occupation
by rantywoman
Hans Castorp respected work– as how should he not have? It would have been unnatural. Work was for him, in the nature of things, the most estimable attribute of life; when you came down to it, there was nothing else that was estimable. It was the principle by which one stood or fell, the Absolute of the time; it was, so to speak, its own justification. His regard for it was thus religious in its character, and so far as he knew, unquestioning. But it was another matter, whether he loved it; and that he could not do, however great his regard, the simple reason being that it did not agree with him. Exacting occupation dragged at his nerves, it wore him out; quite openly he confessed that he liked better to have his time free, not weighted with the leaden load of effort; lying spacious before him, not divided up by obstacles one had to grit one’s teeth and conquer, one after the other. — Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain
It looks like my new job will be much like my last, in terms of understaffing and unrelenting demands. I’ve been initiating a number of projects I’m excited about; these projects have some personal appeal to me, might introduce me to interesting people, and should be a win for my customers. I’m not keen on the responsibility of being the boss lady, but I am enjoying the freedom to innovate and initiate, and my staff seems to be willing to come along for the ride. I like the people I’ve been working with and am appreciating the fact that I can accomplish a lot here.
In the same way, I can appreciate many aspects of being single. I have some time to pursue hobbies and relax and read (not so much lately but hopefully again soon), and as I’ve written before, I’ve had an adventurous and varied life.
That said, I would prefer not to have to work and, if I had my choice, I would work a lot less. I would also prefer to be in a relationship, even though I know it would entail a lot of sacrifices. I’m trying to reconcile myself to the fact that I didn’t live the last two decades of my life in the manner I would have preferred, and at this point, I probably never will do so, at least until retirement age.
I railed against this for a long time but am slipping into acceptance now.
thebitterbabe 
Interesting but I think both men and women have always worked hard unless they were part of the wealthy elite. Men either worked on the land or in industry. Women may have stayed home to bring up the children but farmers wives also worked on the land. These women often had to care for elderly relatives as well and families were larger – 8 children was not unusual.
I agree that it would be nice to have a partner but the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. A married colleague in her late 50s would love to do a 3 or 4 days week or even have a shorter working day. Unfortunately for her this is not possible as she has to work full-time to support herself and her 80 year old husband whose health is declining.
The red pill men who want to marry younger women have it sussed – they’ll have someone to bring home the bacon AND look after them in their old age!
Whether it’s feminism or post-feminism, women always seem to end up having more to do.
Elle: “The red pill men who want to marry younger women have it sussed – they’ll have someone to bring home the bacon AND look after them in their old age!”
Indeed. They then die long before their spouse, leaving her to spend the last decades of her life alone anyway. What’s in it for the woman again? Oh yeah, nothing.
Given men’s life expectancy is on average seven years less than that of a woman, it would be much fairer for women to all date and marry men who are seven years their junior.
The question is, why do men die seven years earlier than women? A hundred years ago the difference in life expectancy was only about two years. The big divergence in life expectancy began around 1945, as male ingenuity and innovation freed women from the necessity to labor for the first time….ever.
Maximum difference in life expectancy was around 1970. Just before then (1963) Betty Friedan decreed that domestic life was a “comfortable concentration camp” and persuaded you all that working like men was the way to go. Yes, you said, those evil men were selfishly keeping us from a lifetime of soul-crushing labor.
Well, a few more decades of being your own husband and working until you drop and women’s life expectancy will be about the same as men’s again.
In the meantime, in the UK, women get to retire five years earlier than men and spend the pension contributions of all the selfish dead men in yet one more government-coerced transfer of wealth from men to women.
It’s all a question of perspective.
Mike, I don’t have any academic references handy but the age gap is narrowing and women and men are dying fewer years apart.
Did the earlier data take into account women who died in childbirth in the early 20th century? That would skew the figures somewhat as would the numbers of men who died in WWI and WWII.
The government-coerced transfer of wealth is not from men to women, it is from the 99% to the 1%.
If men and women stopped fighting and weren’t distracted by feminism, red pill ism etc they might realise this. Who benefitted most from women going out to work and paying taxes? Not men, not children and certainly not women. The exchequer and the 1% have done pretty well out of it though. We are all consuming more goods and services because both partners have to work.
Yep, retire five years earlier and live seven years longer. That’s twelve years more on average that women suck from the public treasury than men.
When young women have all the jobs and are paying all the taxes you might find them voting to load all the old women into cattle cars for a final ride to that special retirement home down by the gas works. Unlike men, women don’t take kindly to the idea of paying other people’s living expenses.
I’m sure those young women won’t want to get their hands dirty loading their mothers, aunts and grandmothers into cattle cars so they might employ older men to do it. I’m sure you’d happily coax the old women into the cattle cars with the aid of a cattle prod if you’re not too busy writing your own version of Mein Kampf. In your case older women will be the offenders and not Jewish people.
Don’t get me started. This blog deals with serious topics and let’s not spoil it by going off on tangents.
