mr_engineer

If you're going to tell me that my theory is bullshit without coming up with an alternative theory and if you're just going to condescend with 'go out more', 'you're too hyper-masculine' (lol as if masculinity on a man is a bad thing), 'all of this is only on the internet and not in reality' (as if money isn't the #1 reason marriages fall apart), you might as well give us all a break. About redpill - there is one kernel of truth in it. And, that is the concept of SMV. What I'm doing here is I'm ascertaining how much money you should have in order to have enough of an SMV for the average modern woman to respect you. As much as they claim to want 'equality', the reality is that they don't respect men on the same level. Yall can put up with hyper-masculine women all you want, I say 'no thanks'. I do not stand for the misogynistic aspects of redpill, in which they name-call women or in which the only thing that matters is sex. Having said that, SMV is a reality for both men and women. If it's undeniably true for women, why would you not entertain the possibility that it's true for men?! One thing that I've noticed in more Stage Green pick-up circles is that 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are these abstract concepts that don't make any sense. (Some even say that it's all conditioning, which is ridiculous) We have to keep in mind that the ultimate point of building your masculinity as a man is to get laid consistently with a compatible woman that you're committed to and the ultimate point of building your femininity as a woman is to get a man to stick around. We have to get tangible and practical at some point with these concepts, or else it'll just devolve into mental-masturbation. Fine, it's energy, but the point of energy as a physical human is to tangibly manifest something, to tangibly create something.

Oh really?! How many dollars do these things cost in the marketplace?! If they are not wishy-washy and they are to be used as part of a transaction, you should be able to show me what its market-price is, right?! (Sex has a market-price, by the way, in red-light areas) We're talking about what women want from men here, not what qualities are healthy for any individual to have to construct a happy life. Those can't be bought, of course. We're talking about the transactional aspect here. And, a long-term relationship is very much like a business-deal. Traditionally, it was, men provide, women do the home-making. With feminism, this deal is changing. And, I'm trying to project where it's headed.

I said 'long-term relationship', not 'sex'. Their paradigm is not pragmatic enough, in that case. They could fix that if they want. You realize that these abstract concepts are very subjective, right? They could mean different things to different people. For example, to a psychopath, the 'authentic' thing to do could be to stab you and steal your wallet. Does this 'authenticity' intrigue women and turn them on?! I don't care what your ideological crusade is against the so-called redpillers. I'm trying to address a very real knowledge-vacuum about relationships that PUAs frankly don't care about.

There is a profoundly loving nice-guy in every woman's inbox, talking to himself and being left on read. Does she care?! I don't think so. Is simping 'profound love'? They think it is. What do you think? Traditionally, relationships haven't had much to do with love. At Stage Red, it was rape and pillage. At Stage Blue, it was arranged-marriage and duty-based. At Orange, this is where we find ourselves, if we want to make a relationship work. It's a relationship between two egos. Egos want what they want and we need win-wins.

What long-term relationship can last without a transaction? Practically speaking. The whole issue here is that women are talking in terms of these wishy-washy terms, like 'authenticity, confidence, emotional attunement, sensitivity, reliability, trustworthiness (add 50 more abstract concepts)'. And they're not just saying what they want as part of the transaction in practical terms. (In fact, 'independence', 'they don't need a man', 'they don't need a transaction', which is even more confusing) When that happens, you have to look at what they're actually doing and try to decode that. You also have to play 'would you rather' games to figure out their actual priorities, what they're willing to sacrifice vs what's a dealbreaker. Women, you have two options. Start being straightforward about what you want, or the 4D-chess continues. It's appalling that yall can't figure yourselves out on your own. If you don't, you will keep getting manipulated by narcissistic men. Then don't come here asking us 'where are all the good men'. So, just figure yourself out and give a straight answer when asked 'what you want in a relationship'. No more excuses. This is real empowerment that you don't have to fight someone out there for.

Fine, then, Mr. Winner. You can have the 'development', I can have the women. You happy with that?!

