Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
DextroShade 11mo ago
I heard Kevin Samuels "I'm a PhD!" soundbite in my head when I was reading this.
mattyanon TRP Endorsed 11mo ago
TLDR: Can't attract attractive men, blames men.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Typo-MAGAshiv Posting for Shitpost Saturday/Weekend Content.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"Just wondering if it's normal to feel so unimpressed after a first date"
Oh, I'm sure that is perfectly normal for all the guys that you meet on dates.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Founding member of FapGPT 11mo ago
That's what years of poundme2 have done to the average male. No way in hell we'll risk getting labeled as a criminal for trying to hold your hand.
Gee, I wonder why men who knows he can get better out of life are not going out on dates with you.
What? What does that even mean?
Welp, time to invest in diploma-shaped dildos.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
And of course this is the sort of woman that will admit no culpability on the part of herself and her sisterhood for that.
Justanaverageguy 11mo ago
To sum it up, she wants emotionally unavailable Chad and she’s trying to make these guys that but they are their own man. She wants all men to be the same and act the same, variety is not the spice of life to women like her.
Everpax 11mo ago
It means she gets the ick from a guy that's enthusiastic about spending time with her. What she wants is a walking contradiction of a man who has only a modicum of interest in her and, by all indication, should have much better options available to him, yet keeps asking her out for some inexplicable reason.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
correct. She is looking for a man that treats her with disdain, ideally because he is so far above her in SMV value. She wants a man that treats her like the dog shit that she is.
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 11mo ago
Yup. Like most women, she wants fried ice.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
One woman griped "old men in their 70's have so much more game than young men today" and the reason for that is that if a man stumbled, he didn't get knocked down as hard as possible. He might even make an off-color joke at work and at worst, the guys would tell him to behave and that would be that. Men simply can't "practice" confidence anymore without deep diving academically into PUA and most normal men this woman meets haven't done so. They're human beings, ick!
This "educated" woman has zilch social skills herself. For example, she doesn't know how to signal to men to feel comfortable (so their self-confidence goes up), to provide her own energy (so they don't feel a need to drag her along like sleeping beauty and so on). Aside from her Bitch Boss academics, she's emotionally a 13 year old.
I dated a dozen corporate nuns like this back in the 1990's. They had low body counts but their personalities were a natural contraceptive.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Yup. I think a lot of people equate modern women with the CC. Plenty of women do partake. But then there’s women like this who seem to only be interested in her career and social status. Absolutely nothing excites her.
So imagine being with a woman like that. Extremely low libido and always serious. Sounds like a fun time.
Elegiast 11mo ago
Honestly, I really miss the good old times I never got to experience. If it was even halfway close to old timey shows such as "Mad Men", it must've been truly heaven on earth.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I don't think you would have liked the 60s. Men could hardly get any pussy at all.
I think the high point was really the 90s. It was the last pre-internet era, and it was fucking awesome. HR was just some tiny bit of a corporation, you could fuck anyone you wanted with no comeback (you needed evidence for a rape conviction) and it work was based on merit, not on skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation. If you came to work in the 90s and said that you were now a transsexual that identified as binary, your boss would say "That's great - but have you squared off Q2 sales?"
I remember working in corporate in London in the 90s and it was great. I fucked a few women actually on premises, once on the floor of board room which had a small window in the door. A manager that we knew was caught on CCTV fucking a colleague in the underground parking. We all had a good laugh about it, and nobody got hurt so His line manager basically said - 'Look, please don't do it again'. We were all adults, and we all got treated like adults, and as a result we all behaved like adults. There was never any question of 'getting HR involved'. HR was only used to hire people. There was no ESG, no D&I and no 'implicit bias training'. I had a few black friends in corporate, and we all got along great. Because there were no diversity hires, everyone assumed (correctly) that any senior coloured folk had got there on merit.
It was great when we all had mobile phones, but all you could do was call each other (no internet on mobile). Going out on the town was a hoot - you'd go out after work, usually in a group of males, bump into other groups of females, and it was quite easy to score. I reckon the conversion rate was roughly 50%. There was zero 'dating'. No dating at all. If you bought one of the girls a drink, she would buy one for you. It was the era of equality, real equality.
It was a great time. More men were getting more sex, things were not so expensive (bought my first house, a 4 bed house, at 26), we were less racist, we read more books and had more fun. Travel was fun and cheap. A weeks holiday in Greece cost about £150 (flight and hotel) and you were guaranteed at least 2 shags with a minimum of effort.