Seriously, the “old” women might well work together to form self-supporting communities. In Japan the “young” elderly (70 somethings) take care of the “old” elderly (90 somethings). This model might work well in the West.
As things are going, women are taking better care of their health than men. If this is the case, men may need more care than women as they get older. A person of 70 can be in better shape physically than a person of 50. I’m not talking sex appeal, I’m talking physical health which is more important in the long run.
A surplus of women may seem troublesome in middle age but history proves that they adapt and cope well with the challenges of advancing age. Some men cope well with the challenges of being elderly, but women tend to cope better with being alone than men. The future is not all bleak for us.
Elle
I’m sure you’d happily coax the old women into the cattle cars with the aid of a cattle prod if you’re not too busy writing your own version of Mein Kampf. In your case older women will be the offenders and not Jewish people.
Aw, c’mon. My comment was hyperbole and you go straight to Hitler.
Ranty’s post was about occupation – work – and accepting that work will be her reality until retirement. This is now the norm for women and is apparently what women wanted. So why the sturm und drang?
Ranty’s description of her job sounds like public sector make-work. e.g. ” I’ve been initiating a number of projects…” Tell me I’m wrong and break the stereotype, ranty.
Stop whining and complaining about women and man up. Every complaint about Women as a generalisation (as opposed to a particular woman’s behaviour) merely serves to emphasise how fragile your self-esteem is, and your perspective isn’t even rational. You are being taken far too seriously by Elle who is responding rationally to what you’re saying, when really you are just a disappointed man who probably is managed by a woman boss (who thinks you’re not particularly good at your job), and if you have a partner she probably doesn’t rate you too highly either. Rather than examine why that may be and do something about it, you just direct your repressed rage at what you perceive as the architects of your dismal position – Women – when it is yourself you should be fixing. It’s not our fault you are failing.
I agree with all Elle’s points on this thread but I think your response to Mike is unwarranted. If it’s the same Mike as on the “surplus” thread, his reponse to Elle puts paid to the notion that he doesn’t see women as individuals.
My sense of Mike is that he is sensitive and thoughtful but has been drawn too much into the Groupthink in the Militant Wing of the Red Pill. He reminds me of Deti, but I sense Mike likes women more than Deti does and is really trying to parse Red Pill information with a degree of intellectual honesty that is almost unheard of on the Militant RP sites.
Elle’s takedown was point perfect on its own. By responding to with ad hominems, you will confirm some of the RP stereotypes about women and drive him back into their arms I am afraid. I’m kinda surprised, because if you are the same Fi who has been around the Manosphere and its fringes for a few years (and maybe you are not) your posts are usually a lot more balanced.
Yep it’s me. As you say normally more well balanced (or so I try to think – and thanks 🙂 ). I just get so tired though of reading men express their dislike of women, expressing their glee that women can be unhappy, and trying to see their point of view and understand them. Of course they are the minority of men (thank the lord for all the men I know and spend time with who actually like me) but I’m just fed up of reading their long list of generalised complaints about Women, this constant repetition of the idea that we are horrible (e.g. all women reject nice blokes for no good reason when they’re young) and overlook the fact that the world is full of boys and girls who grow up to be men and women and we all fall in love, and we are all rejected and cheated on at some point. There is no one sex that has it easy although individuals may at some point have it easier than others. I’m sorry but I’ve cracked. I’m fed up listening to the same irrational justifications for misogyny, the same smart arse replies, the ignoring of inconvenient facts, the whining and complaining. I’m fed up pandering to them. And how come there are plenty of men I spend time with who actually don’t behave like this, or speak like them? who are good company? They are a minority of misogynistic men who have to pretend they are the majority so that they can justify the position they are taking (i.e. it’s not men it’s women) when actually they ARE the minority.
Agreed!
That post by Fi (March 29, 12:09 am) was possibly the best post that has appeared on this site for days. I have an urge to copy it and repost is under each and every comment made by some unhappy misogynist, in the hope that they get the hint and crawl back to where they came from.
The irony is that they seem to hate the very women you think they would appreciate– the ones who refused to just marry any old man for security but instead figured out how to pay their own way so they wouldn’t have to be gold diggers.
Thanks you two 🙂
I like what you say too.
You folks are focusing on the wrong thing.
Most men are not misogynists (Fi is right – the manosphere creates an illusion of a majority) which means that you will be selecting potential husands/partners from a pool of non-misogynist men (such as Fi’s male friends). These non-misogynists have, however, the same attraction triggers as men like Mike.
Saying Misogyny should be named and called out does absolutely nothing to help you interact successfully with the majority of men,
NB: Unlike the others here I don’t think Mike is a true misogynist – I think his posts on this thread are just bravado. But that is neither here nor there.
Mike,
You are missing Elle’s point.
The Militant RP demonizes an entire group of people on the basis of gender. Feminism does the same thing. Racism demonizes on the basis of race. Scapegoating is the mechanism and it is evil. It leads, quite literally, to the concentration camp.
