you live forever
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
Then date and vette lots of women, become and stay red pilled, keep your finances separate, and always be prepared to be raked over the coals in divorce court.
Good_Old_Friend 4y ago
It took me a long time to find the red pill. This is how I am structuring my life now.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
I found the red pill during a major transition point in my life. It's served me well for a long time.
Good_Old_Friend 4y ago
I found it after being married for 35+ years. Raising 1 step and a set of bio twins.
She is not a bad woman (yet) so I am lucky. Since I found TRP, things are even better in all areas, even the relationship.
I don't think there is ever a bad time for a male to learn to be a man.
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
If you don’t want to get married, but you still want to reproduce, do what I did. Spread your seed around the earth like Johnny fucking Appleseed, and earn enough money to be able to pay child support and still live comfortably.
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
It is degenerate, but with marriage laws being what they are (completely stacked against men), I had to adapt. I’m not going to go genetically extinct just because a bunch of cucks decided to let feminazis take over society, but I’m also not going to lose half my assets either. I live one block away from my daughter’s mother, so my daughter can come over and see me whenever she wants.
So, until society wakes the fuck up and returns marriage laws to what they were pre-1950, this the only viable option I see.
moorekom Mod 4y ago
There's no reason for name calling. If you disagree, state your reason and treat him like your equal. Have an opinion. Don't let your opinion have you. Do not do this again.
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
I get it. You have your rules, but I’m completely okay with him calling me a degenerate. Freedom of speech is more important than my hurt feefees.
moorekom Mod 4y ago
I respect that. But we're here for a purpose. We want him to learn how to treat his fellow men as his equals and to not puff himself up just because he thinks he's better. We do not allow amoging.
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
moorekom Mod 4y ago
You don't learn the first time, do you?
cutt88 4y ago
If you're "child free" at the end of your life - you lost. It was your biological mission to spread your seed and you have failed at that.
Biologically and genetically speaking this man is a complete failure.
kyledontcare 4y ago
Not all people should breed. And having kids with women as they are in this day and age is dicey prospects at best. Men wind up impoverished or jailed for alimony and child support or slaving away on the "Fatherhood Plantation" in sexless marriages. How about you? Do you want to be divorced in California after 12 years of marriage and be required to pay lifetime alimony to a woman who slept around on you and you are paying to support the children of her affairs because you are "assumed" to be father because of a piece of paper called a "marriage certificate".
[deleted] 4y ago
Sorry but, screw biology and genetics. I'll be dead regardless. Better go with dignity and a life well lived.
cutt88 4y ago
Having children is the closest thing to immortality given to us by nature.
Your life doesn't have a point what so ever if you don't have children.
[deleted] 4y ago
You still dead.
Your life an have whatever point you want. Saying procreating is the only point in life is as valid as saying anything else is the point of life.
You have kids - so what? You die. You won't 'live' through them. Your great-grandchildren won't even know your name.
cutt88 4y ago
Never claimed you will live. Learn to read and comprehend. Procreation is still the closest thing to immortality. Your children are 50% your DNA.
Literally the meaning of life of ANY creature on Earth is to survive and procreate, because this is literally what life is. Without it, there is no life. This is biology, this is how nature works.
Children are the ONLY thing that will be left after you're dead.
I get it, you're a biological and genetical failure, it's okay. More succesful genes will carry themselves into the feature, while failed ones will be erased, that's okay as well, that's how natural selection and evolution works. Just accept reality and live with it instead of pretending it's something else.
[deleted] 4y ago
And then what? All genes will be erased, in the end. If not sooner, then by the heat death of the universe.
[deleted] 4y ago
This is why a lot of MGTOW and redpill philosophy doesn't completely work. In order to procreate as a non-Chad you have to play the game a bit (a different game than those guys are talking about).
TGWWHOW 4y ago
we surrogate and actually have the resources to afford it.
is just a damn transaction to me.
[deleted] 4y ago
I don't personally feel like having children is "immortalizing" myself. When I'm dead I'll be dead. The only immortalizing part is what information/values you pass on that live on in your kid. You can do that with anyone in the world. Being a motivational speaker and influencing thousands of people is no less "immortalizing" yourself in that sense.
In the biological sense, you may be immortalizing your DNA to a degree yes, but it's just another human, and there's no shortage of them. I don't feel I'm doing the world a disservice by being childfree. But for those who do choose to have kids, in our society unfortunately there's a very good chance the woman will leave you and take your kids and raise them with her values and her next boyfriend's values on your dime. Probably while raising the kid to believe you're an asshole or loser.