And the girls looked great in the 90s. They had all started wearing thongs, and shaving / waxing their pussies. It was common to see girls with pigtails. It was not uncommon for women to really dress sexy at work, like stockings and high heels to impress the guys.
Man, those were the days.
Elegiast 11mo ago
To be honest, I don't want to have as much sex as I can. I want a good woman that I can come back to after a long day at work, who will take care of all of my needs.
I think 50-60s were the ideal period for this, as the gender roles were enforced by society, but not so strictly that you couldn't actually have casual dates/casual sex occasionally. The hamster needs to be kept at bay by the patriarchy. In the modern times, we see what happens when women are let out to the pasture without the shepherd that is the society pressuring them to act correctly.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I think you may be wrong on this one man.
You can't have it both ways. If you go back to the 50s 60s, sure, you could find a woman to be a homemaker, and she'd stay home and make dinner, and greet you with a drink when you got home.
But there really wasn't any way to have casual sex. Most guys got married young because they were so desperate for sex. You can't have it both ways - there can't be enough women to go around for every guy to have a housewife PLUS lots of sluts in bars for us to fuck when we get bored. That's just reality.
Its either or. Either we go back to the 50s, and have a society in which its impossible to to pick up chicks, because chicks want to get married OR we have the degeneracy of the today.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
"You can't have it both ways - there can't be enough women to go around for every guy to have a housewife PLUS lots of sluts in bars for us to fuck when we get bored. That's just reality."
But yet, we're facing the opposite conundrum today: The sexual marketplace is packed full of single women with bad attitudes. It's like the more milk there is on the market, the more expensive it's getting.
Each city and country had it's own era and marketplace, of course, which is what some men (including myself) discovered in the 1990's. Consider that housewives not only took a man off of the sexual marketplace to compete with other men, but also back then helped raise wages as she went to work part-time at an easier job and an intact family consumed less resources as compared to broken ones.
I chatted with guys who came of age in the 1960's and it wasn't like Austin Powers at all, but the 1970's were another matter and similar to what you describe as the 1990's. American women back then often did pay their way on dates and there were even men walking around with purses. I kid you not. There's this "nice feminist" era for about a decade or so until the women realize they don't want that and revert to type.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
The conundrum we are facing today is this: feminism has morphed beyond all recognition. The feminism that we say in the 80s and 90s was about equality and modernity - women wanted to have what men had - the ability to work and do 'mans' jobs. Whether you agree with that is a separate argument (won't go into it now) but that is what it was about. And we gave it to them, in the name of progress.
Fast forward to today, and what we have is what I call 'crypto-feminism'. Which is characterised as follows;
The have zero interest at all in 'equality'. They want special treatment. For example, they don't want women to become CEOs or high level politicians due to merit, they want that as part of some sort of diversity allocation. They legit want women to be treated as some sort of 'minority' (even though they are slightly in the majority, the irony!). Which is why you have the current crop of totally useless value destructive women CEOs - they are diversity hires. The modern women is not interested in equality, they want women to be selected for CEO, even if the woman is clearly worse than the male candidate.
The modern feminist wave wants to blend special rights of women WITH the old fashioned 'chivalry'. ie. we get to hold open doors for them, pay for their drinks and dinner, but they still get paid the same.
The modern feminist is not interested in equality of treatment, for example, in the family courts. They will cry bloody murder if a man is a stay at home dad, she brings home the bacon, and the courts award him custody. Not fair they say.
This is why most men have zero interest in wifing up modern woman. It's because we're not stupid.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
I concur that men bought into the feminist lie at one point and women did try to sell it differently in different countries. In the states, it was during the 1960's and 1970's when the "Equal Rights Amendment" was proposed and Phylis Schlafy, a traditionalist, nuked it by saying that women faced getting drafted and that was the end of that. (The feminists were in a no-win scenario in that if they denied that women would really be drafted, they'd be admitting that it was pretend equality all along). Most of them were simply wearing masks and this is when the traditions of “asker pays” and American women “offering to pay” (but then getting disgusted he was “cheap” if he accepted) came about. All of this nonsense was from the very start. I had tremendous fun turning this game back around at them when I took them up on the offer and they had this look in their eyes: “How dare you!!!" back in 1986.
