At @TYPO-MAGAshiv behest, I’m re-doing this post. I hope it’s an improvement.
This is in response to a point @First-light posed below.
https://www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/324856/weekend_post_leftover_inspin_envies_her_younger_cousin_s_upc “Its the choices that modern women have that ruin them.”
That’s a stunning thing to consider! When someone is “ruined” in this context for relationships, their pair-bonding is broken whether in assessing “good” men (reasonable and/or healthy standards) or the “good” men wanting them. (This should satisfy Rule 3 but it’s also the point of this observation.)
There’s a concept of “choice paralysis” that retailers exploit whereby if someone has too many choices, they’ll make the “wrong” ones hence why a “medium” popcorn is offered at the movie theater which is a terrible value, so people choose the larger one as a “bargain”. In single modern women’s case, let’s explore why choices for them ruins them. Not just the bad choices, available, but CHOICE itself!
Sorry, but I can’t resist: RUSH’s stance on Free Will: https://youtu.be/c6pn8O7nXKY?si=sbrVBEB1q0yiXFsS
I posted something from a Cheddit female incel group where a woman who KNEW she was homely (which says a lot in these times) said she refused to 'settle" for someone "who didn't put in effort" and yet she had sexual urges she sought to have released. Repeat: She could still get laid but she wouldn't get a free meal or clown game out of him. (I have searched for this post to no avail. If someone finds it, please pin it in the comments below). Consider: Even when a woman KNOWS she is undeniably choice limited, she has problems making one. This warrants consideration.
It makes me wonder that there's something larger going on with our civilized society that goes beyond feminism where women are raised to be dominant. I read on X just the other day "women have ALWAYS been choosers". Well, no. For nearly all of conscious human history (since the discovery of fire), it was men, whether a father or invader, who chose his daughter's mate hence "asking the father for her hand in marriage" cheesy custom on The Bachelor. (I think they're REQUIRED to do that as per their contract because it's such a cringe humiliation ritual I can't see why at least one of them didn't opt out.)
“Hey, I’m dating a dozen other girls. Is it ok for your daughter to marry me?” https://youtu.be/MmuzZ9QwB_c?t=207
"On the other hand... No! There is NO other hand!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkiWIpiQjbQ
Women being given these rights are unprecedented yet in modern times, we think it was universal as we compare it to other animals thinking women as chooser as the norm. Heck, consider this cite of Briffault's Law which is that women choose men as a way to procure resources. This is reverse anthropomorphism. Imagine, say, if humanity could have evolved if it was run primarily by the choices of modern women and single mothers for the past million years? It Boggles The Mind!!!
I’ve read on X women celebrating “liberation” of women and escaping dependency upon men financially and, therefore, men can’t be “jerks” anymore. I find this particularly amusing because, as we know, in a market economy (even a stacked one), the top men CAN be jerks if they are the ones the women want. Hence, that’s why so many “men are all jerks” complaints out there.
I chuckle, consider, that if women had settled for beta bucks like they had been doing in the 1950’s to now, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Most of us would be slaving away believing we’re “superheroes” and getting a peck on the cheek when we got home made us lucky.
Again, the key point here is that many make the mistake that women have ALWAYS had the option to choose their mates. Feminists are bitter (and gleeful) that they now can make those choices, but they are making them BADLY.
It reminds me of Poland in the 1990’s when I saw a great hotel I wanted my wife and I to stay at and our host laughed. The hotel charged $100/night, an outrageous amount by Polish standards but… the owner didn’t want to charge less because he’d “lose money” if the existing 33% capacity guests paid less. It didn’t occur to him that in a market economy, more people would book if it was cheaper.
Another aspect of women’s inability to handle their newfound choice is to bitterly complain and double down rather than learn. For people experienced with choice, they know sometimes you make a bad one, calibrate, and move on. Example: I went to book some great tickets for a flight last January that were a steal, $151 for something usually going for $400. I asked my wife and she said “I’ll think about it” and by the time she decided, the tickets had gone up to $181. I was annoyed as heck at her, but it was my fault for not moving fast so I booked them and was happy to still be saving a lot of money. I viewed my economic loss as a write off.
