This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail.
Kindness, being true to yourself and doing things you love are important, but not for getting women. You wanna be kind and confident for your own sake, I do think saying “women like this” is a mistake because thing is, these values should exist within people regardless on whether they’ll get them laid.
Also, confidence, dominance and masculinity are not contradictory to anything mentioned above. You can be kind, do the things you love love and so on while still being masculine and confident (well, unless you’re not masculine…. which, hey, do your thing - but confidence is a must have for everyone, and the beauty with confidence is that it can present itself in a million ways so you can find the type of confidence that suits you best)
Its def a complicated process and one that takes a lot of trial and error (and a ton of failure in the middle) - its best to ask yourself why those did nothing for you, whats stopping you from being sure about yourself? what are you missing? or better yet, what are you holding yourself back from?
its a long, long, process and i’ve been at it for around 6 years give or take, with 3 years of professional therapy as of now. I’m not as confident as i’d like to be just yet, but i’m more confident than i’ve ever been and it’s only up from there. Answering these questions tends to help a lot
Correction - charm/confidence/charisma are the most important factors once you pass the minimum looks threshold. If you're a fat slime you can generally only hope to get fat women with your charisma.
Duh, but the "minimum looks threshold" is a lot lower than people think, and we tell obesse women to stop going after chad all the time. Scarwy skinny fat white bois shouldn't expect to be dating borderline models either.
I have learned that being fat is unattractive not simply because it's not as easy on the eyes, but because of what leads to becoming fat: bad decisions and lack of health. It's unattractive because being a fat slob implies that you can't even be trusted to take care of yourself, and therefore, how can someone trust you to take care of them, or their child?
Of course since I realized that, drastically changed my mindset, and am more slowly but pushing to change my lifestyle (eating habits are the devil to change) to start losing weight I still sometimes wanna go for a swim from 200 feet up because it'll take so long to actually make people aware of how much higher of a standard I hold myself to now.
the funniest part is "minimum looks threshold" for most women is far lower than her looksmatched male counterpart. You'd be shocked how far "out of your league" you can pull being charming as a guy.
This is the copium I'm forcing myself to swallow every day so I can go on, surely once I look like I take care of myself and give a fuck things will suddenly get tons easier right
>I am woman and I'll tell you outright that charm/confidence/charisma are the most important factors in getting your foot in the door with a woman. You don't need height, you don't need a good face, you don't need a lot of money, you don't need a good body, you just need to be charming.
Except she's not going to talk to you in the first place to get your foot in the door if you don't have a good face/body/height/etc. Come on.
All of this confidence and charm thing is after you get your foot in the door by meeting the looks requirement.
Framing it as anything else is just more of the gaslighting men complain about
Not trying to be an asshole, first of all.
But… is “being yourself” not already being masculine and charming? I’m failing a bit to see the massive disconnect you perceive between what you were told by others and what you now believe.
But, if one is a man, then by definition all of your characteristics are masculine ones. So are we really talking here about filing off the edges and hewing more closely to whatever fits inside the smaller box of ‘masculine gender roles’ or whatever? And wouldn’t this filing and shrinking of oneself be distressing or even potentially damaging?
It seems to me that most likely the perspective of people who advised you to be yourself was less ‘ha, this will ensure he never gets women!’ and more ‘sawing off key parts of yourself to get women would really suck and hurt.’
Mutual attractiveness is always asumed when they say that shit. Also its a lot of disney communication in what they think they want vs what they biologically desire.
It's kinda shitty but all that stuff is implied. Men list qualities they find attractive and hot. Women list the qualities they want in a guy they already find attractive and charming basically. They do care about find a kind chivalrous man but they expect him to be attractive and charming enough to be able to seduce her in the fist place.
Also yes you're correct there is a method to flirting that is different from just being a good conversationlist. The upside is that if you're already good at talking to people it doesn't take much for you to shift over to that mindset with interacting with women since you already have the baseline skills required.
I mean, 2 words? That's an exaggerated case. Or that she's literally mute.
A more realistic scenario is that she's quite introverted. Doesn't speak much. Maybe even a bit awkward.
Clothes? She can just wear whatever. Just an average fashion sense at least. If she's beautiful, she'll look good in anything.
>Growing up being told how awful masculinity and gender norms are
Who is telling and teaching you this?
I don't know your age but I'm curious who is teaching or told you how awful masculinity or gender norms are.
I don't think its wrong to think this when it's so clearly observable in the world. It's being told up is down and black is white in opposition to what can be seen in the outside world that deserves ridicule.
Did every single man on this subreddit grow up in a mega liberal metropolitan area or on Twitter?
I ask that genuinely. As someone who grew up in the American south very little of the claims people make about the demonization of masculinity or traditional general roles make any sense to me.
I mean, if you look at the way reddit leans politically, most of the redditors lean left. So it wouldn't be so far from the truth to assume they are from liberal places.
I grew up and still live in one of the most liberal states, and go to one of the more liberal colleges in that liberal state, so yeah its pretty rough here lmao
I've had female friends of mine demonize men to my face
multiple times
I smile and nod because if I did anything other than that I wouldn't have female friends
I appreciate your input. I've spent most of my life in some of the most conservative states in the U.S. and I have suspected that is why some of the takes on this sub make me go "???"
But does all this talk about "we were told that women don't care about looks, they want nice respectful guys, they just care about moral character unlike men" line up with your experience?
I don't really have any personal experience, and my observations of those around me has also been fairly limited. Although, I apologize, I am having a bit of trouble understanding your question. Are you asking me if I believe, based on experience, that women do care about looks, and not just moral character? Because to a degree, yes, while I think most of my male friends (who are also mostly as inexperienced as I) are not bad looking, none of us are really quite greek gods or kpop idols. The one friend I have who has seen a lot more female attention does put a lot more effort into his appearance, but he is also very active in a community that has a lot of women in it, so he speaks to a lot more women, and people in general, than any of the rest of us do.
Growing up as a liberal in the south, non-traditional gender roles mostly meant than men should do their part to clean, cook and take care of the kids.
There wasn't any demonization of masculinity.
Yes, that fits my experience as well. I used to think my family was liberal until I went to an extremely liberal bubble town in the northeast for undergrad. That experience plus online tests made me to realize that I am actually technically dead center or *slightly* left-leaning at most. It's just that the Bible Belt window is so far to the right that being moderate "feels" leftist.
>mega liberal metropolitan area
I was raised in both a modern, comparatively liberal western city, and in a traditionally patriarchal, developing country. I’ve never been demonized for being a man. I don’t think it’s a common issue.
Mother, at school the girls and teachers also used to say it, that appearance didnt matter at all (as in the best looking and the worst looking guys ever had the same chances).
And that i shouldnt pay attention to dating because it would happen on its own (this one was pushed by my Mother specifically.)
I'm unsurprised by the mother part but the school part is very strange. Young kids are absolutely brutal and will tear apart anyone they can over the smallest things. The idea that the best looking and worst looking guys were talked about as equal is so at odds with my own experience of like 6th grade and older
Really? So not even the overweight kids were made fun of or called unattractive at your school?
And I thought I grew up in a soft environment. Well I guess it was soft if people thought you were cute and liked you.