Movements that try to address legitimate social problems by stirring up hatred of an entire group of people are evil. Adopting their tactics even tacitly in an argument undermines the legitimate points that you raise (I agree with a number of your points but I detest your tactics).
I hope this explains more where Elle is coming from.
The irony is that they seem to hate the very women you think they would appreciate– the ones who refused to just marry any old man for security but instead figured out how to pay their own way so they wouldn’t have to be gold diggers.
Misogynists hate all women.
Moreover, “Gold Digger” vs. “Financially Independent” is a false dichotomy that exists in Womanthink but not in Manthink.
When you are dealing with non-misogynists (AKA normal men) being a “woman who pays her own way” is not a fixed variable. It’s a secondary factor that is rather neutral in that its value changes depending on its relationship to the primary factors in the equation.
For example:
1. “Financial Independence” paired with attraction triggers – it is a plus.
2. “Financial independence” without attraction triggers – it is either a neutral or even a negative.
Same thing applies to “impressive formal education,” “career achievements,” etc. These are all secondary factors. If they are paired with attraction triggers they can significantly enhance a woman’s worth, but without the attraction triggers they will tend to work against her.
A woman can have all these things (financial independence, great career, impressive education, knowledge of sports etc) bundled together but without attraction triggers a man will just think “meh” while all the while her friends are saying, “But what is his problem – you have SO MUCH to offer!!!??!!!”
Fi
You are being taken far too seriously by Elle who is responding rationally to what you’re saying, when really you are just a disappointed man who probably is managed by a woman boss (who thinks you’re not particularly good at your job), and if you have a partner she probably doesn’t rate you too highly either.
Partner. lol. Everything wrong with the UK wrapped up in one little word. I do have a wife.
I’m an entrepreneur with too much time on my hands. I’ve started several businesses and currently operate two. I work about three hours a day and make a very healthy six figure income. My degrees are from highly rated universities, one in the UK which you’d be familiar with. (Two words, begin with I C. lol.)
I’ve never had a woman boss as my career has been in male-oriented stuff where there is actual work to be done.
While I think you ladies don’t have the capacity to grasp just how much damage you’ve done to Western civ (too much white matter, not enough gray matter) I am in fact very sympathetic to the spinster’s plight.
I’ll cop to the accusation often leveled at men, which is that my attitude to women was shaped by my early experiences with women. Even though I was quite a high value young guy, I was a good little feminist and too ready to treat women as equals, which you really are not.
I feel desperately sorry for one particular single woman, now in her late 50s, who told me in her early 40s she was so broke she was boffing Ahmed, the owner of the local convenience store, for groceries. When I was younger I did indeed want to “rescue” her but I grew out of that immature and patronizing emotion. She made her own decisions.
At this point in my life I hope women get everything they wished for.
‘My sense of Mike is that he is sensitive and thoughtful’
ROFL
Zoe,
Regardless of what you think of Mike. if you are paying attention you can learn a lot about male psychology from reading what he says about his relationship with his wife. If you ignore this information simply because you find him distasteful you will forego an opportunity to improve your own relationships with men (if that is one of your goals).
The influence of feminism has had some unforeseen and very destructive effects. One of the most destructive is that women do not pay attention to men’s feelings about their relationships with women. instead, we listen to other women, who feed us disinformation and in some cases misinformation about men. This aspect of feminism has been poison for long-term female happiness.
How can women actually hold out a hope of living in harmony, in a close relationship, with those whom we actively ridicule and revile because they are men?
I see very little written at this blog that paints men as a gender in a positive light. Which makes me wonder – for the single females who post here, do they actually want a man in their lives? And if they do “Why?” since they seem to dislike them so much.
I appreciate your concern, autumn. But I consider I have very good relationships with the men in my life, thank you. I’m afraid I cannot agree that Mike provides an opportunity to improve anything. I love men. And I don’t want him to put me off 🙂
But I consider I have very good relationships with the men in my life, thank you. I’m afraid I cannot agree that Mike provides an opportunity to improve anything.
If you don’t mind me asking (given that these screen names are anonymous) are currently in a relationship with a man? From the comments it seems like a lot of the women who comment here are single, but I wouldn’t presume that about you unless you said it explicitly.
If “yes” then what is your view of cooperation vs. competition in a male-female relationship? If “no” what feedback do your male friends have for you in terms of helping you to achieve your relationship goals?
I suspect you are a lot younger than me. I confess I am not really tuned into what younger people are doing in their relationships. I know a few couples in their 20s and 30s but in some cases the relationships are quite rocky. In others, the female seems to be very much the dominant one but the relationship appears stable. It would be interesting to hear what you see on the ground.
“How can women actually hold out a hope of living in harmony, in a close relationship, with those whom we actively ridicule and revile because they are men?”
Well we are not like Mike who sees an entire gender as the same, most of us can work out that just because some men display characteristics that deserve ridicule and revulsion, not all men are the same.
We are able to determine that individuals are just that, individuals. They may be regarded as people first and their gender second.
