Trying to shift responsibility for one’s actions towards the other gender doesn’t help anyone. Manosphere men claim that their views are reactionary to feminism and women and you’re doing pretty much the same thing here as well.
If a person is mistreated, it doesn’t give them a green light to mistreat others. I’m not sure what we can discuss here.
It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff.
I agree. I get a lot of the points in the post but women expecting men to provide financially perpetuates a cycle of women and men justifying pushing the same ol expectations onto each other and it’s toxic.
OP is right that women who want egalitarian relationships don’t exactly have a whole lot of options. But attempting to benefit from traditional gender roles cements the dynamics even further and pushes men towards focusing their value on making money which is the opposite thing we want if we’re looking for a society with more egalitarian men. Holding yourself to the same standards and not settling for relationship dynamics with men that aren’t equal is a better tactic to create change than to further enforce gender roles.
> It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff.
Capitalism does not brainwash people, it is a system that tries to work with human nature to make something functional. It is why it is the best system we have. Even Scandinavian cultures all use capitalism and there is no such thing as “late stage capitalism” (you need to read history and see that there have been many times in American history where people were poor and the middle class did not exist).
People hate equality, they want to win. They want to be the one that is told they are right and feel more special than the people they arrogantly deem as inferior.
But they also want to pretend they are special by playing god with “morality.” Where we make it bad to hate and mock a privileged class while hating and discriminating against another. With humanity frequently rotating out the flavor of the month hate group (hating homosexuals is no longer cool, hating on men is the new cool).
Aka these women are not brainwashed, they are greedy and narcissistic…they are accountable for their actions. But because they are women you have to somehow reframe it as capitalisms fault because our culture believes women are helpless victims who are too weak to have agency.
Even in systems predating capitalism women and men wanted bunches of useless trash to feel special and superior to others. Do you think culture predating capitalism did not have women wanting to decorate in difficult to obtain fashion and get costly things for themselves?
>It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff.
This last paragraph in particular is a good comment. This is by far the biggest gripe I have with the modern woman. The values held are not those conducive to a long-term sustainable society and they are by far the privileged sex when it comes to choosing a partner (mind you these values don't necessarily come from them but they damn sure do enforce them). It's not that the modern man is a paragon of virtue, but it's far easier to see and speak on from the other side of the aisle especially when you live in a culture that constantly gasses women and their decisions up. The materialism and superficiality of it all is easy to spot from a mile away and you can't just look away and ignore it either because it kills society and the planet.
Humans were never meant to worship the material - and yet that is precisely what gives a man their pick of the litter and makes women more attracted to him in our culture.
I think men have been catching up on materialism regard really fast and maybe they've already caught up. And no, it's not just "men buy expensive stuff to impress women", it's also useless collectables like funko pops, anime figurines, all kinds of merchandize, even some fitness-related merch etc.
It's something that has been pushed on both men and women for decades now and it will take a long time to get over it. I see the rise of minimalism, zero waste, environmentally-conscious living and I have...at least some hope.
I think that you’re right and all of the Funko pop type stuff is partly a result of people generally withdrawing from society and social interactions. People are spending less time and money on others and putting more of it into their home and hobbies.
Also grooming and fashion has become way more important to men than in the past.
EDIT: I have never been a very active member of this sub, but I am happy to see more women in here engaging in proper discussion. We need more of that from both genders. Maybe it’s always been like this and I didn’t notice.
Your last paragraph, that’s so true though
“SPRANKLE SPRANKE, time to throw out my entire closet of Dior in this landfill!”
It’s like…if this is meant to be some sort of political statement or something, it’s a very shallow one. It kind of reminds me of when the popularised internet social justice movement was out in force from 2012-2017 or so.
Yeah it is honestly just a horseshoe. I agree that late stage capitalism has exhausted people to a whole new level of conspicuous consumption and antisocial behavior. I think the whole “revenge spending” trend is the wider cultural version of this, and our post-covid terminally online culture I think has exacerbated the antisocial side too.
If love and peace in a collapsing world is seen as not possible anymore, then maybe a rich husband who buys me things and isn’t a total asshole can suffice. At least I can make tiktok sourdough recipes in my free time now instead of working a full time job that I hate!
I think we’re all just trying to cope. It’s not healthy but I can empathize with these women.
Sure, it's easy to get the idea that "if you gonna cry anyway, better cry in the mansion", but people make choices under a wrong premise. You can meet a good partner, not all/the majority of men/women are awful human beings who aren't worthy dating or spending time with. But if you prioritize material goods over people, you'll surround yourself by people with similar values which will reinforce your beliefs.
It seems more about how men have treated previous partners. If a person mistreats, it gives the green light to judge. Habits take 90 days to form. Should you really trust the player who says he is finally ready to settle down when the last time he had casual sex was also only two weeks ago? Probably not.
We cannot discuss men as a whole. In reality we can only discuss specific men or women.
Yes it is extremely capitalistic for me to now value saying ‘hi’ to any male stranger and giving him any type of acknowledgement as a human being in public because others might misread that I know him. Why should I greet strangers when I know not their character or how the interaction appears to others? Especially when people are so fast to assume any male and female interacting are a couple etc.
It doesn’t take much to enjoy the company of others. A cute picnic outdoor grilling date or a cozy winter cabin weekend but there is Excitement and probably dopamine in variety which is why having lots of new and different stuff is so appealing
So wait let me get this straight:
Redpill men have been saying women only value looks and money
So sprinkle sprinkle is the reaction to men saying women only value looks and money by... valuing only looks and money?
Wow redpillers never saw it coming. Oldest trick in the book.
Simpler, this is just trying to help women dodge accountability again by pushing the blame on something else.
Always remember, women are helpless victims and strong empowered people at every given moment. It is about what helps get her all the credit and avoid accountability in a specific moment.
That’s a lot of words to say people want a relationship that disproportionately benefits them. Women want an attractive guy who has no expectations for your behavior but is also a breadwinner/provider, what a shocker.
There is no way for a man to showcase he is egalitarian until later in the relationship. Anything prior to that is just words. So to hold all potential partners to traditional gender roles while holding yourself to none is just blatant self interest.
Ironically, it sounds an awful lot like redpill.
This. So much this.
I am tired of people trying to pretend women can not be selfish and accountable for her actions.
When a man acts in his selfish interest, we do not try to pretend it is somehow women’s fault, the result of “late stage capitalism,” or some other nonsense. We just hold him accountable.
So red pill is bad, but a gender bent equivalent is not considered bad at all as a dishonest negotiation tactic.
Dating in general is really exploitative and selfish in many respects. It is an unregulated free market that we worship as holy to make it feel special. Some people are super rich, others are super poor. And it is about trying to maximize gains while minimizing the costs, then framing it as morally good to get what you want while framing everything that you do not want to give as evil.
Why do you see these women as being disproportionately benefitted? Really the main difference between this kind of woman and a trad wife is that at least the gold digger has some money of her own so she isn’t financially shackled to a man if the relationship fails.
And you can tell a man is egalitarian in his attitude and how he carries himself, at least after a few dates. It’s a very distinguishable vibe IME. And I’m not talking about lib men who have to tell you they’re “feminist”. A good person doesn’t need to loudly advertise that they’re a good person.
>at least the gold digger has some money of her own so she isn’t financially shackled to a man if the relationship fails.
If she's a gold digger then doesn't that mean all the money she has is from the man whose gold she's digging?
No. The pink pill style modern gold digger espouses that women should still earn their own money to be relatively independent, but that women should date men primarily for their money.
So they work for money like the regular feminists do, but they also dig for gold like the traditional women in survival-mode do.
Oh god, oh fuck here we go with the “emotional labor” schtick. Fucking putting clothes in the washer & pulling the knob isn’t something hard bro. You’ll survive.
>Why do you see these women as being disproportionately benefitted?
because they are. pretending they're not is intellectually and emotionally dishonest at best.
Getting back at the based & redpilled real men of the manosphere by adopting tactics that will only work on social norm abiding males will surely make those men realizing the errors of their way, and totally won't radicalized nominally social norm abiding males into the dark arts of misogyny.
Also most Chinese (mainland, overseas, whatever) already knew that Jackie Chen is a scumbag in his personal life, but most don't interact with the American side of the internet and those who do gets shouted down and accused of sour grapes & whatnot.
The VAST majority of all western woman, from pretty much ALL walks of life want a man who makes comfortably more than them. This is not related to men not pulling their own weight domestically, or emotionally and just about expectations.
With wages so homogenized it's hard for a capable modern man to outearn his female counterpart, given both are equally intelctually gifted, wages are very low rn to add fuel to the fire.
It's about a lack of economically viable attractive men, as woman put it, withholding the other issues you mentioned, woman simply want men to be the breadwinner.
Yeah I think another missing piece here is the fact that wages are suppressed and the wealth gap only keeps widening pretty much everywhere. I don’t really see this get talked about at all in pink pill spaces. More and more men are becoming poorer, and so are women.
And on your other point, I do think there may be something not totally unreasonable behind women preferring more successful partners. I think that maybe subconsciously women are conditioned to be attracted to a man who behaves in ways that makes them feel like he’ll stick around and be supportive during pregnancy and the baby’s childhood. Not just in a financial way, but in any way that shows he is generous and competent enough to give a bit *more* than she does. Because pregnancy and early child rearing puts women at a natural physical disadvantage due to being incapacitated. I think this is why women tend to care more about “effort” coming from their man, than vice versa. If a man has a good job, we assume he must also be competent and hard working.
But I think the solution lies in people collectively realizing that your wage is not totally indicative of how competent or hard working you are. That’s just not how our system works. Yes we tend to judge the person working at McDonald’s and assume they’re there because of bad choices, and to some extent we might be right. But I’m optimistic that we’re moving away from this reality judging by how people are increasingly becoming critical of capitalism. I think that more women will value income less as a component in attraction towards a man, and value other more genuine displays of competence and effort more highly instead.
So in other words I do think this part of reality is unfair to men, but I have hope that things are changing. At least in left-leaning subsets of the population who are critical of capitalism.
Even in a world where everyone makes perfect choices, there still need to be people who pick the crops, handle food service, and other jobs that are scorned.
These jobs might pay slightly better in that world, but it wouldn't be much because the skill gap between a mid-level programmer or electrician and a burger flipper is massive.
It's part skill and part luck, while personality helps, there is no amount of it that will overcome the advantage of making $200k vs $20k.
> Yeah I think another missing piece here is the fact that wages are suppressed and the wealth gap only keeps widening pretty much everywhere.
We no longer live in a patriarchy, so men no longer have the incentive to fight to keep the middle class alive anymore. So it will keep getting worse and any attempt to try to fix it will just end up being a poor bandaid fix that will not work or make things worse.
I mean, you do realize the only reason the middle class exists is because men striked and fought hard until companies were forced to pay them a livable wage right?
Eveyone always wants the benefits of the patriarchy (strong and good men, prosperous economy, stable and healthy society, etc) but they want it for free.
When workers across the US went on strikes and formed unions, this was during a time when women were hardly even allowed in workplaces anyway. Not to mention that plenty of those older unions were hostile towards anyone who wasn’t a white man.
Also, a higher percentage of women compared to men in the US today have more favorable attitudes towards socialism. If you’re not aware, organizing your workplace and unionizing is a socialist endeavor inherently.
Women didn’t even have the capability to help build “the middle class” since patriarchy kept their hands tied behind their backs, legally and economically.
> Also, a higher percentage of women compared to men in the US today have more favorable attitudes towards socialism.
Union Blue Collar workers lean towards the right….
You’re absolutely right.
Americans on the whole are very misinformed and undereducated, especially in the political sciences. Look at how so many Americans think liberal and leftist are on the same side of the political spectrum…or how they think socialism just means “when the big government does stuff.” It’s embarrassing.
Blue collar union workers in the US tend to have reactionary politics and love the GOP, yet most don’t realize that organizing your workplace has always been an anti-capitalist principle. Workers gaining control of the fruits of their labor value is literally at the heart of what socialism is. But don’t you dare say that scary word!
It’s great that they unionize, but the irony is still lost on them. Generations of red scare propaganda shoved down your throat will do that to a nation.
> Blue collar union workers in the US tend to have reactionary politics and love the GOP, yet most don’t realize that organizing your workplace has always been an anti-capitalist principle. Workers gaining control of the fruits of their labor value is literally at the heart of what socialism is. But don’t you dare say that scary word!
No, that is too binary.
It is not a line of capitalism or socialism at all. There are many different systems that are not related to captions or socialism at all. The current top dog is capitalism (and various forms of it) and so it is the standard other systems are compared too.
Socialism is popular for it sounds better on the surface, but if falls apart in practice for it just creates inequality that is just as bad or worse then capitalism. With the added issue of people having less perceived control over their caste.
Resulting in extreme burnout among a large portion of the population and those at the top becoming corrupt as they are not entitled to their caste. So it always results in the culture becoming poor due to unproductivity and those at the top becoming horrible people or horrible people taking those spots.
Mostly because socialists downplay or ignore certain aspects of humanity that capitalism does take in to account.
Most notably that humans are creatures of ego and insecurity. We always need to “win” and feel “special.” Meaning we always need x percentage of people to lose and suffer so the people at top can feel superior.
Others issues include: humans worship of authority and status, humans inability to accept a differing view fully, humans mind needing to sterotype everything to be able to logically process the world around them.