There are shows online in which women are asked 'what's the minimum income you want your man to earn?' They say '$100k+'. Then, when asked 'why', they say 'I would learn a lot from such a driven, successful man, it would help my personal development, so that I can do well for myself financially'. Guess what?! This is how ambitious people choose jobs when they're young! Chances are that this is why she has her job, her 'independence'. There's been a video posted here that said something along the lines of 'women view men the way men view jobs'. I cite that logic here as well. This is what they're saying. Sounds like you're the one not believing them.

How do you position yourself for the right women, then? That's what 'developing yourself to get women' practically looks like. Are you just saying words or do you know how to practically apply your own advice?

Says Mr. 'I sacrifice relationships for enlightenment'. If a woman is actually reading this and laughing, why doesn't she tell us pea-brains what she actually wants?!

To answer the title question - there is no shortage of simps in this world. Who will hang onto women's every word. It's easy to see the problems with the feminist ideology, that the women who espouse it are relationally traumatized and that's at the root of them becoming hardcore man-haters. What's hard to see through, is the self-righteous attitude of the 'male feminists' supporting them. It's harder to see why they're against masculinity and why they talk so much about 'toxic masculinity'. What's even more baffling is that there is some overlap between these individuals and PUAs. PUAs who brag about their success with women and are like 'you suck with women cuz you don't respect them' and you're like 'I don't respect women?! I love women! I don't know what you're talking about!!' Then, when you see the personal relationship-goals of these PUAs, they don't want relationships. They don't want to provide for women. Then it makes sense why they're for 'female independence'!

If she wants children, a nice house and marriage, she does not have the luxury to be a 'spender'. She has to learn to be a 'saver'. The #1 indicator of a good mother, is that she's financially responsible. If she's living paycheck-to-paycheck now, what is she going to do once she has a kid? Have you asked her this? It is smart on your part to notice this before getting married, when it's just her money on the line and not yours. You could save yourself from a really horrible divorce-court situation in which she screws you over for your money just because she's financially reckless. So, don't underestimate the danger of that happening and play your cards wisely. All the best. HTH.

@Leo Gura I understand why you're waging a PR-war against Tate. Having said that, do you know why Tate is so popular? If you could give a steel-manned answer, that would be nice. Then we could actually have a constructive discussion and arrive at a solution.

Check out 1:03:40. Leo explains it there.

The only women I've seen speaking up against this trend of 'independence' are the new age women. Only they're promoting the idea of 'interdependence', which is why they're able to speak up against the trend. If you want to know whether she understands femininity or not, simply look at how open her energy is. If she has her guard up, that's the biggest red-flag of all time.

The new age types at least see this as a problem and are doing something about it, actively. They're not out there demonizing all men and saying that 'all men are toxic' and 'I want to be a strong and independent woman'. They have actual wisdom relative to values like 'love' and 'intimacy' and 'compassion'. They are in the active practice of embodying their femininity and allowing men to be in their masculine. This whole thing of 'keeping your guard up' is a control-tactic designed to emasculate modern men. You cannot be masculine and move forward with such women, they don't want you to be masculine. So, let them go. And go for someone who has some real education relative to masculinity and femininity, who's actually doing their homework. At New-Age events, at New-Age retreats.

Chances are that you're being 'overly feminine' because you're repressing your masculinity, because the 'toxic masculinity' conditioning coupled with your father's past have convinced you that masculinity actually is toxic. You will probably have to repair your relationship with your masculinity first and foremost. And, a big part of masculinity is having a sense of right vs wrong, good vs bad, having a strong set of morals. You need to know how to create safety for others, how to protect others. And, ironically, the way you do that is by catching and punishing wrong-doers, which is inherently violent. It takes the capacity to be violent to create a peaceful environment. If your father was a gangster, you don't need to be learning about the relativism of morality. You need to discipline yourself into understanding that that is wrong and commit to not being like him. You will have an open mind to violence and going down these wrong paths yourself. And you will have to rationally convince yourself that it's wrong and that there are better, more civilized ways of going about getting what you want. Your parents were ignorant about those ways, so your responsibility towards yourself is to teach yourself those ways and to stay away from the 'thug-life'. If you want to improve on the parenting-job that your father did, this is where you begin to do that. HTH!

