How old are you?

Sounds like you have a great head on your shoulders. Fully agree with everything you said except..

I am lucky to be decently attractive in the face and I work hard to stay in shape, but I am nothing but lowly swamp trash. I am barely not homeless and I often wonder if I'll ever have any success in the future because my life has been nothing but one catastrophe after another.

Drop this mentality. Regardless of the reality this doesn't serve you and I'm sure you know it.

You are dead on with most of this.

If you correctly funnel a plate to the plate position, they see it. If they have enough self respect they won’t try to pin you down even if they want to because they already know the answer.

The premise of this post doesn't make sense. The red pill is the truth about the modern woman's behavior in intersexual dynamics. Women behaving as described in the red pill simply confirms that the red pill is true. The MAN is red pilled, the woman is behaving as expected.

PS: if you sort yourself out financially you will notice behavior shifts

told her my life's dream-- to live a simple life on 100 acres of land, have a hot wife, a pack of dogs, have 5 kids.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about just moving out of the city to a log cabin or something. Unfortunately the city has two things that I need, jobs and pussy.

Here's a relevant comment I made to answer "are women redpilled?"

...

They are absolutely Redpilled.

1. They ignore content of speech by nature. Their natural mode of communication is through behavior. Even when they aren't consciously aware of it, they constantly evaluate men and other women based on their behavior. We've got whole chapters trying to teach men to think and communicate in these terms. But women just get it.

2. They understand intrinsically and viscerally that their greatest agency is their sex. Men need to be taught how to value their time and commitment, and how to build their SMV. Women are naturally HYPER-AWARE of their sexual weaponry, the source of their power, and the decline that is inevitably on the horizon.

3. Women are natural masters of every aspect of game. They are black-belts in manipulating men and extracting attention, commitment, and resources from them.

4. Dark triad? Women are jedi-level Machiavellian psychopaths. If you are weak, they will chew you up and spit you out with no remorse. It is her job to find the cracks in your armor, wedge herself inside those cracks, and fucking break you. By the way, I love women and love their nature. But they are like the ocean. Surfing is awesome, but you've gotta keep your head on straight because the ocean is an unforgiving bitch and if you don't pay attention you will be pulled under and drowned. Same with chicks. They can be every bit as sweet and loving and affectionate as they can be cruel and remorseless. It's up to you, as the man, to surf her waves without getting fucked up.

The one area where women are not redpilled is their lack of imagination and high level of solipsism. They don't understand men very well, despite being experts at manipulating them. They think we are simple, but we have the depth of the ocean and women are so clueless about this (although they find it ridiculously attractive). Women pretend to be mysterious and unknowable, but they are actually very simple creatures to understand, far simpler than men. The fact that they've been able to keep this con going for so long, and tricking generations of men into buying into this bullshit about the unknowable, feminine mystique is a perfect example of how absolutely redpilled women are.

You start to notice friends who are fucked playing by old rules.

" Happy wife; happy life"

There more wisdom in that proverb than most think. This shall not be taken as you are slave to your wife but more than a marriage can only be successful if both are happy, and so if you are the husband, you need to wife to be happy. That's kind of obvious. And most stupid beta cuck forget that it apply to the wife too: "Happy husband, happy life".

It's like WW1. Everyone was still praising the old way of war and traditions. Until the horse mounted units were literally shredded by the new way of warfare. I recommend Hardcore History's "Blueprint of Armageddon".

I totally agree here. Men play by the old book and get burned because they still believe that women are socially incentivized to be loyal partners who contribute to the relationship. This just no longer is the case anymore. There is a new playbook for dating and a new one for marriage.

[deleted]

I see a lot of old married couples too, and the man invariably has his shoulders hunched up and acts like a bitch. Just because they're still married doesn't mean he's happy.

Marriage has absolutely zero benefit for a man and can cause so much pain.

​

My father has been rather successful and has earnt a ton of money all by himself. My mother refers to their money as shared, and because they are married there's nothing my father can do about it.

​

My mum can treat him like shit if she wants to and he has to put up with it or give away half his resources and go through a messy late life divorce AND RP swallow... Not a good deal. RP swallow is harder the older you need to take it, unfortunately my dad has his balls clutched in a vice.

As /u/whisper has said, all hypergamy means is that women are monogamous with whichever guy they find most desirable. I'm convinced a lot of posters here simply don't want to put in the work that requires being the most desirable male their girl could (realistically) want.

If your frame is strong you can tell her that you won't marry her but want to have a family with her and shell stay with you

I see what you mean, it can challenge a man, which has its benefits. But, in my opinion, getting married is a completely unnecessary risk for a man, the negatives heavily outweigh the positives. It is certainly not a challenge I would sign up to.

Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women, like a bitter out of touch alcoholic.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a substrate must be an actor. The agar gel in a petri dish doesn't know a damn thing about bacteria, but it can still grow a hell of a lot of them.