Note that the feminists all along were planning for supremacy, not “equality”. A few of them were sincere and they became virtually indistinguishable from MRA’s who also hoped to reform “feminism” and make it about equality but note they were ALWAYS in the minority. This goes back to the early 1980’s. Feminists will claim they did nice things for men, and they’d be accurate, but those were the MRA ones who were decried by the other feminists.
I can’t speak for how things were in Europe and elsewhere, but in the states even back in the 1980’s, I would have a discussion with feminists denying they were man-haters and then as soon as I confronted them on their own sexist attitudes they would trot out “The Patriarchy” and “male privilege” and then I’d point out “See? Do you think THIS is man-hating?” and then I’d get shown the door so to speak. They were ALWAYS full of shit.
Anita Hill came out with her version of “metoo” in 1991. What was the big deal about? Allegedly, Clarence Thomas “harassed” her by saying that there were hairs on his coke can and they looked pubic. Oh my! Poor Anita Hill! This was worse than Auschwitz!!! (Note that Anita Hill portrayed herself as being from a “traditional” family but she was outed as a raging feminist vulgarian the rest of the time so this statement wouldn’t have shocked her normally.) The 1990’s in the states were as bad as metoo. I know guys whose careers were destroyed over saying stuff that even a Stalinist would think wasn’t a big deal.
Some of the feminists in a jovial mood would even admit that they “fooled” men and just wanted the legal rights and to demand more as much as possible and men are “suckers” and should just accept it. They even argued their double standards with a wink in their eye, so to speak, online and would add “tee hee” when they got The Patriarchy to treat them as victims and give them goodies.
Affirmative action was in place in the USA and it was mitigated somewhat by a few factors one of which is that women were slow to enter the workplace at first AND there wasn’t mass cheap labor white-guilt immigration kicking in just yet so jobs were still plentiful up to the mid 1990’s. White women largely took all the good entry level jobs via affirmative action and pushed out African American men. I often like to joke with them that feminism did more harm to African American fathers than Jim Crow.
The myth of “nice feminism” is something they strive to perpetuate in the hopes of giving their rights legitimacy. That it was a great movement but just needs to get “back on track”.
TL:dr: Feminists even from suffragettes were always about equality only when it suited them and each wave just got more blatant about it as they gained power and time went on. A few of them were truly “nice” feminists, but most of them became Men’s Rights Activists and were shunned by the other feminists. I suspect even their motives in that they are aware that feminism cannot be reformed but they hope to placate men by being “nice” so women can keep the goodies. I say this because I explain to them the damage feminism has done to society and they come back with a “to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs” type of argument. Of course, they don’t mind this when they think the majority of sufferers from their wonderful ideology are men (or even children.)
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 11mo ago
You should give a read to The Fraud of Feminism by Ernest Belfort Bax. It's not a long read. Almost more of a pamphlet than a proper book. In it you'll find more or less all the same criticisms of the feminist movement as you'd find in any given online space today.
Here's the trick: it was first published in January 1913.
What you call "crypto-feminism" is feminism. It's what it's always been. It was never about equality.
The idea it was, that it's only the misbehavior and overzealous pursuit of modern activists (of which era is immaterial) is the greatest lie the ideology has ever sold.
varginha_alien 11mo ago
Or, as you said, you have the 90s.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
The 90s were probably better described as 'hedonistic' rather than degenerate. They truly were great times.
The thing that makes the 90s so much better than today is that we didn't have the crypto-feminism. We just had genuine equality. Women did not expect or demand that men bring them out on dates before they considered whether they would let us fuck them. They didn't do this, because they would not have gotten any traction doing it. Women are as entitled as circumstances will allow - and todays system lets women behave like harlots but demand that men court them with expensive dinners BEFORE hand.
The 90s was perfect. I would clock off work at 6pm on a Friday, grab a few mates from the bank, and we'd wander over to the nearest bar. There was no going home and getting changed to go out - we'd go straight from the bank to the pub in our suits. The only thing we'd do is take our tie off and stick in the outside jacket pocket. Then straight to gaming and boozing. The pubs would be full of late 20s early 30s office hotties. They knew the rules - there is no dating. There is no romantic dinners, no entertaining. Often it was pull time by 9.30 and you'd wander off home with some girl you just met.
It truly was the age of equality. Women had campaigned for equality, and we gave it to them. There was no 'women in business' program at the bank, because that would have been viewed as sexist. We had women in the bank, and the onus on them was to get down to business and take it like a man.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Yes, you are being a picky bitch. What a surprise.