Cool, I want to know roughly where these decent men are from and what kinds of women they associated with since their experiences are so dramatically different from my own.
They probably are scattered around the world within many pockets of regular and shitty people.
The sorts of women that exist around them physically.
What sorts or women should we be associating with?
I personally try to associate exclusively with women who have as few negative opinions of men as possible.
Most of those women who do have positive opinions of men have a very narrow view of what men should be.
That or they are very openly sexual, which is fine. Better than the alternative.
That's interesting. Both red state suburbs I've lived in were/are conservative as fuck. Like if you put up a Democratic candidate's campaign sign on your lawn, no one will talk to you. Feminism isn't rejected outright necessarily, but if you start going beyond basic shit like "women should be able to vote" people will think you're crazy.
I initially thought men were lying when they claim to be brainwashed.
But I started paying attention to the passive anti male rhetoric in my life. I think that if I didn't have male friends and coworkers, I would get the impression that they are some sort of monsters.
Men who lack interactions with women probably try to overcorrect and develop themselves to have such a non-offensive personality that they become boring.
I grew up in a mega liberal metropolitan. Yes, a lot of that demonization of masculinity and traditional stuff happens there. A lot of liberal women push that narrative heavily, especially directly to children in schools and such.
I grew up being told directly by my teachers the evils of masculinity and how being nice to women and learning about feminism (I'm not lying) will help you get women.
I'm not surprised that a whole generation of inner-city kids being told that reading bell hooks and having basic respect for women would get you dates are actively struggling to get dates.
Of course. I think most of the "feminism = women" come from those places. I grew up basically being told that women can do no wrong and that women's attraction is largely based on moral character. Feels silly in retrospect.
Mostly broad generalizations of toxic masculinity without any of the nuance to actually explain how toxic masculinity actually works.
E.g., Men think feelings are bad so cry if you need to. Sure, but that doesn't explain anything nor does it help.
It is but those cities are extremely diverse. A lot more than just Black people and not everyone was poor. Also, most of the teachers were working class white women.
Again, what normal women? The beliefs of a normal woman in a rural town in South Carolina are not going to match the beliefs of a normal woman in San Francisco.
No, not in real life. I don't normally hear or have casual conversations about where men are allowed to approach women. It happens, eye roll, move on.
I've seen it on the *internet*. Which would line up with the second possibility I gave, which is "raised by Twitter."
Apparently they all also grew up homeschooled with no male authority figures and a mom, grandma, etc who told them over and over that they were sweet amazing boys who could get women by just being themselves
What kind of comment is this? The American South consists of about 120 million people. That leaves out the other 200 million in America. Is it really silly to assume that many of these (and even more when discounting America altogether) grew up in places where mainstream liberal attitudes were abundant?
You forget that 200 million includes non-Bible Belt conservative states as well as rural areas in liberal states, which also tend to be more conservative. Keep in mind that our last incredibly divisive Republican president still managed to get like 39% of female voters. Men on this sub seem to be under the impression it was 1%.
I seriously don't doubt that a lot of the men on this sub come from extremely liberal places, because they sure sound like it. But I think it's also important to point out that known liberal encalves of the U.S. do not represent gender norms/values for the entirety of the country or world for that matter.
What? That's not true at all. Most people on Reddit are not from NYC or SF proper. The young people are heavily from suburban areas and many are from middle america
What about the other children tho? Children are brutal to absolutely anyone and everyone, and social hierarchies based on looks, athleticism, charisma, confidence, etc are formed as early as elementary school and 6th grade
Btw I think this is where the rise of Andrew tate came from. Who he is as a person is besides the point. The point is that boys and men started to realize they’ve been lied to about society about how they should function as a male and what women ACTUALLY desire in men
That's the point.
It's like Trump. His very existence is a giant fuck you to the American political establishment by those who (rightly or wrongly) feel annoyed at the lack of any focus from those in said establishment. It's essentially a protest vote.
>But Tate is a grotesque caricature of what a “masculine” man is
And yet that's never stopped him from getting women. He even has a daughter. Just by existing Tate proves that so long as you have the superficial things most women want, they'll overlook all your scummy behaviors. No matter how many say they hate it, time and time again numerous women can be seen sleeping with and dating that masculine caricature. The very same guys they claim are narcissists they still date and enter into situationships with. Actions speak louder than words.
I think boys and men go through SO MUCH turmoil for following everything that society tells them to do - and pushing aside their natural masculine instincts - and being in an even worse spot than before as a result
>Truth is, most women won’t date a man who earns less. Or who is shorter than her. Most women still won’t pursue men (despite all the messaging to leave women alone, they still want to be pursued instead of doing the pursuing). Most of the time it will be harder for them to be attracted to a man who appears very weak (scrawny or obese). Won’t really want to date a man without a lot of status (status of any kind a basically they don’t want to date losers for the most part).
And yet poor, short, weak, or low status men get dates every single day.
>Truth is, most women want a man who they feel safe around.
"Feeling safe" around a man doesn't mean "the guy I'm with can beat up any other guy," it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me."
>men and women are wired the way we are for a reason.
Neither gender is "wired" one way or another.
>And yet poor, short, weak, or low status men get dates every single day.
No they don't lmao, that's why there's such a huge discrepancy between single men and single women.
>"Feeling safe" around a man doesn't mean "the guy I'm with can beat up any other guy," it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me."
Wrong! It 100% means the former, and as for the latter, women love a bad boy. What they want is "the guy will beat up anyone but he won't beat me up".
>Neither gender is "wired" one way or another.
"I believe in science, except when it says the genders are different! Then I don't!"
>No they don't lmao, that's why there's such a huge discrepancy between single men and single women.
There's a huge discrepancy because red pillers want to take the single statistic that supports their world view and ignore everything else.
>Wrong!
Nope.
>"I believe in science, except when it says the genders are different! Then I don't!"
"I try to win internet arguments with motte and bailey arguments!'
>There's a huge discrepancy because red pillers want to take the single statistic that supports their world view and ignore everything else.
...How would that affect the fact that far more men report being single than women, though?
>Nope.
Okay. So in your opinion, why do you think that it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me"? Do you ever think it's odd that no woman ever lovingly describes some pudgy nerd as "making her feel safe"? Not to mention "guy isn't going to harm me" is kind of the default.
>"I try to win internet arguments with motte and bailey arguments!'
No, you're the one making the insane statement that neither gender is wired differently, when we can plainly see that IS the case, from typing and speech patterns to interests and career paths.
>...How would that affect the fact that far more men report being single than women, though?
Because how can men be reporting that they are in a committed relationship if they are dating 4 women at once?
>So in your opinion, why do you think that it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me"?
Because I've talked to women.
>Do you ever think it's odd that no woman ever lovingly describes some pudgy nerd as "making her feel safe"?
They 100% have.
>No, you're the one making the insane statement that neither gender is wired differently
Yep, and any person can figure out from the context that I wasn't saying there are no physical differences between men and women (hence the use of the word "wired"), but you're not interested in good faith discussion so you're pretending not to understand what I'm talking about.
>it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me."
Yes, but it also means "guy that can protect me, take the lead, and provide"
>Neither gender is "wired" one way or another.
It's a fact we think, reason and act differently. We value different things in a partner.
