IllimitableMan does a great job touching on many important topics & ideas that are really important for any good RPW to not only be aware of, but also understand. As you read this, you may feel inclined to say "but that's not true because X, Y, and Z!" Please stop yourself before you commit to that line of thinking. Think about these ideas, and how they apply to the women you know, and have observed over the years.
Use these explanations as a window into a different way of looking at women as a whole. These are things we have to be mindful of. To deny their existence is to ruin any possibility to improve and better yourself as a woman. That's why we are here. To minimize our weaknesses and our faults, to recognize the decay around us and within us. We strive to be good women to the men in our lives, and that process starts only when we leave our pride at the door and examine what being a woman means and looks like in our world today. You can't fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge its existence. ___
This post contains a lot of generalisations which embody fundamental beliefs of the red pill philosophy, this list is extensive but not exhaustive. These are bullet points and thus there is not a case study for every point made and there is not necessarily an explanation given with each bullet point. This is because this information has been designed to be snappy and easy to absorb, not an academic dissertation on each belief and concept shared. Think of it as something of a partial codification of many different RP beliefs.
-
Feminists claim they want equality but what they really want is power without responsibility. They desire both male and female privilege consolidated into one, thus upsetting the gender balance. They want the privileges of being women (privilege such as being economically provided for, getting opportunities based on their beauty and protection from physical harm by others) as well as male privilege (authority, respect for having a career, to not be judged so harshly based on appearance etc) which is neither pragmatic nor realistic, it ignores the biological basis for how the genders perceive each other in the ignorance that "everything is a social construct!" and we are mostly "the same" when quite evidently this is not the case.
-
Women are irrational and inconsistent, they have a capacity for logic but it is not their modus operandi, that is to say that they must exert effort to be logical as it is not their factory setting. A logical woman is easily baited into becoming emotional; women are easy to compromise. Their decisions are based on their current emotional state rather than the abstraction of logic. It's this proclivity to change so quickly which causes them to act inconsistently and in contradiction.
-
Women are machiavellian in nature, this means they are comparatively proficient at being manipulative versus the typical male. The evolutionary theoretical basis for this is due to smaller size and inferior musculature women had to learn to use men as tools rather than directly oppose them in a physical conflict (as they would undoubtedly lose in all but very few scenarios) this makes the pronunciation of their strength a propensity to be mentally violent rather than to be physically violent. Physical violence is outlawed whereas mental abuse is not, this allows women to get their way without being held accountable by a system of law, the law does not legislate interpersonal morality to this extent. Where a man's instinct is to hit, a woman's is to do a big shit in your mind instead.
-
Race does not matter if you are rich. A lot of you are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, white-black-arab-indian-asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture, perhaps where you live the white man is god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, money is power, if you're a 5' asian with a 2 inch dick that girls laugh at a 7 digit bank balance is sure to offset that. Focus less on your race and more on your success, your insecurities will get you no where. The real segregation is between rich and poor and that is even more true when it comes down to women, never forget that. Rich vs. poor is the only thing that matters in this world, white vs black, west coast vs east coast, all these other "beefs" are a minor, they are all symptoms of wealth inequality, the bottom line is wealth. Rich vs poor motherfuckers.
-
Women are hypergamous they feel entitled to a superior mate. You have to be richer than her or at least equally rich, more educated than her or at least equally educated. You need to be better looking than her or at least equal looking, you need to be more popular than she is or at least equally popular. You can offset one area (LMS - looks, money, status) with another, but if you're lower in at least 2 areas just forget it.
-
Buying into the last point, this is why 20% of guys are fucking 80% of the chicks, women date up, men date down and yes this has created rising social inequality since women entered the professions.
-
If a woman thinks she is better than you she can't respect you, if she can't respect you she can't love you. Women love men differently to the way men love women. Woman's love is based on adoration, adoration is a concentrated amount of respect. Respect is derived from power. Be powerful if you want to be loved, or you will never be loved. You will be held in contempt for being weak.