The only real solutions are: find a unicorn(not likely) who will be a traditional dedicated wife and have a real loving wholesome family. Or be a Chad who has rawdawg sex and then bails to avoid beta tax-state-slavery, and "immortalize" yourself biologically that way(which seems shitty to me but that's appears to be the direction society is going). Personally I'd rather just be a childfree Chad who gets sex and lives to make the world a better place for as many people as I can and "immortalize" myself through values shared.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
Don't confuse your failure to launch with my choice to not become an indentured servant.
"Biologically and genetically speaking this man is a complete failure."
My six figure income, high n count, and absolute freedom from being enslaved by divorce rape and child support means I'm winning at life. Welcome to the 21st Century.
cutt88 4y ago
Your 6 figure income and "freedom" means absolute Jack shit in the end, when you're lying on your death bed. Procreation is the closest thing to immortality that we are naturally capable of, by design, and you failed at that.
In the end the only thing that is left of you is your offspring. That's why procreation is literally the meaning of life, biologically. That's why every organism on Earth strives to reproduce.
If you fail at that - you are a biological failure. You will be replaced by more capable and stronger genes.
Don't be mad at me, I'm just telling you how it is.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
askmrcia 4y ago
This comment right here is exactly why no man shouldn't get married. Yes I get it, this is a horror story and not all marriages end up that way.
But the thing is they can because of how the entire system is designed.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
(Laughs in I don't give a fuck what you think and living my life the way I see fit because no one can stop me)
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
Why does it matter to you or anyone else how I choose to live my life? Death comes for us all. And, I'll look back and know I lived the life I chose.
If you think marrying, having kids, divorcing, and being forced into poverty is a better deal, more power to you. Frankly, you both sound like you've been railroaded by life and want to tear down the minority of us who choose to stay single and enjoy the fruits of our labor.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
Here is where you and I diverge. I accepted the reality of women and relationships a long time ago. Initially it sucked because I was blue pilled and fucking around with women wasn't my style. Then I started seeing my married friends from the outside looking in.. always broke, always miserable, let's go have a beer? Can't the wife will get upset.. then the meltdowns started happening. Marriages dissolved, I saw damn good fathers alienated from their kids in divorce court. In my circle of friends I'm surrounded by men whose mantras are.. "I should have never gotten married, I want to divorce but can't because kids, the divorce was a living hell and I lost my kids, and variations of that theme.
How exactly am I losing? I'm fully aware I can't take my assets with me and I've planned for that. So, it's covered. In the meantime, I will be permanently retiring from work in less than 10 years, I have a healthy investment account, hobbies, friends, a great relationship with my family, and all the trappings of living a good life. Deluded? Hardly, I'm not a woman whose biological needs are going unfulfilled. In my circles, I am respected for my choices and my place is a safe haven for my friends if they need a few hours of quiet to recharge.
It's a damn site better than being in a sexless marriage with a woman whose resentment of me has grown with the size of her ass who can take everything I've built because reasons and give it to whatever swinging dick gives her attention.
arokosi 4y ago
The ultimate fucking checkmate (shudder)
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
Cavannah 4y ago
Try again without the shaming language.
cutt88 4y ago
No shaming, stop being fragile and playing a victim.
Cavannah 4y ago
Who are you talking to?
arokosi 4y ago
Sir Isaac Newton left no offspring. Is he a failure? Is there nothing left of him?
Are Einstein’s greatest achievements his crotch goblins whom nobody’s ever heard of?
What about Bob Oppenheimer? Or Julius Caesar?
Should Elon Musk just pack up that Mars nonsense and go play catch with Timmy?
Perhaps the values of hunter gatherers and farmers do not apply to symbolic analysts?
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
Biologically speaking, yes.
cutt88 4y ago
I didn't say that nothing except reproducing matters.
But all of your examples - wanna guess how all those people were able to make all those amazing discoveries in the first place?
By being born. If the fathers of Einstein, Newton and Musk had your kind of motto about "crotch goblins" and didn't leave offspring nothing of these achievements would have happened. You realize that simple concept, right? If every current man alive employs your motto about "child-free" life there won't ever be another Musk, Einstein, and Newton, you realize that too, right?
Again, please, don't reproduce. Go against nature itself. Your genes will be replaced by more capable ones.
arokosi 4y ago
Bro, it’s not an either/or thing. Not all men will stop reproducing. And we don’t all need to be fathers in order to improve the lives of children.