I chuckle when someone claims that women are all Eff Dee Ess masters at exploiting men. Hey! Too many single mothers out there for that claim, eh?
Due to chivalry and feminism, as women became more dominant and therefore masculine, average (normie) men became more submissive such as in corporate America or in displays of chivalry.
I am just old enough to remember what actual feminine women really were like who would quietly clean the kitchen, help the man on with his coat (yes!), listen to his gripes and act as his therapist, and so on. It’s now men who are expected to abide by this role AND also by the old standards as well due to this explosion of choice average women have in their 20’s of the perception of abundance from dating apps and DEI hiring.
Only problem is, as we know: 1) The “nice guys” submissive men that feminism/chivalry/corporate America made are unattractive to women. 2) Masculine boss-babes are unattractive to the top-10 percenters of men who rise to the top of this mess.
This is all mixed together, of course, but the key takeaway is that this is NOT natural. Women did NOT have this choice in the past. MEN made that choice and that’s why, perhaps, many men experience discomfort with the “mating game” and trying to act like peacocks and so on. Because it’s not been in our nature for all of civilization since fire.
Men were the choosers albeit we had to EARN it not from women, but other men such as the father or by conquest.
I want to add a thought for improving our lives (and theirs in the long run, really) which is to stop selling ourselves short. Know your value and by that, I mean don’t just set “standards” for what you want, but as a fundamental human being and in the market. Remind others as needed because they sometimes forget and do it by actions. If my wife doesn’t say “please”, I stand for a minute and wait for her to notice what happened. It’s taken 20 years, but it’s been useful.
This insight from @First-light triggered for me a realization that all this is bigger than ourselves and it’s a challenge we must approach by ourselves on a daily basis.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 1d ago Stickied
Hey hey, PK, I'm glad to see the child forum get some use.
However, rule 3 of WATGMA states (with some added emphasis):
Edit your post to address this please.
polishknight Endorsed 1d ago
I made an addendum. If you don't find it worthy, I have already PDF archived this post and can post on RP forum if you wish to pull it. 'night.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 1d ago
It's a good addendum to a good post, but it still doesn't fit this:
So why aren't any men committing to these women?
polishknight Endorsed 1d ago
In answer to your question, and I can edit as needed (or perhaps do a full rewrite, which it may come down to), is that there are a lot of good men who want to commit to them but these women reject them as unworthy. This is driven by women's rejection rather than men's rejection which further exacerbates these women's pathological mindset that "there are no good men".
This ties into a recent post "women cannot make perfect men materialize out of thin air". That illustrates that she literally wanted perfect men, not good men, perfect men.
I may need to do a full rewrite if you desire but give me a half day to ruminate on it. Tell me if this sketches it out well:
1) Modern women have unprecedented choice they lacked throughout history leaving them ill equipped to handle it.
2) Feminism, chivalry, and the CC/dating culture allows them to set outrageous standards men cannot live up to (perfect men, not good men.
3) Men have changed as well, becoming more submissive both on the dating market and corporate America, and feminine while women as boss babes further exacerbates the issue.
4) Men need to do ironically what Eff-Dee-Ess advocates which is to know our worth. Not set it arbitrarily high, but simply be cognizant of our market and basic human value and remind others of it because out society has forgotten.
I apologize if it appears rambling above but this is a thought process that was triggered by @First-light remark.
Give me your insights and I can rewrite or withdraw and post to TRP forum.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 1d ago
Briffault's Law, combined with ever-climbing "standards".
Yes, and I think more and more of them want perfection, which is impossible for a mortal man to achieve. That was just the first time I can remember one actually saying so instead of acting like $600 for a fancy dinner on a first date was "BaRe MiNiMuM".
We all do it (rambling). Shit, take a look at some of my longer stuff on the trp.red side of the site. I've lost count how many I've closed with "I'm rambling. Fuck it. *post*".
Thing is, both WATGMA and TRP have posting standards/requirements, so it behooves us to flesh out our thoughts before we hit "post".
You're really close, and I really don't want to take this down. That, and if you move it to TRP, you (and I, as I mod there too now) will have to check what the posting standards/rules are there.
