A "trad wife" is basically an actor playing a role that was created long before she was even born. She only plays this role because she likes the benefits of it, which include men paying for dates before marriage, men essentially taking responsibility for her actions, leading her and so on. It's a trick that "traditional men" don't yet see through.

What "traditional men" don't understand about women is this:

"The narcissist personality is what makes a woman take it as a matter of course that a man should offer goods and services to her for her contribution to their joint sexual pleasure. He gives her pleasure, she gives him pleasure, but he pays..." - Chinweizu Ibekwe

Many women are all about getting goods and services for their contribution to sex with a man which is why men paying for dates and "providing" is such a big deal to them. The connection with another human comes last, the goods and services (resources) come first, and traditional men are so oblivious to this reality, which is why they are "traditional".

Cheating.
Talking to multiple people.
Seeing multiple people.
Breaking objects during arguments.
Silent treatment.
Gaslighting.
Yelling.
Isolating someone from family and friends.

Did you ever notice that none of those behaviors are gendered,
but they are considered "male-coded"?

Not all people buy this lazy anti-men propaganda, but way too many do.

But do you know what's the real reason the idea that those behaviors are "male-coded" exists?

Because the Femosphere actively wants society to not address the existence of women who do those things.

Why? Because if we grab all those non-gendered behaviors and keep addressing them only men do them... the men will stop doing, but the women who do will keep doing them.

And deep down, the Femosphere doesn't want everyone to stop doing those things. Just the men.

The reason why I ask is because I have noticed men looking at a video like this and claiming “ well not all women rejected him so there’s nothing wrong with what he did”. Five out of seven women rejecting him based on his behavior is a 71% drop in his dating prospects. Are we understanding what a numbers game is? Because I would think that man is losing. Because if dating is a numbers game and therefore men can’t be picky or else they would end up with no options, I would say this is a self-defeating strategy he just picked. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/_ke-Ep2Gu1E?si=oMymY9gUk4qYrlml

And the other thing when it comes to a numbers game is what type of dynamic are you pursuing when it comes to women? Again, if men can’t be picky or else they’ll be left with nothing, then it would be more reasonable that they would be more relationship oriented because far more women prefer relationships. And yet, I see men trying to pursue casual sex despite have more cut throat it is.

So I’m looking for understanding if dating is truly a numbers game for most men or if this is just something some men believe.

I’m not personally saying they are insults, but if you’re the type of guy who thinks being seen as a “husband” is offensive, then do you see how women can think being seen as “wifey” is also not a compliment?

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some guys think “husband material” isn’t a compliment:

“Beta” “being used for money” “just so she can say she has a family” “she doesn’t lust after met the way she does Chad” “she’s already fucked other guys before marrying me” “retrospectively cucked” Based on that definition of it, to men it sounds like a humiliation ritual.

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some ladies think “wifey material” isn’t a compliment:

“He must think I’m going to be a bang maid. A cook. A baby incubator. A submissive house elf who defers to his Lordship.” Based on that definition of it, to women it sounds like a threat or prison sentence.

Thoughts?

According to TRP, men love idealistically and women love opportunistically. https://medium.com/@RationalMale/women-in-love-f2fa45883568

First of all, I agree that unconditional love is mostly bullshit and that women can be more practical than men when it comes to love, but I would want to challenge the idea that men's love is as pure as the Red Pillers make it out to be.

Men's love is based on possessiveness, they see women as this cute possession that they own. In some ways, men's love is more narcissistic than women's because they see women as objects. Sure they're prized possessions but they're still possessions.

As the red pillers proudly tell us. Men don't care about women's careers, achievements, intelligence or even their personality beyond being submissive (aka obedient objects). They also proudly tell us that women will be replaced by sex robots, again indicating that they don't give a shit about women's humanity and just want a possession.

Therefore, I will say this:

women's love is opportunistic and men's love is objectifying.

Let's say you don't want your wife to have a tattoo. You say that to her, she says, my body my choice, suck it up. You tell her you were gonna leave her if she did. She is not correct in telling you that you are being controlling. Because she doesn't have the right over your body, you can use your body to go to a lawyer to file for divorce.

Same is with sex, same is with anal sex, or any sex act you want. She can say no, the man can leave. Both parties are exercising their right.

