Quoted:


You could have just as easily posted a photo of a beautiful conservative woman too, but you chose that. Not cool!

Quoted:



I disagree.  The average human being isn't very appealing if they roll out of bed, slip on stained sweat pants and leave the house with greasy hair and dirty teeth.  Simply taking the time for a shower, NORMAL everyday grooming and putting on clean clothes that fit is, quite literally, the bare basics of what should be done before leaving the house and will make most people perfectly presentable.  

I'm sure I have offered an opinion at some point if asked but I can't recall specifics.  There's also a difference in, "Should I keep the sideburns or shave them off?" and "Turn me into someone completely different----someone you think I should be-----so that other people will like me."

Quoted:


OK.

You are being fairer than I deserve so I owe you a no-shit explanation.  
Buckle up, its going to be bumpy.

What comprises a successful society?  Well, first, it needs people.  Which means children.  Which means sex.  Easy day.  Women are weaker, they are going to have sex one way or the other.  Prior to the advent of civilization women were commodities to kill for.  You wanted women, you took them.  And you protected the ones you had from the predations of others.  You might even protect the children.  You don't know exactly why, but you will.  But you can't get past the familial cave dwelling clan on this model.

You needed to break past loyalty simply by family.  because the larger the group, the stronger it was.  The stronger it was, the more it had (women, prime real estate, etc).  So how do you get a man to die for someone he isn't related to?  An all powerful creature that could see all and do all and would punish you for failing to do as he commands (or, his self designated representative commands)

Religion built societies.  Take that off to the side for a moment.  

So lets focus on western society.  What are the unique attributes of the west that made it specifically successful.  arguably built upon the 10 commandments.  Remember those?

Here is a refresher.
http://godhearme.org/tenCommandments.jpg
Lets look at 5, 7 and 10.  Under penalty of the lord our god, children MUST look after their parents.  And not only can you not fuck other people's wives and husbands you can't even DESIRE them.

Penalty for disobedience of any one of these was death.  Of course, what is in your heart is known but to god, but he is one vengeful dude in the old testament.  so, tread carefully.

so, 30% of the commandments deal specifically with children, relationships and marriage.  (never mind how many of the 613 other jewish commandments do so as well)

whats the point?  Society is built on a foundation of trust.  The most important relationship is between man and god.  (without god, none of this shit works).  The second most important relationship is between man and woman.  

Now, back to biological imperative to reproduce.  Women do not run the risk of accidentally dedicating a decade or more of their lives (or their very life in the case of childbirth) to raising another woman's child.  Men do.  

In order for a society to work, men must be prepared to give their lives for their wives and, by association, their children. At least what they think are their children.  If a society fails to protect a men from being cuckolded, then men lose the motivation to protect and provide for their wives.  That society will crumble.  we are not bonobos (who only exist because the niger river separates them from the more aggressive chimpanzee(but I digress))

So this is basic society 101.  All societies up until the modern era operated on basically this model.  All punished infidelity.  Some societies still punish infidelity with death.  

men in this model were disposable (hence polygamy being the norm).  historically speaking approximately 70% of every woman who lived to puberty reproduced.  less than 35% of men reproduced.  

A hypothetical society with 100 fertile women and 1 fertile man would have 100 children in 2 years.  reverse this ratio and the opposite society would have 1 child (and probably 90 dead men).  (if they lived next to each other, the 1 dude with 100 women would be dead within 30 seconds)

So, in the pre-historic societal age you have women as a pure commodity.  the most important commodity.  the foundation of all other requirements for civilization.  

And woman didn't get too much say in this.  The strongest took what he wanted.  Which, conveniently enough, generally coincided with the biological requirements of the woman.

I lecture you on this basic of human prehistory simply because it shaped our psychological foundations.  

women not only are attracted to strong men, they are repulsed by weak ones.  because a weak one will be conquered, their children smashed against a rock and then the weaker man's wife raped until they produce the victors children (re-read your homer if confused on this point)

Fast forward to the industrial age.  
War is less a measurement of physical strength and numbers but rather a measurement of industrial output.  