Human civilization works because of our choice to ignore certain things and specialize in others. Football wouldn’t work if we were all the quarterback.
Is your father the only man you ever learned or benefited from?
Do you only use your father’s inventions?
Should we all become farmers because we all need to eat and we would literally starve without food? Are farmers the only successful human beings because they can feed themselves?
Are all adoptive fathers just stupid cucks?
The people who want to be dads can be dads. And the people who want to be happy can be redpilled*. If you feel so strongly about fatherhood, it sounds like you need to go donate sperm right now, and raw dog some willing women for good measure. And then marry one or two. And, seriously, more power to you. Your fecundity is necessary — though not sufficient — for the betterment of our species.
Life isn’t just about making copies of yourself — that is some Agent Smith Matrix sequel plotting, my guy. For the purposes of avoiding incest alone, you need people unlike yourself and your progeny to be around. It’s not a zero-sum game that you can “win” like that.
Some of us are happy to build the world that all children will enjoy. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t see your descendants as any less related to me than anyone else’s. Incels like Isaac Newton helped build the world we enjoy today; I see him as a valuable ancestor to all of us. I study his ideas, not those of my more direct blood relatives who were alive at the same time.
*haha, I’m just teasin ya. It certainly sounds like fatherhood is your passion and will make you happy.
cutt88 4y ago
I hear ya. You should certainly follow what you think is best for you, but nevertheless reproduction is still the main goal of every species on Earth.
Peace, bud.
Blogginginvicecity 4y ago
Yes. Doing what we feel is best is the main goal of every species on Earth. Of course evolutionary factors are present (was that ever a question?).
Opting out of systems may be an extreme step, but taking a stand is what life is all about. What else are we doing in every moment but taking a stand?
Morals were probably developed to ensure the continuation of the species. We can stop having kids individually to try and right the wrong direction our species is heading in. It's like a body in hospice rejecting water, food, and eventually air. The spirit inside says no more of this. It's like any other battle where a battle must be lost to win the war. It's my understanding that this is what spirituality is all about.
cutt88 4y ago
Which is 100% of the time survival and procreation, for every single species on Earth.
Opting out of this will mean you are a failure, biologically. Which is what my point was from the beginning.
[deleted] 4y ago
Am I the only one here who doesn't want kids? Like, I actually have no urge to procreate. To have sex, yes. But to take on the responsibility of raising kids? No.
The innate burning desire to have kids is something I always thought was a woman's job. I just want to fuck the woman for the sake of pleasure.
[deleted] 4y ago
I wish I could upvote your comment a thousand times!
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
I appreciate the sentiment. Instead of upvotes I want you to spread the word to the young men in your circles and walk your own path.
getfuckedrogerstone 4y ago
Damnit I love your response.
DUDES: up your standards, don’t give into the bullshit and simply live your life. Don’t allow the cycle to continue
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 4y ago
I appreciate it stranger. Spread the word, throw off the shackles of gynocentric society, and make yourself happy.
Aldabruzzo Mod 4y ago
Because women don't want what men think of as good men.
It's because women want what they think of as "good men", and that changes depending on where she is in her life.
To women before Epiphany, "Good man" is
After Epiphany, "Good Man" is
Women want more Good Men. It's just that Mr. Chem Eng and Mr. Accountant are not "good men".
"Good man" does not mean
--moral
--upstanding
--kind, nice or caring
--cart-puller
--has job
--responsible
--religious, spiritual, God fearing
None of those things are "Good Man" to women. Not one of them.
DeeplyDisturbed1 4y ago
Let me add to this. Keep in mind that this is my own experience, so mileage on this may vary.
My ex wife grew up in a conservative Christian family. She WAS looking for a good man. I also happened to NOT be a perfect angel, so I was a good mix for her. She often told me that she was attracted to me because I was a good man. Explicitly and without prompting or asking.
So I assumed this to be true.
So perhaps there is another possible phased in this mix - call it the Naive Phase. This is when she believes her parents, sees the good men around her working for their families, sacrificing, etc. and decides that she too wants one. Sure she knows that Tyrone and Chad are out there, but she reasons that they will just cheat and leave her.
Then she has all the babies she is ever going to have with you. She gets the house, the cars, the job and the dogs.
Now she has 20-40 years of hard work to look forward to until she can retire and see her grandchildren born.
On top of that she hits about 45, and her hormones start changing.
Then SHIT really gets fun for the man in her life.
I believe that women who DO get married young and avoid the CC (yes, they do exist), go through something like what I just explained.
