Finally, someone is getting it
From our resident peanut gallery. She does no understanding of satire, but clearly is not stupid.
her happiness is NOT a valid reason to divorce. But his IS.
She gets it at least.
Becoming ones own #1, 2 3 and 4th priority, his own masculine center. Not only do people project their morality onto the men in MRP, they do it with no thought for the outcomes. Men in MRP are happier, and they are better men, because they know how to be vile men. People argue that it's wrong for so many reasons, mostly from their own bias and projections. All MRP men know that you have to drag someone into a happy life kicking and screaming. They had to drag themselves into it first, stop getting in their own way and learn to be happy. And just as some men want to feel like an Alpha male, without doing the work, a lot of them drift towards feeling like a good, moral and happy person, again, without doing the work.
Dalrock already said this
My thoughts when reading this drifted to Dalrocks new years resolution
X. There’s no future in being a better man, so I will work hard to become a better woman. I will give myself free reign to do whatever I want whenever I want, and I will do so with impunity. I will demand the best for myself because I deserve it, and shame those who do not immediately offer it. I will be faithful to my partner when it suits me, and adventurous when it doesn’t. I will be bad and demand nothing but good in return. I want it all, and I want you to give it to me right now. I will find power and self confidence by being sexually promiscuous while ignoring the fact that I’m not accomplishing anything that your average chimp at the zoo hasn’t. I will demand that you accept, embrace and celebrate my actions because I am being true to my exceptionally unique self. I will righteously criticize those who engage in the exact same behavior I do, because unlike them, I’ll do it with style. Most importantly, if my Sex and the City lifestyle doesn’t pan out, I’ll blame it on whoever or whatever is closest to me.
It's right there, if you read it all. The Cardinal rule of relationships, The amoral strategy. What she calls hypocrisy, I'd call finally catching on and playing to win. I'd say she's 100% right! And I'd say, it seems to work just as well, so will add some more tools for the toolbox.
If you look at this like some kind of philosophy, ideology, some kind of moral framework. If you look at it like this, it does read poorly, inconsistently, hypocritical. Of course, it's none of those things. It's strategies to achieve what you want. what men want will vary as much as a man can vary from his brothers. Above all else, he wants to win, to be the prize, in whatever way suits him.
It's advocating the removal of woman from the top of the totem pole, and the removal of his expected rewards, the piecemeal kindness (unconditionally one way only) that men should receive for all their hard work. The whole rant reads like the want of men, to be the benevolent, kind plow horse. The manipulated man, who holds everyone to the same standard, regardless of merit, only their intent. Of course, that same equal standard is more equal to some, but it's OK, we can take it...
How good of a man can we be, if we are unable to accomplish any dread in a dying sexual relationship? How much better a person are you, than the guy who could be the cruelest sonsofbitch around, but chooses not to. Choose not to, because she is more valuable to treat kindly, than any short term Machiavellian schemes payout would be. Every awkward dread implementation I've seen in the field. Every, single one, is based on impotence, not effectiveness. No one blows up a marriage by being too good at having options, too much abundance. guys blow up a marriage for being such low value men, that any assertion of their masculinity removes their sole value from in her eyes. The walking ATM wants more? I'd rather just cash out now, instead of put up with the child wanting to run the show.
Good, she enforced rule 7, someone had to.
But... It just doesn't work OK?
If it didn't work, we wouldn't do it... That makes me laugh, makes me take this less seriously than a woman would. Give someone else, other than me the chance to make everyone happy. Give someone else the keys to run the show in a way that helps me. Give the leadership role away, and what happens? They screw it up, but with the best of intentions. Best part, it will be your fault. Shit in one hand, wish in the other, see which fills first.
She means well, so it's all OK. This is why you may as well run the show, it's your fault if it fails, may as well be responsible for it too.
All the talk about knowing happiness, the moral highground, and whats wrong with every man there, what's there to show for it? Abusive ex-husbands are the prime reason the MRP peanut gallery exists, and to them, we exist to project their shitty men onto all men. All this knowledge on how and why red pilling men is wrong. I ask you this, where are the feminine success stories, the stories that come from deliberate action? Someone who did not have a winning hand, but through deliverate action, caused it to work?
Winning at life through happenstance isn't good enough, it isn't going to cut it. The lottery is, and always was a tax for the stupid, and asking a man to put his life into the meat grinder with hope and dreaming is just that. Dummy taxes.
I often laugh at paper alphas, men who know how to type being alpha on a keyboard, but crumble at the first test. Men who speak about lifting constantly, while they cannot see their dick past their belly buttons. Paper Alphas are a joke, and what is this if not paper virtue? Everything I know about you is wrong, you act inconsistently, hypocritical and mean. Yet, the ones who are good at it are happy, while most critiques come from people who are objectively not. You tell me, where exactly is the problem? Are all these happy men, happy relationships wrong? Or the one throwing rocks from the outside, constantly screaming their bile?
The question has always been: how do we have a stable relationship with maximum happiness for all? To me, this critique illustrated the answer perfectly. We have a stable, happy relationship by dragging them to into it, kicking and screaming, in a way they absolutely hate, and with no regard for their feelings and wanting of comfort and false virtue. Once your woman is there, and they show they are worth keeping around. Once you have it at a maintenance level, and only then, they can enjoy the spoils and think it was their idea. The benevolent dictator indeed.
This is simple, it isn't easy
As my fellow brother BogeyD6 says. Unpacking this is difficult and having our minds grasp the concepts are maybe the most complicated things in this world.
No one else has a god damned clue what the fuck they are doing. They double down on what they think of the world, and how you should act in it. Never mind that it hasn't worked for them, never mind that they aren't happy. Call for equality when they lose, call for gratitude when they win. Their hard work when they happen to win, your fault when they lose. Fuck it. I will take my own wheel, drive in my own direction, and do what I have to do to get there. If you have what it takes, and give more than you take away, you can come along.
Fair is for sports. This is life, fair is never considered
Originally Posted 15th June 2017