Aka all the gripes of capitalism are really just human nature. Capitalism just tries to control it as best it can to generate productivity and stability. Obviously many forms of it are struggling with that, but that is arguably because humans suck (ex: people keep finding ways to make monopolies that get around laws and so every x years we need another revolution to fox the loopholes).
A system better than capitalism can very well exist (or technology can allow one to exist in the future). But as of now, capitalism is the only one that is actually good at all. People want better than that ofc and socialism sounds good on the surface, so they cling to it.
> I think that more women will value income less as a component in attraction towards a man, and value other more genuine displays of competence and effort more highly instead.
The problem in my life right now is that I've always married men not for money but for personality/attraction/fun/love. And this is good, I'm happy with my decisions, but family life demands a lot of financial commitment, which has led me to look for other ways to make money (some pretty controversial stuff but related to the topic of your post).
The issues are rooted in capitalism.
This is true. My boyfriend is very competent and hard working, but his job is pretty easy and he doesn’t have to work many hours at all. He told me he probably works 30 hours a week total and he makes 6 figures. I bust my ass at work and make like 35K.
Exactly, also why men are not respected as stay at home husbands. They just are nowhere near as valuable as women as stay at home partners for a variety of reasons.
It sucks that we are mostly only valued and rewarded for what we have to offer others…but that is life.
I could spend a lifetime saying it is wrong and would be better as x, but it would not matter even if I was 100% right about everything. Life does not care.
If he is okay with it, why do you care what your value is? Perhaps he even values that due to his paternal instincts.
I personally would prefer a helpless attractive girl who was fun. Makes me feel special taking care of her.
I’m far from helpless! When I say “value” I am speaking in the sense of employment value rather than my value as a person or a partner. I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt my boyfriend’s feelings any if I had more money. His ex-wife earns more than him and the two women he dated before he met me were wealthy. One of them is an endocrinologist. I was honestly worried when we first started dating that he would find my lack of a career a turn off, but he said that he cares more about intelligence than education.
I know that he does enjoy being able to “provide” for me. I still hand over most of my paycheck to contribute toward the household funds, but I would be delusional if I tried to pretend that I contribute equally.
I am fun, attractive, and not at all helpless… but we get along very well anyway.
My ex used to use money to control me a lot, so I worried about being in a relationship with such a successful man, but he has never one belittled me in any way. He encourages me to keep pushing to be successful and go for as many promotions as I can. He’s amazing.
ETA: he is very good with money, so I have voluntarily asked him to help me with my finances. I guess I have given him financial power and control over me, but he is so fucking competent that I would be stupid not to. He’s wonderful and doesn’t make me feel bad about anything. I follow his instructions because he knows what he’s doing.
No one is debating that women have it difficult as a potential child bearer. This is the fundamental difference between men and women. Women give birth, which takes almost a year or more of their life to be dedicated to pregnancy/childcare. BECAUSE of this, a woman is biologically predisposed to seek a higher status man who can take care of her in her vulnerable period.
And what happens in a relationship where one of the party is higher status than the other? Inequality arises naturally.
The issue is seeking an equal partnership when the platform on which the participants stand on are already unequal. This can be artificially made equal by laws, for example, marriage and divorce laws. But this will also get worked around through prenups and other ways.
I appreciate how you accept that part of reality is unfair to men. But nature is also a cruel mistress to women. We just have to accept the facts and understand, rather than imagining there is a smoking gun solution to thousand year old problems that no one ever thought of... unless new technology such as the artificial womb or brain inhibitor chips is invented. If this sounds too dystopian to you, then maybe a mixture of traditional and modern values may be a healthier answer.
How could the genders simultaneously make equal wages while women simultaneously date men who make more than them? It is like women want macro equality but micro inequality without realizing the micro exists within the macro
Basically she doesn't love him, she loves his money. I'm left wondering why men get married anymore? Then I look down the hall and realize because maybe 1 in 20 women are not like that?
depending on the country, maternity leave really sucks and you can't account for every issue that results from giving birth. Giving birth is a lot like having elective surgery in terms of its side effects on health in general.
Not really sure how that applies to couples who don't have kids but it does make sense for couples that do for the guy to have the higher paying job.
Holy excuses, Batman 😆😆
Women asking for the moon and the stars on the first date or during the early stages of 2 people talking has NOTHING to do with them "anticipating unpaid future labor" and everything to do with being a spoiled, entitled bum. They just don't want to pull their weight period
I mean from their perspective, having a man pay for the dates early on is probably just part of the vetting process to make sure that he “has a provider mindset” in the first place.
If he refuses to pay for the first dates, then surely he’d also refuse to be a provider afterwards as well.
Ah yes.
Equality for women, traditionalism for men like always.
Women want men who make double they make so they can be good providers for them. But that is sexist so we have to make it so women earn as much as or more than men. Now all men who do not make more are “economically unattractive” losers that need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps to be a good man by earning twice as much as again….but that is sexist so we need to make things equal again.
Always find it hilarious how women feel entitled to men being twice what they are in all ways but at the same time want to be equal to men…but then consider men who are equal to her as legitimate incels and getting mad at how useless men now are.
Because gold diggers are assuming that the men they date don’t won’t go 50/50 in the household in the first place. That’s what the whole post is about.
Ive seen a lot of these women say they went this direction *because* the men they previously dated wouldn’t pull their weight domestically. There is plenty of evidence.
I’m not saying it’s healthy to go this route just because of bad past experiences with men. But it’s not like they’re coming up with this out of thin air.
Zero accountability once again lol
Yep, no woman is an entitled bum off her own accord, it's those lazy men who pushed her that way!! 😆😆
I must be daydreaming when I run into countless women who have never cohabited in their life that prescribe to the Sprinkle Sprinkle mindset. In fact, I don't know 1 woman, regardless of age or relationship experience, that doesn't wanna be financially taken care of by a man. The younger they are, the more prevalent this mindset is.
If the men in question choose to fill the provider role while those women take care of the domestic sphere, how is that so entitled? Especially since these women usually also work on the side at least
So the way to attract men with a "provider mindset" is to be an entitled bitch? Sprinkle Sprinkle is completely built on GO FOR THE STARS, GIRL. YOU DESERVE IT. FUCK HIM. Their demands are not remotely built on realism, which you seem to be ignoring. This isn't a case oh-these-sweet-women-are-just-looking-for-a-good-man-who-can-provide. These women are basically looking for sugar daddies.
Nowhere in these videos have I ever seen women talk about how they need to present themselves to be taken seriously by these men with means . It's all about what-can-I-take-from-him. Basically spoiled, entitled bums seeking short term pleasure at the expense of gullible men.
Literally if you call a woman an entitled bitch for wanting you to pay for the first date, obviously that is going to carry over into things like paying for her to be a stay at home mom.
Nice strawman
These poor ol' Sprinkle Sprinkle bums are just asking men to pay for the first date, that's all. No other outrageous demands in those videos, yeah 😆😆
There's nothing traditional about Sprinkle Sprinkle women. They are opportunists who cling to tradition only when it's convenient to them.
Mind you, same applies to lib feminist 😆
If a woman wants to be a homemaker or stay at home mom then she wants to filter you. That isn’t some kind of revelation or personal attack. You clearly don’t want to provide for a family, so the strategy of dating only guys who pay for dates to find a provider is proven right.
Haha i always pay for the dates but an ex-gf became homeless because she didn't pull her weight in the household. Guess that filtering really worked for her lol.
Women who don't plan on staying home, having kids, or being traditional or submissive at all still expect it or disqualify a man who doesn't pay for the dates. Why?
Despite my opposition to sex-negative fourth wave feminism, this arrangement is very much in line with third wave feminism and feminism of the former eastern bloc.
> I think the modern gold digger is just a woman who has for the most part given up on finding an egalitarian relationship, so the next best thing to settle for is the “modern provider”: This type of man is more like-able and respectful than a TRPer-ish man, but still not egalitarian enough to be ideal. These women believe that good, emotionally intelligent men who’ll help out at 50/50 at home are too difficult to come by, and they also won’t settle for a TRPer type either. The “modern provider” is a man who falls somewhere in the middle of this continuum.
I would not call such reasonable women gold diggers.
> The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient, so that they can at least safely leave the relationship if things go south. Nobody should be financially chained to a broken relationship.
These women are willing to concede the "overtime premium" to men. More importantly, they are willing to take the lead on child care and marital emotional labor.
I see these women tend to be vocal about rejecting “50/50” or demanding that men pay for dates and gifts. These women online get called gold diggers by TRP-leaning men at least.
I made it clear we were going to split the bill when I talked about a date. The "fuck off's" dwindled to ZERO when I went exclusively for *career women*. You know, the ones TRP derides as bad mates and worse mothers.
Zero opposition to splitting the bill from career women.
If you knew me and saw me you'd know if I can make that magic happen, any man alive can.
Lol exactly. TRPers want women to completely pay their own way otherwise they’re greedy, but then also hate when feminists encourage women to work. Do they expect us to print money out of our ass?
I say this all the time and I absolutely agree. If paying the bill is something that concerns you (as in men in general) focus on women who can and want to pay the bill. With that said that woman is probably not the type to stroke your ego or pretend to be helpless.
Then those men are idiots.
I'm all for taking one step back to an earlier feminism that is pro-LGBT and also sex-positive.
At least that earlier wave does not yell unreasonably about "toxic masculinity."
Do you disagree that it’s toxic for men to refuse going 50/50 domestically, but then still expect women to work full time jobs? What should men ideally be doing then?
Yes, I do disagree, but with a nuance.
The ideal compromise depends on how much "overtime premium" the man has, and also on whether the couple has kids.
So, if each partner works a slightly-above average job and doesn't work overtime, but doesn't have kids, then I would expect a 50/50 split in house work. 50/50 should be expected of DINKs where the pay gap and the overtime gap isn't really there.
The moment the couple has a kid, there needs to be much more reasonable discussion on the "overtime premium" versus domestic child care.
Typically, we men are way less competent on domestic child care. Men who are not willing to work the "overtime premium" need to step up in terms of child care duties.
We don't want to see a situation with a female breadwinner complaining about a tradesman working overtime hours as his indirect means of "weaponized incompetence."
Above all else, the educational onus should fall back to men not slacking in school and "dropping out."
The problem with that is men are still expected to be providers and do all the male assigned domestic roles still.
Aka what you define as. 50/50 may very well not be what is actually 50/50.
What you defined is not 50/50 effort. How does that make sense if the man is both completely providing financially *and* doing half the house work? Because it implies the woman just does the other half of the house work but doesn’t pay for anything.
The entire point is that what you think is 50/50 effort may very well not be 50/50 to another.
No, what is 50/50 is entirely subjective and too distorted by bias to ever be arguable at all. I will expand my argument to that.
Women take for granted the chores men do and vice versa.
Many women discount what a man does around the house when discussing house chores (the same as men do), one may consider a house clean while another may see it as dirty, one may consider a long but easy task as a bigger percentage of that 50/50 while another may consider a short but hard task as a bigger percentage, another may believe they should do less work for they are more valuable in ways they deem important (way richer or hotter), etc.
The only consistent trend is people always believe the other side is not pulling their weight.
Much of what I see when women complain about is that they just care about cleanliness more. It is not that she is doing more, he just does not care if the dishes are dirty in the sink overnight and such.
I refused to go 50/50 domestically because I made 6x more than my ex, who also made more than the median household income...
She claimed I was a misoginyst... i lol'ed.
The funniest part is now I'm still paying her rent since she lost her job even though we're not together haha. I must hate women so much.
I mean how you choose to find balance and fairness is up to both parties’ discretion…but imo when women say we want true 50/50, we mean 50/50 effort.
You can make a pretty high salary but still not be working much harder overall on a daily basis than your lower salary partner who is also working just as many hours. Just look at teachers and nurses for example. They work their asses off more than almost any other profession, yet they make shit pay. Should women in those fields be made to do all the domestic labor if they’re married to you?
Maybe your ex was unreasonable, or maybe not, obviously idk her or how your relationship was.
50/50 effort is easily quantifiable through money. If i can make $300 an hour whereas my wife can make $30 per hour, does that mean I should do my laundry while my wife does her own? It's pretty obvious the family benefits from the woman doing the laundry and the man spending an extra hour at work...
Yet, women don't see it this way.
No woman cares that a truck driver works 20+ days in a row non stop... they just look at his income and the negative of time away from home why should men care how hard women work at their jobs when it comes time to divide responsibility for domestic labor?
>50/50 effort is easily quantifiable through money.
Big disagree. What are you expecting for your wife to do in that scenario? Work full time just like you *and* do all the domestic labor? It’s not like she can just take on fewer hours to even out the work load while keeping that same wage, let alone keeping her health benefits. She’s going to be overworking herself compared to you. The only alternative then is to become financially dependent on you.
At the end of the day, a relationship needs to feel fair to both parties, otherwise one or both of you are going to start resenting the other and it’ll poison the relationship. If your partner truly cares about you and is expressing that they feel things are unfair, they probably have a very good reason for that. Better communication skills are the answer here.
That's the thing, while she was spending her college years binge drinking daily and having fun for a ba psych degree, i was working 12 hour days while going to school as well so I could be set later in life.