There are women in the New-Age community who operate from a space of love as opposed to a space of fear. I'd suggest you work with those women. This whole thing of 'having your guard up' is the opposite of being a loving human being. It's not personal on their part, they just don't care about relationships that much. Their style of relating is narcissistic. Pointless to even try to make anything work with them. You want to go for women who have a more open energy.

There are two broad camps - one camp saying 'It's not personal, don't take it personally, there are plenty of fish in the sea'. And, the other camp is 'It absolutely is personal, it is your fault, you suck, you're an absolute pathetic cuck loser weakling worthless piece of trash and I'm gonna show you how to not be an absolute piece of trash'. (Isn't it fun to be a man these days?!) Here's what I've found - it depends on the person rejecting you. More to the point, it depends on whether they prioritize relationships or not. If they prioritize relationships, it is personal. If they don't prioritize relationships, it's not. When people would say 'Don't take it personally, it's not personal', it never made sense to me. Because, when I rejected people, it absolutely was personal! It was something about them that was incompatible, which is why I would reject them. It's only now that I see that it depends on the priority-structure of the person doing the rejecting. If you are reading this and you consider yourself an 'incel', here's the reality - all of the mirroring that incels get assumes that the people rejecting you prioritize relationships and consider relationships as important. What 'don't be entitled' means, is that you can't expect others to like you if you don't shower, you aren't hygienic and you don't have the basics handled. What 'it's your fault' means is that you're not doing enough to be liked. Now, if you are doing enough to be liked and you still don't get results, here's what isn't said - the reason for that is that those specific individuals don't prioritize relationships. They're not even thinking about dating you when they see you, and it's not because you lack in attractiveness. It's because they're not thinking about dating when they see anyone, period. A very big reason I don't respect players/PUAs giving advice online is that they're wrong about this. The assumption is that it's your fault. When you hear someone share their opinion about this, ask yourself 'How much does this person prioritize relationships? Are relationships a priority for this person?' A lot of times, for players and PUAs, the answer is 'no'. Why should you trust someone who is wrong about something as important as why women reject you?!

This is the exact self-hatred I'm talking about, that's being sold to men these days. Anything goes wrong, 'it's your fault, you are to blame, because you're pathetic/weakling/loser/cuck/simp/worthless/piece of trash/little bitch/mIsOgYnIsTiC'. (Did I forget any other disparaging, insulting name that it's acceptable to call men these days? There is a special place in hell for every single person who enforces norms by using these terms, I hope that all of you burn in hell.) What if I told you, that if she's so fickle-minded that 1 text changes her mind, she doesn't value or prioritize relationships? That's not the psychology of someone who values and prioritizes relationships. Someone who values relationships gives you a fair chance and doesn't end things just because 'it's sus'.

It's not that 'if you want it you don't have it'. The whole point of learning to not be needy is to understand that 'you don't get what you want, you get what you are'. It makes you more responsible and self-accountable and less entitled. That's it. People who are in happy relationships don't have it because they don't care too much about it. It tends to be a big priority of their lives. You can't be 'too busy' for someone and keep them long-term. These are the people who then turn around and say 'See?! Nobody can be trusted, so learn to not be needy'.