Women are a substrate for social change because they are inherently submissive, and, if a man isn't leading them, they will all imitate each other. This causes social fads to spread through the female population with incredible alacrity and totality.

Changes in the economic landscape are ultimately driven by human behaviour, even as further human behaviour is driven by these changes.

Women don't have agency, they just mindlessly respond to external stimulus in this case the economy.

Yup. Upvote for this. And for this:

Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women

You're a legend for a reason GLO but you're off the mark here.

1. Women absolutely DO have agency. The whole "women have no agency" is just a ploy for women to abdicate even more responsibility for their lives. If you don't think women are PROACTIVE about game then you arent paying attention. Yes, women play the game, and they are playing by the "new books" not the old one.

2. I hate that conference too, but Rollo gets a pass for life. He can endorse Scientology and he'd still be the fucking man. We can talk about him and his ideas without endorsing the conference.

3. No, women didnt consciously decide to start playing by the new books. The "new books" is just hypergamy codified. They have ALWAYS been that way. The difference is, society used to force women (and men) to play by the "old books" ... women who embraced open hypergamy were socially ostricized, and men who didnt get married were barred from the social ladder. Nowadays open hypergamy has been embraced under the banner of female empowerment. But it actually isnt empowering at all- once men get wise to reality and start following the new rules themselves, it will be a disaster for women.

He wants to blame women for what is essentially an economic phenomenon.

Then why the epiphany phase? Do women get rich just after men stop giving them attention?

You don't understand Rollo's points. If you have read his books or his blog you would know this. It is an analogy to emphasize a point. Old books new books is a social convention to point out how, because of dissonance on account of society and women, society proclaims a certain way of acting to be correct, yet women act in a different way to said proclamation. He isn't pointing out any CAUSE with his analogy, only something that HAPPENS. He puts blame on the Sexual Revolution and Contraception, as well as men being beta chits if I remember correctly, which has a DIRECT correlation to how women act. Sure, the stimulus was not from women themselves, but they DID act on it, because their nature doesn't change, only the circumstances. Rollo doesn't deny this.

Secondly, quality of life is not declining by any metric. Don't know where you are getting that. I do think there will be a recession though. That is obvious to anyone who pays attention.

Thirdly, women not having agency is a bold claim. I think there is some truth to this, they are certainly lessened ability on their part to choosing rationally, but the same can be said for most, if not all, men as well. If the standard is so high no one has agency. For someone to have no agency is to have no rationality, which would make women nothing more than sensory systems which could produce guaranteed outcomes 100% of the time, which I think is questionable (Sarcasm.). Perhaps attraction is purely about conquest (IE: Warlord takes what he wants, regardless of her feelings. Her feelings change over time to love and empathize with said man. See War Brides); this is a philosophical question however, and I would need to think about it some more. The only person I know to have thought so was Otto, but some of his ideas on biology were screwy. I need to re-read parts of his works.

Finally, it would be prudent on your part to retain a bit of humility. It was the downfall of better men than you, and your ad hominem attacks are quite childish to everyone that moved on from the stupid drama 10 weeks ago.

I agree with you, just digging a bit deeper if you’ll oblige.

Women don't have agency, they just mindlessly respond to external stimulus in this case the economy.

#

Nothing new I suppose.

What the Fraud-Father Cuckold Conference endorser Tomasso doesn't understand is economics. He wants to blame women for what is essentially an economic phenomenon.

#

Economic and social. Obviously intertwined.

Wages are down. Housing prices are sky high and rising. Quality of life is tanking and we are well overdo for a major economic recession. This is the exact inverse of the conditions that created the baby boom post WW2.

#

Correct.

The environment aka the economy has a strong correlation to birthrates and family formation. Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating complex socioeconomic problems onto women, like a bitter out of touch alcoholic.

#

But it’s easy...

Ask yourself did women pick up a set of "new books" Post WW2 and become ideal housewives? Did the economic boom make women better and more moral? Or did women just respond to economic incentives and remain fundamentally women? Exactly. So what makes you think that the deciding factors are different recession as opposed to a boom?

#

Regardless of cause, the social shame quotient regarding woman’s sexual behavior has drastically changed over this time period. I think it’s undeniable that the change in socially acceptable behavior norms has a lot to do with the current situation.

The social norm shift and the changing economic landscape are obviously highly correlated.

It’s both dude. The sex and the city third wave feminism propaganda has told them to put marriage and motherhood on the back burner. Economic factors are also important and don’t get brought up enough so thanks for pointing them out. But that doesn’t preclude the indoctrination of radical feminism.

Shit ain’t easy.

Vanilla version:

All assets in trusts. Own a suit or two, nothing more.

Economic and residential diversification.

In the US, Georgia is known for enforcing pre nuptial agreements as written.