Some individuals are admirable people we want to spend time with, some are not. It makes no sense to give people a pass on bad behaviour because of their gender, whichever gender that might be. Not have I seen anyone other than Mike, berate an entire gender for the actions of a few.
Well we are not like Mike who sees an entire gender as the same
I’ve already pointed out twice on this very thread that Mike’s response to Elle ON THE PREVIOUS THREAD shows that he does not “see an entire gender as the same” and that he has contradicted himself.
Do you have enough patience to try to resolve a contradiction, or do you simply prefer to label and dismiss people out of hand without even trying to understand?
And you wonder why your name is MissM (instead of MrsM or MsM)?
I am very reactive by nature also and always have been. Over the years, however, I have learned to be more circumspect, to try to understand and look at all the facts together and, where there is an apparent contradiction, to give the person the benefit of the doubt and try to find common ground. “Ridicule” is very rarely an effective or appropriate strategy, except when you are venting to a third party. It NEVER, EVER works with men. They may suck if up for a period of time but they will eventually come to despise you for it.
Many men carry a lot of pain around and are trying to work through things just as much as you are. You however make the classic post-feminist mistake of ignoring the male nature and ridiculing when a man doesn’t act the way you think he should.
“Do you have enough patience to try to resolve a contradiction, or do you simply prefer to label and dismiss people out of hand without even trying to understand?”
It depends on whether I think the person has any redeeming features or not. If not, I have no hesitation in dismissing people. There are a lot of people in the world and there is no reason I should spend time on unpleasant ones, there are quite enough pleasant ones to make up for it.
As to why a lot of women are single, it’s because some see being single as a better option than being married to the wrong person, and have not met the right person. There are some women who see being married as so important in and of itself, they care less about who they marry, as long as it is someone, and as a result they are more likely to be married. Some women were married in their twenties, but then their husband left them so now they are divorced, which still equals single. Some women are technically single but living in a de facto relationship, since they are not interested in piece of paper that says they are wed. People are all different, so the reasons people are single are all equally as different.
@autumn
“If you don’t mind me asking (given that these screen names are anonymous) are currently in a relationship with a man?”
My last relationship ended in November.
I never wanted children and I do not seek (although do not exclude) a long term til-death-us-do-part relationship. I believe this gives me great freedom to enjoy the relationships I have with men.. But I realise I am not typical, and that it is no solution for those who seek both.
I expect my relationships, when they’re over, to end in great friendships. And they do. Only last week I had dinner with two of my exs. They had both been live-in relationships that lasted several years. Both ended over the issue of children.
I don’t know what to say about competition/cooperation. I think I am a profoundly non-red pill woman, to the extent I understand tthe concept. But I have a furious commitment to honesty and fairness and integrity within the relationship. And I find that goes quite a long way.
I do not think I am younger than you. I might well be older. This is why I am horrified at your claim that older women should look for men 15-20 years older. This would leave me with men who are likely to be dead (or worse, incapacitated) in not much more than a handful of years!
No. My recommendation is to go with younger men. True, they’re not likely to be around when I’m 75. But nor is the man you want to pair me off with who is 70 today!
Mike: “I was … too ready to treat women as equals, which you really are not.”
Apparently not only are women are not equals as human beings, they also manage to be solely responsible for everything that ails society that you can conceive of (pretty much the same attitude that was held of the Jews at one point in history). Since Western civilisation is so dreadful now for you, perhaps moving to somewhere like Afghanistan would suit you better, and alleviate some of the bitterness that you carry around.
Since you are so ‘successful’ by your accounts, one would expect to see a bit more joyousness. Yet if you can find examples of a woman who is not in a happy place in her life, this is pure schadenfreude for you. To take pleasure in the suffering of others is not something happy and well adjusted people do, hence I can only conclude you have problems.
I’ve said it before, but if you are still not over being rejected some thirty years after the fact, to the extent that it colours your perception of everything that goes on around you the way that it currently does, you definitely need professional help to move on.
ps I’d rather a ‘partner’ over a ‘husband’ each and every time.
I’ve said it before, but if you are still not over being rejected some thirty years after the fact, to the extent that it colours your perception of everything that goes on around you the way that it currently does, you definitely need professional help to move on.
MissM,
People can be effected very deeply by relationships in their youth and this can haunt them well into old age. This is probably more common than you realise. James Joyce based perhaps the greatest short story in the English language around this very theme.
Many who experiene this simply keep it inside. This doesn’t make them “in need of therapy” or any other label you feel like pinning onto them simply because you don’t like their political views or otherwise think they are a jerk.
Perhaps you have never felt that deeply about anyone, but that is no reason to project your own lack of life experience onto someone else (in this case Mike) simply because you disagree with their views. Or are you really that tone deaf to the complexity and mystery of human existence?
Mike doesn’t keep it inside, though. He doesn’t feel sorrow for a loss. That would be normal. Instead he has a load of bitterness he lets affect his whole world view. That’s not healthy.