Societies that work harder and smarter will outproduce the requisite war material than other societies.  And they will be most successful.

By the time the industrial age came about, monogamous relationships were the norm in western civilization.   And western civilizations were, by all measurement, the most successful.

Why is monogamy important?  First and foremost because the children have the opportunity to be raised by both a male and female role model.  But, only slightly behind, is because a married man with children he assumes to be his own, is the most motivated to work harder, longer and smarter to provide for his family.  In polygamy, you have 3 men who don't have kids, won't have kids, and don't really give a fuck.  You can enslave them (as was the norm for most of history) but a slave will only produce the minimum to avoid punishment.  Slavery is not efficient or effective.  But its more useful than killing these excess worthless men which is why it was, and still is, practiced.

Brief pit stop. Men don't need much to be "happy".  Sex, toys and the first 3 levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  And the toys need not be necessarily expensive IF the man has no desire to attract a mate.  But a woman and children provide a motivation to do more, to produce more (both in the micro and macro scale).  Raising children well is expensive.  And the more you have, the better chance of success for your children (and, back to the 5th commandment, better off for you when you get old).  So you have a bunch of men working hard to produce liberty ships and a nice paycheck raising both themselves and their society to the highest levels in the industrial age.

the woman's requirement was faithfulness (or the façade of it).  Make the man think the child or children is his, and he will work harder.  Of course society honored those who took on the burden of another man's child (the widow being particularly honored for her faithfulness till death to her husband) provided the man was dead.   A man who lost his wife (common until modern era in childbirth) was a natural match for a woman who had lost her husband.  

Divorce, the deliberate abandonment of your spouse, was a societally shunned rarity.  

So things hummed along.  

The nuclear family unit providing the basis for a society with the requisite number of offspring and maximizing the output of the father in support of his family.  

Then the 50s came.  And western society became the enemy.  And the engine of that successful western society, likewise becoming the enemy.

Enter the Betty Friedans and various other useful idiots in the communist cause.

The happy mother and wife being transformed the greatest mass enslavement in history.

“...women who 'adjust' as housewives, who grow up wanting to be 'just a housewife,' are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps...they ate suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.”

and her great question, that is, only now being answered

“Who knows what women can be when they are finally free to become themselves? Who knows what women's intelligence will contribute when it can be nourished without denying love?”

Women are completely, utterly and totally free at this point to do whatever they want.

and what have they chosen?

30-40% bastard rate?   A new Acura and shitty daycare?  Are we still to believe women are slaves to the patriarchy?  That seems to be the position of the great feminist hero, Hillary Rodham.  What more must men sacrifice to the alter of women's insatiable demands?

men should they chose to even have sex can face the accusation of rape on the mere whims of the woman.
no woman will be punished for a false accusation
should she conceive a child while with a man (it may not be the man's child), he now owes 18 years of payments.  Or, the death of the child is the woman deems it inconvenient at the time.

men, should they choose to marry, became the virtual slaves to the woman's demands and should they not meet them, will become the literal slaves.  Working for a master who if not pleased will have them jailed for failing to provide as demanded even in the absence of the means to do so.

Men are left with one choice to avoid being entrapped; avoidance of women altogether.  Which they have chosen.

Do you think these men continue to work hard?  to spend extra hours to earn more money?

their increased wages being taken from them to support other mens bastard children in the innumerable forms of public assistance for women, infants and children (women are tragic victims when convenient and strong powerful equals at other times)

So, TLDR

Women have all the choices.  And they increasingly choose to be selfish at best, vindictive at worse, but increasingly childish regardless

and men, having lost most of their choices, have taken the one choice that remains theirs and theirs alone.  to drop out.  Not just with women, but with society.