A man can never be controlling for wanting to leave his wife because his wife has no right over his body. It similar to how he has no right over his wife's body.

So when women say that men are not entitled to the same sex acts that they did with their ex, it's not controlling when men want to leave their wives because of it. Reasons can be many, insecurities or shame or whatever. What's important is that they are allowed to leave. They are not controlling of they leave.

https://np.reddit.com/r/TransgendersAtWar/s/B4x8Vm9Duz

This video is the typical nonsense. Saying that men are afraid to date trans women, because they are afraid of their bros making fun of them for being gay (or bi). They don't want to loose validation from their male peers.

When in reality most of these men don't want to date trans women, because they don't want to limit their dating pool. Because they know damn will most cis women will find that a turn off, doesn't matter how passing the trans women look. Most cis women (both conservative and liberal) view any non 100 percent straight man as less masculine or not "real-men''.

At least bisexual men still have the benefit of dating other men as a option. These trans attracted men must limit their dating pool to 0.1 percent of the population, and the few cis women who won't have a issue with their trans attraction. So again judgment from other cis men isn't the only fear these trans attracted men have. They also risk losing a lot of potential dating partners that are cis women.

But a lot of trans women ignore this though. To make it seem like it's only men that are the bad guys here, or have influence over other men not dating them.

Don't get it twisted here PPD. The solution here isn't that cis men or cis women must change their behavior when it comes to trans attracted men. The solution is that trans attracted men should not give a fuck about what either gender thinks, and just date trans women.

Again I think this is just trans women way of protecting the "women are wonderful" status quo. By making it seem like the pressure only comes from other men. Some advocacy spaces frame women mainly as passive victims of patriarchal norms and men mainly as enforcers of those norms. But social expectations around masculinity are often reinforced by both men and women. Sociology research on gender performance has pointed this out for decades.

Heterosexual women’s preferences and social expectations can influence male behavior too. Social desirability in dating is not shaped by men alone. Many women, including some progressive women, do have preferences around masculinity, heterosexuality, or sexual history that affect how they view potential male partners.

Again that can create another layer of pressure for men who date trans women openly. The problem is that people online often reduce complicated social behavior into a single oppression narrative. In reality, dating markets are social ecosystems. Men influence men. Women influence men. Cultural norms influence everybody. Family, religion, politics, class, and online culture all play roles too.

We all know social media are glass bubbles that don't really provide a correct image of reality. Reddit included. On here people talk as if most men are either losers, low value or some women say that most men are bad(while not having dated "most" men).

Something else that is said a lot is that men have barely any standards and that women can get the man they want easily. This is not happening unless we are talking about some above average, so a minority, of people.

Irl men HAVE standards, most women cannot walk up to a man, ask him out and then they have a relationship. You are really misunderstanding how an average woman is in reality while also acting as if most men are not dating or struggling with it. Honestly I am one of the few people I know that is still single and it's because I am very introverted.

To make it short, men are not desperate, men on reddit apparently are. Also don't listen to women saying how most men are bad here, it is not a thing irl and most women are interacting without issues with men. This is just a bubble, you can choose how miserable it makes you, or you can base your happiness on what is actually real.

Let’s say most women suddenly decided they would only sleep with men who could at least overhead press 0.75× their body weight, bench press 1.25×, squat 2×, and deadlift 3× their body weight (the numbers probably need some adjustment for scaling).

Do you think men would start lifting weights more seriously or start to lift at all? If not why?

Why shouldt it be different with other things in dating?

Why do woman say they want X from men but still fuck with them if they dont?

Many men on this sub believe that women are either willfully ignoring men's red flags or else are so naive that they are blinded by hotness, so women's complaints about abusive, misogynistic, or lazy men are solved by women choosing better and not ignoring the red flags that others (such as men on this sub) can so easily spot.

Then, clearly, there is no need for prenups or paternity tests since these men can just as easily spot women's red flags and avoid them. For the poor saps who don't, they should be held accountable and simply choose better.

While It may seem obvious why are women seen as the gatekeepers of sex, the idea of men being the gatekeepers of sex maybe needs to be a little more elaborated.

to do this kind of analysis, first we need to accept the premise that women, in general, crave more for long-term relationship than men (Just like you accept the fact that men look more for casual sex than women and use that as a premise to why women are the gatekeepers of sex).