-
Women rely on men to be emotionally stoic, we often call this "holding frame" you have to be mentally strong so she can lean on you, she finds that attractive. You cannot lean on her, there is a double standard, if you lean on her the relationship will fall apart, she will not be able to handle your problems and she will no longer find you attractive. You are a man. You have to be better than her, which means to be stronger than she is. This is why women get to be emotional and we have to be unreactive, we are strong and ignore our emotions so they can embellish in their emotions and enjoy the ride. They find it far more difficult to be logical than we do and thus it is our burden to be the reasonable ones.
-
Always set boundaries, with everyone. Do not be a pushover. This is probably the most important bulletpoint here.
-
Buying into the last point women have little sympathy for weak men, despite the fairer sex bullshit you may be accustomed to hearing a man is far more likely to assist a weak man financially or emotionally than a woman is.
-
Women are more selfish than men are in matters of money and love. Man's love is expected to be sacrificial, woman's isn't.
-
Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners, only their children. Men can love women unconditionally. There is a hierarchy of love: Men > Women > Children.
-
Women have a pronounced gender group bias which means they typically de facto side with other women in a conflict regardless of logic or argument, women are herd like and stick together closely, they form cartels and use the power of the group to hen peck/destroy enemies.
-
Women have a sexual plurality, if you are a nice guy with money you are husband material that can nail her after 12 dates and she's had so many glasses of wine she forgets how on a primal level you're not that attractive, just cute. If you are an asshole with nice muscles you're the guy who gets to nail her after 2 hours of meeting. We call this sexual plurality in rather rhythmic slang: "alpha fucks, beta bucks"
-
Women do not care about male weakness and neither does society, if you are weak, depressed, small, poor, uneducated, unconfident, not powerful then nobody cares. People only care about you when you're powerful or a pretty woman. You have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps because nobody gives a fuck about you. Society will always have a safety net for women, white knights will charge in, the state will provide and etc, as a man you have no such luxury, your propensity and ability to gain power is much higher than a woman's but your ability to hit rock bottom is far more pronounced too. As men we are more extreme than women. Women are typically average and don't move much either side of the bell curve, as men we are either highly successful geniuses of repute that feminists can but scoff and be jealous of, the posterboys for their esteemed patriarchy, or the ignored voiceless poverty stricken peasant class that nobody gives a flying fuck about.
-
The law prioritises female safety and well-being over logic, honour and justice. Family law has been corrupted and is now controlled by feminist ideological dogma. The constitutions equitable maxims are rewritten by modern statues, Rollo Tomassi of Rational Male did a very relevant article on this topic here: http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/
-
Western females (typically anglosphere and western/northern Europe) are self-entitled and come from a psychological position of thinking they're better than you are. They believe that shit despite their numerous insecurities because they have been raised to view men as instruments for their desires, they have been told they must be impressed ,that a man must wine and dine her and ultimately the onus is on him to win her heart, she will obsess over her relationship status frantically and doll herself up but ultimately her part is entirely passive. She comes from a position of superiority and illogically believes she is superior to all but the most high value of men. Part of the red pill is realising her capacity for brilliance is lower than yours, which brings me on to the next point.
-
Women need men more than men need women. Men generally want sex and perhaps a family so they have a genetic lineage to leave their worldly goods and knowledge to once they die (so they may live on through their offspring) however women need men for their logical minds and stoic consistency, to make her emotionally stabilised "being the rock in her storm", and also need a partner just to "feel complete." Just look at single mother households and all the older women who are single, they are miserable. These women NEED a man to be happy, men DO NOT need women to be happy, men need SEX to be happy. A bachelor is a not an unhappy guy, a bachelorette is.
-
Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is their sexual beauty and fertility. Most of them squander their best years on "riding the cock carousel" which means fucking lots of different guys in nightclubs, having flings, being generally irresponsible and riding through life on easy mode getting ahead for no real talent, but because she's pretty and can give head. Women are born, their ability to conceive children is what makes them women.