So then they start to "feel differently". They start acting, and dressing, and talking in a way that makes them a stranger to you.
Any man who has been through this knows how deeply disturbing this shit it. It is bad news for many reasons, but aside from all of the emotional factors, and the children, a man realizes that his whole life is screwed at that point. He must either:
A) Shut up and deal with it
B) Make it known that he will not tolerate it, which she will likely ignore or argue back against, or just explain away, or
C) Divorce
IF you have been put in these shoes, then you know how utterly fucked up this feeling is. In the long run, you either end up a miserable alcoholic (or a cheater or both), or you are divorced - either way.
For these women, THIS is the delayed pre-Epiphany phase. They are told by their friends how much dick is out there, and how fun Tinder is! Oh, there's also Vegas, and the City, and her cool guy friend who wants to meet her.
Just send the kids to his house for the weekend.
Yeah. Fun times. Fun times.
The point I am making is that there are a few variations on these themes, but at the end of the day AWALT. Even the good ones .
It is truly a rare woman who remains good forever.
Yoda300 4y ago
That's quite messed up. Sooner or later, the rest of society will catch up to her and turn her on you, no matter what you have built with her over the years.
Once a large enough portion of a society is corrupted, the countdown begins for the rest of the fembots.
It's not enough to find a good woman. You need to find a good woman within a good, upright society.
BluepillProfessor 4y ago
In fact, all of those are somewhat "creepy."
After all, if he is being "nice" and "moral" and "responsible" then he is obviously putting on an act in order to trick the poor girl into pulling down her panties.
Yoda300 4y ago
"creepy" and "not fun". Add very serious, responsible.
Moreover, he will have ethics so he might judge her for her decisions, previous and future.
apparently1 4y ago
I'm not sure who to reply to you or the guy ( u/aldabruzzo ) you are replying too.
First, what does Good even mean too you? You say none of those things are good and dont make a man a good man. Then what do the opposite do, a man that lacks morals, what kind of actions and behavior would he have, a man that isnt nice, what type of way would he treat people? A man that isnt responsible, how wou km d he handle his obligations commitments and life over all?
I'm completely perplexed how you and the comment you replied too can subtract all these things and still somehow equate it to a "good man".
BluepillProfessor 4y ago
We are playing the female game and recognizing that there are two definitions of "good."
Good, to a woman: Hot, bad boy with a heart of gold who is a take no prisoners man, moody, and kind of a dick to everyone- except me (but only because he is trying to get laid- just don't tell her). Most important, this jerk has a "good" (kind, attentive OUR definition of "good") which means he could be reformed by the power of my magic vagina. In reality, this "good" man is simply a MAN WITH OPTIONS. This is how men who could take or leave the woman behave and THIS is "good" to a woman. It's not that he doesn't care about her, he just can't be bothered with stupid female bullshit and acts disinterested- because he genuinely is disinterested.
Good to a man, or any sane and sentient creature: Kind, helpful, attentive, honorable, moral, responsible etc.
The astute may note this is a descriptions of "Alpha" and "Beta." While Red Pillers often claim "Beta" is somehow "bad" (which I think accounts for many people denying Red Pill) in fact "Beta" is required for a marriage or LTR. You need a balance of both. For most guys (roubhly 80%- wait, I know that means something, right??) that means you need to tilt HEAVILY towards the irresponsible, jerky guy who truly doesn't care about her bullshit. This does NOT mean you must also necessarily turn from the "Good" guy behaviors of kindness, morality etc. You can bring the balance back by bringing both sets of behaviors and attitudes.
moorekom Mod 4y ago
u/lurkerhasarisen
Thank you for the article. As an endorsed member you have the option to cross post this article to the main sub over the weekend. I would strongly suggest you to do so tomorrow.
TheJoestarDescendant 4y ago
Somewhere sometime ago I heard a wise saying:
The female porn is a story of "taming" an untamable man.
upsidedownbackwards 4y ago
God damnit, that's what happened to my friends. Weird and untamable, now domesticated and a bit quirky at best. Enough "WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!"s took away their fight. "What is wrong with you?!?!" is also what made me hate their girlfriends. If they EVER said that to their girlfriends everyone would think they were a raging asshole. If they get it from their girlfriends? They must have been doing something dumb and guyish.