The usual womanese of "fried ice" in the form of "lacks self confidence" but at the same time has "too much energy". Which is it, slut? I mean fuck, how do you even get in a car and drive down the fucking road knowing that there are actual streets and shit you will have to DECIDE to turn on? (Maybe that is why women drivers have such a bad rap, lol)
Is her whole life an estrogen-induced haze where facts fall to the ground like snow, only to be trampled and ignored?
But no, I know what this is. Its the framing of herself as a victim. As the 'goddess' that can do no wrong, so the entire world must be flawed in some way. Won't someone please point out all the mean things that are holding her back? Its just so she can shake her angel wings and flutter on to another target, harvesting their resources until she quits after "settling" for someone who loves her.
Stay unimpressed, at least you will be saving future men from dealing with your pea-brain bullshit.
oowiw Jr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"There's always a reason I don't feel like having a second date with them"
The reason is always the same: You realize they're not a better deal than the guy you just left.
orbilius 11mo ago
She forgot the most important rule of monkey branching - she should have upgraded before letting go of the previous branch.
MovinCruisin 11mo ago
To be fair, there is some difficulty in that: she'd have to recognize her (ex) partner being worth something, which requires she be able to appreciate a man.
She perhaps forgot she was holding on to a branch at all and thought she was just that tall.
maseboogie Jr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Women who toot their horns about having multiple degrees and/or their own business are what I like to call an A.S.S.: Anti-Social Snobs. They have ZERO social skills due to being wrapped up in their academic endeavors, yet they believe they're entitled to a man who damn near has A-list actor levels of popularity to overcompensate for their boring ass (or straight up lack of) personality. There was a comment (paraphrasing) from a YT video I watched years ago that sums it up perfectly:
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
She is focusing on the degree thing, but I think that is a distraction.
Gentlemen of the jury, I would call your attention to these two lines:
Other posters have been confused by these, saying that they contradict each other. Au contraire, mon amis. Au contraire.
She is clearly signaling what she is missing. She is missing the arrogance and disinterest of chad. You know how most women KNOW a chad when they see one? Because the chads are arrogant and disdainful of them.
The majority of women (I suspect around 80-90%) believe that if a man is interested in her, then he must be trash/beta. They learn this through experience. In their late teens and 20s, they will meet a few top 10% guys. And the one thing that those guys all have in common is that they are really not interested in mid women like her. They'll certainly smash and dash them, just to get the numbers in, but they are fundementally not interested in them. A quick pump and dump ...maybe. That is the sign of chad.
So when she meets a guy who is enthusiastic and 'into her' on a date (what she describes as 'too much energy'), she immediately classifies him as beta. Deep down, she KNOWS that she is worthless, so if a guy is really into her, he must be worthless as well.
If there are any young men reading this - this is a very important lesson. Women say they want men that treat them like their special - this is a lie. They want men that treat them with contempt and disdain, that are indifferent to them. They want arrogant, self centred, selfish and self important men.
The hardest things to understand are those that make no sense.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Good points - and yes, I did misinterpret those two things. I learn something new every day, so progress counts.
It reminds me of "hoe_math" and his 2-D matrix that defines a few things along those lines. His 'ick' chart is pretty good, in the sense of how to discriminate between "oh shit, its my problem" and "she's unsalvagable" part of the spectrum.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I think that anyone that actually hates herself deep down is unsalvageable. They are easy to game, fun to shag, but they are not suitable for LTRs. And I would estimate that about 90% of women hate themselves. There are many, many signs that a woman hates herself. Here are some of them;
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"There's always a reason why I don't want a second date"
She is way past her prime, but her standards have gone up. KS said it quite well when he said .."Your problem is that the kind of men that you want, don't want you".
I think its a great insight, but I think its even better when you invert the order of the sentence:
"Your problem is that you don't want the kind of man that would want you."
And that, gentlemen, is the issue for 98% of women over 30 that are looking for a man. They go on OLD, and they go on dates, and they go out in IRL, and they simply do not want the kind of men that want them.
What she wants is a high value man. And a high value man has options - and those options include NOT having to settle for a toxic cunt with an empty egg basket, he can easily find an agreeable 26 year old that is fertile and pleasing.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Modern women treat dates like a job interview. What she fails to realise is that she is getting rejected - the guys that she meets on dates probably talk to her for a short while and realise that she is not a suitable candidate for the position of wife. Next please.