-
Men are not born they are created. Poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, pain - these are the things that make men out of boys. This is why you came to TRP. This is why boys come back from the military as men. Conflict and pain is what forges the masculine mindset, men cannot grow without conflict and learning from their mistakes, men need to apply their logical minds to problems which arise, elevate, and transcend their previous selves to become more powerful. Men are never born, they are always bred in the bloody fields of battle and war be it economic, mental or physical. A man is a soldier of differing kinds, a man has learnt to repress his fear so he may overcome and achieve.
-
Men take more risks than women and are expected to do so, being fearful, unconfident and risk averse as a man leads to failure. You must be confrontational and risk-taking.
-
Single mothers [typically] breed boys not men (without outside intervention.) Boys do little except play xbox and eat pizza with no direction in life, they have little luck with girls and end up drinking themselves to dead smoking pot in their 40s. There's more women in education than men now. Think about that shit for a second. The system has been set up against you, pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
-
The red pill is about pragmatism and truth based on observation, it is not idealistic, in some ways you can say it is liberal - but it is not liberal in the idealistic pseudo academic sense your institutions have taught you to perceive it as. Liberalism has become corrupted. Liberals today censor and silence opposing opinions, I'm not talking about political parties I'm talking about ideologically left leaning people, their thoughts and ideas are based in idealism not directly measurable truth, liberalism has become the religion to pragmatisms science.
-
Social market value is everything, something a low value man says which is "creepy" when said by a high value man is "flirty" or "sexy." Always be focusing on your physical appearance and make it the best that you can, this will make your life easier in all areas, not just sexually but financially too as caused by a phenomenon explored known as the halo effect
-
Your value is everything you should always be improving yourself, if you're not then you cannot compete in the world and your life will be miserable, anesthetized by nothing but the introversion of the four walls you reside in kept docile by xbox, porn, pizza and some online friends. Break free of the mediocrity.
-
Your diet and exercise place a certain handicap on your ability to utilise your potential. The obese and those who eat poorly (but aren't necessarily fat) are typically low energy and thus waste a lot of time unproductively as they are not in the right mental state to get anything done. You need to take care of your body so then your body will allow your mind to implement it's will onto the world. You must be physically active so that you can mentally put your plans into action. Procrastination is the slow acting poison of one who lives a sedentary lifestyle. Physically active people make things happen in other areas of their life too. Exercise is invigorating. Stop putting it off. Do it.
- Your body is the temple that houses your mind, following on from the previous point higher testosterone will help you increase your abilities and leave you feeling more energetic - lift, it will give you a rush of energy like nothing else and further increase your T creating a positive feedback cycle. Jog/do cardio - a runners high again is like a drug, you will feel awesome after a jog, your anxiety goes right down and your confidence rises. Keep it up and the effects stack and become part of your personality.
Visit my site for more medicine http://illimitablemen.com/
johnnight 10y ago
Let me drop in this point into the discussion, which I took from Bastiat Blogger. You will take from the first quoted paragraph, that this is the right place for bringing it up:
http://www.justfourguys.com/the-problem-of-the-natural-and-just-figure-it-out-for-yourself/#comment-12689
valleycupcake 10y ago
Can you distinguish for me the difference between validation and transactional sex? (Googling it didn't help, and didn't see any definitions at the link)
johnnight 10y ago
Transactional sex is also called duty sex. It's the passive sex that women give to their LTR partners to keep the relationship going or to control their behavior (withholding of sex as punishment, etc.). This sex is given even though the woman stopped being sexually attracted to her man.
Validation sex confirms to a man that a woman finds him sexually attractive. It validates him as a man.
Consider the case of Tiger Woods. He had a top beauty as wife, but he was cheating on her with women of lesser quality (strippers, etc.). It is likely that she was not that enthusiastic in bed, because she saw herself as having equal value compared to him, maybe even higher. (Wikipedia: Woods had asked for a year to be introduced to Nordegren, who was seeing someone else at the time. "She had no interest in Tiger and he was OK with that,") She got 100 million from the divorce and is now dating a billionaire.