Okay. Now I get it. I've faced this issue myself. You need to work on your money-dynamic. A 'money-dynamic' is the way money is handled in your relationships. And the overall consensus-mindset around money. It's the 'inner-game' relative to money, but applied to the collective. For this, the first thing you do is you self-actualize professionally by building the right knowledge and skills, such that you can survive in the world on your own. Then, you figure out what's the most important to you. Is it money? Or relationships? Or health? Let's say it's relationships above money. Then, you need to figure out a masculine/feminine growth-dynamic with the women you date, based on who you are as a man and what you want from them in terms of help with your growth. For this, you need to date women who have a certain level of smartness, you can't date dumb women. And, you need to date women who hold a compatible relationship-vision with you. This will weed out all of the 'feminists' who want to be 'independent'. They have brains, they're just incompatible because there won't be any team-dynamic with them, they will be too 'independent'. You won't get a role in their lives. Date with the intention of making this masculine/feminine dynamic click. Once you figure all of that out, you lock in your relationship-vision and you 'get ready' for this relationship. And you orient all of your life in that direction. This will make it so your own life doesn't go in a direction where you're just an 'independent individual' floating around in the modern world, you will have time and space in your life for other people. And, when you do that, they won't hold you back for personal reasons. And, as far as competence-reasons go, you vet out those women. HTH!

First of all, understand what 'creepy' means. It means, someone who makes you feel a certain way. And, the reality of this, is that you have no control over how someone else feels. They're just projecting this 'control' onto you. Secondly, about social norms - is your issue that you want to conform to them but you don't know how, or is it that you don't fundamentally agree with the social norms and you'd prefer that people didn't call you 'creepy' for not conforming? Because if it's the latter, then you avoid those who want to live in their pristine little bubble and you just be yourself in other contexts. If you want to conform, then you get a coach who will teach you how to do that. And finally, about modern women - The reality of women today is that they are scared of everything. They will be scared if a rabbit looks at them the wrong way. That's not the problem, that's just the way things are. The problem is that there are too many white-knights in positions of power who benefit from taking their insignificant little hissy-fits seriously. And, a woman's power to hurt a man's reputation by using strongly negative language to describe him is really underestimated. So, if you want to change this about society, the way you do that is that you start getting suspicious of an overly biased narrative, in which strongly negative language is used. And you get better at predicting how white-knights act when shown an 'enemy'. And try your level best to discredit the white-knights, cuz they're the real enablers of this issue.

Minimizing your limitations is very different from choosing your limitations. These are mutually exclusive conceptualizations of 'freedom'. Which one is it for you? I think that relationships have immense power to grow you, if you so choose. The choice to grow is yours. They do, in fact, provide great opportunities for growth and self-actualization. It's not even necessarily that the women themselves will do something to help you grow, (although, if they do, that would be ideal) it's that the arrangement in which you live with someone will show you how other people perceive you in a big way. And, as far as parenting goes, it is probably the biggest test for you as an adult human. It absolutely does have the ability to help you self-actualize, it can grow you a lot.

All of these game-changing leaders must have, at some point, met with resistance from everyone in their immediate circle. They must have had everyone tell them that they're wrong, that what they're thinking about is impossible, that it can't work. Why? Because, based on the societal paradigm at the time, their ideas were on the edge of what was considered to be possible. And, to this day, attempting to do something that the consensus deems as impossible, is considered 'foolishness'. What does it take to overcome that? How do they justify fighting this battle to themselves? They do that, by looking at what the impact of their work on the collective could be. They see the potential of the world changing for the better, if they keep up the battle and win it. It takes the moral support of the wider collective for them to keep going and keep challenging their immediate circle's paradigm of what's possible. That's when the world gets changed. It takes a lot of seriousness as a person to make the contributions that they did. You don't just do that on a whim, by 'following your passion and oh look! I discovered gravity by asking a few questions about the apple falling on my head!!' If the church disagrees with you, if religious mythology disagrees with you, because 'angels can fly', you have a serious battle on your hands. Are you upto the task? If so, why? Why does this battle matter? You have to answer that question. Because actually fighting it has serious costs to you, personally. Why will you pay those costs? Because, potentially, the collective will benefit from your contributions. This is your service to the collective. And, by the way, when faced with this question, most people just sell out. They don't attempt the impossible thing, they stay in their comfort-zone, because 'attempting the impossible is plain foolish. Even if there's a real chance to make it possible, it's very risky, because that's what society says'. And women happen to be a part of this 'reality', right?! You don't have to let go of women to actualize this purpose. In fact, living this purpose will dramatically improve your relationships with women. Technically, that is true. Having said that, practically, in human life, wanting 'freedom' would mean, wanting to minimize your commitments. They can never be zero, but they can be minimized by conscious effort, if that is what you really value. Oh... I thought you meant that you wanted to minimize your limitations when you talked about commitment to a woman being antithetical to 'being free'...that you didn't want the limitations associated with commitment. By your definition of 'freedom', committing to a woman wouldn't necessarily take away your freedom, right?! If you're being authentic and your boundaries are clear to you?! And, by the way, you can't figure this out just being on your own, being 'free', you have to practically figure this out in the context of relationships with women. I'd suggest you figure out your definition of 'freedom' before choosing the path you want to go down. Because the right path for you to take will wholly depend on your definition of 'freedom'. In fact, changing the definition of freedom could take you in an entirely opposite direction. So, nail it down for yourself before making your decision. Here's what I'll say about this - the biggest key to success is the ability to say 'no' to commitments that you're not up for. Then, when you find something that you truly want to do, you are fully committed to it with no distractions. The point of saying 'no' is not for the heck of it, because 'freedom', there are rational reasons why you say 'no' to bad ideas. You objectively evaluate ideas and you execute only on the good ones. So, in order to be able to do that, you have to say 'no' to the bad ones.