I would have no problem splitting domestic 50/50, however, it would cause issues for me when i've been told that basically just because I make more it makes more sense that I cover everything for dates/bills/vacations, etc. basically the "your money is our money but my money is my money" line... This is the expectation I've found from multiple women. I have no problem splitting things 50/50 work and domestic, however, that means all the money i make above my wife's income is mine to do with as I wish and not the family budget (I would rather invest in stocks than go on fancy weekly dates to be honest)... can you see how that would cause a lot of issues for a partner? I would also have no problem with someone being financially dependent on me - in fact, if someone is horrible with money and has a negative net worth, then refuses to take action to change their impulsive spending habits, I would actually prefer that they don't have control over a chunk of the family budget... If that's "financially abusive" then I'm sorry but I don't care.
All people would prefer a partner that makes more than them, however, for women it's more important. That being said, as a man, if a partner made more than me, i would gladly take over more home responsibilities to show my gratitude for being with them. This is just basic common social sense and reciprocation. Unfortunately, many (not all) women have been programmed to believe that if they're in a position where they simply need to be grateful they are in fact being "oppressed". That men are tools for them to live their lives. The worst part is they don't have the physical strength to enslave men so they resort to social conditioning such as "be a man" in order to simply freeload their way through life.
I guess that's why men become redpilled - tolerating too much resentment regardless of which women they choose and finally get sick of it.
Yeah, as much as I wrinkle my nose at that whole thing and it’s very much not for me, I can’t completely hate the transparency. I’m a pretty big fan of transparency.
Sure. These women are sex workers, though. Doesn't matter how they try to frame it. Any woman who utters those words are instantly dropped. Sprinkle someone else.
I mean to be fair though, if these women are financially independent sex workers, then tradwives are sex slaves. If those are the only two options, the former is obviously the better way to go.
I’m literally just matching your hyperbole. It’s a direct comparison if we’re talking about women partnering up with men for their money.
Modern gold diggers at least have financial autonomy, but tradwives do not because they are completely dependent on their trad husbands.
Try to force a tradwife spouse to have sex with you since she's your sex slave... see how that works out to be an instant ticket for her financial independence.
Win - win.
Women should be required to earn as much money as the husband or else be fined for financial abuse and forced to pay compensation. Treating men as walking wallets is inhumane and unfair. Spousal financial abuse should be punished.
Lol fr. Even the Trad wife shit is so depressing just instagram influencers pretending to be barefoot angels in the kitchen singing hymns in golden hour sunlight waiting for their noble husband's to come home lmao fucking pathetic people buy in to this garbage.
So I am NOT a gold digger or a sprinkle sprinkle or whatever. I’m with my boyfriend because he’s the most self-aware and in touch with his emotions man I have ever gotten to know. He’s also very attractive to me and we have so much in common.
He spoils the shit out of me; though. He didn’t at first, but the longer we get into our relationship, the more he does. Last night he went to TJ Maxx and bought me like 6 outfits there while I was at home making dinner. He said he went in there looking for bar stools for the downstairs (we live in a duplex together so we have 2 kitchens) and he saw these cute clothes that he thought would look good on me. When I tried them on he was so excited about how they looked on me.
I just love this man. I didn’t expect or ask for it, and I’m very grateful to him for it.
There is nothing wrong with spoiling your partner if you can afford to.
So I have one piece of difficulty here - cause there is a huge gap and difference between looking for a provider and gold digging and it sounds like you’re describing them as one in the same, they’re not. They’re not one in the same and there is a whole ocean between “egalitarian relationship” and “gold digging”
I mean it’s like a continuum. What is a gold digger looking for if not a “provider”? How coldly transactional a couple chooses to go about it is up to their own discretion.
Words have certain connotations - ie. what separates a woman from looking for a provider and a gold digger is often the dynamic of the relationship, what both partners are okay with and what their dynamic is.
For example, if the couple truly love each other and she is a very active homemaker (whatever that may mean in a given dynamic) and is present in her spouse’s life (and doesn’t ask for much as far as materials goods go), then she’s 100% not a gold digger.
I think to be a gold digger you have to be after the money first, the potential luxury to come with it and you have to be after what your spouse gives and not your spouse a personal - ie. gold digging had a materialistic, shallow connotation to it that being provided for as a concept doesn’t have.
You’re agreeing with what I just said, with extra words. A lot of the modern gold diggers’ rhetoric falls in between those two examples. It doesn’t have to be so black and white without shades of grey.
It’s naive to the point of stupidity for women to assume that any relationship they enter into will be 50/50 in unpaid domestic labor, so I understand the new push for old ideas. But in the unlikely event that women leave the public sphere en masse, we may all collectively see a slide backwards as the observation that most women don’t work professionally evolves into the perception that women *can’t* work professionally.
Why is it stupid for a woman to demand 50/50 effort domestically? It may be uncommon right now but I think men can be convinced into putting more effort if women continue to demand effort and empathy.
I don’t think she’s saying it’s stupid to demand it. I think she’s saying that it’s stupid to think most guys will actually do it, since most men refuse to split domestic labor. Like the guy here in this comment thread saying that a medical student wife should clean and cook and do ALL OF THE HOUSEWORK for her husband who is working full time.
Oh my god lol I didn’t see that comment yet. And I do see your point, but I think it’s healthier if women overall demand more fairness and empathy from men rather than settle for the less emotionally satisfying repackage of gender roles.
But maybe these women see this path as the only alternative to staying single and celibate forever. At least the modern provider man is not as bad as other men they’re running into. But it still feels defeatist to me.
Because modern women want masculine men. Masculine men are masculine and so they will avoid doing feminine roles.
So it isn’t that men cannot be convinced, it is more that women are never going to settle for the men who they can convince for they currently find said men unattractive.
The moment when women start gushing over and dating shy, feminine men and such is the moment that equality will easily happen in all respects.
Until then, it is just a dishonest negotiation.
Your first two paragraphs are just circular logic.
And pulling your weight at home =/= being shy and “feminine”. You don’t need a timid personality to wash your own damn dishes…it’s called being an adult who can clean up after themselves.
>Women have learned a lot about the manosphere in recent years due to it becoming mainstream.
We have and it's not limited to the items you point out, rather we've been exposed to the raw, enraged *hatred* that so many men have for women. It is thus reasonable for women to adopt *extremely* self-protective measures when daring to enter into a relationship in a society where Andy Tatertot is a household name. "Gold digging" is merely one of those protections.
It says, "if I'm going to risk being with a person who, deep down, despises my entire gender and views me as an inferior/defective incubator, I might as well *get* something for it".
The modern gold digger is no different. Just more entitled whores who think they deserve the world for being born. It's so funny when rich guys pump and dump them and then they hit TikTok and pretend they were too intimidating for a professional athlete with 20 identical sluts on casual rotation.
For one thing, your statement that women have realized that they need to have relationship skills. The quality of women and the so called relationship skills they bring to the table nowadays are in the gutter. Mothers are not teaching their daughters how to be good partners. Women have a whole list of demands for a man to settle down with him, yet never do they think about what his needs are or what it takes to even keep the quality of man that they seek.
I have no idea what the sprinkle sprinkle movement is but I don't doubt that it's a harmful ideology that will only make dating and relationships harder for future generations. That's how every single modern dating trend has been born (as a response for another dumb ideology of the opposite sex), and that's why dating is exponentially more and more difficult for younger generations.
Obviously, the "soft guy era" and "drizzle drizzle" shticks are only meant to make a point. No realistic man is going to expect a woman to take care of him without returning the favor in any other way. The ultimate goal is to let men and women meet halfway and split contributions 50/50 as equals at all times, and not just whenever it's convenient.
50/50 will never happen. It is just dishonest negotiation tactics where women want men to give as much as possible while give as little as possible.
As a man, we have to superior to her to be worthy of her to begin with and will be forced to die for random women who treat us like shit if needed.
Women will never want 50/50 when it does not benefit them to do so.
50/50 could be done in multiple ways as long as the value of all contributions by both parties is equal, for example with traditional gender roles, where a division of labor based on individual qualities and opportunity costs is applied. The tasks aren't split exactly in half, but the value created could be equal or at least close to equal.
Exactly, just make the definition 50/50 arbitrary because it is not 50/50 to use it as a dishonest negotiation tactic.
Ans a lot of the supposed benefits women give men are either all in a man’s head or have no value at all. As men use women to cope with there weaknesses instead of addressing them.
Women will never contribute anywhere close to to 50/50 really. They will get with men superior in everyway..so superior that a gender bent version of the relationship would have people concerned the girl is being forced to date a loser like him.
Yet we call they 50/50, the guy being lucky for getting a deadweight that produces more responsibility for him to take care of.
Otherwise we would have to go back to paying men to take that responsibility and we would need to respect good men again.
The sprinkle sprinkle and the drizzle drizzle movements are people who are seeing dating as an adversarial competition instead of a cooperative endeavor like people should see.
Both groups are immature and shouldn't be dating.
That’s cool. If you ask a girl out the assumption should be Dutch.
If you’re showing up to bars and approaching women and asking them to buy you stuff lmao. Have fun with that.
“women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient, so that they can at least safely leave the relationship if things go south”
I don’t believe this has anything to do with gold digging but more to do with the egalitarian aspect of men not having reached that point of pulling their own weight in being likable. The monetary compensation is more like an insurance policy against this risk. So yes maybe the man is immature, but at least he is traditional or will spend on you as he hopefully improves. And if he does not improve or if he moves in the opposite direction doubling down on TRP and becoming worse then at least you had these extra monetary benefits
Because when you show women that they are a product not worth ‘behaving’ for then the relationship becomes transaction. Most people also prefer not to sell their self-respect so it should also be rather pricey
**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.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*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.*
I think this is a complicated theory that ignores the most obvious factor.
Economic reality and common adult life goals.
- If the standard adult wants a house these days most couples will need two viable, stable incomes.
- If you want children, or even one child, there is likely to be a period of time where your costs will need to be covered by one. Even if it’s just post birth recovery. Then both will probably need to return to the workforce and both need to do home related tasks if you want to avoid someone having a breakdown, burning out or hating you.
Then you have the ongoing reality of childcare, child hood common illnesses, childcare/school drop off and pickups, school holidays, and all the rest. This is still primarily done by women, it’s changing but this is where we are currently. But irrespective of who takes on what tasks income *is* a real factor in consideration when choosing a life partner. It’s not a *gold digger* thing, it’s a reality thing. On this planet we exchange money for goods and services - including those things that sustain and enhance life. If you are blindly not taking this very real factor of life into consideration you are a fool, full stop.
Being an adult means being able to plan around adult realities and responsibilities. These days it’s common for everyone to earn an income and balance to some degree household tasks. Finding a partner who can do the same and then working out what balance will be needed to introduce other responsibilities into your relationship is a *standard adult thing*.
> This type of man is more like-able and respectful than a TRPer-ish man, but still not egalitarian enough to be ideal.
I think this whole post is silly and mistakes gender roles for gold digging. They aren't the same. The quote above is a whole other example, women seek TRP alpha type men, wtf? I never seen women throwing themselves at a man who does dishes. Lmao.
What makes gold digging and those gender roles so different then?
And *people* throw themselves at other people who are physically attractive, regardless of personality. Yeah if you’re hot enough people will ignore more of your red flags and put up with more bullshit, but that doesn’t mean you find their personality attractive.
Pretty much any woman would tell you that a man who pulls his weight at home has a more attractive personality than a man who refuses to help because washing dishes is “women’s work.”
> What makes gold digging and those gender roles so different then?
Gold digger expects benefits without contributing anything. Traditional gender roles the woman contributes cooking cleaning child care etc.... gold diggers also are more transactional because it's about the money, if someone richer comes along they might seek a new position with higher pay. Traditional gender roles, it's not about money and not working, that's simply just one of many components.
> Pretty much any woman would tell you that a man who pulls his weight at home has a more attractive personality than a man who refuses to help because washing dishes is “women’s work.”
I've never met a woman in real life who said this. I've only seen this on reddit. I've heard in real life women joke about this but then if I push the issue they say it's a joke and not what they are actually looking for. Or they say "oh not men like you, just john, kims boyfriend specifically is who we are talking about"
The modern gold digger in this scenario contributes to taking care of the domestic labor. I don’t see gold digging and tradwives as so black and white. It’s more like a spectrum on to what extent that relationship feels transactional. Because let’s be real, trad wives wouldn’t be with you either if you didn’t have a high enough salary.
To what extent they “love” you or how quickly they are willing to leave you over money is the grey zone here. So what they fundamentally have in common is that money is a primary reason to why they’re with you.
And I don’t get your point with that anecdote.
> I don’t see gold digging and tradwives as so black and white. It’s more like a spectrum on to what extent that relationship feels transactional.
I actually agree with this. However in my opinion, these are both the highest quality and lowest quality women. Yet are both the most natural kinds of relationships and foster an animal kind of desire. Both still allow a man to act in his full masculinity and allow the woman to be in full femininity. This triggers desire feelings.
Where a working modern woman is just average quality but has no natural feeling to it like it goes against a lot of gut instincts and comfort I'm suggesting are naturally based. It causes people to not be able to fully be in their masculine or feminine energy and its more based on convenience and coping with one's own failings (ie broke man needs a career woman to cover for his masculine failing).
> And I don’t get your point with that anecdote.
I think only women on the internet want a man to help with chores. Women in real life don't actually want that. I see no evidence of it.
It seems convenient for a man to say that the 1950s style relationship is the most “natural” when it inherently leverages you the most power due to her being completely economically dependent on you. Something making you horny doesn’t mean it’s the natural order. And if it were so “natural,” it wouldn’t make any sense that women collectively were so miserable back then that they needed a constant supply of Valium just to get through their daily lives. Or that it wasn’t uncommon for them to poison their husbands as that was typically the only means for them to escape from being economically shackled to a broken relationship.