The strippers on the other hand were surely enthusiastic about the possibility of being with a superstar athlete, so much above them in social status. The sex must have been awesome and addictive, which is why he kept cheating on his wife. I think the validation was really what he was looking for. If it was just about sex, paid call girls would be a much safer choice for a man of his means. He wanted a woman, who genuinely wanted to have sex with him and this is why he took the higher risk option, which in the end blew up in his face and cost him 100 million. This is what validation sex does to men.
[deleted] 10y ago
This is old but you just blew my mind. I knew this, I think, but I never heard it in words.
I think this is why you occasionally hear men wording things like "well don't just say yes ALL the time" and imply there is some kind of chase even after you are married. Then you have the same men who say how much it hurts to be denied and how they wish their wives wanted them all the time. It defies logic.
But it just clicked. They don't want 'just' sex, but they also don't want their wives to ever say no.
Its because they are trying to make it validation sex. They want girls to WANT them constantly. That why some couples on this sub fuck every single night and don't get bored. They mastered validation sex. Enthusiasm is the key. A man won't ever get bored if his wife is legitimately hot for him and turned on by him every time hes in the mood.
I will seriously take this to heart.
valleycupcake 10y ago
Makes sense, thank you!
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
This is flawed to me, and is coming too much from a PUA-only perspective. There are some men that primarily only need sex to be happy. But there are also men who to some degree, need kinesthetic validation or some form of female nurturer, this is the reason there are weird things popping up like "cuddle parties" and "cuddle prostitutes". Stardusk on Youtube calls this "male mother need", but I feel it could be termed better.
Without this primarily kinesthetic validation for some men, there is consistent pain. Pick-up art can help a man find or make a female sexual partner into the form of nurturer he wants. But I would much rather look beyond that, essentially into different possible forms of mind hacking, and I do have some different theories bouncing around my head. The simplest could be taking SSRI's, the drawback being that all the possible side-effects of doing so are unknown, but because these drugs hurt the sex drive a great deal they might also in connection, do the same for this sort of female nurturer need.
I sort of see this as being potentially framed as "Optional Asexuality" and not necessarily an attack on gender relations. To the PUA mindset, the development of this idea could be considered positive in that it would get rid of "beta orbiters" and drive down women's perception of their sexual market value. Given that we can find tangible ways to not only temporarily damage the sex drive, but also this nurturer need, male sexual followers will be more suited join the logic-driven horde of futurist MGTOW ghosts.
I have to disagree with this. This is the extrovert ideal in action. Its the assumption that for all human beings there is mediocrity in silence and solitude, if Ramana Maharshi were alive, I think he would chuckle.
Fukitol13 10y ago
Well ,he did post it in the redpill,people dont go there for silence or solitude.Also as a guy,introversion is not something that helps in peersonal or professional life.One must be comfortable around people and too much pizza and porn are no help.
Also,I'm pretty sure Ramana maharshi would have laughed at pretty much everything anyway.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
Well-written post. Always nice to X-posts from TRP.
This was ultimately very accurate. Of course there will be snowflake situations and women (like RPW) who strive to be beyond the majority as listed here. Certainly an important post for women to read, as they often don't understand all of the extra trials men have to go through just to have a decent place in society and in sex/relationships.
I think it would be accurate to say men are more capable of unconditional love for their partners. They certainly don't have hypergamy weighing them down. They often don't care about their partner's career/academic success and rather think of such things as a bonus. Instead, they focus more on femininity (beauty, homemaking skills, etc.) and personality. If a woman can maintain those things (and even sometimes when she lets up slack), she's more easily set and will be less likely to be left in the dust. Men are on a constant tight rope, however; they're required to keep that high-paying job, provide good sex, and other various things. If they slip up, they're screwed.
FleetingWish 10y ago
Overall a pretty good and accurate list. I would say though that the point that men love unconditionally and women love conditionally isn't true at all. Just ask any married man with a 200lb bitchy wife, in a sexless marriage. All love is conditional. Now it may be true that men have a different sense of loyalty than women, ie more willing to stick around even after love is no longer part of the equation, but that doesn't mean that he loves her like the day he met her. An argument could also be made that that "loyalty" could be caused by the justice system heavily decentivizing men, but I actually believe male loyalty is a "thing".