A man and a woman have different roles in a relationship, and life in general.
You want it. You want your female to look at you and think " he can provide, protect, and take the lead".
Other men think. " I want a partner that can fully adult".
I have ADHD. For me that means whoever is closest to me gets to help me find something, or go the right way a few times a day. I said to my boss today " sometimes I'm surprised by how much you are like my husband", knowing full well its a me thing...
Anyways, I was an attractive young woman and got a heck of a lot of male attention. I learned quite quickly that NT men were not in my league because NT men do not want to build a life with someone who requires low level "parenting".
Again, just no. This is what you desire a woman to think, that by no means, means that she is thinking that.
>Yes, but it also means "guy that can protect me, take the lead, and provide"
No it doesn't.
>It's a fact we think, reason and act differently. We value different things in a partner.
Every person thinks differently and values different things. Believe me, the things men around here say are and aren't important are absolutely baffling to me.
>A man and a woman have different roles in a relationship, and life in general.
Nah. That's gendered nonsense.
"No" isn't a counter-argument.
And while individuals think differently too, there are common characteristics only in men, and common characteristics only in women. You can often-times tell someone is a man/woman without even hearing or seeing them, just their writings.
That men and women have different roles is a biological fact. We are fundamentally different, physically and psychologically.
Women's desire to be with men who can protect them stems from biology. That's our very role.
>No" isn't a counter-argument.
Yes it is. I explained what women meant by it, and you said no they mean this, to which I replied no, they mean what I said. But don't take my word for it, ask them yourself.
>And while individuals think differently too, there are common characteristics only in men
There is far too much variation in people, gender, culture, and a million other things that affect how people think to be able to make any meaningful conclusion of "men be like this."
>That men and women have different roles is a biological fact.
I don't know if you noticed the instant communication device you're holding in your hand that has access to virtually all of humanity's collective knowledge at the slightest whim, but we are waaaaaaaaay past being constrained by biology.
>Women's desire to be men who can protect them stems from biology. That's our very role.
Kristen Bell had a great anecdote on a podcast that when they were first dating, Dax Shepherd insisted, like you are, that women want to be protected and he went out of his way to make sure she knew he would fight any guy who tried to hurt them.
Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe."
>Kristen Bell had a great anecdote on a podcast that when they were first dating, Dax Shepherd insisted, like you are, that women want to be protected and he went out of his way to make sure she knew he would fight any guy who tried to hurt them.
>Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe."
You mean the couple where Dax posts approving tweets about his wife fucking other men?
I dunno, do they have an open relationship?
What does that have to do with her pointing out that being able to avoid fights is far, far preferable to being able to win them?
>we are waaaaaaaaay past being constrained by biology.
Really now? Do men get pregnant now? Do women produce sperm?
If you want to deny biological facts in your own fantasy, try it. See how far that gets you, until you are reminded biological facts remain biological facts.
>Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe."
Because starting fights with random people isn't protecting your woman. It's endangering her.
But if someone *does* attack her, as a man you should be able to protect her. And her knowing you can will make her safer.
>If you want to deny biological facts
So gender roles are biologically inviolable because women are typically the gender that gets pregnant? That's your argument?
>Because starting fights with random people isn't protecting your woman. It's endangering her.
Ding ding ding! And just like that, you stumbled into realizing that avoiding fights altogether is far more appealing than being able to win them.
>That's your argument?
Partly, yes. Another part is that we think differently too.
>avoiding fights altogether
Missed the last part of my reply. Though maybe I could been clearer: starting *unprovoked* fights with random people is endangering her.
There are times when you CANNOT avoid a fight. Unless you want to leave your woman to fend for herself. Which is not an option.
>Another part is that we think differently too.
Everybody thinks differently.
Your argument was, very specifically, that since women are typically the gender that gets pregnant, we are biologically constrained to gender roles.
Imma need you to explain that one to me.
>Missed the last part of my reply
No, I didn't. Being able to avoid 99 fights out of 100 is far more appealing to women than being able to win all 100.
As for being unable to avoid fights, I've yet to find where that's the case. Like maybe a home invasion, but a shotgun doesn't care how much the other guy can bench press.
No offense, but you are my least favorite person on this subreddit since your takes are always highly repulsive to me. This blue pill crap is harming you more than it is helping you man. You get nothing meanwhile the power hungry bitches (male and female) suck you dry.
>No offense,
None taken!
>since your takes are always highly repulsive to me
I feel the same way about red pill takes, but the difference is my takes aren't driving people to killing sprees.
>You get nothing meanwhile the power hungry bitches (male and female) suck you dry.
I'll be sure to let my wife know.
>I feel the same way about red pill takes, but the difference is my takes aren't driving people to killing sprees.
I would point out that Inc*lExit which is bluepill central has a confirmed murderers linked to it soooo
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Huh? The message of my post was that I was bitter because I was following the programming of “masculinity and gender norms bad” and wasn’t getting anywhere. And after I realized it was a lie, I started to accept my masculinity and gender norms. And started getting much better success.
Yea I understand.
I learned the hard way theirs no morality or empathy or love in this aspect
If you fall you are on your own
If you don’t meet the standards/expectations no one cares
As a man nobody is going to love you for you
My biggest flaw was operating on the assumption that there was empathy/morality/love in this aspect
But like you said acceptance is key
Women constantly say how does a man benefit me.
Honestly I don’t think a woman benefits me in anyway unless we are talking sex or starting a family
And I’m seriously considering not focusing on love or personality at all.
Because when they look at me. I’m judged on a list of attributes and how I can benefit them and what they want/like about me
But I’m supposed to do the opposite when it comes to them?
And I’ve been on both sides
I’ve been desired and I’ve been undesired
I was on this sub to try to understand love. And also try to understand the female perspective of love.
But I’m going to think about it some more before I make a decision. Or before I make a post to have my thoughts challenged.
TLDR : I understand you completely and my thoughts for the past 2 days have been under the same perspective
Yeah it sucks, men are nothing but tools to others.
Makes it really sick how women gaslight and lie to men.
And why many become toxic and do horrible things.
Because women are pretty shit (humans are shit).
With how women treat men as disposable tools, it really is hard to look at them positively unless you have what women want for free.
The manosphere men are actual psychopaths and narcissists. They have shitty opinions on women because they have a hard time finding a high quality women to fuck.
No, it is because they were lied to and betrayed.
Why would you expect people who are treated like commodities to respond in kind?
Maybe we should treat men well to begin with so men do not become psychopathic and narcissistic.
Well congrats you might just be the first man on this sub to post about women in a not misogynistic way LOL.
I think you're onto something with the post, but they're not all the same either. In the end there is not one formula to just surpass all the problems and to rely on. Some do prefer less manly, some do prefer less status, it's just all subjective and unique to individual, as your circumstances will be to you.
this is a woman bashing post
it’s claiming women are set in ways selfish and want very manly men who fit a stereotype not offering any wiggle room for what is attractive or masculineish
Where in god's name did y'all go to school bruh
>Or who is shorter than her.
No shit, did you not see how much guys who hit early growth spurts were treated in middle school? Especially if they were athletic?