Your first two paragraphs in the comment to which I'm replying would make your post satisfy the requirement, if you edit them in.
polishknight Endorsed 20h ago
Kind sir, edited. I appreciate, value, and treasure the feedback because authoring a piece can be a challenge. Thanks for the insights. I can do another rewrite as needed. I saved the old one for notes if I left something useful out from the 1st "draft" so to speak.
polishknight Endorsed 1d ago
Do you desire I just rewrite it with the 4 points above? I can take the material and use what's needed around that 4 point structure, discard the rest. Advise and I'll repost AND I'll put the ramble down in the comments below for anyone interested in the "stream of consciousness".
edit: I want to add that the point of my post is that Briffault's Law ONLY applies today to modern women because they enjoy massive protections from the larger chivalrous/civilized western society. In the past, as I said, women didn't have a choice, period. Her "benefit" was she got to live. This is partly why feminists shriek about the "oppression" of the past forgetting that men always had to literally earn a living one way or another.
The notion of "romantic love" and picking a hot mate is a relatively recent one and was predicted to result in misery or failure. Not just the Queen Victoria quote, which is a bit misleading in context, but rather EVERYONE would want to pick the hottest person in the world if given a choice but can't.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 20h ago
I'll get into accuracy, opinion vs opinion, etc another time. Maybe. For right now, it's just moderator duties of making certain that the posts here fit the rules and theme.
As I said perviously:
No-Stress-Cat 2d ago
You are THIS > < CLOSE to figuring it out.
Feminism isn't about equality, it's about control.
Abortion isn't about my body, my choice, it's about control.
LGBTQ isn't about trans and gay rights, it's about control.
The MeToo movement isn't about protecting women from harassment, it's about control.
What do all of these have in common? Feminism says to be a boss babe, follow that career, just don't have kids. Abortion says that women can be sluts and get pregnant all they want and get rid of it anytime they want, just don't have kids. LGBTQ says men should be with men and women should be with women and transitioning will make you sterile, just don't have kids. The MeToo movement says men should not touch, talk to, look at, or go near women, just don't have kids.
The question is, why did things change from a traditional society into the clusterfuck we have today? The answer is: resources. There are 8.3 billion people on this planet, all competing for the same resources.
Rich men have all the resources because they own the corporations, have all the assets, and control all the money. Rich women push the narratives to keep other women from competing with them in having children. The less resources the "serfs and peasants" have, the more resources they have for the survival of their own children.
That is why women are shamed for deviating from the narrative. They are called PickMes and femcels and household slaves for wanting to have families and children. That is why men are shamed for deviating from the narrative. They are called predators, dangerous to society, and women should fear them being anywhere near them.
All these social justice movements and anti-men laws are designed to prevent the "have-nots" from producing more children than the "haves", to control the population.
The problem is, they've taken it too far. They've pushed men past the limit. Made the game unplayable because no matter what, the men always lose. So we just walked away.
That is why they say The Red Pill movement is a cult of woman-haters, terrorists, Nazis, and a threat to society that must be eliminated. In reality, the only threat is to the amount of resources the rich can acquire.
They know they can't take control, only fake control. They know that men, as a collective, could easily take physical control and literally crush anyone, including them, that try and get in our way. That's why all these women's movements have sprung up so quickly over the recent years. Women are their last hope of getting men back onto the plantation, because they are so easily manipulated.
But it's not working. The men have woken up. Women are useless weapons against us. Because we are the backbone of society, we are the ones in control of building and maintaining society, and we know it. We build the weapons and make up the armies, and will use them if pushed too far.
Now, the women are waking up as well. They are finding that the narratives are leaving them useless, cold, lonely, and without children. They are realizing that they are worthless pawn in a game that is nothing but a losing situation for them. So they are starting to switch sides.
But don't expect things to get better anytime soon. The rich are getting desperate, so they're going to be pulling out all the stops. Expect things to get worse in coming years.
So keep on your purpose, brothers. Let nothing distract you. We have lost many battles, but we will win the war.
polishknight Endorsed 1d ago
hehehe. I love this meme that explains it well: https://imgur.com/a/217kdGD
While I want to buy into the notion that feminism was merely a plot by Illuminati like elites over the centuries to keep men under control, I believe in not ascribing to ingenious conspiracy what can be more easily explained by incompetence.