The "men>women>children" trope is something I have a hard time believing. I'm sure it's true for a lot of relationships, but for the ladies here that's simply not the case. We devote our entire lives to loving and devoting ourselves to our men. This may be what our society has become, but unlike other red pill concepts like "hypergamy", this is not a model of how the world is and how it has to be.
IllimitableMan 10y ago
I've had flak for the point of unconditionality as it's so rare and I did not fully express my sentiment there being that it was a compilation of bullet points, it was not my intention to say that men DO love unconditionally but simply that THEY CAN, to be brief, I posit men possess the capability to love unconditionally, however due to hypergamy - that women do not (unless you are top of the food chain think 1%er dark triad alpha - but then is that really unconditional or just hypergamy being perpetually fulfilled?)
The hierarchy of love is based on dependency, children depend on women and thus have a certain amount of expectation which impedes on their ability to demonstrate appreciation when it comes to the love their mother shows them, any mother can talk about how her children take her for granted, and the same can be said for women with men, that women have a certain list of expectations of men that impede their ability to appreciate his sacrifices and in fact, they have a large innate propensity to take men in their lives for granted. Men are the end of this line, they have NOBODY to lean on which is to say, to take more than they give (MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY) and still maintain a healthy and viable relationship. The hierarchy of love is based on the sacrificial nature of love, it is truly my belief that men must give up much more psychological freedom (as mentally they are depended on, not dependants of women) and often do for the sake of a relationship, legal system incentivises that but I too believe "that's a thing" regardless of the legal climate.
You don't have to agree or believe that and I don't care if you do, that's simply the view that I think/feel and a lot of other men do when it comes to relationships and dating.
When you look at it from the standpoint that most women innately have value from a young age and that men have to prove themselves to be anyone, it makes sense. 80% of guys (according to the 80/20 rule) rarely if at all even get laid, says a lot and means a lot - more is expected to be deemed "worthy" and due to the nature of hypergamy, a man who doesn't get laid probably isn't anyone unless he consciously rejects women.
FleetingWish 10y ago
So, under what conditions can a man love unconditionally? Or are you already aware of the contradiction?
I am in agreement that there is this thing called hypergamy, and I am in agreement that women don't love unconditionally (because no one does), but I think you are mismatching these two pieces and that's why you are off base. Hypergamy doesn't cause us to love someone else. Think of hypergamy to a woman like "physical attractiveness" to a man. There will always be more physically attractive women around, but that doesn't mean men are likely to stop loving their partner when someone more attractive comes along, what's important is that their partner is physically attractive enough for their standards, plus other factors that make her worth staying with. The fact that she has to meet his beauty standards is important though, and is why men stop loving "unconditionally" when she gains 100lbs.
Similarly, there will always be a more successful men around women, but that doesn't mean women are likely to stop loving their partner when someone more successful comes along, what's important is that their partner is someone better than themselves, plus other factors that make him worth staying with. The fact that he has to meet her success standards is important though, and is why women stop loving "unconditionally" when he's been out of work for more than a year.
It's easy to see why you think that's the case, you're a man, and you love those who are dependent on you. But, you also know that men and women love differently. Now, I cannot speak to the baby case, because I do not understand the mechanism that attaches a woman to her baby, since I don't have one, so you'll have to excuse me if I restrict the conversation to a love relationship between a man and a woman.
It's entirely true that women have certain luxuries in a love relationship that a man does not have. I believe this is what you are specifically referring to when you are talking about men being able to love unconditionally. Under the conditions that a women cries, or fusses, or loses her job, or has a bad day, and needs to be emotionally vulnerable, she gets to do that, and a man will love her regardless of that. It's easy to be envious of that, but don't forget what you get in exchange for that, because while men love women who are dependent on them, women love men they can respect. While you don't get a partner who you can confide in, you get one who idolizes you, who will listen to every word you say, who practically worships the ground you walk on, who will do everything she can to please you and make you happy. Under the condition that you hold respect she will continue to love you (worship you) unconditionally, that's how hypergamy works. What you have is worthy of envy too, women envy men's ability to have their opinion mean something in relationships. If you need proof that women sometimes wish they could have respect in their relationships, just ask a feminist. But you can't have respect, and dissolve into a puddle of tears every time a puppy is sad on TV. We get to dissolve into puddles, and you get respect, that's the way it is. Now you may wish you can be the former all you want, but you have to be able to acknowledge that there's no way to have both, and being a man you probably prefer the latter anyway.
