Early today I watched this video in which a single, working-class mother was talking to her son and the public while admonishing a teenaged girl who seemingly used him as a food date: worldstar.com/videos/wshhH77hqjp9Yh6fshr4/mama-lays-down-the-law-on-sons-first-date-says-hes-being-used-as-a-meal-ticket
In the video, she rightly states that females should not be using 1st dates as means to be taken to steakhouses or other functions they themselves aren't used to, can't afford, and/or have never experienced before, that those dates are reserved for committed relationships, and that 1st dates are for the sole intention of the man determining if that woman is worth dates like that in the future.
Despite the minor embarrassment her son faced in the video, his mother did him a huge favor: taught him an important tenet of red pill ideology instead of him having to be red pilled by an unsavory experience with a female who definitely doesn't care for him like his mother.
Like this boy, I was fortunate enough to red pilled, not by a horrible relationship experience with a woman, but from lessons from older acquaintances and from the bad experiences of others. Like this boy I also come from a working class background. As I grew up and came across individuals of wealthier backgrounds, I saw, to my surprise, that many men did not have the privilege of having mothers actively teaching them what to expect when dealing with women in this society. It became obvious that men from solid middle class backgrounds and wealthier were often left to the wolves by their in all other aspects loving mothers when it came to the dating world. Many posters on this website can attest to this observation.
From this observation, I've thus concluded that the wealthier one's upbringing, the less likely his mother will be to teach him the game when it comes to dealing with women and the more likely she would be to keep her lips shut, opting to preserve the feminist sisterhood over improving the dating and, by extension, marital success of her own son(s). What I'd like to know is if any of you have any theories as to why this is the case.
GeorgeIII 1 21h ago
My guess is that mothers in wealthy families won’t teach their sons this for 2 reasons.
1: poverty is what teaches you to cover your ass in the first place.
2: the source of wealth of these middle and upper class mothers is usually the success of a wealthy man. So for a wealthy mom to teach her son to not get used, she would essentially be admitting to her son and herself that she is leeching off dad. Not good for her ego, and certainly not good for the her relationship with her son and father.
Overkill_Engine Endorsed Contributor 14h ago
And if you don't figure it the fuck out, poverty is where you get to stay.
Redpillpusher 13h ago
interesting, if this is the case then apparently the evolutionary benefit of hypergamy is limited to 1 generation
GeorgeIII 1 12h ago
Not necessarily, it’s only in this current system we have, which is a newborn in the history of humanity.
It is also possible that sons learn not to get married, watching their moms divorce their wealthy dads.
In fact, one of the commonly cited reasons millennial and gen Z men don’t want marriage is that they saw boomers do it, and, surprise surprise, they weren’t thrilled for their own odds. So in that sense, hypergamy is multi-generational: it taught wealthy sons not to play the marriage game. Which is, in my opinion, an evolutionary benefit. As a wealthy son can fuck more women while giving out fewer resources.
Redpillpusher 12h ago
I can see that
First-light 2 14h ago
Wealth gives the the luxury to not have to deal with reality too much. Feminism would never have got off the ground if the west had not been so prosperous as to have money to waste on stuff like women's decisions, women in public service roles and women in the work place.
Having the luxury to go to college and waste time "studying" for an indoctrination is a good buffer to reality.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 13h ago
Like George said wealthy moms acquired wealth through their husband in most cases and wealth means more college which means more indoctrination
No-Stress-Cat 2 9h ago
To a lot of women, especially single moms, Feminism is the greatest thing, breaking the shackles of the Patriarchy.
That is, until it comes back to bite them. Then, and only then, will they open their mouths against the Sisterhood.
One must understand that the purpose of a Mother is to take in as many resources as they can so that their own children can prosper. Don't be mistaken: The higher up in the socioeconomic ladder a woman is, the more likely she's going to open her mouth. Who has the most resources and influence to perpetuate a scheme as grand as Feminism? Rich women. Break up the nuclear family. Encourage women to put off having children for as late as possible, or even better, when it's too late. Pregnant? Get an abortion! Be the town slut! Feminism made you free! Go after that Master's degree! It's what men want! The more women not having children, the more resources that are available for the rich women to consume.
This does trickle down to the middle and lower class women, fighting for whatever scraps are available. It is the Mother's innate nature to want her children to succeed, regardless of economic status. That's why men who are in relationships with single Mothers will always be at the bottom of the totem pole. His resources are her resources that trickle down to her child.
Of course when some teenage slut comes around for a foody call, she's going to shut that shit down. To the single Mother, (when her son is old enough to generate his own resources) taking away her son's resources is taking away her resources, that is, the resources of her surrogate husband who is going to need those resources to take care of her when she gets old. I promise you, if the foody girl actually had a prominent family (at least in the neck of her socioeconomic woods), she would be encouraging him to take her out and spend money on her, because the ROI is greater.
She wasn't teaching him anything other than to stay away from the sluts that are poorer than they are.
Overkill_Engine Endorsed Contributor 56m ago
Another layer to the decision making is women often have a bit of a high time preference - they evaluate benefits in the context of Right Now, not Tomorrow. Because they've spent their entire life being able to lean on "I Have a Vagina" to get benefits Right Now and have never had to worry about Tomorrow because tomorrow has always had another man they can use "I Have a Vagina" to get benefits Right Now, etc. Only severe scarcity shocks them out of it.
So that upper middle class mom isn't thinking ahead far enough - and hasn't had to, and fully expects to just frivorce current man and glom onto another man the moment the well runs dry or better comes along. All the men she knows are similarly disposable/replacable in her eyes until the day she finds out the hard way that they are no longer such.