You bemoan a binary choice between Trump and Hillary while applauding the system that deliberately created the circumstances creating it.

Quoted:


What, exactly, is the difference?    How is shaving off some sideburns conceptually different than shaving off 140 pounds in order to be more attractive?

Quoted:


If I ask you which style of dress is more flattering on me, is that the same as having to be told that the reason I may not be getting asked on dates is that I'm 140 pounds overweight?  

It's not self-improvement for the sake of self-improvement that's my sticking point.  

Quoted:
For men, its always about sex. Without, we wouldn't get out of bed, go to work or fight wars. a man that says he's trying to improve but its not about sex is a liar.



Part of that is they were lied to as young men. They were raised with no strong male role model.  Lets look at one pretty lie, commonly told.  "just be yourself."  Worst advice told to young men. Because if followed the shy guys, the introverts, are completely shut out of dating, sex, marriage. What they should be told is "Be the best possible version of yourself"

Quoted:



What about married men who get into shape but were getting sex anyway?  

I won't disagree with the being the best version of yourself part.  But I know plenty of happy couples who are only happy because their *quirks* matched up.  The problem with trying to change who you are is that not only will you eventually get tired of putting on a show, but you've insulated yourself from the opportunity of finding the ones who WOULD like you for you.  

I guess that's not important to some people.  It's of critical importance to me.

Quoted:


My wife gives me shit when my body fat drops below 20%.

Quoted:

In the meantime, I offer you another view.

From the dawn of mankind until a few hundred years ago,  societies were structured around the reality that value was created and defended with testosterone enhanced muscle mass. The Industrial Revolution, the internal combustion engine, the electrification of the West, and the Information Revolution put paid to all of that.  To steal from Springstein: those days are gone, boys, and they ain't coming back,  Or at least, not until the apocalypse.

For the first time, women don't have to put up with some man's shit in order to sleep indoors, eat a couple times a day, and not get passed around to the other members of the tribe.  Although men are still predominant in every power center in Western society, they're no longer the absolute arbiter of the basic building block of society, the male/female relationship.  And since that's where the pussy comes from, holy cat's ass, are they pissed.  Understandable, but, realistically, we're aren't going to de-industrialize to accommodate the male libido/ego.  So where do that leave us?  


Beats me, but, inarguably, men have legitimate grievances as a result of tectonic shifts in society, and men and women of good conscience - which pretty much excludes gender feminists and their mirror images, the MRA/MGTOW/PUA/TRP communities - are going to have to work together to address them.  And reflexively hating on women categorically isn't really going to be much help.

Quoted:


If I ask you which style of dress is more flattering on me, is that the same as having to be told that the reason I may not be getting asked on dates is that I'm 140 pounds overweight?  

It's not self-improvement for the sake of self-improvement that's my sticking point.  

It's that, for the non-predatory aspects of the red pill stuff, these people are having to seek out and be taught what seem to be extremely basic life skills.  As adults.  It makes you wonder what else is going on behind the scenes that they made it to 30-40 years old without picking up on.  And as for the predatory aspects of it, I think it's a terrible thing to mold oneself into something they're not and follow a checklist and play a game in order to bed women.

Quoted:


How is asking which dress is more flattering different than asking which dress will make you look more attractive?  How is it different than asking if dropping 40 (or 140) pounds would make you look more attractive?  

Why is it bad for someone to improve themselves in order to get women to sleep with them, but it's perfectly ok to mold oneself into "something they're not" in order to be healthy and fit?  Either choice will fundamentally change who that person was, regardless of the motivation for the behavior, so why is one choice worthy of condemnation and one worthy of praise?

Quoted:

If this was directed to me, so?

Quoted:



I don't know how I can be any more clear.  If you buy a particular car because you like certain things about it, great.  If you buy a particular car because you feel it will increase your value in how others perceive you, that's just sad to me.  

The difference is in the motivation being inward-driven or outward-driven.  Outward driven motivations to gain others' approval comes across as superficial and adolescent.