Mike doesn’t exhibit gratitude for his success in life, his good job, his loving wife. Mike doesn’t exhibit happiness.
No, he posts online about his thrill when women are single late in life, as he sees it as their comeuppance. Serves ’em right for not giving the treasure of their youthful attractiveness to the first man who showed an interest back when they were twenty. How dare they have their own desires that don’t fall into line with his. Stupid women who think they are equal to men, when clearly they are not. And they’ve ruined all of society today. All of it. He’ll tell you how it all should be, as only he knows. He has the one true answer to everything.
Sounds completely UNlike a mentally well balance person to me.
A sane person who apparently has a good life and every reason to be happy, wouldn’t choose to carry around such a load of bitterness and constantly project it onto everything and everyone within earshot.
‘My sense of Mike is that he is sensitive and thoughtful’
His post to Elle on the previous thread was sensitive, compassionate, and thoughtful. Elle didn’t bother to acknowledge it.
His 8:44 pm post on this thread however is awful. It contradicts the post to Elle referenced in the previous paragraph. It suggests that the compassion in the earlier post is either not sincere or that Mike has a high degree of cognitive dissonance.
Blogs like this, which purport to deal with serious issues, are concerned I think almost always too much with ideas only and, in many cases, point scoring. There is too little of the human on them. I have seen this over and over again over the years which is why although I lurk I rarely comment on any blog and haven’t with regularity for many years.
This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the innate selfish tendencies of people in society today The people who write posts are real, with real feelings and emotions behind that flat screen. Would that we could all just remember that and make an effort to show some genuine compassion, warmth, and courtesy to each other when we engage our keyboards, particularly when a stranger reaches out first to show some of that to us.
All this talk here about the elusive nature of love. Oh the irony. Perhaps if we practised love a little more regularly in our daily interactions with others it might orient us a little bit more toward finding it.
autumn
How can women actually hold out a hope of living in harmony, in a close relationship, with those whom we actively ridicule and revile because they are men?
I’ve been married 25 years. I just said to my wife a moment ago I hope this is the year she’ll divorce me. Finally. She laughed.
I tell her all the same stuff I’ve told you. She thinks I’m an unreconstructed misogynist. I don’t think she cares.
I tell her all the same stuff I’ve told you
Which stuff are you referring to? You’ve bounced back and forth. You sound mainly like a jerk on this thread, but you came across as very thoughtful on the previous thread, at least to me. That’s why I took the time to type out a lengthy reply offering suggestions your marriage. I guess I wasted my time trying to reach out to a stranger.
To be honest I don’t really know where you are coming from because the data doesn’t paint a consistent picture. There is too much contradiction.
Mike doesn’t exhibit gratitude for his success in life, his good job, his loving wife
MissM,
Mike’s “loving wife”? Are you joking?
Years ago I used to comment at the Manosphere from time to time. When the Militant Misogynists would slate women as being “wholly irrational” and “deaf to facts” I would say, that’s not true. Some women are illogical but most are not. Some women actually listen to what men have to say without flying off the handle and shouting him down before he even has a chance to finish,
When you. Miss M, type something like the above, however, something which blatantly contradicts the little bit of information Mike has provided about his wife, when I man says “I am blue” and less than 24 hours later you say “Hey there nan, you are green,” you make my job of defending women’s ability to reason logically very, very, very difficult.
It is behaviour like yours that not only totally undermines your credibility but even worse, is directly responsible for creating the misogynistic cesspool that is the Manosphere.
This forum is a complete waste of time. It has been valuable however only insofar as it has reminded me first-hand how lucky I am that I got away from women who think and act like you do. I have also gained some first-hand insight as to what my S.O must have gone through in his 20+ year hellish marriage.
MissM, when it comes to dealing with men, you are your own worst enemy.
I’m outta here.
What did I miss? He has a wife, at least he said so.
MissM
No, he posts online about his thrill when women are single late in life, as he sees it as their comeuppance. Serves ‘em right for not giving the treasure of their youthful attractiveness to the first man who showed an interest back when they were twenty. How dare they have their own desires that don’t fall into line with his. Stupid women who think they are equal to men, when clearly they are not. And they’ve ruined all of society today. All of it. He’ll tell you how it all should be, as only he knows. He has the one true answer to everything.
There’s no thrill in it for me. A kind of sorrow actually. To see so much human potential wasted on playing office.
What will you have when you’re 70? What memories, what human connections? My most prized possessions are a poem my son wrote to me when he was eight and a picture of my daughter in my wife’s arms. They’re sitting in a strawberry field. My daughter has strawberry juice on her face and an expression of contentment and security. I’m looking at it now. In that moment they were both blissfully happy.
Life is a series of tradeoffs. Everything comes at a price. If you’re reading this you know something is wrong but you struggle to understand what. How did this happen to me? Well, you did it to yourself. You got what you wished for. The idea that it’s somehow the fault of men when western society is now structured entirely around the wants and whims of women is a bad joke.