All of these game-changing leaders must have, at some point, met with resistance from everyone in their immediate circle. They must have had everyone tell them that they're wrong, that what they're thinking about is impossible, that it can't work. Why? Because, based on the societal paradigm at the time, their ideas were on the edge of what was considered to be possible. And, to this day, attempting to do something that the consensus deems as impossible, is considered 'foolishness'. What does it take to overcome that? How do they justify fighting this battle to themselves? They do that, by looking at what the impact of their work on the collective could be. They see the potential of the world changing for the better, if they keep up the battle and win it. It takes the moral support of the wider collective for them to keep going and keep challenging their immediate circle's paradigm of what's possible. That's when the world gets changed. It takes a lot of seriousness as a person to make the contributions that they did. You don't just do that on a whim, by 'following your passion and oh look! I discovered gravity by asking a few questions about the apple falling on my head!!' If the church disagrees with you, if religious mythology disagrees with you, because 'angels can fly', you have a serious battle on your hands. Are you upto the task? If so, why? Why does this battle matter? You have to answer that question. Because actually fighting it has serious costs to you, personally. Why will you pay those costs? Because, potentially, the collective will benefit from your contributions. This is your service to the collective. And, by the way, when faced with this question, most people just sell out. They don't attempt the impossible thing, they stay in their comfort-zone, because 'attempting the impossible is plain foolish. Even if there's a real chance to make it possible, it's very risky, because that's what society says'. And women happen to be a part of this 'reality', right?! You don't have to let go of women to actualize this purpose. In fact, living this purpose will dramatically improve your relationships with women. Technically, that is true. Having said that, practically, in human life, wanting 'freedom' would mean, wanting to minimize your commitments. They can never be zero, but they can be minimized by conscious effort, if that is what you really value. Oh... I thought you meant that you wanted to minimize your limitations when you talked about commitment to a woman being antithetical to 'being free'...that you didn't want the limitations associated with commitment. By your definition of 'freedom', committing to a woman wouldn't necessarily take away your freedom, right?! If you're being authentic and your boundaries are clear to you?! And, by the way, you can't figure this out just being on your own, being 'free', you have to practically figure this out in the context of relationships with women. I'd suggest you figure out your definition of 'freedom' before choosing the path you want to go down. Because the right path for you to take will wholly depend on your definition of 'freedom'. Here's what I'll say about this - the biggest key to success is the ability to say 'no' to commitments that you're not up for. Then, when you find something that you truly want to do, you are fully committed to it. The point of saying 'no' is not for the heck of it, because 'freedom', there are rational reasons why you say 'no' to bad ideas. You objectively evaluate ideas and you execute only on the good ones. So, in order to be able to do that, you have to say 'no' to the bad ones.