Quoted:


wasn't that the supposed point?

that the misery of men would be compensated for by the new found happiness for women?

Quoted:


So, are positive motivators driven by external impetus always bad, or are they only bad when view in the context of fat, balding losers trying to improve their game?  You see what I'm trying to get at, right?

Quoted:


I just can't get behind the idea of peer pressure/popularity/social status things being a driving force behind someone's actions.  Maybe I'm viewing it too broadly but one of the fundamental things we try to teach our kids is that compromising who they are in order to please other people (except for us-----they have to please their parents ) is never a good idea.  Having integrity, by definition, is standing your ground regardless of what the crowd wants.

That also has to be tempered with some common sense though.  They shouldn't be concerned with needing to have the latest brand name fad but that doesn't mean they can wear a dirty, wrinkled shirt to school and not bother taking a bath-----even if that is their natural state.  

Quoted:



I don't see red pill as turning people into something completely different. its just self improvement of a specific focus. But i appreciate your input. its confirmed some of what I expected about the negative reaction some women have to the entire concept.

Quoted:


i've never heard of red pill, but if it's anything like the rest of the pickup canon, it's the male equivalent of caking on makeup, wearing stripper heels, and acting slutty.

Quoted:



Yes, most people prefer to be around people who are genuine and comfortable with themselves.  

I've had this same discussion with my daughter who, at 14 years old, is beginning to be concerned with *fitting in* and *belonging.*  Pretending to be someone she's not in order to appeal to certain groups won't work.  People instinctively push away people they don't trust. It's pretty easy to see through people who are *putting on airs* and you can tell they're not genuine so you don't trust them.  You can't build bonds and friendships with people who don't trust you.

Quoted:


Yeah, being the "weird" outcast all by yourself is way better for a 14 year old girl's self esteem.  

Quoted:
I meant her father and I, not every parent out there.  Do I think that should be standard parenting practice?  Yes.  Do I think it's woefully undertaught?  Yes.  





I don't care if undertaught is underlined in read, I'm making it a word.

Quoted:

  The irony is delicious

Quoted:


Yeah, being the "weird" outcast all by yourself is way better for a 14 year old girl's self esteem.  

Quoted:



And God bless you for recognizing that.  

Quoted:


wasn't that the supposed point?

that the misery of men would be compensated for by the new found happiness for women?

Quoted:



We're discussing marital arrangements and divorce.  Always moving the goal posts.

Quoted:



I don't think so.  I mean, I honestly don't think the internal combustion engine was developed with the intention of depriving men of the elemental joy of looking at the ass end of a mule ten hours a day.The replacement of human muscle with various forms of mechanical/electrical power freed men from lives of physical toil, but it also wrought changes in the way work was done and value created and ultimately fundamental changes to society.   Feminism wasn't the agent fundamental change in the male-female relationship, electricity was.

Quoted:


So we can't talk about the ways in which men are disadvantaged or killed.

Seems a funny way to have a "discussion".

Pop quiz - of all those grave stones, how many of those rest above the remains of a male who was compelled to participate in what led to his demise?  How many above a female?

Quoted:


So basically the only parameters that matter are the numbers and the actual non-freedoms of the women those numbers are correlated to don't need to factor in at all in order to judge everything as good.

Quoted:



And God bless you for recognizing that.  

Quoted:



If I raised daughters who's self esteem comes from other people, I completely failed as a parent.

Quoted:


For men, its always about sex. Without, we wouldn't get out of bed, go to work or fight wars. a man that says he's trying to improve but its not about sex is a liar.



Part of that is they were lied to as young men. They were raised with no strong male role model.  Lets look at one pretty lie, commonly told.  "just be yourself."  Worst advice told to young men. Because if followed the shy guys, the introverts, are completely shut out of dating, sex, marriage. What they should be told is "Be the best possible version of yourself"

Quoted:

Well, it wasn't.