I don’t think you want a husband, or even a partner. You want a partner-shaped object. To take care of the stuff that partner-shaped objects do for other women. Cut the grass, change the oil, pay the bills. Those other women have a partner-shaped object, don’t you deserve a partner-shaped object too? Life would be so much easier with a partner-shaped object. Think of all the things a partner-shaped object could do for you.
Hi Autumn,
I’m sorry to see you go. I’ve found your posts helpful. Your style of writing is clear and inoffensive. You seem like you really try to be charitable. Thank you.
Rachel,
Many thanks for your kind words. It really lifts my spirits to hear that you have benefited from my posts. My motivation for writing them is to get women to think critically about themselves and the way they approach relationships. No one provided this information to me until I was well into middle-age, and I suffered greatly as a result. There is a huge information deficit/disinformation campaign in mainstream culture about male-female relationships and it has caused, and continues to cause, untold suffering.
The ability to parse the conundrums which appear in rotation on this blog is a given for anyone who has studied RP teachings on male and female psychology. Questions like “What does that 38-year old who got married last year and now has a baby have that I don’t? How did she do it? What does it take?” and women in their 30s chiming in with comments like, “It’s all down to luck!” makes me want to pull my hair out. Same with the question, “Why wouldn’t he commit to me?” followed by some thirtysomething woman who chimes in, “He is a peter pan and not ready to commit. You were too good for him” or “You intimidated him” or somesuch,. Wrong answers!!! If a man won’t commit to you, it is highly likely you are not stoking his attraction triggers (and I am not talking about sexual attraction). Most men will commit gladly to a woman in whom he sees promise. On the other hand, if a man sees no promise, she will be good for sex at least for a while, but not for much else. Whether or not he sees promise in you is dependent almost completely on the way you interact with him. Physical appearance is part of it, but the behavioural aspects really are key.
Keep in mind I am speaking about the nature of the MAJORITY of men and the MAJORITY of women. There are always outliers of both genders. Zoe for example is an outlier. She is very self-sufficient and relates to men on her own terms. It is a certain personality type that some women have (think Carla Bruni or Madonna). These are innate “no drama” women. They tend to do well with men, but their methods will not be applicable to the 90% of women who are innately RP (I am adjusting my figure of 99% of women being innately RP downward a little, since Zoe’s post reminded me of outliers like her). Women who try to “act self-sufficient” when they are innately RP are doomed to fail. It’s like a 6″0 tall redhead pretending to be 5″2 blonde. It won’t work. The good news is, there are solutions to this. There are completely different and better ways than what you have been doing, and what your other single friends have been doing.
Your question to Mike is a good one, because it is specific behaviours by the female that make or break the quality of a relationship. A huge part of understanding male attraction triggers is to understand exactly what types of behaviours turn men off. Once you understand this you can modify your behaviour accordingly, Another good book I didn’t mention before is one called “Love and Respect.” It explains how women need love and men need respect. It goes into detail as to exactly what “respect” means to men. You might be quite surprised to learn.
Finally, with regard to age differences. I put some readers off by suggesting looking for an older man. What I should have said was to leave a wider window for age differences. For example, if you are 30 consider men from say 28 – 42. Likewise, if you are 40, look at a window of 45 – 65. I dated men up to 25 years older but actually ended up with a guy my own age. He is only a few months older. He has an old soul though, and that’s what counts.
I wish you the best of luck and hope that by linking to the information I gave you will start the journey of learning about male and female psychology. There are answers out there. Although each individual is different, but the underlying principles are applicable to all.
I’ll continue to lurk and perhaps jump in if I think there is something important.
Sorry, this sentence should have said:
“Likewise, if you are 40, look at a window of 40 – 65”
Lol. It’s like watching a late night infomercial.
Rachel: Ooh Autumn, what have you there? It looks fascinating.
Autumn: Glad you asked, Rachel. It’s the Wife-o-matic, designed by the well renowned Red Pill company.
Rachel: Sounds fascinating, Autumn. What does it do?
Autumn: Well Rachel, it’s designed to turn women into Good Little Wives. You see Rachel, women only think they are independent human beings, this is to remind them that they could be so much more.
Rachel: More? How so?
Autumn: Well what they really and truly want, although they don’t realise it due to the current indoctrination by society today, which is of course nothing at all like the indoctrination we at Red Pill offer, is to be Good Little Wives….. continue ad nauseam.
Of course Mike gets a scene in the skit somewhere, maybe doing something slightly goofy, so that Autumn can mildly chastise him in a way that is completely non-threatening to his ego, but in general indicating his delight with the end result of the Wife-o-matic.
Miss M, this is hysterical. You really outdid yourself this time.
Brilliant! 😀
Hi Miss M,
I lack your creativity but will give the analogy a go to underscore an important point.
No problem with much of what you wrote but you left something out, namely, the fact that there is also a Husband-O-Matic. Every single woman seeking commitment has one. It doesn’t work on demand, it needs the right input. Think the GIGO principle. If you feed the HusbandO-Matic only what you think it wants, or what you want it to want, it will continue to produce only little slips of paper that say things like “Why wouldn’t he commit?,” or “Why hasn”t he called?” or “You go, girl, you were too good for him!” or, a year after the man in question breaks up with you, an invitation to his upcoming wedding to Suzie who doesn’t even have a master’s degree.