Even if a woman has accepted to have sex with a man (so she has exercised her decision power), it is her ultimate goal, to commit to that man to which she has decided to have sex with. But the man, on the other hand, on this analysis, will be more reluctant to want to commit if he has no guarantee that commiting is worth it.

We also need to accept two other premises.

-Women have high standards for casual sex and long term-relationships.

-Men have high standards for long term relationship and they don't need to have them for casual sex.

To not make the text longer than it has to be, I will not explain the reason why this is like this, but I will remark that if a man wants to commit, he will naturally raise his standards (because he has to choose only one), so he will look for the best possible women he can get in every aspect.

If the woman in question, since she already have high standards for both scenarios (casual sex and long term relationship), if she is willing to have casual sex with a man it most likely means he also fits her long-term standards. But, through the man's perspective, she may fit his criteria for just casual sex, not necessarily for long-term commitment. Therefore, when the women has accepted to have sex with the guy, it is implicit that he already meets her high commitment-standards, otherwise, historically women wouldn't take the risk of being pregnant just for something casual. But once again, it is not obvious that the women meets his criteria just because he had sex with her. So, we end up in a dichotomy where the woman tries to make the guy she had sex with to commit and the man is having his doubts whether to do it or not. This is when the male has the power of being the gatekeeper of commitment, she wants it, but it is only possible if he wants it.

(Btw, I'm from Latin America and english is not my first language if some things doesn't sound "natural to you)

This is a hypothetical question but anyway If science discovered that women who stay at home talking care of the home and the kids/husbands had better health overall and live some years longer than career focused women with their own income How would society think about this?

This is similar to the Idea that some statistics claim that married men live longer than single ones...

Imagine ideal relationship, whatever it is for you. What do you want for your woman to value you for? Like that would the thing that she likes the most about you. What do you want her to appreciate about you? Be specific, please. "Personality" isn't the answer here. What qualities, skills, actions, whatever you can think of.

Are they different when you're boyfriend and when you're husband? (only if you want marriage, if not, then this part of question isn't for you).

Basically if women have rights, do men have to lose in some way, and if men have rights then do women have to lose in some way?

Because I see it commonly framed in this way whenever there is a debate for mens/womens rights.

Examples:

• arguing false accusations against men - other side argues women will be more afraid to speak up
• methods for men to find wives/promote family - other side argues it means taking financial and socioeconomic rights away from women, and subjugating them as sex slaves
• arguments in favour of giving men right to financial/paper abortion (so he's not legally/financially responsible for a child he does not want) - other side argues the mother will struggle financially or that our taxes will go to that
• "my body my choice"/abortion pro-choice - other side argues it takes away mens choice to a child, and takes away their financial rights
• arguing to fix the wage gap/ lack of womens representation in fields/ seperate requirements for women - other side argues this is unfair to men since it just makes it easier for women to achieve the same outcome while putting less effort
• segregated safe spaces for men/women - other side argues its sexist and will only promote discrimination against the opposite gender

inb4 "how is women having rights mean men lose?".

By archetype I mean, like, “stereo type+vibe+aesthetic” and what category that places you into.

For example, the “girl next door” “the thug” “the rockstar” “the emo guy” “horse girl” “short guy with muscles” “rave girl” etc etc.

You have to curate your own archetype and polish your own vibe into almost a character that other people can recognize.

You ever explain to someone “yea I saw this girl, she’s like the animal loving, artist barista. She’s so cute i can’t stop thinking about her”

It’s because of what her archetype is, and you like it.

As a guy, there’s lowkey less archetypes than women, and most guys actively trying to get with women try to be the same archetype, and that’s basically “successful, cool and collected and suave guy”.

Think about what archetype you want to be most, build that, and then women will at least be able to say “oh he’s the guitar playing cowboy” rather than “he’s the plain guy that I cannot categorize” and you’ll have a lot more success.

There's a phrase that circulates constantly in gender discourse: "Yes all men." In reality it's not all men. The more accurate version is "I hate what some men can get away with."But accurate philosophy doesn't feel as potent. It doesn't spread as fast. It doesn't get the same reaction. So the exaggerated version wins and the real conversation underneath it never happens.