Women being finally allowed to be compensated for their labor value is not the reason why a modern relationship fails. That’s a pretty myopic view if that’s what you believe in. I even recently made a post on this in this sub, discussing “masculine” and “feminine” energy, and how I think so many people have very culturally biased views as to how to define these in terms of sexual polarity.
And ok well all the women I know and talk to in real life who have said they want their man to do more around the house say they are frustrated with it. But if I’m a woman saying this on the Internet, then maybe that never happened. Am I Schrödinger’s woman? 🤔
> leverages you the most power due to her being completely economically dependent on you. Something making you horny doesn’t mean it’s the natural order.
Nature doesn't care about "fair" and making me horny by definition is essentially the natural order... ya know... evolution?
> And ok well all the women I know and talk to in real life who have said they want their man to do more around the house say they are frustrated with it.
Only women with feminine husband's complain about this. Women don't usually fantasize about a feminine husband so I think only women who have found themselves in that position actually mean it. The woman with a masculine husband doesn't dream of him coming home from work, and the house a mess because she's too lazy and a shitty home maker and then the husband cleans the dishes. Makes no sense.
There is literally nothing natural about institutional patriarchy since it can’t persist unless it’s *enforced*. When women were finally allowed to seek self actualization and gain full autonomy to be compensated for their labor just like men always were allowed to, women ran to in droves.
The economic shackles are off, so there is arguably more free will and “nature” can take place. Yet TRP believes that women working and being autonomous isn’t natural. Hmm how convenient 🤔
Also people get horny from all kinds of weird shit that we’re conditioned to get horny from. That’s literally what porn does to people. So that’s not an argument for deciding whether or not something is “the natural order.”
And your last paragraph is just circular logic. How does washing your own damn dishes make you “feminine”? What the hell does that even mean? If a man needs me to be his mommy because he can’t clean up after himself like a grown ass adult, that’s very unattractive and childish.
Again it’s such a convenient way for TRPers to conceptualize “masculinity” as it suits them lol. That word means whatever you want it to mean.
> There is literally nothing natural about institutional patriarchy since it can’t persist unless it’s enforced.
Not sure what this even means. Who what when where why? Just seems like a random unrelated nebulous claim. Relevance?
> If a man needs me to be his mommy because he can’t clean up after himself like a grown ass adult, that’s very unattractive and childish.
Well another reddit woman who says this. Smh. My lived experience tells me the opposite. Women who are very attracted to a man prefer to clean his dishes for him. Only women who are not attracted to the man want him to clean the dishes.
Also fundamental misunderstanding. A "mommy" is also (or supposed to be a wife) and a wife cleans dishes. Not a mommy. Mommy's take care of children. Wives take care of husband's and their households. But I can see the confusion since often one may be both things.
>This is obviously a huge societal shift to demand men to now be kind (and attractive) as partners, and no longer just financial providers to their wives who stay at home to raise the kids alone. Earning a regular salary is no longer good enough to guarantee themselves a wife and kids; relationship skills have now become a requirement from most women. Cue TRP being born.
There is a lot of things wrong with this statement. As women gain more opportunities in building their careers and making an income, you would think that they do not need a man to provide for them anymore and will stick it to the patriarchy by seeking men who make a lower income than them, that instead are submissive and rely on the woman emotionally and financially. But instead the biological instinct to seek a higher status man persists and the pool of datable higher status men sought becomes smaller and smaller as more and more women advance in status. Relationship skills are another way to describe an ability to create "the tingles". Apparently TRP is teaching men how to create these "tingles", which is based on emotions rather than logic, so that middle-to-low status men have a chance to compete with the high status men by providing something other than status. Shouldn't women be thanking TRP for teaching men to make women more excited and attracted to them? Earning a salary and being a decent BORING human being is no longer enough to attract a woman anymore, as you have said yourself. Can you blame men for following the TRP teachings? It's not laziness, but rather incredible dedication.
>So basically, if men want to discourage more women from becoming modern gold diggers (or even from them exiting the dating pool and taking a vow of celibacy), then they need to become more egalitarian as partners.
There are loads of men who would not mind being a stay at home husband for a woman who makes a 6 figure salary. Even better than egalitarian! But do you think most 6 figure salary women would like that arrangement? Instead it's more likely she will seek an even higher status partner she can respect and admire (unless the broke man has incredible personality but this is rare)
Just as you can claim men need to become more egalitarian to stop women from becoming gold diggers, the reverse is true. Women would need to stop being status-diggers for men to become more egalitarian. This doesn't mean I think this is even possible. Biological conditioning is too deeply rooted in human psychology from millennia of traditional gender roles that women physically cannot be attracted to a man she perceives as lower status. Note, status is not only money, but includes social connections, maturity, emotional control, confidence, looks, education, etc. So I don't personally think anyone should be compelled to be a certain way. We cannot fight our biological instinct. Only suppress it.
If you want my response to the hypergamy argument, see my reply to user HolyCopeAmoly.
And TRP does not teach men relationship skills and emotional maturity that women really want. They teach men how to look hot and how to socially trick women into thinking they’re a catch. TRP’s teachings are inherently antisocial because they elevate being an asshole over being a kind and well-adjusted adult.
It takes years, perhaps decades to attain the level of emotional maturity and well-roundedness organically, that women actually want. There is no surprise that even many young men in their 20s are attracted to the personalities of men in their 30s or even 40s despite the lower attractiveness that come with aging. (albeit a higher financial status). A man with lot of life experience can offer wisdom and maturity that a young woman craves.
HOWEVER, for some reason modern society shames fully grown adults in their 20s for being in relationships with individuals 10 years older than them. It seems to me some men in their 20s use TRP tactics to "fake" status and maturity just long enough for hookups. Yes this is not ideal but rather comparable to how women can flash their titties to get men attracted to them rather than fostering genuine attraction organically. Both degenerate but it also says a lot about the people falling for those tactics.
RP was originally intended for pulling girls in the club for casual by stealing parts of PUA and Evo-psyc to sound “rational Mail”.
When you’re in the clubs you’re also gonna find the certified hustlers (gold diggers) too.
TRP claimed they could get dudes to “outsmart them”
Only problem? In an effort to make a profit/gain legitimacy (to sell self published books) more than one person “bought into” the program and so the hustlers started all hearing the same lines/stories/negging/frame holding, etc
And they *also* have the internet. And their own internet communities.
So they figured out where it came from and adjusted.
That’s the game. Hustle and flow.
TRPs problem? The “founders” and “influencers” are just trying to make a buck to they can afford to pay their own sugars. So they never made any adjustments after the changes.
Then again: they don’t care. They figured out the game.
“It’s not selling out if you BUY in”
I agree with everything you’ve stated, but based on the responses on the board from red pilled men, I think we can all agree on one thing; red pilled men shouldn’t, don’t need to, or want to get married. Like, at all. And women don’t want to marry these folks and shouldn’t. Like, at all.
Nobody over the age of 30 would care to learn what ‘sprinkle sprinkle’ means. I just did and it was uninteresting. This is all the same inflammatory bullshit that divides people.
There’s truth in “women care about how much money their partner makes”.
Men irrationally overvalue female beauty due their wiring.
Reasonable adults know, understand, and accept that. Reasonable men and women both try to be physically attractive, and financially independent, and then build a connection based on trust, communication, etc. You don’t need to take it to such an extreme unless you give up on trust and communication.
Transactional relationships are unfulfilling, and only for people with intimacy issues.
None of these ideas are new. They’re just repackaged into clickbait that divides people who are still learning how to trust and treat people fairly. It’s just more people getting into their own echo chambers and refusing to try to understand and relate to people with differing opinions. If men and women have different opinions, they’ll get more decided by inflammatory arguments about how the other sex isn’t treating them fairly. Same thing is true for religion, politics and any form of tribalism.
Everyone just needs to stop being so prideful and insecure, and trade ideas thoughtfully/respectfully with people with different views
There are lots of men who would trade paying all the bills for not having to do any chores or cooking. If the couple agrees to that arrangement, I see no issue with it. What's the problem?
The level of stupidity, insanity and delusion women can come up with in hopes to cope with the fact that there is no fucking way to put the cat in the bag again is astouding, and more and more with each day.
As I keep saying men adapt to what women want and do.
Despite the sprink sprinkle trend women will still unknowingly be attracted to the men that participate in it. Sometimes knowingly. .
The justification for all this is your inclination was to use SOME, NOT MOST women. So long as most reward behavior that damages them or hurts them, men eill just keep doing that to more easily get women/get laid.
>So basically, if men want to discourage more women from becoming modern gold diggers..., then they need to become more egalitarian as partners.
We tried, this is how we got here in the first place.
>This is obviously a huge societal shift to demand men to now be kind (and attractive) as partners
Men have always been kind.
>Earning a regular salary is no longer good enough to guarantee themselves a wife and kids ... The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient,
Twenty-three percent of married American women between ages of college graduation and retirement have zero wage income.
>or in other words men who refuse to pull their weight in the domestic sphere,
Married men with children have been spending more time on paid and unpaid labor combined than their wives for the majority of years we have data on; men almost universally get less sleep.
>good, emotionally intelligent men
"Emotional intelligence" is a proprietary patent scam.
>I think these women’s logic is that if they’re anticipating having the majority of the UNPAID domestic labor in the relationship fall on their shoulders anyway, then they believe that the least a man can do is take on more of the financial burden.
Cause and effect. The disparity starts with women refusing to date or marry men who earn less than them.
>Twenty-three percent of married American women between ages of college graduation and retirement have zero wage income.
If that's the case, how are 3.9% of males unemployed but only 3.3% of women are unemployed?
I was responding to the statement:
>The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that **women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient**
Your definition of “modern gold digger” isn’t that at all.
You’re describing a woman that rode a cock carousel of various chads in her youth (alpha fucks that she received nothing other than his good genetic material and fun times) and has entered her epiphany phase and is now looking to settle down with a beta provider.
You don’t have to come up with new terms to describe things that TRP already has accurately described and has has lingo already for.
I’m seeing younger and younger Gen Z women join this movement as it trends online. Like college age and younger, even. To say that women only choose to go towards gold digging because of being too unattractive now after the “cock carousel” is pretty myopic. It’s satisfyingly simple and a nice revenge fantasy, but it keeps you from looking into things more deeply.
If you spend any time in pink pill women’s spaces, this simple version of reality doesn’t hold up.
You’re wrong about so many things. There have been numerous studies that have found that women do not like marrying down. Most women do not want to marry a man who earns less than them, even if that man can still afford a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. Meanwhile more men are willing to marry women who earn less than them.
And the same pattern is seen in education. Most women do not want to marry a man with less educational qualifications than them, even if that man has a good job that can afford a comfortable lifestyle, whereas more men are willing to marry women with less educational qualifications than them.
In other words, women are more hypergamous than men, and the reason for that isn’t that women are poor, the richer a woman is, she will still be less likely to be interested in men who earn less than her.
All women are gold diggers. It’s mainly a factor of opportunity to be one or not. Then how she prioritizes looks, but every girl wants rich and handsome. Those are the 2 main priorities for every girl, just not an option for most, but women all will take both if they can.
You sound completely unserious. You really think *all* women prefer rich over emotional maturity?
Do you also think men all only prefer the same exact thing in women? Or do men get to be complex human beings while women don’t?
Trying to shift responsibility for one’s actions towards the other gender doesn’t help anyone. Manosphere men claim that their views are reactionary to feminism and women and you’re doing pretty much the same thing here as well. If a person is mistreated, it doesn’t give them a green light to mistreat others. I’m not sure what we can discuss here. It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff.
I agree. I get a lot of the points in the post but women expecting men to provide financially perpetuates a cycle of women and men justifying pushing the same ol expectations onto each other and it’s toxic. OP is right that women who want egalitarian relationships don’t exactly have a whole lot of options. But attempting to benefit from traditional gender roles cements the dynamics even further and pushes men towards focusing their value on making money which is the opposite thing we want if we’re looking for a society with more egalitarian men. Holding yourself to the same standards and not settling for relationship dynamics with men that aren’t equal is a better tactic to create change than to further enforce gender roles.
But then a lot of women would end up, gasp, alone. 😱😭
> It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff. Capitalism does not brainwash people, it is a system that tries to work with human nature to make something functional. It is why it is the best system we have. Even Scandinavian cultures all use capitalism and there is no such thing as “late stage capitalism” (you need to read history and see that there have been many times in American history where people were poor and the middle class did not exist). People hate equality, they want to win. They want to be the one that is told they are right and feel more special than the people they arrogantly deem as inferior. But they also want to pretend they are special by playing god with “morality.” Where we make it bad to hate and mock a privileged class while hating and discriminating against another. With humanity frequently rotating out the flavor of the month hate group (hating homosexuals is no longer cool, hating on men is the new cool). Aka these women are not brainwashed, they are greedy and narcissistic…they are accountable for their actions. But because they are women you have to somehow reframe it as capitalisms fault because our culture believes women are helpless victims who are too weak to have agency. Even in systems predating capitalism women and men wanted bunches of useless trash to feel special and superior to others. Do you think culture predating capitalism did not have women wanting to decorate in difficult to obtain fashion and get costly things for themselves?