Of course not, you shouldn't care what I think. What you should care about is whether or not you're right.
This, I understand, it can be upsetting to take the red pill, and realize that women aren't perfect princesses. That's why I made the comment about "being sure it's true for a lot of relationships". Ideas like this don't come out of thin air. It is true for a lot of relationships that women don't love their men in a way that they wish they could be loved, but the problem is two-fold. The first reason is women not loving their men due to beta behavior, and the second is men having the wrong expectation of how women should love (wanting women to love men as puddles, when women are only capable of loving men as heroes). Remember men and women love differently.
Bakerofpie 10y ago
I love this. This is exactly what I think whenever I hear about how men can love unconditionally while women don't. I do not think that anyone loves truly unconditionally, and if they do that is some sort of sad mental disorder. If you have no standards for what inspires such a deep feeling from within you there is something seriously wrong. Once acknowledging that we love differently, it becomes clear that our requirements for maintaining love for our partners are quite similar. A martyr syndrome is a far cry from still being in love.
You also brought up the respect vs protection aspect, which I hadn't thought of before. I think that's a really good point, though. My husband could never respect me in the same way I respect him. I worship the ground he walks on. Just about my entire life revolves around pleasing him, and keeping him comfortable and happy. If he reciprocated that sort of adoration for me my respect for him could not exist the same as it does now. One of parts of TRP that still trips me up sometimes is remembering that the way we love is different. It doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
[deleted]
BobRossNTV 10y ago
I'd say a mothers love is fairly unconditional.
Additionally, I'd like to add in a point, and lets be honest here, it tends to be the men letting themselves go the hardest in middle age. I don't often see too many 200lb women but damn do I see a ton of sad, fat 40-something men.
[deleted] 10y ago
omg where do you live? lets all move there. all i see is 1000 lb women yelling at their skinny husbands who look 10 yrs younger than them in the supermarket
domesticatedvixen 10y ago
I moved to a large city in the US recently (coming from small town America), and part of my faith in humanity has been restored. Sure, there are still the fat and unattractive people running around, but I can go downtown any day and see men in suits, wearing nice shoes, and women in pretty skirts with heels. It is lovely.
BobRossNTV 10y ago
America.
I think what you're experiencing is called confirmation bias. You have a stereotype of the wives being overweight and bossy and every time you see that you check off another occurrence of that. However you'd probably in your observations tend to pass over examples that defy your stereotype.
That's the tricky thing with stereotypes. It only takes one example to start it but many many examples to end it.
Plus I'd say husbands and wives don't shop together too much.
I'll try and look up the statistics, but I believe men may have a greater propensity for obesity. That's just anecdote for now though.
[deleted] 10y ago
your post expressed the same confirmation bias
by the way i looked it up and yes, males are more overweight across the board than females. blacks and hispanics are overwhelmingly more overwieght that whites, the poor are overwhelmingly more overweight than the wealthy. i was just expressing surprise you lived in a place where you experience the opposite to me regularly, not making a statement about the whole world. i live in a very "diverse" working class area, its all fatpig women.
eatplaycrush 10y ago
I am sorry, but I agree with Dana. I hardly see women who take care of theirselves properly and definitely see men who are smaller then the women they are with 9/10 times. I would like to know where you live too because apparently we all live in the wrong States.
sandpaperwalls 10y ago
I have to agree, It is far more often that I see an overweight woman with an attractive man, than the other way around. I do see many more people who are heavy set with someone else who is as well, but I really can't remember the last time I saw an attractive women with a heavy set man, unless he was wearing a tailored suit, well groomed, and sitting at a restaurant that's $70+ a plate.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
I don't speak whatever lefty Newsweek you wrote that last reply in. Sorry
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]