There is an equality issue at work here also. The single women here have a list of requirements for example income level, looks, etc. yet the very same women fail to recognize or acknowledge that men likewise have requirements. And then the turn around and blame these men for failing to notice how wonderful they are.
Attraction triggers are the same for 90%+ of men. Misogynists have the same attraction triggers as non-misogynists. This is why the discussion here about misogyny is a red herring. It is only when you stoke a man’s attraction triggers that he will actually come to value you as a whole person with beliefs, hopes, feelings, and independent thoughts of your own instead of as primarily an object for sex. Do you want to be loved and cherished “for who you are?” If yes, you need to stoke his attraction triggers. It’s counterintuitive but that’s the way men are wired.
Hi Mike,
Are you able to provide a few examples of your wife’s feminist behavior that you find offputting or that have had a negative impact on your marriage? Fair, enough, of course, if you’d rather not. When you say to her, “I hope this is the year you’ll divorce me,” are you kidding?! Sorry if the answer to that is obvious and I missed it. By the way, yeah, I don’t really like the word “partner” in the context of relationships.
I get the basic premise of American red pill thinking – that women are so in competition with men that relationships aren’t successful and if we were all a bit more ‘feminine’ then the men/women relationships would all work a bit better. And this is the bit I get as I like being feminine and having doors opened for me etc. I can get what Autumn is saying and agree to an extent that men don’t like ball breakers but where I veer off is that I see men and women as equal but different, whereas these blokes see men as superior and women as inferior with all that that entails. And there are other bits of thinking that seem fair – that women who stay at home with children are undervalued, that men want their partners/wives/girlfriends to support them not compete with them, nobody fancies a metrosexual man and wants men to be able to fix cars and take charge (I’m afraid I’m one of these – men in a suit? only if they look as if they could still take charge, a bit like Daniel Craig as Bond) etc and at the other extreme you have what appear to be the sort of man who genuinely believes women are governed by ‘hindbrains’ and are intellectually and morally weaker than a man. Mike I’m afraid to say only sits half way along this spectrum.
As Autumn pointed out, reading the red pill sites does give you an insight into what men want if you can ignore the lunatic fringe and this way of thinking is very much American where all the crackpot thinking starts – along with surrendered wives, Scientology, Wheatgrass drinks, going to the gym at 5am etc etc. Basically a bit mental but some of it sometimes makes a little bit of its way over here but we ignore it and leave it to be absorbed by the lunatic fringe and we roll our eyes at the latest nonsense 🙂
However it is American and what I can’t work out is whether American women are culturally different to us ie that they are more ‘masculine’ than us in their attitudes and behaviour, and as a consequence American men want them to soften a bit. For example in the middle of these men going on about girls staying virgins (as that’s another of their thoughts) until they get married to him, at 22, there are references to American women going on the ‘cock carousel’ (I know!) and sleeping with 20,30,40 or more men by the time they are in their mid twenties. Surely this can’t be true? So is it that this thinking has raised as a backlash against American women’s behaviour that we wouldn’t recognise?
I veer off is that I see men and women as equal but different, whereas these blokes see men as superior and women as inferior with all that that entails.
I also see men and women as equal but different and I look for the same philosophy in a bloke. There is no compromise on this.
I’ve said it three or four times at this already: The Militant Red Pill is wrong about many things (which is why you should not date one) but they are 100% correct about male attraction triggers.
It’s natural to want to reject 100% of a belief system because you find parts of it revolting, but for a woman to do so in this case is very self-defeating.
With regard to the question of whether RP attraction triggers are American – no, they apply to all Western men at least I my experience (UK blokes).
I hope this clarifies.
However it is American and what I can’t work out is whether American women are culturally different to us ie that they are more ‘masculine’ than us in their attitudes and behaviour, and as a consequence American men want them to soften a bit.
The trends are fundamentally the same in both countries.
I don’t think things are as extreme in the UK as they are in the US but its more a difference of degree than a difference in kind.
My evidence is anecdotal but so is nearly all the RP evidence (Dalrock’s charty goodness on divorce rates etc nonwithstanding), since most of this stuff is not measurable.
I am aware of two ongoing frivorces where young children are involved. I also know a number of young women who sleep around and make no attempt to hide it and then complain “Why can’t I find a good man?” My S.O. was back in the dating pool a few years ago and told me that he was getting approached for sex by women of all ages (early 30s through 50s) both online and IRL. (He is a sportsman and very fit so apparently this has appeal for some single women). Google the name “Monica Porter” to get an idea about what some UK women in their 50s think is normal male-female behavior.
Good question Fi. I’m not American and as such don’t know the answer. Someone who has lived on both sides of the pond is needed to answer that.