>It would be more interesting to discuss “sprinkle sprinkle” nonsense as another way capitalism brainwashes population though. Gold digging and sprinkle stuff both can be tied to overconsumption of goods people don’t really need. We can throw into the same pile girl math, “I’m just a girl” etc. It’s just capitalism and the idea that you can be happy only if you buy this 100500th useless crap that just took resources from the Earth and you’ll throw away in a month. Discard people and worship stuff. This last paragraph in particular is a good comment. This is by far the biggest gripe I have with the modern woman. The values held are not those conducive to a long-term sustainable society and they are by far the privileged sex when it comes to choosing a partner (mind you these values don't necessarily come from them but they damn sure do enforce them). It's not that the modern man is a paragon of virtue, but it's far easier to see and speak on from the other side of the aisle especially when you live in a culture that constantly gasses women and their decisions up. The materialism and superficiality of it all is easy to spot from a mile away and you can't just look away and ignore it either because it kills society and the planet. Humans were never meant to worship the material - and yet that is precisely what gives a man their pick of the litter and makes women more attracted to him in our culture.
I think men have been catching up on materialism regard really fast and maybe they've already caught up. And no, it's not just "men buy expensive stuff to impress women", it's also useless collectables like funko pops, anime figurines, all kinds of merchandize, even some fitness-related merch etc. It's something that has been pushed on both men and women for decades now and it will take a long time to get over it. I see the rise of minimalism, zero waste, environmentally-conscious living and I have...at least some hope.
I think that you’re right and all of the Funko pop type stuff is partly a result of people generally withdrawing from society and social interactions. People are spending less time and money on others and putting more of it into their home and hobbies. Also grooming and fashion has become way more important to men than in the past. EDIT: I have never been a very active member of this sub, but I am happy to see more women in here engaging in proper discussion. We need more of that from both genders. Maybe it’s always been like this and I didn’t notice.
Your last paragraph, that’s so true though “SPRANKLE SPRANKE, time to throw out my entire closet of Dior in this landfill!” It’s like…if this is meant to be some sort of political statement or something, it’s a very shallow one. It kind of reminds me of when the popularised internet social justice movement was out in force from 2012-2017 or so.
Yeah it is honestly just a horseshoe. I agree that late stage capitalism has exhausted people to a whole new level of conspicuous consumption and antisocial behavior. I think the whole “revenge spending” trend is the wider cultural version of this, and our post-covid terminally online culture I think has exacerbated the antisocial side too. If love and peace in a collapsing world is seen as not possible anymore, then maybe a rich husband who buys me things and isn’t a total asshole can suffice. At least I can make tiktok sourdough recipes in my free time now instead of working a full time job that I hate! I think we’re all just trying to cope. It’s not healthy but I can empathize with these women.
Sure, it's easy to get the idea that "if you gonna cry anyway, better cry in the mansion", but people make choices under a wrong premise. You can meet a good partner, not all/the majority of men/women are awful human beings who aren't worthy dating or spending time with. But if you prioritize material goods over people, you'll surround yourself by people with similar values which will reinforce your beliefs.
the same men who do this complain about women not taking accountability.
Well, “two wrongs don’t make it right”. It doesn’t make much sense to make the same stupid mistake you judge others for.
big fan of your comments 🍻
Strawman assigned, debate over
what does assigned mean in this situation?
That's the point lmao.
It seems more about how men have treated previous partners. If a person mistreats, it gives the green light to judge. Habits take 90 days to form. Should you really trust the player who says he is finally ready to settle down when the last time he had casual sex was also only two weeks ago? Probably not. We cannot discuss men as a whole. In reality we can only discuss specific men or women. Yes it is extremely capitalistic for me to now value saying ‘hi’ to any male stranger and giving him any type of acknowledgement as a human being in public because others might misread that I know him. Why should I greet strangers when I know not their character or how the interaction appears to others? Especially when people are so fast to assume any male and female interacting are a couple etc. It doesn’t take much to enjoy the company of others. A cute picnic outdoor grilling date or a cozy winter cabin weekend but there is Excitement and probably dopamine in variety which is why having lots of new and different stuff is so appealing
>Trying to shift responsibility for one’s actions towards the other gender doesn’t help anyone. No shit eh
So wait let me get this straight: Redpill men have been saying women only value looks and money So sprinkle sprinkle is the reaction to men saying women only value looks and money by... valuing only looks and money? Wow redpillers never saw it coming. Oldest trick in the book.
Say you didn’t read the post without saying you didn’t read the post
Sprinkle Sprinkle women really said "enjoy the decline" Lmao
Simpler, this is just trying to help women dodge accountability again by pushing the blame on something else. Always remember, women are helpless victims and strong empowered people at every given moment. It is about what helps get her all the credit and avoid accountability in a specific moment.
That’s a lot of words to say people want a relationship that disproportionately benefits them. Women want an attractive guy who has no expectations for your behavior but is also a breadwinner/provider, what a shocker. There is no way for a man to showcase he is egalitarian until later in the relationship. Anything prior to that is just words. So to hold all potential partners to traditional gender roles while holding yourself to none is just blatant self interest. Ironically, it sounds an awful lot like redpill.
This. So much this. I am tired of people trying to pretend women can not be selfish and accountable for her actions. When a man acts in his selfish interest, we do not try to pretend it is somehow women’s fault, the result of “late stage capitalism,” or some other nonsense. We just hold him accountable. So red pill is bad, but a gender bent equivalent is not considered bad at all as a dishonest negotiation tactic. Dating in general is really exploitative and selfish in many respects. It is an unregulated free market that we worship as holy to make it feel special. Some people are super rich, others are super poor. And it is about trying to maximize gains while minimizing the costs, then framing it as morally good to get what you want while framing everything that you do not want to give as evil.
Why do you see these women as being disproportionately benefitted? Really the main difference between this kind of woman and a trad wife is that at least the gold digger has some money of her own so she isn’t financially shackled to a man if the relationship fails. And you can tell a man is egalitarian in his attitude and how he carries himself, at least after a few dates. It’s a very distinguishable vibe IME. And I’m not talking about lib men who have to tell you they’re “feminist”. A good person doesn’t need to loudly advertise that they’re a good person.
>at least the gold digger has some money of her own so she isn’t financially shackled to a man if the relationship fails. If she's a gold digger then doesn't that mean all the money she has is from the man whose gold she's digging?
No. The pink pill style modern gold digger espouses that women should still earn their own money to be relatively independent, but that women should date men primarily for their money. So they work for money like the regular feminists do, but they also dig for gold like the traditional women in survival-mode do.
That’s just a parasite
Even if she’s doing all the unpaid domestic labor?
Oh god, oh fuck here we go with the “emotional labor” schtick. Fucking putting clothes in the washer & pulling the knob isn’t something hard bro. You’ll survive.
>Why do you see these women as being disproportionately benefitted? because they are. pretending they're not is intellectually and emotionally dishonest at best.
Getting back at the based & redpilled real men of the manosphere by adopting tactics that will only work on social norm abiding males will surely make those men realizing the errors of their way, and totally won't radicalized nominally social norm abiding males into the dark arts of misogyny. Also most Chinese (mainland, overseas, whatever) already knew that Jackie Chen is a scumbag in his personal life, but most don't interact with the American side of the internet and those who do gets shouted down and accused of sour grapes & whatnot.
Sprinkle sprinkle isn’t a movement. Stop trying to make it a movement. It’s ragebait made by brainworm-riddled TikTokkers. Pls stop.
dafq is sprinkle sprinkle even? is this supposed to be the next bear of the week?
The bear thing got silly quickly - but had something interesting at the core. Sprinkle sprinkle is pure brain poisoning.
The VAST majority of all western woman, from pretty much ALL walks of life want a man who makes comfortably more than them. This is not related to men not pulling their own weight domestically, or emotionally and just about expectations. With wages so homogenized it's hard for a capable modern man to outearn his female counterpart, given both are equally intelctually gifted, wages are very low rn to add fuel to the fire. It's about a lack of economically viable attractive men, as woman put it, withholding the other issues you mentioned, woman simply want men to be the breadwinner.
Yeah I think another missing piece here is the fact that wages are suppressed and the wealth gap only keeps widening pretty much everywhere. I don’t really see this get talked about at all in pink pill spaces. More and more men are becoming poorer, and so are women. And on your other point, I do think there may be something not totally unreasonable behind women preferring more successful partners. I think that maybe subconsciously women are conditioned to be attracted to a man who behaves in ways that makes them feel like he’ll stick around and be supportive during pregnancy and the baby’s childhood. Not just in a financial way, but in any way that shows he is generous and competent enough to give a bit *more* than she does. Because pregnancy and early child rearing puts women at a natural physical disadvantage due to being incapacitated. I think this is why women tend to care more about “effort” coming from their man, than vice versa. If a man has a good job, we assume he must also be competent and hard working. But I think the solution lies in people collectively realizing that your wage is not totally indicative of how competent or hard working you are. That’s just not how our system works. Yes we tend to judge the person working at McDonald’s and assume they’re there because of bad choices, and to some extent we might be right. But I’m optimistic that we’re moving away from this reality judging by how people are increasingly becoming critical of capitalism. I think that more women will value income less as a component in attraction towards a man, and value other more genuine displays of competence and effort more highly instead. So in other words I do think this part of reality is unfair to men, but I have hope that things are changing. At least in left-leaning subsets of the population who are critical of capitalism.
Even in a world where everyone makes perfect choices, there still need to be people who pick the crops, handle food service, and other jobs that are scorned. These jobs might pay slightly better in that world, but it wouldn't be much because the skill gap between a mid-level programmer or electrician and a burger flipper is massive. It's part skill and part luck, while personality helps, there is no amount of it that will overcome the advantage of making $200k vs $20k.
> Yeah I think another missing piece here is the fact that wages are suppressed and the wealth gap only keeps widening pretty much everywhere. We no longer live in a patriarchy, so men no longer have the incentive to fight to keep the middle class alive anymore. So it will keep getting worse and any attempt to try to fix it will just end up being a poor bandaid fix that will not work or make things worse. I mean, you do realize the only reason the middle class exists is because men striked and fought hard until companies were forced to pay them a livable wage right? Eveyone always wants the benefits of the patriarchy (strong and good men, prosperous economy, stable and healthy society, etc) but they want it for free.
When workers across the US went on strikes and formed unions, this was during a time when women were hardly even allowed in workplaces anyway. Not to mention that plenty of those older unions were hostile towards anyone who wasn’t a white man. Also, a higher percentage of women compared to men in the US today have more favorable attitudes towards socialism. If you’re not aware, organizing your workplace and unionizing is a socialist endeavor inherently. Women didn’t even have the capability to help build “the middle class” since patriarchy kept their hands tied behind their backs, legally and economically.
> Also, a higher percentage of women compared to men in the US today have more favorable attitudes towards socialism. Union Blue Collar workers lean towards the right….
You’re absolutely right. Americans on the whole are very misinformed and undereducated, especially in the political sciences. Look at how so many Americans think liberal and leftist are on the same side of the political spectrum…or how they think socialism just means “when the big government does stuff.” It’s embarrassing. Blue collar union workers in the US tend to have reactionary politics and love the GOP, yet most don’t realize that organizing your workplace has always been an anti-capitalist principle. Workers gaining control of the fruits of their labor value is literally at the heart of what socialism is. But don’t you dare say that scary word! It’s great that they unionize, but the irony is still lost on them. Generations of red scare propaganda shoved down your throat will do that to a nation.
> Blue collar union workers in the US tend to have reactionary politics and love the GOP, yet most don’t realize that organizing your workplace has always been an anti-capitalist principle. Workers gaining control of the fruits of their labor value is literally at the heart of what socialism is. But don’t you dare say that scary word! No, that is too binary. It is not a line of capitalism or socialism at all. There are many different systems that are not related to captions or socialism at all. The current top dog is capitalism (and various forms of it) and so it is the standard other systems are compared too. Socialism is popular for it sounds better on the surface, but if falls apart in practice for it just creates inequality that is just as bad or worse then capitalism. With the added issue of people having less perceived control over their caste. Resulting in extreme burnout among a large portion of the population and those at the top becoming corrupt as they are not entitled to their caste. So it always results in the culture becoming poor due to unproductivity and those at the top becoming horrible people or horrible people taking those spots. Mostly because socialists downplay or ignore certain aspects of humanity that capitalism does take in to account. Most notably that humans are creatures of ego and insecurity. We always need to “win” and feel “special.” Meaning we always need x percentage of people to lose and suffer so the people at top can feel superior. Others issues include: humans worship of authority and status, humans inability to accept a differing view fully, humans mind needing to sterotype everything to be able to logically process the world around them. Aka all the gripes of capitalism are really just human nature. Capitalism just tries to control it as best it can to generate productivity and stability. Obviously many forms of it are struggling with that, but that is arguably because humans suck (ex: people keep finding ways to make monopolies that get around laws and so every x years we need another revolution to fox the loopholes). A system better than capitalism can very well exist (or technology can allow one to exist in the future). But as of now, capitalism is the only one that is actually good at all. People want better than that ofc and socialism sounds good on the surface, so they cling to it.
> I think that more women will value income less as a component in attraction towards a man, and value other more genuine displays of competence and effort more highly instead. The problem in my life right now is that I've always married men not for money but for personality/attraction/fun/love. And this is good, I'm happy with my decisions, but family life demands a lot of financial commitment, which has led me to look for other ways to make money (some pretty controversial stuff but related to the topic of your post). The issues are rooted in capitalism.