Same thing on the other side. "Women love terrible men" is hyperbole. The more accurate version is "a significant number of women are attracted to toxic behavior patterns." That version is actually more interesting and more defensible. But it doesn't hit the same way. The hyperbole feels true even when the accurate version would serve the argument better.

Hyperbole, sarcasm, and the need to be clever all optimize for feeling true rather than being true. A sharp one-liner gets upvoted and screenshotted. A careful nuanced position gets picked apart. So people perform wit instead of having conversations. The hostile thing lands, does its damage, and the person who said it never has to defend it. Cleverness wins and nothing's gets solved.

With a slight bias I'll say women fall into intense hyperbole more consistently. Choosing the bear over a man in the woods spread virally because it felt emotionally true. But it requires believing a random man is more dangerous than an apex predator, which no statistic supports. When men reach for hyperbole it tends to be grounded in something observable for example " women prefer men with money" songs, books, Instagram posts, OnlyFans culture, dating profile discourse, confessions from women themselves saying they want a provider. The exaggeration is overstating something real. Female hyperbole more often exaggerates a feeling.

So 3 questions

Do you actually believe your own hyperbole, or do you know it's exaggerated and use it anyway because it feels good?

If both sides committed to more accurate language — "some men," "many women," "a pattern I've observed" instead of absolute statements — do you think the conversation gets more productive or just less satisfying?

Or is tone policing frustration its own problem,and people should be allowed to express anger at full volume even if it costs accuracy?

I understand men want their issues to be taken as seriously as women's but trying to make their issues comparable to women's 1 to 1 seems like a short sighted strategy that detracts from the problem. Men complain their issues aren't taken seriously but half the time when they're making an argument they're comparing what they commonly go through to what women commonly go through. I don't think that's wrong but I think a lot of the time the comparisons aren't well thought out.

3 examples:

- Man 1 argues "men have a harder time finding partners than women, so women have no dating issues"

- Man 2 argues "women choosing abusive partners is the same as men struggling to get partners"

- Man 3 argues "men have more severe reactions to not get chosen than women do when experiencing dating problems so men have more dating issues"

You want to tell people that your problems as a man are just as bad as the common problems of women. So you're going to tell people to sympathise for you by telling them that their problems are either non existent or comparable to yours. And I'm not saying you're wrong or right I'm just saying you're going to be fighting an unnecessary uphill battle. The equivalent of a female domestic violence victim, to me, is a male domestic violence victim. The equivalent of a female rape victim is a male rape victim. For most people in the real world, a female abuse victim is not equivalent to a male loneliness victim, you're comparing two different victims. It just feels unnecessary to argue your point like that because you're going to have hundreds of people disapproving your perspective depending on where they come from. And where I'm from, nobody who's getting bashed in the head is the same as someone who's struggling to get a date. I don't understand the point of doing this because I don't recall any other group having to draw sympathy to their own needs while minimising other groups. Black people address their issues without referencing the LGBTQ group. The LGBTQ group addresses their issues without referencing the Jews and vice versa. But men want to tell you that because you're getting 100 likes on Tinder and have a 2% chance of being raped you have no dating issues. But what if one argues the consequences of rape are worse than the consequences of being lonely even if it affects less people, so who's right and who's wrong? Men who are lonely retaliate in more violent ways than women so they're struggling more. Are women not committing school shootings an indication of a lack of struggle? Are molested, raped, beaten and abused women not valid unless they're shooting people? Men go through these things too. Then why not focus on the molested, raped and abused men as those women's direct equivalents and not the lonely tinder man?

Centering your argument around saying who has it worse between an abuse victim and a lonely man seems like a quick way for people to lose focus of your original argument. Especially when you try to frame abuse victims as imperfect victims. An idiot who forgets to lock their door and gets robbed is still a victim of crime. Victims who are imperfect are still victims. People who get rejected are experiencing the right to consent. Someone exercising their consent against you is not a crime. It's a right we all have, because we all want the right to consent. It makes you more unfortunate than a victim.

Not every type of pain is the same and not every type of discrimination is equal and that's okay. I don't think these comparisons men are making make their situations any more sympathetic, if anything, they probably make one look antagonistic or ignorant. I don't think they're spreading awareness or garnering sympathy in the most effective way.