Toss in a few "I'm so worthless" and "I should just go kill myself" when upset and they've got the perfect manipulation.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
kyledontcare 4y ago
And Daenarys, who just says, "Drachyris" and people go up in flames. That's why I hated GoT. It's about nothing but a petulant bithch
_Maxie_ 4y ago
The weak want control, that's been the way the world works since forever
Original_Username7 4y ago
And taming him only against her... It’s because they like men to be strong and violent when the woman can control his strength and violence against others and not be affected by it herself. They want the man to be their tool against the world. This is why they love bad boys but are constantly asking for him to open up and be “vulnerable”, so they can control you.
sheryy4 4y ago
That's essentially every female romance novel.
[deleted] 4y ago
Which is porn for women. QED
TheJoestarDescendant 4y ago
In particular I heard females want to "tame" vampires, werewolves, billionaires, surgeons, and pirates
sheryy4 4y ago
I think Jordan Peterson talked about that in one of his lectures? Dangerous, powerful men , most who can't control themselves who then in these stories typically need the women to come in and help "control" them. Those stories usually end after the woman gets the guy, but I theorize that if they were to continue she'd leave em in a week talking about how he's "changed" and isn't the man she fell in love with. Goofball behavior.
mountainbiker178 4y ago
Men want to conquer women sexually. Once they open their legs, we're looking for the next one.
Women want to conquer men emotionally. Once we open our hearts, they're looking for the next one.
LotBuilder 4y ago
Hearts and wallets
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Yoda300 4y ago
It's hard to see it when you are in it. It's like cooking a frog. They do it gradually.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
DicamVeritatem 4y ago
Which, of course, encourages Chads to remain Chads, and not become cart pullers.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
DicamVeritatem 4y ago
The male equivalent of a “slut” is a man that gives his commitment to a woman easily.
BluepillProfessor 4y ago
Yes, exactly!
See my video on: The case of the cheating manwhore
Original_Username7 4y ago
Wow, you perfectly elucidated what is happening to our society due to the throwing off of morality and the embracing of feminism! Thank you for writing this!
DangZagnut 4y ago
A relationship in any way not as an economic enterprise is most likely going to fail.
[deleted] 4y ago
Can you expand on that? Just trying to get my head round your point. Is that the ‘tingles’ will always fade eventually and that if there isn’t an economic reason to stay the relationship will end?
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everything drops to zero.
Blogginginvicecity 4y ago
Here is my understanding.
Basically, a successful long term relationship needs to be based on long term mutual benefit.
The economics of the situation are holistic. E.g. Is she going to help him survive and thrive? Is he going to do the same for her? Does his presence in her life bring her up in her broad community? Does her presence bring him up in his life?
In the long term of a relationship this is usually seen/expressed as the man bringing home the bacon and the woman consequently feels boosted in her social circle. If she boosts him up, he'll usually bring home more bacon, and she will bring up the new generation of the family economic machine (the kids). Even if they don't have kids ,a successful long term relationship will be attending to their long term well being, which will revolve around their life support: money or expressions thereof.
Yoda300 4y ago
All of what you said, except they don't believe in the law of equivalent exchange.
DangZagnut 4y ago
Tingles are not irrelevant. They just want money.
Or to put it another way.
Women only care about money to make sure their lifestyle is paid for. They may fuck for tingles, but the only reason they form relationships os for money and stability.
Yoda300 4y ago
Yes, because their tingles are more for the luxuries in life paid for by someone else.
EffinWhiteMale 4y ago
If you let go of the reigns they will kick over the traces
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Cuntfart9000 4y ago
Exactly. TRP are all actually blackpill betas pretending to be alphas.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
arokosi 4y ago
That does seem like rather strong medicine. Better perhaps to let the wenches run wild while we focus on technological replacements. Shifts in supply and demand will produce (in them) anger at first, followed by acquiescence and cooperation. It’s similar to how taxis act before, during and after Uber comes to their city.
We are humans. And human men at that. We don’t need to seem in control to be in control. Like how you might keep a respectful distance from bulls on a farm even though you’re ultimately more powerful. We can play the long game.
DeeplyDisturbed1 4y ago
Those are some very broad and bold claims. Although I don't necessarily disagree, it is always best to back up comments like this with some justification. For example - I am not a Muslim. And if someone tried to shove that shit down my throat I would tell them to fuck off. Religion is not the answer to any societal problems - only personal ones. It is, and should remain a private thing.
You ARE the prize - or not - the choice is yours. This is not wrong.
This is also true more often than not. This is NOT a TRP thing, it is an AWALT thing. Have you never heard of Hypergamy?