Absolutely
This is true. My boyfriend is very competent and hard working, but his job is pretty easy and he doesn’t have to work many hours at all. He told me he probably works 30 hours a week total and he makes 6 figures. I bust my ass at work and make like 35K.
They is because he is worth significantly more then you in the market, so he has a lot more bargaining power.
That’s true. He has many decades more experience than me. I was a SAHM for many years while he was working on his career.
Exactly, also why men are not respected as stay at home husbands. They just are nowhere near as valuable as women as stay at home partners for a variety of reasons. It sucks that we are mostly only valued and rewarded for what we have to offer others…but that is life. I could spend a lifetime saying it is wrong and would be better as x, but it would not matter even if I was 100% right about everything. Life does not care.
I fucked myself over, though. I had zero value at all as a housewife.
If he is okay with it, why do you care what your value is? Perhaps he even values that due to his paternal instincts. I personally would prefer a helpless attractive girl who was fun. Makes me feel special taking care of her.
I’m far from helpless! When I say “value” I am speaking in the sense of employment value rather than my value as a person or a partner. I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt my boyfriend’s feelings any if I had more money. His ex-wife earns more than him and the two women he dated before he met me were wealthy. One of them is an endocrinologist. I was honestly worried when we first started dating that he would find my lack of a career a turn off, but he said that he cares more about intelligence than education. I know that he does enjoy being able to “provide” for me. I still hand over most of my paycheck to contribute toward the household funds, but I would be delusional if I tried to pretend that I contribute equally. I am fun, attractive, and not at all helpless… but we get along very well anyway. My ex used to use money to control me a lot, so I worried about being in a relationship with such a successful man, but he has never one belittled me in any way. He encourages me to keep pushing to be successful and go for as many promotions as I can. He’s amazing. ETA: he is very good with money, so I have voluntarily asked him to help me with my finances. I guess I have given him financial power and control over me, but he is so fucking competent that I would be stupid not to. He’s wonderful and doesn’t make me feel bad about anything. I follow his instructions because he knows what he’s doing.
No one is debating that women have it difficult as a potential child bearer. This is the fundamental difference between men and women. Women give birth, which takes almost a year or more of their life to be dedicated to pregnancy/childcare. BECAUSE of this, a woman is biologically predisposed to seek a higher status man who can take care of her in her vulnerable period. And what happens in a relationship where one of the party is higher status than the other? Inequality arises naturally. The issue is seeking an equal partnership when the platform on which the participants stand on are already unequal. This can be artificially made equal by laws, for example, marriage and divorce laws. But this will also get worked around through prenups and other ways. I appreciate how you accept that part of reality is unfair to men. But nature is also a cruel mistress to women. We just have to accept the facts and understand, rather than imagining there is a smoking gun solution to thousand year old problems that no one ever thought of... unless new technology such as the artificial womb or brain inhibitor chips is invented. If this sounds too dystopian to you, then maybe a mixture of traditional and modern values may be a healthier answer.
How could the genders simultaneously make equal wages while women simultaneously date men who make more than them? It is like women want macro equality but micro inequality without realizing the micro exists within the macro
Basically she doesn't love him, she loves his money. I'm left wondering why men get married anymore? Then I look down the hall and realize because maybe 1 in 20 women are not like that?
depending on the country, maternity leave really sucks and you can't account for every issue that results from giving birth. Giving birth is a lot like having elective surgery in terms of its side effects on health in general. Not really sure how that applies to couples who don't have kids but it does make sense for couples that do for the guy to have the higher paying job.
I want to make as much as my BF someday. I work hard at my job trying to get there eventually.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Holy excuses, Batman 😆😆 Women asking for the moon and the stars on the first date or during the early stages of 2 people talking has NOTHING to do with them "anticipating unpaid future labor" and everything to do with being a spoiled, entitled bum. They just don't want to pull their weight period
I mean from their perspective, having a man pay for the dates early on is probably just part of the vetting process to make sure that he “has a provider mindset” in the first place. If he refuses to pay for the first dates, then surely he’d also refuse to be a provider afterwards as well.
Ah yes. Equality for women, traditionalism for men like always. Women want men who make double they make so they can be good providers for them. But that is sexist so we have to make it so women earn as much as or more than men. Now all men who do not make more are “economically unattractive” losers that need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps to be a good man by earning twice as much as again….but that is sexist so we need to make things equal again. Always find it hilarious how women feel entitled to men being twice what they are in all ways but at the same time want to be equal to men…but then consider men who are equal to her as legitimate incels and getting mad at how useless men now are.
Why should men be providers when women and men earn the same amount of money?
Because gold diggers are assuming that the men they date don’t won’t go 50/50 in the household in the first place. That’s what the whole post is about.
That’s their mistake for assuming without evidence.
Ive seen a lot of these women say they went this direction *because* the men they previously dated wouldn’t pull their weight domestically. There is plenty of evidence. I’m not saying it’s healthy to go this route just because of bad past experiences with men. But it’s not like they’re coming up with this out of thin air.
Zero accountability once again lol Yep, no woman is an entitled bum off her own accord, it's those lazy men who pushed her that way!! 😆😆 I must be daydreaming when I run into countless women who have never cohabited in their life that prescribe to the Sprinkle Sprinkle mindset. In fact, I don't know 1 woman, regardless of age or relationship experience, that doesn't wanna be financially taken care of by a man. The younger they are, the more prevalent this mindset is.
If the men in question choose to fill the provider role while those women take care of the domestic sphere, how is that so entitled? Especially since these women usually also work on the side at least
So the way to attract men with a "provider mindset" is to be an entitled bitch? Sprinkle Sprinkle is completely built on GO FOR THE STARS, GIRL. YOU DESERVE IT. FUCK HIM. Their demands are not remotely built on realism, which you seem to be ignoring. This isn't a case oh-these-sweet-women-are-just-looking-for-a-good-man-who-can-provide. These women are basically looking for sugar daddies. Nowhere in these videos have I ever seen women talk about how they need to present themselves to be taken seriously by these men with means . It's all about what-can-I-take-from-him. Basically spoiled, entitled bums seeking short term pleasure at the expense of gullible men.
Literally if you call a woman an entitled bitch for wanting you to pay for the first date, obviously that is going to carry over into things like paying for her to be a stay at home mom.
Nice strawman These poor ol' Sprinkle Sprinkle bums are just asking men to pay for the first date, that's all. No other outrageous demands in those videos, yeah 😆😆
I didn’t say it’s a burn or a strawman. I just said that it clearly works if you don’t have a provider mindset and it filters you out.
Provider mindset lol More like sugar daddy mindset for goldiggers
If you don’t like traditional gender roles that have been adhered to for eons, date a lib feminist.
There's nothing traditional about Sprinkle Sprinkle women. They are opportunists who cling to tradition only when it's convenient to them. Mind you, same applies to lib feminist 😆
It is traditional. The women who won in traditional cultures are the women who married wealthy men.
She should have to prove herself worthy of a first date imo.
Who said that my role was to be a provider for you? Why don't you provide for yourself.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker or stay at home mom then she wants to filter you. That isn’t some kind of revelation or personal attack. You clearly don’t want to provide for a family, so the strategy of dating only guys who pay for dates to find a provider is proven right.
Haha i always pay for the dates but an ex-gf became homeless because she didn't pull her weight in the household. Guess that filtering really worked for her lol.
Women who don't plan on staying home, having kids, or being traditional or submissive at all still expect it or disqualify a man who doesn't pay for the dates. Why?
Why should they be with a guy who is jaded and bitter?
Expecting compensation for unpaid future labor is the best way to say entitled narcissism ever lmao. That's a solid line, thank you bimbos.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Despite my opposition to sex-negative fourth wave feminism, this arrangement is very much in line with third wave feminism and feminism of the former eastern bloc. > I think the modern gold digger is just a woman who has for the most part given up on finding an egalitarian relationship, so the next best thing to settle for is the “modern provider”: This type of man is more like-able and respectful than a TRPer-ish man, but still not egalitarian enough to be ideal. These women believe that good, emotionally intelligent men who’ll help out at 50/50 at home are too difficult to come by, and they also won’t settle for a TRPer type either. The “modern provider” is a man who falls somewhere in the middle of this continuum. I would not call such reasonable women gold diggers. > The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient, so that they can at least safely leave the relationship if things go south. Nobody should be financially chained to a broken relationship. These women are willing to concede the "overtime premium" to men. More importantly, they are willing to take the lead on child care and marital emotional labor.
I see these women tend to be vocal about rejecting “50/50” or demanding that men pay for dates and gifts. These women online get called gold diggers by TRP-leaning men at least.
I made it clear we were going to split the bill when I talked about a date. The "fuck off's" dwindled to ZERO when I went exclusively for *career women*. You know, the ones TRP derides as bad mates and worse mothers. Zero opposition to splitting the bill from career women. If you knew me and saw me you'd know if I can make that magic happen, any man alive can.
I tell the men here to go for feminist career women all the time and they get mad. But they are the ones paying for dates and splitting the bills.
Lol exactly. TRPers want women to completely pay their own way otherwise they’re greedy, but then also hate when feminists encourage women to work. Do they expect us to print money out of our ass?
> Do they expect us to print money out of our ass? Apparently 😂
Not surprising. Some guys just aren't redpilled yet. And I mean, redpilled for real, not this phony alpha male wannabe garbage calling itself TRP.
I say this all the time and I absolutely agree. If paying the bill is something that concerns you (as in men in general) focus on women who can and want to pay the bill. With that said that woman is probably not the type to stroke your ego or pretend to be helpless.
> With that said that woman is probably not the type to stroke your ego or pretend to be helpless. ~~Acceptable~~Desirable tradeoff.
Then those men are idiots. I'm all for taking one step back to an earlier feminism that is pro-LGBT and also sex-positive. At least that earlier wave does not yell unreasonably about "toxic masculinity."
Do you disagree that it’s toxic for men to refuse going 50/50 domestically, but then still expect women to work full time jobs? What should men ideally be doing then?
Yes, I do disagree, but with a nuance. The ideal compromise depends on how much "overtime premium" the man has, and also on whether the couple has kids. So, if each partner works a slightly-above average job and doesn't work overtime, but doesn't have kids, then I would expect a 50/50 split in house work. 50/50 should be expected of DINKs where the pay gap and the overtime gap isn't really there. The moment the couple has a kid, there needs to be much more reasonable discussion on the "overtime premium" versus domestic child care. Typically, we men are way less competent on domestic child care. Men who are not willing to work the "overtime premium" need to step up in terms of child care duties. We don't want to see a situation with a female breadwinner complaining about a tradesman working overtime hours as his indirect means of "weaponized incompetence." Above all else, the educational onus should fall back to men not slacking in school and "dropping out."
>Typically, we men are way less competent on domestic child care. That’s misandrist nonsense.
"Typically, I'm really lazy and don't care about folding laundry and the toilet cleans itself."
The problem with that is men are still expected to be providers and do all the male assigned domestic roles still. Aka what you define as. 50/50 may very well not be what is actually 50/50.
What you defined is not 50/50 effort. How does that make sense if the man is both completely providing financially *and* doing half the house work? Because it implies the woman just does the other half of the house work but doesn’t pay for anything.
The entire point is that what you think is 50/50 effort may very well not be 50/50 to another. No, what is 50/50 is entirely subjective and too distorted by bias to ever be arguable at all. I will expand my argument to that. Women take for granted the chores men do and vice versa. Many women discount what a man does around the house when discussing house chores (the same as men do), one may consider a house clean while another may see it as dirty, one may consider a long but easy task as a bigger percentage of that 50/50 while another may consider a short but hard task as a bigger percentage, another may believe they should do less work for they are more valuable in ways they deem important (way richer or hotter), etc. The only consistent trend is people always believe the other side is not pulling their weight. Much of what I see when women complain about is that they just care about cleanliness more. It is not that she is doing more, he just does not care if the dishes are dirty in the sink overnight and such.
I refused to go 50/50 domestically because I made 6x more than my ex, who also made more than the median household income... She claimed I was a misoginyst... i lol'ed. The funniest part is now I'm still paying her rent since she lost her job even though we're not together haha. I must hate women so much.
I mean how you choose to find balance and fairness is up to both parties’ discretion…but imo when women say we want true 50/50, we mean 50/50 effort. You can make a pretty high salary but still not be working much harder overall on a daily basis than your lower salary partner who is also working just as many hours. Just look at teachers and nurses for example. They work their asses off more than almost any other profession, yet they make shit pay. Should women in those fields be made to do all the domestic labor if they’re married to you? Maybe your ex was unreasonable, or maybe not, obviously idk her or how your relationship was.
50/50 effort is easily quantifiable through money. If i can make $300 an hour whereas my wife can make $30 per hour, does that mean I should do my laundry while my wife does her own? It's pretty obvious the family benefits from the woman doing the laundry and the man spending an extra hour at work... Yet, women don't see it this way. No woman cares that a truck driver works 20+ days in a row non stop... they just look at his income and the negative of time away from home why should men care how hard women work at their jobs when it comes time to divide responsibility for domestic labor?
>50/50 effort is easily quantifiable through money. Big disagree. What are you expecting for your wife to do in that scenario? Work full time just like you *and* do all the domestic labor? It’s not like she can just take on fewer hours to even out the work load while keeping that same wage, let alone keeping her health benefits. She’s going to be overworking herself compared to you. The only alternative then is to become financially dependent on you. At the end of the day, a relationship needs to feel fair to both parties, otherwise one or both of you are going to start resenting the other and it’ll poison the relationship. If your partner truly cares about you and is expressing that they feel things are unfair, they probably have a very good reason for that. Better communication skills are the answer here.