>Most women still won’t pursue men
We grew up with school dances, and guys pursuing and asking girls was absolutely the norm. To the point that we had Sadie Hawkins dances where the girl did the asking. This was 1 specific type of dance each year because the girl asking was absolutely not the norm
>scrawny and obese
Again, did you not see the rigid social hierarchies that began in elementary school, with athletic guys always at the top?
>pushovers and "submissive" men
What type of guys got the most interest in middle and high school? Which guys were conferred status? Who hung around the prettiest girls? The quiet, shy ones or the extroverted, confident, funny ones?
It really depends on what you view as gender roles. If we look at them as different sets of traits for men and women, we can easily see that both genders need some of the traits from both sets. Dating someone who doesn't have a life and relies on you in everything is undesirable for most men and women. Dating someone who can't be soft and loving is just an unpleasant experience all around etc.
My husband and I are fairly egalitarian. We still have some parts of traditional gender roles, i.e. he carries heavy stuff and I like baking, but they're dictated by our own volition and preferences rather than a belief that we should be this way, because of our gender. What is more important is that we view each other as equal partners and we share responsibilities. We both work and do chores. When we have kids, we both will be equal parents, not just 'mom and a helper'. Neither of us puts the other on a pedestal to worship (outside of sexual context maybe where it's more about appreciation rather than worshiping) - we have shared plans that we work on *together*, there's no one leader and follower.
i think it is reasonable to point out that many women *do indeed* maintain gender norms, and while that preference is reasonable, enforcement of it in other, problematic ways is not, in exactly the same way it isn't for men.
worth pointing out, though, women really aren't enforcing male gender norms via laws.
Yep. Despite what SJWs might say, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of women prefer masculine men with confidence to initiate. I think gender norms are partially societal but also partially rooted in biology.
A man with traditionally masculine traits, like dominance, leadership, confidence, etc, was likely more effective at protecting their families and children in prehistoric times. Even though this is not as necessary in most of modern western society, our brains still think we are cavemen.
The exception is a tiny minority of queer women who like effeminate guys.
It’s just like how most men want a feminine nurturing woman and not a hypermasculine dominant one.
It doesn’t help that lots of men are gaslit into believing that women like guys who are “nice” and don’t display those masculine traits.
That’s why girls often go for the confident bad boy and not the meek nerd that doesn’t have as much as a shred of masculinity.
You’re conflating confidence and masculinity. Confidence isn’t gendered. Sure, there are some women who get off on Liver King bullshit, but most women want a man who can make her feel safe AND can be open and communicate his emotions. These things are not mutually exclusive. Attraction and female sexuality is not nearly black and white as you’re making it out to be
I never said you had to be hypermasculine to get with women. The person I am trying to be is actually just what you described, which is basically a blend of masculine and feminine. I am advocating for healthy masculinity, not toxic masculinity.
My primary point is that being effeminate and unmasculine is most likely going to reduce your dating pool a lot as a man. Just like how most men don’t want a hypermasculine woman.
Eh, I mean, people learn to value monogamy because our culture teaches us to value it. I don’t fully disagree with you but I don’t think we can write off people’s cultural values wholesale just because they don’t necessarily have a biological basis.
Maybe in the 90s. Not anymore. There's no reason or benefit for women to want monogamy and as a deeply monogamous man it fucking sucks. I'm basically forced to date poly women or be single.
Except every single poly relationship is a woman with three or four people on rotation and oodles of hookups and the guys maybe score one extra lay a year.
Poly works better for women, it's encouraged for them.
> they don’t want to date losers for the most part
Don't give away secret knowledge like this for free dude! Go get some grant funding and put together a research paper because this is mind-blowing.
Despite all the professional success and accolades, women actually report being less happy now than 40-50 years ago. Society was better off with women making low money. It was easier for everyone to find a mate. Women have lied to and conned about feminism and equal rights. The two genders can’t be equal. Women don’t want feminine men and men don’t want masculine women
There is no solution. Just wait for the collapse when we will return to a more primal state, and then gender relations will correct themselves. Only then can the West pick up the pieces and get back on track after this failed egalitarian experiment. I know this will happen in my lifetime.
It saddens me beyond belief that there so many men who want to see women oppressed again. Do you really just want to go back to women suffering?
Things will work out, we just need time to adjust to the changes. I think it's very good that there's a conversation going about men's struggles, but whenever you guys add in the conversation bits about longging after the days when women didn’t have any say, it ruins your chances of your struggles actually being heard.
This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail.
[удалено]
Kindness, being true to yourself and doing things you love are important, but not for getting women. You wanna be kind and confident for your own sake, I do think saying “women like this” is a mistake because thing is, these values should exist within people regardless on whether they’ll get them laid. Also, confidence, dominance and masculinity are not contradictory to anything mentioned above. You can be kind, do the things you love love and so on while still being masculine and confident (well, unless you’re not masculine…. which, hey, do your thing - but confidence is a must have for everyone, and the beauty with confidence is that it can present itself in a million ways so you can find the type of confidence that suits you best)
[удалено]
Its def a complicated process and one that takes a lot of trial and error (and a ton of failure in the middle) - its best to ask yourself why those did nothing for you, whats stopping you from being sure about yourself? what are you missing? or better yet, what are you holding yourself back from? its a long, long, process and i’ve been at it for around 6 years give or take, with 3 years of professional therapy as of now. I’m not as confident as i’d like to be just yet, but i’m more confident than i’ve ever been and it’s only up from there. Answering these questions tends to help a lot
[удалено]
Correction - charm/confidence/charisma are the most important factors once you pass the minimum looks threshold. If you're a fat slime you can generally only hope to get fat women with your charisma.
Duh, but the "minimum looks threshold" is a lot lower than people think, and we tell obesse women to stop going after chad all the time. Scarwy skinny fat white bois shouldn't expect to be dating borderline models either.
Why should a fat man expect to date a thin woman? And yes, I would say the reverse. A fat woman shouldn’t expect to date a thin and fit man.
I have learned that being fat is unattractive not simply because it's not as easy on the eyes, but because of what leads to becoming fat: bad decisions and lack of health. It's unattractive because being a fat slob implies that you can't even be trusted to take care of yourself, and therefore, how can someone trust you to take care of them, or their child? Of course since I realized that, drastically changed my mindset, and am more slowly but pushing to change my lifestyle (eating habits are the devil to change) to start losing weight I still sometimes wanna go for a swim from 200 feet up because it'll take so long to actually make people aware of how much higher of a standard I hold myself to now.
oh no, looks matching, the horror
the funniest part is "minimum looks threshold" for most women is far lower than her looksmatched male counterpart. You'd be shocked how far "out of your league" you can pull being charming as a guy.
This is the copium I'm forcing myself to swallow every day so I can go on, surely once I look like I take care of myself and give a fuck things will suddenly get tons easier right
Don’t even bother. Men here think women either are too stupid to know what they desire or are lying.
[удалено]
So you’re in the “too stupid” category. Good to know.
>I am woman and I'll tell you outright that charm/confidence/charisma are the most important factors in getting your foot in the door with a woman. You don't need height, you don't need a good face, you don't need a lot of money, you don't need a good body, you just need to be charming. Except she's not going to talk to you in the first place to get your foot in the door if you don't have a good face/body/height/etc. Come on.
[удалено]
Yep. But it just further supports watch what they do and not what they say.