Stop with the man shaming shit here. I know what you mean, but those men who chose MGTOW are spot on correct. The OP is all about incentives. Do we wish shit was different? Of course most of us do. But some men just walk away and enjoy the decline. The decline is in mid cycle dude! Where the fuck have you been for the past decade! You either suffer through it, deny or reject it, or enjoy it. But there is no fighting it. This sub is all about raising awareness about the women who (increasingly) prey on unsuspecting men.
There is nothing beta about stepping back from a shit show.
Fuck off with that shit. I know a number of "alpha" men and some of them are just born with good looks and great genetics - and they are fuckwads.
This is too broad a statement. Think about the typical Chad or Tyrone. WHAT THE FUCK are these men doing? They are fucking women and enjoying it. It doesn't make them right. But they don't make shit happen other than maybe go to the gym to maintain.
Some do.
This is a bit of a messy statement. I will leave it alone other than to say it is idealistic. "Sexual alphas" fuck women. Period. Anything else is projection or wishful thinking.
Agreed. I suggest reading it again from the perspective of incentives. The book Freakonomics does a a great job of breaking this down. Keep posting. I am not shitting on you. Just calling out inconsistencies and generalizations.
I get that all the time from these miserable bastards around here and I respect them for it.
NohoTwoPointOh 4y ago
Correct. OP may be younger with much more narrow time horizons. If we look at the state of things like single parenthood since the late 60’s, mid-decline is accurate.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
NohoTwoPointOh 4y ago
Then this is slightly confusing. You saw the beginnings at LBJ’s welfare reforms. If you look at the statistics, indicators like single motherhood tell the tale. Black American families are especially relevant. From 1890 to the late 60’s to early 70’s, the fatherless rate for Black Americans hovered below 20%. Social norms and mores were still very much intact. The rate for the rest of (White) America was marginally better, but still reflected the same societal state of affairs.
I’m a bit younger than you (Old man Trudeau and Dick Nixon) but also see the effects of the Tinder generation. Given the timeline, we differ as I see this as a midpoint as well. Things have far more to go, IMO.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Nobody-Zero 4y ago
While I think there will be a reset, women's consent is not needed to soft it. All cultures that are thriving took their women's rights away https://www.bitchute.com/video/lmdIaDV9Vms/
NohoTwoPointOh 4y ago
Citing Moynihan and Keynes. Damn difficult to argue with such a man. Though I have disagreements in your first post, I DAMN SURE agree with your previous comments. If you are defining the “past mid point” as the point of no return, then I would have to likewise agree. Late stage is a ways away. But tipping point is likely being passed as we speak.
Thank you for clarifying your position and remaining civil.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 4y ago
[Edit: It appears that we're using the same phrase to describe two different things, so I think a bit more explanation might be in order. I see five points that define the time-line. The first is the starting point which I define as "whatever started this current mess," and as I see it, there are several candidates. The second is the end point which I define as "whenever the new system replaces the current one," which is obviously unknown and unknowable, but exists in the future. The third is the mid-point, which future historians will determine by splitting the time between those two points. The fourth is the balance point which is when the system becomes inherently unstable and the only options are to go back or crash (that's where Keynes comes into play - inertia can keep an unstable market from crashing immediately), and the tipping point is what I define as the proximate cause that sends the system into chaos. I hope that helps clarify my thinking.]
No reason not be be. If you've never read "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, I highly recommend it. It's not about this topic in particular, but it has so much general applicability that it's useful almost everywhere. He's one of the very small number of "pop" authors who writes things worth reading that anyone can apply to their everyday lives. Anyway, my view is that we've long-since passed what I call the "balance point" here... we are already in an unsustainable place, so there's no "stopping" now: either we go back to a stable spot or we go forward until we crash. My guess is that we'll crash. Now whether we're before the mid-point, at it, or after it will be for future historians to decide (if there are any)... I can't say. I suppose that will depend on what we use as the starting point. Seneca Falls? Rosie-the-Riveter? The Pill? I dunno'... we're in uncharted waters here: this sort of thing has happened before, but the Information Age is causing history to "speed up" to an unprecedented degree (James Dale Davidson and Wm Rees-Mogg have explored this in depth). Shoot, there were probably Roman citizens who didn't know about the sack of Rome in 476 A.D. for years... today a major historical break-point like that would be known in real time all over the world. Of course whatever straw breaks the camel's back for us might not be as obvious as Vandals battering down the gates of the "Eternal City." I wonder what our "Sack-of-Rome" will look like, or whether we'll even recognize it as such.