What experience I’ve had with American’s is dependent on the forums I visit. I admit I have noticed is there is a strong streak of intolerance that often can be boiled down to “stop liking what I don’t like”. I don’t know whether this is a leftover from the country being founded by puritans or not, but a certain segment sure likes to have a say in what other people do/think/prefer. (I’ve heard the joke that Australia got the better deal in being founded by convicts.)
The other thing to remember is there is over 300 million people in the US. If you think about a person having a one in a million disorder of some sort, that sounds pretty rare when put like that. But then consider that would mean there would also be at least 300 other people with the same disorder in the US. So if there are extremists of any sort, there are going to be more of them in the US just because there are a lot more people in general. Add the internet to the mix, and now a section of rather rare extremists that would normally never be heard can get together and start making a lot of noise. You could certainly be forgiven in thinking they are a significant portion of the population when in reality they are only a fringe group.
I must say, while you like a man’s man who can fix cars, the manlier the man, the greater likelihood he will turn me completely off. The most unattractive man in the world to my taste is a really “blokey-bloke”, to use Aussie language. I’d rather the metrosexual each time. To my way of thinking this is cool, since you can have Daniel Craig, (I sure as hell don’t want him) and I can have someone that would possibly be considered by you as too effeminate to be appealing. It’s great because the world is large and diverse and there is no reason people cannot choose what best floats their boat.
But some of the “stop liking what I don’t like” control crowd would insist there is something wrong with MissM for not liking what “everyone” is supposed to like, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with them. The actual advantage in having “everyone” like the same thing is beyond me. Maybe it’s the control angle that stokes people’s fires, but I don’t really understand it.
Yes I think you’re right. There also seems to be an innocence/lack of sophistication too. Obviously not EVERYONE, and not in the cities, but the assumption that God is a fact, the idea that the 7 days stuff is as valid as evolutionary theory, the politicians don’t have mistresses and surprise when they find out they do or are corrupt in some way. There’s somehow an innocence or lack of worldliness – a black v white rather than shades of grey – that encourages them to be so convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong that maybe encourages intolerance to other viewpoints.
However ( talking more generally about the way these men talk about women) I think they want to change women because they don’t like their uppity natures, the way they answer them back, the way they don’t have sex with them, and that is fundamentally because they are losers themselves. As MissM pointed out ” A sane person who apparently has a good life and every reason to be happy, wouldn’t choose to carry around such a load of bitterness and constantly project it onto everything and everyone within earshot.”
sorry you ARE MissM. Meant to say ‘You”
Fi,
You are overfsimplifying. A lot of men in the Militant Wing are atheists or agnostics who openly mock Christianity.
Roissy, Roosh, Rollo (someone told me Rollo claims to be Christian but I find that amusing at best) – none are Christian. Ian Ironwood is a professional pornographer. Matt Forney is I believe either an Atheist or Agnostic (not sure though – I would be shocked if he claimed to be “Christian”). And there a multitude of regular commenters without blogs of their own who openly revile both Christianity and women, And on and on.
Red Pill Misogyny is not a Christian phenomenon, although some Christians participate (Deti, Sunshine Mary, etc). Other Christian men stand firmly against the Misogyny (Deep Strength, Zippy Catholic, Darwin Catholic, Bike Bubba, GBFM in his own quirky way, etc).
Yep you’re probably right- I didn’t mean it so literally though, it was more a musing on why red pillism started there and seems to have more support there that’s all. And wondering whether it was the nature of Americans per se or a reflection on American women or American culture. Or simply that they are trendsetters
Yep you’re probably right – i didn’t mean it so literally though – that red pill men are Christians – , it was more a musing on why redpillism started there and seems to have more support there. And wondering whether it was the nature of americans per se or a reflection on American women or American culture. Or simply that they are trendsetters.
It’s interesting question as to why groups might flourish in one place and not another.
Redpillism may have started in the US, and got more support there, but then so did Mormonism, Scientology, Branch Davidians (the whackos from Waco), the Flat Earth Society and NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association for anyone lucky enough to not be aware of these nasties, yes it is what it sounds like). It is also the home to Furries, Juggalos, people who see sex with their pets as consensual, loving and appropriate, as well as people who think the moon landing was a hoax. Obviously some of the above groups are completely harmless, and others not.
Whatever it is, in America, seek and ye shall find.
I tend to think there is just a sufficient quantity of people there that it’s the best place to find like minded people, no matter what your personal kink is.
Once you find enough people who think like you do, you get a feedback loop that strengthens your beliefs further. Before long it seems obvious to you that converting everyone else to your way of thinking is your duty, and something that needs to be done for the good of everyone.
The idea that your group has the One True Way and everyone else only needs to be shown the error of theirs before they will joyfully adopt your philosophy, and accept the Truth, is hardly a trait exclusive to Redpillism. Almost all groups seem to think they have exclusive rights to the Truth, and that they are leading the way to Enlightenment. The fun part is that there are an awful lot of groups, and it reminds me of the lyric “two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong”.