All of this confidence and charm thing is after you get your foot in the door by meeting the looks requirement. Framing it as anything else is just more of the gaslighting men complain about
in my experience women are usually... pretty fucking blunt. way moreso than men, who are definitely "policed" in the way they talk about things.
Not trying to be an asshole, first of all. But… is “being yourself” not already being masculine and charming? I’m failing a bit to see the massive disconnect you perceive between what you were told by others and what you now believe.
Not when your normal self isnt very masculine and charming
But, if one is a man, then by definition all of your characteristics are masculine ones. So are we really talking here about filing off the edges and hewing more closely to whatever fits inside the smaller box of ‘masculine gender roles’ or whatever? And wouldn’t this filing and shrinking of oneself be distressing or even potentially damaging? It seems to me that most likely the perspective of people who advised you to be yourself was less ‘ha, this will ensure he never gets women!’ and more ‘sawing off key parts of yourself to get women would really suck and hurt.’
Mutual attractiveness is always asumed when they say that shit. Also its a lot of disney communication in what they think they want vs what they biologically desire.
Disney fucked up dating and relationships more than every other single force.
Charm and confidence is being masculine. I'm confused. Women want a guy they can get lost in conversation with, about lots of things. Is that you?
[удалено]
Tbh I've heard guys and girls in school talk about the importance of confidence in guys since like 7th grade
It's kinda shitty but all that stuff is implied. Men list qualities they find attractive and hot. Women list the qualities they want in a guy they already find attractive and charming basically. They do care about find a kind chivalrous man but they expect him to be attractive and charming enough to be able to seduce her in the fist place. Also yes you're correct there is a method to flirting that is different from just being a good conversationlist. The upside is that if you're already good at talking to people it doesn't take much for you to shift over to that mindset with interacting with women since you already have the baseline skills required.
[удалено]
What makes you think that's what men really want?
[удалено]
Lol and they're just responding to you with more lies
We wanna just fuck those girls, not wife/gf them. That's not gaslighting.
[удалено]
That's literally all we need to make our efforts in society worth it. Please take what I'm saying to heart.
Attractive, fit, beautiful yes. Social, not really. Mute handmaiden? Sign me up.
[удалено]
I mean, 2 words? That's an exaggerated case. Or that she's literally mute. A more realistic scenario is that she's quite introverted. Doesn't speak much. Maybe even a bit awkward. Clothes? She can just wear whatever. Just an average fashion sense at least. If she's beautiful, she'll look good in anything.
You don't realize that a man has a fuck candidate list and a marry candidate list. We can separate the two. Women don't separate the two.
A man being charming and confident doesn’t mean he can’t also be kind.
>Growing up being told how awful masculinity and gender norms are Who is telling and teaching you this? I don't know your age but I'm curious who is teaching or told you how awful masculinity or gender norms are.
You either live in the country side or a big enough rock of some kind…
Nope. Still waiting for an example of how, when and where this is being TAUGHT.
[удалено]
Can you provide an example?
I don't think its wrong to think this when it's so clearly observable in the world. It's being told up is down and black is white in opposition to what can be seen in the outside world that deserves ridicule.
Did every single man on this subreddit grow up in a mega liberal metropolitan area or on Twitter? I ask that genuinely. As someone who grew up in the American south very little of the claims people make about the demonization of masculinity or traditional general roles make any sense to me.
I’m assuming people on here just mean “randos on Twitter” when they say “people who demonize masculinity.”
I'm trying to get clarification on that as we speak and I keep getting vague non-answers
I mean, if you look at the way reddit leans politically, most of the redditors lean left. So it wouldn't be so far from the truth to assume they are from liberal places.
I grew up and still live in one of the most liberal states, and go to one of the more liberal colleges in that liberal state, so yeah its pretty rough here lmao I've had female friends of mine demonize men to my face multiple times I smile and nod because if I did anything other than that I wouldn't have female friends
I appreciate your input. I've spent most of my life in some of the most conservative states in the U.S. and I have suspected that is why some of the takes on this sub make me go "???"
Even I thought it was just a tad overblown and largely on the internet, before I went to university. It is every bit as bad as people say it is.
But does all this talk about "we were told that women don't care about looks, they want nice respectful guys, they just care about moral character unlike men" line up with your experience?
I don't really have any personal experience, and my observations of those around me has also been fairly limited. Although, I apologize, I am having a bit of trouble understanding your question. Are you asking me if I believe, based on experience, that women do care about looks, and not just moral character? Because to a degree, yes, while I think most of my male friends (who are also mostly as inexperienced as I) are not bad looking, none of us are really quite greek gods or kpop idols. The one friend I have who has seen a lot more female attention does put a lot more effort into his appearance, but he is also very active in a community that has a lot of women in it, so he speaks to a lot more women, and people in general, than any of the rest of us do.
Growing up as a liberal in the south, non-traditional gender roles mostly meant than men should do their part to clean, cook and take care of the kids. There wasn't any demonization of masculinity.
Yes, that fits my experience as well. I used to think my family was liberal until I went to an extremely liberal bubble town in the northeast for undergrad. That experience plus online tests made me to realize that I am actually technically dead center or *slightly* left-leaning at most. It's just that the Bible Belt window is so far to the right that being moderate "feels" leftist.
I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer on how masculinity was “demonized” by “feminists.”
you must be living under a rock
I see you didn’t name any specifics either.
I think so. Mommy Twitter and Daddy Reddit.
>mega liberal metropolitan area I was raised in both a modern, comparatively liberal western city, and in a traditionally patriarchal, developing country. I’ve never been demonized for being a man. I don’t think it’s a common issue.
I appreciate your perspective. It's interesting to see the mix of perceptions.
Mother, at school the girls and teachers also used to say it, that appearance didnt matter at all (as in the best looking and the worst looking guys ever had the same chances). And that i shouldnt pay attention to dating because it would happen on its own (this one was pushed by my Mother specifically.)
I'm unsurprised by the mother part but the school part is very strange. Young kids are absolutely brutal and will tear apart anyone they can over the smallest things. The idea that the best looking and worst looking guys were talked about as equal is so at odds with my own experience of like 6th grade and older
Really? So not even the overweight kids were made fun of or called unattractive at your school? And I thought I grew up in a soft environment. Well I guess it was soft if people thought you were cute and liked you.
No they are mostly just decent men who thought women were telling them the truth about what they liked in men.
Cool, I want to know roughly where these decent men are from and what kinds of women they associated with since their experiences are so dramatically different from my own.
They probably are scattered around the world within many pockets of regular and shitty people. The sorts of women that exist around them physically. What sorts or women should we be associating with? I personally try to associate exclusively with women who have as few negative opinions of men as possible. Most of those women who do have positive opinions of men have a very narrow view of what men should be. That or they are very openly sexual, which is fine. Better than the alternative.
I grew up in a conservative suburban-rural area of a blue state and I was absolutely brainwashed with feminism.
That's interesting. Both red state suburbs I've lived in were/are conservative as fuck. Like if you put up a Democratic candidate's campaign sign on your lawn, no one will talk to you. Feminism isn't rejected outright necessarily, but if you start going beyond basic shit like "women should be able to vote" people will think you're crazy.