Our elites, actually, are comprised of lucky and/or inbred fools who buy into many of the woke ideals that were taught in college by marxists a generation ago to fool the naive schoolkids.
It's my contention, and this is certainly arguable, that chivalry was an accident of a romanticist period seeking to rationalize the nobility as likable and well mannered and to remind the serfs to respect their nobles who weren't, as Monty Python, covered in literal shit.
This is largely the same thinking we have today of well educated and/or successful white male limousine liberal baizuos behind gated communities who can look down upon the non-investor class as "losers" and feel better about themselves. "I'm not racist because I don't mind not prosecuting someone stabbing a girl on a train. I'll take my limo to the country club instead!"
The feminists love to shriek about "Patriarchal witch hunts" and such but that was simply a matter of religious hysteria, nothing more, similar to the daycare witch hunts (yes!) we had in the states back in the 1980's. Yes, that really happened!
Let's reflect the liberal (classical) west of romanticizing kindness towards the weak, of seeking a more egalitarian society,and such are concepts that define it but also have weakened it to outsiders like a colony of ants noticing an unattended cake on a picnic table.
We aren't bound solely by our gender as the feminists loved to shriek but rather by common culture. Feminists laughably claimed that they are responsible for the west's rise in the 19th through 20th century when it was a period of working and middle class men who were finally empowered to do better things and innovate such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates rising up and then pulling the ladder up behind them.
During this relatively brief period where normie, non-noble western men could write and rise upon merit was a period of astonishing affluence in the west and USA in general. Although non-western men were often included, it nonetheless was a recognition of shared community. We had men's groups, charities, and such. The Knights of Columbus was originally founded for insurance policies to protect the families of working class Catholic Men. There was the Polish National Congress.
Karen feminists will increasingly find themselves locked out as their self-loathing ideology eventually eats themselves.
The success of the system is to buy out the men such as you or I who rise up in it. Did you see Snowpiercer where Wilford tells the Curtis upon reaching the front, he'll be happy to put him in charge to keep it going?
When I give this whole breakdown to progressive "liberal" leftists and feminists, they get very silent indeed as they realize they've been duped, useful idiots, fools, like the idiot who opened the gate to Constantinople.
First-light 1d ago
Nice piece with some good humour.
It is a market place and market places tend to get influenced when a critical mass of traders move.
In trading they say that "The trend is your friend" This is how men have operated in the pussy market for the last century. They have bid a little more simping and slightly lower expectations generation after generation and even though none of them really wanted to it was just like a housing bubble, if you didn't pay the asking price, maybe even a little over the asking price, someone else got the house (or the womb).
This has allowed women to make some terrible choices because they know that there are only as many women as there are men in the world and any man who wants one has to bid. They can do terrible things to the merchandise and men will still buy.
This worked while prosperity rose and while it was still possible for most men to bring something to a woman's life and find he could actually stand to live with her at least long enough to re-produce. This is changing now. Men are not so prosperous, partly thanks to the decline of the west and partly because of equality laws giving the jobs they deserve to women. They really can't offer women much that women can't get for themselves. Women have dropped their value even further by adding new layers of entitlement.
The market is collapsing. The merchandise is poor quality. Men can't really afford it and the risks it brings. The best thing we can do is collapse this market as fast as possible. The short term loss is long term gain for civilisation. We can't have so much productivity wasted in both men courting woman after woman for nothing but short term sex and women spending all that wealth on nothing of value while contributing noting of their natural talents to humanity.
adam-l 1d ago
Social engineering, i.e. "the system", pushes women's evolved buttons, buttons that were placed there way before marriage was instituted.
Intimate relationship? Smells of incest.
Secured husband? Isn't the lawn greener...
Sure, women may be "rebellious", but that's just a façade, and we all know (the system too) that they crave submission, and they'll ultimately back whomever possesses power.
It's just that... Fenales being so numerous and such a huge capital, it's a shame to let it be used by her husband or her family. If you are "the system", why not milk them yourself?
Just as nuns of old were considered "Brides of Jesus", contemporary women are brides of the system.
They are served a "fast life" strategy that leaves them hollow by their 50s, but they can't know it till then.