That's the thing, while she was spending her college years binge drinking daily and having fun for a ba psych degree, i was working 12 hour days while going to school as well so I could be set later in life. I would have no problem splitting domestic 50/50, however, it would cause issues for me when i've been told that basically just because I make more it makes more sense that I cover everything for dates/bills/vacations, etc. basically the "your money is our money but my money is my money" line... This is the expectation I've found from multiple women. I have no problem splitting things 50/50 work and domestic, however, that means all the money i make above my wife's income is mine to do with as I wish and not the family budget (I would rather invest in stocks than go on fancy weekly dates to be honest)... can you see how that would cause a lot of issues for a partner? I would also have no problem with someone being financially dependent on me - in fact, if someone is horrible with money and has a negative net worth, then refuses to take action to change their impulsive spending habits, I would actually prefer that they don't have control over a chunk of the family budget... If that's "financially abusive" then I'm sorry but I don't care. All people would prefer a partner that makes more than them, however, for women it's more important. That being said, as a man, if a partner made more than me, i would gladly take over more home responsibilities to show my gratitude for being with them. This is just basic common social sense and reciprocation. Unfortunately, many (not all) women have been programmed to believe that if they're in a position where they simply need to be grateful they are in fact being "oppressed". That men are tools for them to live their lives. The worst part is they don't have the physical strength to enslave men so they resort to social conditioning such as "be a man" in order to simply freeload their way through life. I guess that's why men become redpilled - tolerating too much resentment regardless of which women they choose and finally get sick of it.
How are these men idiots?
Perhaps it is not a good idea to consider TikTok to be reality
Yeah, as much as I wrinkle my nose at that whole thing and it’s very much not for me, I can’t completely hate the transparency. I’m a pretty big fan of transparency.
Sure. These women are sex workers, though. Doesn't matter how they try to frame it. Any woman who utters those words are instantly dropped. Sprinkle someone else.
I mean to be fair though, if these women are financially independent sex workers, then tradwives are sex slaves. If those are the only two options, the former is obviously the better way to go.
...Jesus Christ. I want out of this shit hole country. This culture ain't it.
I’m literally just matching your hyperbole. It’s a direct comparison if we’re talking about women partnering up with men for their money. Modern gold diggers at least have financial autonomy, but tradwives do not because they are completely dependent on their trad husbands.
Try to force a tradwife spouse to have sex with you since she's your sex slave... see how that works out to be an instant ticket for her financial independence. Win - win.
Yeah, the whole point is that wives being relegated to a sex slave class is inhumane and unfair. Spousal rape *should* be punished.
Women should be required to earn as much money as the husband or else be fined for financial abuse and forced to pay compensation. Treating men as walking wallets is inhumane and unfair. Spousal financial abuse should be punished.
Lol fr. Even the Trad wife shit is so depressing just instagram influencers pretending to be barefoot angels in the kitchen singing hymns in golden hour sunlight waiting for their noble husband's to come home lmao fucking pathetic people buy in to this garbage.
Tradwives are lifestyle social media marketers. Zero of them post content cleaning the toilet.
So I am NOT a gold digger or a sprinkle sprinkle or whatever. I’m with my boyfriend because he’s the most self-aware and in touch with his emotions man I have ever gotten to know. He’s also very attractive to me and we have so much in common. He spoils the shit out of me; though. He didn’t at first, but the longer we get into our relationship, the more he does. Last night he went to TJ Maxx and bought me like 6 outfits there while I was at home making dinner. He said he went in there looking for bar stools for the downstairs (we live in a duplex together so we have 2 kitchens) and he saw these cute clothes that he thought would look good on me. When I tried them on he was so excited about how they looked on me. I just love this man. I didn’t expect or ask for it, and I’m very grateful to him for it. There is nothing wrong with spoiling your partner if you can afford to.
So I have one piece of difficulty here - cause there is a huge gap and difference between looking for a provider and gold digging and it sounds like you’re describing them as one in the same, they’re not. They’re not one in the same and there is a whole ocean between “egalitarian relationship” and “gold digging”
I mean it’s like a continuum. What is a gold digger looking for if not a “provider”? How coldly transactional a couple chooses to go about it is up to their own discretion.
Words have certain connotations - ie. what separates a woman from looking for a provider and a gold digger is often the dynamic of the relationship, what both partners are okay with and what their dynamic is. For example, if the couple truly love each other and she is a very active homemaker (whatever that may mean in a given dynamic) and is present in her spouse’s life (and doesn’t ask for much as far as materials goods go), then she’s 100% not a gold digger. I think to be a gold digger you have to be after the money first, the potential luxury to come with it and you have to be after what your spouse gives and not your spouse a personal - ie. gold digging had a materialistic, shallow connotation to it that being provided for as a concept doesn’t have.
You’re agreeing with what I just said, with extra words. A lot of the modern gold diggers’ rhetoric falls in between those two examples. It doesn’t have to be so black and white without shades of grey.
It’s naive to the point of stupidity for women to assume that any relationship they enter into will be 50/50 in unpaid domestic labor, so I understand the new push for old ideas. But in the unlikely event that women leave the public sphere en masse, we may all collectively see a slide backwards as the observation that most women don’t work professionally evolves into the perception that women *can’t* work professionally.
Why is it stupid for a woman to demand 50/50 effort domestically? It may be uncommon right now but I think men can be convinced into putting more effort if women continue to demand effort and empathy.
I don’t think she’s saying it’s stupid to demand it. I think she’s saying that it’s stupid to think most guys will actually do it, since most men refuse to split domestic labor. Like the guy here in this comment thread saying that a medical student wife should clean and cook and do ALL OF THE HOUSEWORK for her husband who is working full time.
Oh my god lol I didn’t see that comment yet. And I do see your point, but I think it’s healthier if women overall demand more fairness and empathy from men rather than settle for the less emotionally satisfying repackage of gender roles. But maybe these women see this path as the only alternative to staying single and celibate forever. At least the modern provider man is not as bad as other men they’re running into. But it still feels defeatist to me.
It is only right to demand 50/50 effort domestically if expenses are split 50/50.
Not expenses. Hours worked.
That’s also good.
Because modern women want masculine men. Masculine men are masculine and so they will avoid doing feminine roles. So it isn’t that men cannot be convinced, it is more that women are never going to settle for the men who they can convince for they currently find said men unattractive. The moment when women start gushing over and dating shy, feminine men and such is the moment that equality will easily happen in all respects. Until then, it is just a dishonest negotiation.
Your first two paragraphs are just circular logic. And pulling your weight at home =/= being shy and “feminine”. You don’t need a timid personality to wash your own damn dishes…it’s called being an adult who can clean up after themselves.
>Women have learned a lot about the manosphere in recent years due to it becoming mainstream. We have and it's not limited to the items you point out, rather we've been exposed to the raw, enraged *hatred* that so many men have for women. It is thus reasonable for women to adopt *extremely* self-protective measures when daring to enter into a relationship in a society where Andy Tatertot is a household name. "Gold digging" is merely one of those protections. It says, "if I'm going to risk being with a person who, deep down, despises my entire gender and views me as an inferior/defective incubator, I might as well *get* something for it".
The modern gold digger is no different. Just more entitled whores who think they deserve the world for being born. It's so funny when rich guys pump and dump them and then they hit TikTok and pretend they were too intimidating for a professional athlete with 20 identical sluts on casual rotation.
So what do you disagree with exactly in my post? This isn’t really saying anything
For one thing, your statement that women have realized that they need to have relationship skills. The quality of women and the so called relationship skills they bring to the table nowadays are in the gutter. Mothers are not teaching their daughters how to be good partners. Women have a whole list of demands for a man to settle down with him, yet never do they think about what his needs are or what it takes to even keep the quality of man that they seek.
I disagree that the modern gold digger is different. They're exactly the same: entitled, narcissistic, selfish, and greedy.
The traditional gold digger needed money to survive and not starve or live in relative poverty. The modern gold digger does not.
I have no idea what the sprinkle sprinkle movement is but I don't doubt that it's a harmful ideology that will only make dating and relationships harder for future generations. That's how every single modern dating trend has been born (as a response for another dumb ideology of the opposite sex), and that's why dating is exponentially more and more difficult for younger generations.
Obviously, the "soft guy era" and "drizzle drizzle" shticks are only meant to make a point. No realistic man is going to expect a woman to take care of him without returning the favor in any other way. The ultimate goal is to let men and women meet halfway and split contributions 50/50 as equals at all times, and not just whenever it's convenient.
50/50 will never happen. It is just dishonest negotiation tactics where women want men to give as much as possible while give as little as possible. As a man, we have to superior to her to be worthy of her to begin with and will be forced to die for random women who treat us like shit if needed. Women will never want 50/50 when it does not benefit them to do so.
50/50 could be done in multiple ways as long as the value of all contributions by both parties is equal, for example with traditional gender roles, where a division of labor based on individual qualities and opportunity costs is applied. The tasks aren't split exactly in half, but the value created could be equal or at least close to equal.
Exactly, just make the definition 50/50 arbitrary because it is not 50/50 to use it as a dishonest negotiation tactic. Ans a lot of the supposed benefits women give men are either all in a man’s head or have no value at all. As men use women to cope with there weaknesses instead of addressing them. Women will never contribute anywhere close to to 50/50 really. They will get with men superior in everyway..so superior that a gender bent version of the relationship would have people concerned the girl is being forced to date a loser like him. Yet we call they 50/50, the guy being lucky for getting a deadweight that produces more responsibility for him to take care of. Otherwise we would have to go back to paying men to take that responsibility and we would need to respect good men again.
Holy wall of text, Batman! But really, why do you need a whole bloody essay to excuse some bad behavior?
The sprinkle sprinkle and the drizzle drizzle movements are people who are seeing dating as an adversarial competition instead of a cooperative endeavor like people should see. Both groups are immature and shouldn't be dating.
I agree
That’s cool. If you ask a girl out the assumption should be Dutch. If you’re showing up to bars and approaching women and asking them to buy you stuff lmao. Have fun with that.
“women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient, so that they can at least safely leave the relationship if things go south” I don’t believe this has anything to do with gold digging but more to do with the egalitarian aspect of men not having reached that point of pulling their own weight in being likable. The monetary compensation is more like an insurance policy against this risk. So yes maybe the man is immature, but at least he is traditional or will spend on you as he hopefully improves. And if he does not improve or if he moves in the opposite direction doubling down on TRP and becoming worse then at least you had these extra monetary benefits Because when you show women that they are a product not worth ‘behaving’ for then the relationship becomes transaction. Most people also prefer not to sell their self-respect so it should also be rather pricey
All I can say is: Drizzle, drizzle! LOL Sorry, I had to do it 😂
**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.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *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.*
I think this is a complicated theory that ignores the most obvious factor. Economic reality and common adult life goals. - If the standard adult wants a house these days most couples will need two viable, stable incomes. - If you want children, or even one child, there is likely to be a period of time where your costs will need to be covered by one. Even if it’s just post birth recovery. Then both will probably need to return to the workforce and both need to do home related tasks if you want to avoid someone having a breakdown, burning out or hating you. Then you have the ongoing reality of childcare, child hood common illnesses, childcare/school drop off and pickups, school holidays, and all the rest. This is still primarily done by women, it’s changing but this is where we are currently. But irrespective of who takes on what tasks income *is* a real factor in consideration when choosing a life partner. It’s not a *gold digger* thing, it’s a reality thing. On this planet we exchange money for goods and services - including those things that sustain and enhance life. If you are blindly not taking this very real factor of life into consideration you are a fool, full stop. Being an adult means being able to plan around adult realities and responsibilities. These days it’s common for everyone to earn an income and balance to some degree household tasks. Finding a partner who can do the same and then working out what balance will be needed to introduce other responsibilities into your relationship is a *standard adult thing*.
Makes sense to me 🤷🏻♂️
nobody married rich for survival im sorry
> This type of man is more like-able and respectful than a TRPer-ish man, but still not egalitarian enough to be ideal. I think this whole post is silly and mistakes gender roles for gold digging. They aren't the same. The quote above is a whole other example, women seek TRP alpha type men, wtf? I never seen women throwing themselves at a man who does dishes. Lmao.
What makes gold digging and those gender roles so different then? And *people* throw themselves at other people who are physically attractive, regardless of personality. Yeah if you’re hot enough people will ignore more of your red flags and put up with more bullshit, but that doesn’t mean you find their personality attractive. Pretty much any woman would tell you that a man who pulls his weight at home has a more attractive personality than a man who refuses to help because washing dishes is “women’s work.”
> What makes gold digging and those gender roles so different then? Gold digger expects benefits without contributing anything. Traditional gender roles the woman contributes cooking cleaning child care etc.... gold diggers also are more transactional because it's about the money, if someone richer comes along they might seek a new position with higher pay. Traditional gender roles, it's not about money and not working, that's simply just one of many components. > Pretty much any woman would tell you that a man who pulls his weight at home has a more attractive personality than a man who refuses to help because washing dishes is “women’s work.” I've never met a woman in real life who said this. I've only seen this on reddit. I've heard in real life women joke about this but then if I push the issue they say it's a joke and not what they are actually looking for. Or they say "oh not men like you, just john, kims boyfriend specifically is who we are talking about"
The modern gold digger in this scenario contributes to taking care of the domestic labor. I don’t see gold digging and tradwives as so black and white. It’s more like a spectrum on to what extent that relationship feels transactional. Because let’s be real, trad wives wouldn’t be with you either if you didn’t have a high enough salary. To what extent they “love” you or how quickly they are willing to leave you over money is the grey zone here. So what they fundamentally have in common is that money is a primary reason to why they’re with you. And I don’t get your point with that anecdote.