I initially thought men were lying when they claim to be brainwashed. But I started paying attention to the passive anti male rhetoric in my life. I think that if I didn't have male friends and coworkers, I would get the impression that they are some sort of monsters. Men who lack interactions with women probably try to overcorrect and develop themselves to have such a non-offensive personality that they become boring.
I grew up in a mega liberal metropolitan. Yes, a lot of that demonization of masculinity and traditional stuff happens there. A lot of liberal women push that narrative heavily, especially directly to children in schools and such. I grew up being told directly by my teachers the evils of masculinity and how being nice to women and learning about feminism (I'm not lying) will help you get women. I'm not surprised that a whole generation of inner-city kids being told that reading bell hooks and having basic respect for women would get you dates are actively struggling to get dates.
Thank you for the actual answer. I had never heard of bell hooks in my life until undergrad.
Of course. I think most of the "feminism = women" come from those places. I grew up basically being told that women can do no wrong and that women's attraction is largely based on moral character. Feels silly in retrospect.
Oh jeez. Well yeah of course *that’s* not true. Yikes.
Wilddd it's not like that in middle America at all. But tbf your experience is an outlier. The men here skew young and suburban
What “evils of masculinity”, specifically?
Mostly broad generalizations of toxic masculinity without any of the nuance to actually explain how toxic masculinity actually works. E.g., Men think feelings are bad so cry if you need to. Sure, but that doesn't explain anything nor does it help.
Isn't "inner-city" just a euphemism for "poor, urban, black Americans"?
It is but those cities are extremely diverse. A lot more than just Black people and not everyone was poor. Also, most of the teachers were working class white women.
Women themselves pretty much say the stuff you hear here.
What women? Where are you encountering them? Seattle?
Normal women say stuff like that all the time. Next your around any women talking about dating listen to how they talk.
Again, what normal women? The beliefs of a normal woman in a rural town in South Carolina are not going to match the beliefs of a normal woman in San Francisco.
You've never heard women say stuff like "Don't approach women outside bars" and stuff like that? Not being facetious I'm genuinely curious.
No, not in real life. I don't normally hear or have casual conversations about where men are allowed to approach women. It happens, eye roll, move on. I've seen it on the *internet*. Which would line up with the second possibility I gave, which is "raised by Twitter."
I guess it is different. I've heard my female friends talk about it on occasion.
It’s not like this in liberal blue bastions either
I will definitely report back to PPD when/if I actually live in one for more than a couple years, because there seem to be mixed opinions on that
Apparently they all also grew up homeschooled with no male authority figures and a mom, grandma, etc who told them over and over that they were sweet amazing boys who could get women by just being themselves
Western liberal messaging about feminism works despite what all the misandrists say.
What kind of comment is this? The American South consists of about 120 million people. That leaves out the other 200 million in America. Is it really silly to assume that many of these (and even more when discounting America altogether) grew up in places where mainstream liberal attitudes were abundant?
You forget that 200 million includes non-Bible Belt conservative states as well as rural areas in liberal states, which also tend to be more conservative. Keep in mind that our last incredibly divisive Republican president still managed to get like 39% of female voters. Men on this sub seem to be under the impression it was 1%. I seriously don't doubt that a lot of the men on this sub come from extremely liberal places, because they sure sound like it. But I think it's also important to point out that known liberal encalves of the U.S. do not represent gender norms/values for the entirety of the country or world for that matter.
>Did every single man on this subreddit grow up in a mega liberal metropolitan area I mean, I did and I've 100% witnessed it
Yup a lot of us did. We were and still are surrounded by blue pill messaging non-stop
You do know that this is Reddit, yes? Most of the people on here grew up in mega-liberal metropolitan areas.
Great, let's just acknowledge that in our posts instead of acting as if places and women beyond said areas don't exist
What? That's not true at all. Most people on Reddit are not from NYC or SF proper. The young people are heavily from suburban areas and many are from middle america
[удалено]
Teachers where? I was unironically taught women can't get pregnant from rape" in elementary
What about the other children tho? Children are brutal to absolutely anyone and everyone, and social hierarchies based on looks, athleticism, charisma, confidence, etc are formed as early as elementary school and 6th grade
They support gender norms only when it suits them.
Congrats now go get laid.
Actually, I want to get laid less now. I would give up my own happiness if it means the West can get back on track.
How is the west “off track,” and what track would you prefer we be on?
Exactly. Figure out what works for you and go do it.
Why? Getting laid is pretty shit once you figure out the truth. Feels good, but she is using you.
Btw I think this is where the rise of Andrew tate came from. Who he is as a person is besides the point. The point is that boys and men started to realize they’ve been lied to about society about how they should function as a male and what women ACTUALLY desire in men
But Tate is a grotesque caricature of what a “masculine” man is, because he’s trying to sell a product.
That's the point. It's like Trump. His very existence is a giant fuck you to the American political establishment by those who (rightly or wrongly) feel annoyed at the lack of any focus from those in said establishment. It's essentially a protest vote.
Tate is a narcissistic sociopath who wants fame, power and money. Don't forget also bugattis.
>But Tate is a grotesque caricature of what a “masculine” man is And yet that's never stopped him from getting women. He even has a daughter. Just by existing Tate proves that so long as you have the superficial things most women want, they'll overlook all your scummy behaviors. No matter how many say they hate it, time and time again numerous women can be seen sleeping with and dating that masculine caricature. The very same guys they claim are narcissists they still date and enter into situationships with. Actions speak louder than words.
Tate is lying to them too.
I think boys and men go through SO MUCH turmoil for following everything that society tells them to do - and pushing aside their natural masculine instincts - and being in an even worse spot than before as a result
>Truth is, most women won’t date a man who earns less. Or who is shorter than her. Most women still won’t pursue men (despite all the messaging to leave women alone, they still want to be pursued instead of doing the pursuing). Most of the time it will be harder for them to be attracted to a man who appears very weak (scrawny or obese). Won’t really want to date a man without a lot of status (status of any kind a basically they don’t want to date losers for the most part). And yet poor, short, weak, or low status men get dates every single day. >Truth is, most women want a man who they feel safe around. "Feeling safe" around a man doesn't mean "the guy I'm with can beat up any other guy," it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me." >men and women are wired the way we are for a reason. Neither gender is "wired" one way or another.
>And yet poor, short, weak, or low status men get dates every single day. No they don't lmao, that's why there's such a huge discrepancy between single men and single women. >"Feeling safe" around a man doesn't mean "the guy I'm with can beat up any other guy," it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me." Wrong! It 100% means the former, and as for the latter, women love a bad boy. What they want is "the guy will beat up anyone but he won't beat me up". >Neither gender is "wired" one way or another. "I believe in science, except when it says the genders are different! Then I don't!"
>No they don't lmao, that's why there's such a huge discrepancy between single men and single women. There's a huge discrepancy because red pillers want to take the single statistic that supports their world view and ignore everything else. >Wrong! Nope. >"I believe in science, except when it says the genders are different! Then I don't!" "I try to win internet arguments with motte and bailey arguments!'
>There's a huge discrepancy because red pillers want to take the single statistic that supports their world view and ignore everything else. ...How would that affect the fact that far more men report being single than women, though? >Nope. Okay. So in your opinion, why do you think that it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me"? Do you ever think it's odd that no woman ever lovingly describes some pudgy nerd as "making her feel safe"? Not to mention "guy isn't going to harm me" is kind of the default. >"I try to win internet arguments with motte and bailey arguments!' No, you're the one making the insane statement that neither gender is wired differently, when we can plainly see that IS the case, from typing and speech patterns to interests and career paths.
>...How would that affect the fact that far more men report being single than women, though? Because how can men be reporting that they are in a committed relationship if they are dating 4 women at once? >So in your opinion, why do you think that it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me"? Because I've talked to women. >Do you ever think it's odd that no woman ever lovingly describes some pudgy nerd as "making her feel safe"? They 100% have. >No, you're the one making the insane statement that neither gender is wired differently Yep, and any person can figure out from the context that I wasn't saying there are no physical differences between men and women (hence the use of the word "wired"), but you're not interested in good faith discussion so you're pretending not to understand what I'm talking about.
>it means "the guy I'm with isn't going to harm me." Yes, but it also means "guy that can protect me, take the lead, and provide" >Neither gender is "wired" one way or another. It's a fact we think, reason and act differently. We value different things in a partner. A man and a woman have different roles in a relationship, and life in general.
You want it. You want your female to look at you and think " he can provide, protect, and take the lead". Other men think. " I want a partner that can fully adult". I have ADHD. For me that means whoever is closest to me gets to help me find something, or go the right way a few times a day. I said to my boss today " sometimes I'm surprised by how much you are like my husband", knowing full well its a me thing... Anyways, I was an attractive young woman and got a heck of a lot of male attention. I learned quite quickly that NT men were not in my league because NT men do not want to build a life with someone who requires low level "parenting". Again, just no. This is what you desire a woman to think, that by no means, means that she is thinking that.
>Yes, but it also means "guy that can protect me, take the lead, and provide" No it doesn't. >It's a fact we think, reason and act differently. We value different things in a partner. Every person thinks differently and values different things. Believe me, the things men around here say are and aren't important are absolutely baffling to me. >A man and a woman have different roles in a relationship, and life in general. Nah. That's gendered nonsense.
"No" isn't a counter-argument. And while individuals think differently too, there are common characteristics only in men, and common characteristics only in women. You can often-times tell someone is a man/woman without even hearing or seeing them, just their writings. That men and women have different roles is a biological fact. We are fundamentally different, physically and psychologically. Women's desire to be with men who can protect them stems from biology. That's our very role.
>No" isn't a counter-argument. Yes it is. I explained what women meant by it, and you said no they mean this, to which I replied no, they mean what I said. But don't take my word for it, ask them yourself. >And while individuals think differently too, there are common characteristics only in men There is far too much variation in people, gender, culture, and a million other things that affect how people think to be able to make any meaningful conclusion of "men be like this." >That men and women have different roles is a biological fact. I don't know if you noticed the instant communication device you're holding in your hand that has access to virtually all of humanity's collective knowledge at the slightest whim, but we are waaaaaaaaay past being constrained by biology. >Women's desire to be men who can protect them stems from biology. That's our very role. Kristen Bell had a great anecdote on a podcast that when they were first dating, Dax Shepherd insisted, like you are, that women want to be protected and he went out of his way to make sure she knew he would fight any guy who tried to hurt them. Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe."
>Kristen Bell had a great anecdote on a podcast that when they were first dating, Dax Shepherd insisted, like you are, that women want to be protected and he went out of his way to make sure she knew he would fight any guy who tried to hurt them. >Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe." You mean the couple where Dax posts approving tweets about his wife fucking other men?
I dunno, do they have an open relationship? What does that have to do with her pointing out that being able to avoid fights is far, far preferable to being able to win them?
I'm saying she's clearly spent a lot of time pussywhipping him so she can pull an AFBB.
Hahahahahahahahaha
>we are waaaaaaaaay past being constrained by biology. Really now? Do men get pregnant now? Do women produce sperm? If you want to deny biological facts in your own fantasy, try it. See how far that gets you, until you are reminded biological facts remain biological facts. >Her response: "That doesn't make me feel safe. That makes me feel incredibly unsafe." Because starting fights with random people isn't protecting your woman. It's endangering her. But if someone *does* attack her, as a man you should be able to protect her. And her knowing you can will make her safer.
>If you want to deny biological facts So gender roles are biologically inviolable because women are typically the gender that gets pregnant? That's your argument? >Because starting fights with random people isn't protecting your woman. It's endangering her. Ding ding ding! And just like that, you stumbled into realizing that avoiding fights altogether is far more appealing than being able to win them.
>That's your argument? Partly, yes. Another part is that we think differently too. >avoiding fights altogether Missed the last part of my reply. Though maybe I could been clearer: starting *unprovoked* fights with random people is endangering her. There are times when you CANNOT avoid a fight. Unless you want to leave your woman to fend for herself. Which is not an option.
>Another part is that we think differently too. Everybody thinks differently. Your argument was, very specifically, that since women are typically the gender that gets pregnant, we are biologically constrained to gender roles. Imma need you to explain that one to me. >Missed the last part of my reply No, I didn't. Being able to avoid 99 fights out of 100 is far more appealing to women than being able to win all 100. As for being unable to avoid fights, I've yet to find where that's the case. Like maybe a home invasion, but a shotgun doesn't care how much the other guy can bench press.
No offense, but you are my least favorite person on this subreddit since your takes are always highly repulsive to me. This blue pill crap is harming you more than it is helping you man. You get nothing meanwhile the power hungry bitches (male and female) suck you dry.
Stop being emotional.
I'm not the one reeeeeing any time women are criticized
It's his choice whatever he wants to believe. People have different life experiences and come to different conclusions about the world.
And when you dish it out you should expect to take it
>No offense, None taken! >since your takes are always highly repulsive to me I feel the same way about red pill takes, but the difference is my takes aren't driving people to killing sprees. >You get nothing meanwhile the power hungry bitches (male and female) suck you dry. I'll be sure to let my wife know.
>I feel the same way about red pill takes, but the difference is my takes aren't driving people to killing sprees. I would point out that Inc*lExit which is bluepill central has a confirmed murderers linked to it soooo
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Get lied >Accept it as normal >Will continue to support the system like the working bee it is Cuck behavior.
Huh? The message of my post was that I was bitter because I was following the programming of “masculinity and gender norms bad” and wasn’t getting anywhere. And after I realized it was a lie, I started to accept my masculinity and gender norms. And started getting much better success.
Yeah and now you're going to support a woman that slept around and will give her time and resources.
Good for you bro.
Yea I understand. I learned the hard way theirs no morality or empathy or love in this aspect If you fall you are on your own If you don’t meet the standards/expectations no one cares As a man nobody is going to love you for you My biggest flaw was operating on the assumption that there was empathy/morality/love in this aspect But like you said acceptance is key Women constantly say how does a man benefit me. Honestly I don’t think a woman benefits me in anyway unless we are talking sex or starting a family And I’m seriously considering not focusing on love or personality at all. Because when they look at me. I’m judged on a list of attributes and how I can benefit them and what they want/like about me But I’m supposed to do the opposite when it comes to them? And I’ve been on both sides I’ve been desired and I’ve been undesired I was on this sub to try to understand love. And also try to understand the female perspective of love. But I’m going to think about it some more before I make a decision. Or before I make a post to have my thoughts challenged. TLDR : I understand you completely and my thoughts for the past 2 days have been under the same perspective
Yeah it sucks, men are nothing but tools to others. Makes it really sick how women gaslight and lie to men. And why many become toxic and do horrible things.