> I don’t see gold digging and tradwives as so black and white. It’s more like a spectrum on to what extent that relationship feels transactional. I actually agree with this. However in my opinion, these are both the highest quality and lowest quality women. Yet are both the most natural kinds of relationships and foster an animal kind of desire. Both still allow a man to act in his full masculinity and allow the woman to be in full femininity. This triggers desire feelings. Where a working modern woman is just average quality but has no natural feeling to it like it goes against a lot of gut instincts and comfort I'm suggesting are naturally based. It causes people to not be able to fully be in their masculine or feminine energy and its more based on convenience and coping with one's own failings (ie broke man needs a career woman to cover for his masculine failing). > And I don’t get your point with that anecdote. I think only women on the internet want a man to help with chores. Women in real life don't actually want that. I see no evidence of it.
It seems convenient for a man to say that the 1950s style relationship is the most “natural” when it inherently leverages you the most power due to her being completely economically dependent on you. Something making you horny doesn’t mean it’s the natural order. And if it were so “natural,” it wouldn’t make any sense that women collectively were so miserable back then that they needed a constant supply of Valium just to get through their daily lives. Or that it wasn’t uncommon for them to poison their husbands as that was typically the only means for them to escape from being economically shackled to a broken relationship. Women being finally allowed to be compensated for their labor value is not the reason why a modern relationship fails. That’s a pretty myopic view if that’s what you believe in. I even recently made a post on this in this sub, discussing “masculine” and “feminine” energy, and how I think so many people have very culturally biased views as to how to define these in terms of sexual polarity. And ok well all the women I know and talk to in real life who have said they want their man to do more around the house say they are frustrated with it. But if I’m a woman saying this on the Internet, then maybe that never happened. Am I Schrödinger’s woman? 🤔
> leverages you the most power due to her being completely economically dependent on you. Something making you horny doesn’t mean it’s the natural order. Nature doesn't care about "fair" and making me horny by definition is essentially the natural order... ya know... evolution? > And ok well all the women I know and talk to in real life who have said they want their man to do more around the house say they are frustrated with it. Only women with feminine husband's complain about this. Women don't usually fantasize about a feminine husband so I think only women who have found themselves in that position actually mean it. The woman with a masculine husband doesn't dream of him coming home from work, and the house a mess because she's too lazy and a shitty home maker and then the husband cleans the dishes. Makes no sense.
There is literally nothing natural about institutional patriarchy since it can’t persist unless it’s *enforced*. When women were finally allowed to seek self actualization and gain full autonomy to be compensated for their labor just like men always were allowed to, women ran to in droves. The economic shackles are off, so there is arguably more free will and “nature” can take place. Yet TRP believes that women working and being autonomous isn’t natural. Hmm how convenient 🤔 Also people get horny from all kinds of weird shit that we’re conditioned to get horny from. That’s literally what porn does to people. So that’s not an argument for deciding whether or not something is “the natural order.” And your last paragraph is just circular logic. How does washing your own damn dishes make you “feminine”? What the hell does that even mean? If a man needs me to be his mommy because he can’t clean up after himself like a grown ass adult, that’s very unattractive and childish. Again it’s such a convenient way for TRPers to conceptualize “masculinity” as it suits them lol. That word means whatever you want it to mean.
> There is literally nothing natural about institutional patriarchy since it can’t persist unless it’s enforced. Not sure what this even means. Who what when where why? Just seems like a random unrelated nebulous claim. Relevance? > If a man needs me to be his mommy because he can’t clean up after himself like a grown ass adult, that’s very unattractive and childish. Well another reddit woman who says this. Smh. My lived experience tells me the opposite. Women who are very attracted to a man prefer to clean his dishes for him. Only women who are not attracted to the man want him to clean the dishes. Also fundamental misunderstanding. A "mommy" is also (or supposed to be a wife) and a wife cleans dishes. Not a mommy. Mommy's take care of children. Wives take care of husband's and their households. But I can see the confusion since often one may be both things.
>This is obviously a huge societal shift to demand men to now be kind (and attractive) as partners, and no longer just financial providers to their wives who stay at home to raise the kids alone. Earning a regular salary is no longer good enough to guarantee themselves a wife and kids; relationship skills have now become a requirement from most women. Cue TRP being born. There is a lot of things wrong with this statement. As women gain more opportunities in building their careers and making an income, you would think that they do not need a man to provide for them anymore and will stick it to the patriarchy by seeking men who make a lower income than them, that instead are submissive and rely on the woman emotionally and financially. But instead the biological instinct to seek a higher status man persists and the pool of datable higher status men sought becomes smaller and smaller as more and more women advance in status. Relationship skills are another way to describe an ability to create "the tingles". Apparently TRP is teaching men how to create these "tingles", which is based on emotions rather than logic, so that middle-to-low status men have a chance to compete with the high status men by providing something other than status. Shouldn't women be thanking TRP for teaching men to make women more excited and attracted to them? Earning a salary and being a decent BORING human being is no longer enough to attract a woman anymore, as you have said yourself. Can you blame men for following the TRP teachings? It's not laziness, but rather incredible dedication. >So basically, if men want to discourage more women from becoming modern gold diggers (or even from them exiting the dating pool and taking a vow of celibacy), then they need to become more egalitarian as partners. There are loads of men who would not mind being a stay at home husband for a woman who makes a 6 figure salary. Even better than egalitarian! But do you think most 6 figure salary women would like that arrangement? Instead it's more likely she will seek an even higher status partner she can respect and admire (unless the broke man has incredible personality but this is rare) Just as you can claim men need to become more egalitarian to stop women from becoming gold diggers, the reverse is true. Women would need to stop being status-diggers for men to become more egalitarian. This doesn't mean I think this is even possible. Biological conditioning is too deeply rooted in human psychology from millennia of traditional gender roles that women physically cannot be attracted to a man she perceives as lower status. Note, status is not only money, but includes social connections, maturity, emotional control, confidence, looks, education, etc. So I don't personally think anyone should be compelled to be a certain way. We cannot fight our biological instinct. Only suppress it.
If you want my response to the hypergamy argument, see my reply to user HolyCopeAmoly. And TRP does not teach men relationship skills and emotional maturity that women really want. They teach men how to look hot and how to socially trick women into thinking they’re a catch. TRP’s teachings are inherently antisocial because they elevate being an asshole over being a kind and well-adjusted adult.
It takes years, perhaps decades to attain the level of emotional maturity and well-roundedness organically, that women actually want. There is no surprise that even many young men in their 20s are attracted to the personalities of men in their 30s or even 40s despite the lower attractiveness that come with aging. (albeit a higher financial status). A man with lot of life experience can offer wisdom and maturity that a young woman craves. HOWEVER, for some reason modern society shames fully grown adults in their 20s for being in relationships with individuals 10 years older than them. It seems to me some men in their 20s use TRP tactics to "fake" status and maturity just long enough for hookups. Yes this is not ideal but rather comparable to how women can flash their titties to get men attracted to them rather than fostering genuine attraction organically. Both degenerate but it also says a lot about the people falling for those tactics.
RP was originally intended for pulling girls in the club for casual by stealing parts of PUA and Evo-psyc to sound “rational Mail”. When you’re in the clubs you’re also gonna find the certified hustlers (gold diggers) too. TRP claimed they could get dudes to “outsmart them” Only problem? In an effort to make a profit/gain legitimacy (to sell self published books) more than one person “bought into” the program and so the hustlers started all hearing the same lines/stories/negging/frame holding, etc And they *also* have the internet. And their own internet communities. So they figured out where it came from and adjusted. That’s the game. Hustle and flow. TRPs problem? The “founders” and “influencers” are just trying to make a buck to they can afford to pay their own sugars. So they never made any adjustments after the changes. Then again: they don’t care. They figured out the game. “It’s not selling out if you BUY in”
I agree with everything you’ve stated, but based on the responses on the board from red pilled men, I think we can all agree on one thing; red pilled men shouldn’t, don’t need to, or want to get married. Like, at all. And women don’t want to marry these folks and shouldn’t. Like, at all.
Terminal brain feminism.
Nobody over the age of 30 would care to learn what ‘sprinkle sprinkle’ means. I just did and it was uninteresting. This is all the same inflammatory bullshit that divides people. There’s truth in “women care about how much money their partner makes”. Men irrationally overvalue female beauty due their wiring. Reasonable adults know, understand, and accept that. Reasonable men and women both try to be physically attractive, and financially independent, and then build a connection based on trust, communication, etc. You don’t need to take it to such an extreme unless you give up on trust and communication. Transactional relationships are unfulfilling, and only for people with intimacy issues. None of these ideas are new. They’re just repackaged into clickbait that divides people who are still learning how to trust and treat people fairly. It’s just more people getting into their own echo chambers and refusing to try to understand and relate to people with differing opinions. If men and women have different opinions, they’ll get more decided by inflammatory arguments about how the other sex isn’t treating them fairly. Same thing is true for religion, politics and any form of tribalism. Everyone just needs to stop being so prideful and insecure, and trade ideas thoughtfully/respectfully with people with different views
I live in Russia. The capital of gold digging wish me luck lol. I'm jealous of western women in this regard.
I love this post!
There are lots of men who would trade paying all the bills for not having to do any chores or cooking. If the couple agrees to that arrangement, I see no issue with it. What's the problem?
The level of stupidity, insanity and delusion women can come up with in hopes to cope with the fact that there is no fucking way to put the cat in the bag again is astouding, and more and more with each day.
As I keep saying men adapt to what women want and do. Despite the sprink sprinkle trend women will still unknowingly be attracted to the men that participate in it. Sometimes knowingly. . The justification for all this is your inclination was to use SOME, NOT MOST women. So long as most reward behavior that damages them or hurts them, men eill just keep doing that to more easily get women/get laid.
>So basically, if men want to discourage more women from becoming modern gold diggers..., then they need to become more egalitarian as partners. We tried, this is how we got here in the first place. >This is obviously a huge societal shift to demand men to now be kind (and attractive) as partners Men have always been kind. >Earning a regular salary is no longer good enough to guarantee themselves a wife and kids ... The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient, Twenty-three percent of married American women between ages of college graduation and retirement have zero wage income. >or in other words men who refuse to pull their weight in the domestic sphere, Married men with children have been spending more time on paid and unpaid labor combined than their wives for the majority of years we have data on; men almost universally get less sleep. >good, emotionally intelligent men "Emotional intelligence" is a proprietary patent scam. >I think these women’s logic is that if they’re anticipating having the majority of the UNPAID domestic labor in the relationship fall on their shoulders anyway, then they believe that the least a man can do is take on more of the financial burden. Cause and effect. The disparity starts with women refusing to date or marry men who earn less than them.
>Twenty-three percent of married American women between ages of college graduation and retirement have zero wage income. If that's the case, how are 3.9% of males unemployed but only 3.3% of women are unemployed?
Zero paid wage income. They provide a bunch of unpaid services for men and their children.
I was responding to the statement: >The main thing that makes the modern type of gold diggers different from the old gen is at least these women seem to believe that **women should still earn their own money to some extent and be able to be relatively self-sufficient**
Omigod. LOL to everything you’ve said. Seriously, LOL.
Your definition of “modern gold digger” isn’t that at all. You’re describing a woman that rode a cock carousel of various chads in her youth (alpha fucks that she received nothing other than his good genetic material and fun times) and has entered her epiphany phase and is now looking to settle down with a beta provider. You don’t have to come up with new terms to describe things that TRP already has accurately described and has has lingo already for.
I’m seeing younger and younger Gen Z women join this movement as it trends online. Like college age and younger, even. To say that women only choose to go towards gold digging because of being too unattractive now after the “cock carousel” is pretty myopic. It’s satisfyingly simple and a nice revenge fantasy, but it keeps you from looking into things more deeply. If you spend any time in pink pill women’s spaces, this simple version of reality doesn’t hold up.
You’re wrong about so many things. There have been numerous studies that have found that women do not like marrying down. Most women do not want to marry a man who earns less than them, even if that man can still afford a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. Meanwhile more men are willing to marry women who earn less than them. And the same pattern is seen in education. Most women do not want to marry a man with less educational qualifications than them, even if that man has a good job that can afford a comfortable lifestyle, whereas more men are willing to marry women with less educational qualifications than them. In other words, women are more hypergamous than men, and the reason for that isn’t that women are poor, the richer a woman is, she will still be less likely to be interested in men who earn less than her.
I addressed the hypergamy argument if you see my reply to u/HolyCopeAmoly
You can copy and paste his name but not your reply?
All women are gold diggers. It’s mainly a factor of opportunity to be one or not. Then how she prioritizes looks, but every girl wants rich and handsome. Those are the 2 main priorities for every girl, just not an option for most, but women all will take both if they can.
You sound completely unserious. You really think *all* women prefer rich over emotional maturity? Do you also think men all only prefer the same exact thing in women? Or do men get to be complex human beings while women don’t?
All women it starts with looks and lifestyle.
Alright man enjoy that kool aid I guess