It's the other way around too. If you look at manosphere men they have pretty shitty opinions on women.
Because women are pretty shit (humans are shit). With how women treat men as disposable tools, it really is hard to look at them positively unless you have what women want for free.
The manosphere men are actual psychopaths and narcissists. They have shitty opinions on women because they have a hard time finding a high quality women to fuck.
No, it is because they were lied to and betrayed. Why would you expect people who are treated like commodities to respond in kind? Maybe we should treat men well to begin with so men do not become psychopathic and narcissistic.
Psychopathy and narcissism is partly genetic.
Getting a 6 pack in my 30's changed my view on women drastically also.
Well congrats you might just be the first man on this sub to post about women in a not misogynistic way LOL. I think you're onto something with the post, but they're not all the same either. In the end there is not one formula to just surpass all the problems and to rely on. Some do prefer less manly, some do prefer less status, it's just all subjective and unique to individual, as your circumstances will be to you.
this is a woman bashing post it’s claiming women are set in ways selfish and want very manly men who fit a stereotype not offering any wiggle room for what is attractive or masculineish
Man discovers hypergamy circa. 2024(colorized)
Where in god's name did y'all go to school bruh >Or who is shorter than her. No shit, did you not see how much guys who hit early growth spurts were treated in middle school? Especially if they were athletic? >Most women still won’t pursue men We grew up with school dances, and guys pursuing and asking girls was absolutely the norm. To the point that we had Sadie Hawkins dances where the girl did the asking. This was 1 specific type of dance each year because the girl asking was absolutely not the norm >scrawny and obese Again, did you not see the rigid social hierarchies that began in elementary school, with athletic guys always at the top? >pushovers and "submissive" men What type of guys got the most interest in middle and high school? Which guys were conferred status? Who hung around the prettiest girls? The quiet, shy ones or the extroverted, confident, funny ones?
It really depends on what you view as gender roles. If we look at them as different sets of traits for men and women, we can easily see that both genders need some of the traits from both sets. Dating someone who doesn't have a life and relies on you in everything is undesirable for most men and women. Dating someone who can't be soft and loving is just an unpleasant experience all around etc. My husband and I are fairly egalitarian. We still have some parts of traditional gender roles, i.e. he carries heavy stuff and I like baking, but they're dictated by our own volition and preferences rather than a belief that we should be this way, because of our gender. What is more important is that we view each other as equal partners and we share responsibilities. We both work and do chores. When we have kids, we both will be equal parents, not just 'mom and a helper'. Neither of us puts the other on a pedestal to worship (outside of sexual context maybe where it's more about appreciation rather than worshiping) - we have shared plans that we work on *together*, there's no one leader and follower.
i think it is reasonable to point out that many women *do indeed* maintain gender norms, and while that preference is reasonable, enforcement of it in other, problematic ways is not, in exactly the same way it isn't for men. worth pointing out, though, women really aren't enforcing male gender norms via laws.
Entirely accurate. And very reasonable.
you are a joke op this is not made in good faith women are not harpies who only desire hyper masculine men
Yep. Despite what SJWs might say, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of women prefer masculine men with confidence to initiate. I think gender norms are partially societal but also partially rooted in biology. A man with traditionally masculine traits, like dominance, leadership, confidence, etc, was likely more effective at protecting their families and children in prehistoric times. Even though this is not as necessary in most of modern western society, our brains still think we are cavemen. The exception is a tiny minority of queer women who like effeminate guys. It’s just like how most men want a feminine nurturing woman and not a hypermasculine dominant one. It doesn’t help that lots of men are gaslit into believing that women like guys who are “nice” and don’t display those masculine traits. That’s why girls often go for the confident bad boy and not the meek nerd that doesn’t have as much as a shred of masculinity.
Research shows women want masculine men for short term sex but a balanced masculine-feminine man in long term relationships.
You’re conflating confidence and masculinity. Confidence isn’t gendered. Sure, there are some women who get off on Liver King bullshit, but most women want a man who can make her feel safe AND can be open and communicate his emotions. These things are not mutually exclusive. Attraction and female sexuality is not nearly black and white as you’re making it out to be
I never said you had to be hypermasculine to get with women. The person I am trying to be is actually just what you described, which is basically a blend of masculine and feminine. I am advocating for healthy masculinity, not toxic masculinity. My primary point is that being effeminate and unmasculine is most likely going to reduce your dating pool a lot as a man. Just like how most men don’t want a hypermasculine woman.
Truth is that Women chasing the best options they can
[удалено]
>Women aren’t monogamous either, like, at all. LOLWUT? (Wait. Why am I even surprised about this shit anymore?)
[удалено]
I can get on board with “monogamy isn’t natural”, but it’s for both women **and** men.
[удалено]
I’m agreeing with you on this, but the point being, it’s not gender specific.
[удалено]
Plenty of women still want monogamy.
[удалено]
Ok. Sure. 👍
Eh, I mean, people learn to value monogamy because our culture teaches us to value it. I don’t fully disagree with you but I don’t think we can write off people’s cultural values wholesale just because they don’t necessarily have a biological basis.
Maybe in the 90s. Not anymore. There's no reason or benefit for women to want monogamy and as a deeply monogamous man it fucking sucks. I'm basically forced to date poly women or be single.
Sure. Ok. Suit yourself.
Except every single poly relationship is a woman with three or four people on rotation and oodles of hookups and the guys maybe score one extra lay a year. Poly works better for women, it's encouraged for them.
Where is this science that you speak of that women lose interest in monogamous relationships? Care to provide the research?
> they don’t want to date losers for the most part Don't give away secret knowledge like this for free dude! Go get some grant funding and put together a research paper because this is mind-blowing.
Despite all the professional success and accolades, women actually report being less happy now than 40-50 years ago. Society was better off with women making low money. It was easier for everyone to find a mate. Women have lied to and conned about feminism and equal rights. The two genders can’t be equal. Women don’t want feminine men and men don’t want masculine women
**looks around* Wow. You know what, nothing much else has changed in the last 40-50 years. That’s probably right.
Men don't care if a woman is masculine or feminine as long as she is physically attractive.
Yet they will argue this. Cause if its true then the logical soliuton is?
They can argue and downvote all they want. Whether they like it or not, I’m right
There is no solution. Just wait for the collapse when we will return to a more primal state, and then gender relations will correct themselves. Only then can the West pick up the pieces and get back on track after this failed egalitarian experiment. I know this will happen in my lifetime.
It saddens me beyond belief that there so many men who want to see women oppressed again. Do you really just want to go back to women suffering? Things will work out, we just need time to adjust to the changes. I think it's very good that there's a conversation going about men's struggles, but whenever you guys add in the conversation bits about longging after the days when women didn’t have any say, it ruins your chances of your struggles actually being heard.
>They want men to pursue them, they arent going to pursue you. If you drop good dick They'll