@derdeutscher I finished "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" a few months ago. An interesting read that psychopaths lack empathy as we classically think of it, but regard understanding "what makes people tick" as essential to personal success such as selling something or avoiding being used (and, of course, in their case, to exploit other people.)

The pop-culture autistic Sheldon is a great example of an intelligent person who lacks empathy while, at the same time, being exceptionally emotionally vulnerable.

Where I'm going with this is that, I think, RP men are perhaps the most astutely empathic, emotionally educated men in history. Previously, men simply had a system of code and etiquette to live by that largely worked with each other and women. Now that's collapsed in many ways so survival requires a high degree of personal growth, introspection, and understanding of women.

@derdeutscher I took the Clifton asssessment and scored bottom on the "empathy", I suppose, because I kept putting 0 score on whether I worried what other people thought of me and their "happiness". I'm not one of the autistic types who utterly ignore peoples concerns and feelings (just the opposite) but I don't take responsibility for how they feel. In business, I have learned the importance of "making" people happy and monitoring their reactions (it's perhaps more important than my actual "job").

In my marriage I'm the "leader". I find it amusing how women say they want men to "lead" even as they want to tell the "leader" where she wants to go. This basically means, in modern womanspeak, they want to do as they please and the "leader" deals with all of the consequences. If not for me, my wife would be on a continual roller coaster.

Perhaps when women are by themselves, they are "happier" sometimes in a sense they don't engage in the "I give him sex and he runs my life for me" so they wind up in perpetual complaint mode with men versus when they're single, they do have to accept some adult responsibility to avoid starving to death. That's philosophical though because I told my wife she has a CHOICE whether to fret endlessly about house chores and such.

That being said, on average about 1/2 of the women I dated before I got married lived like utter slobs. WORSE than the bachelors. One defining characteristic was that the slob women seemed to have a phobia about dishes. They HATED filling and emptying the dishwasher, one of the most easy chores imaginable, because they either hated doing dishes AT ALL or were perfectionists and wanted to "prewash" them but got busy and the dishes piled up.

@derdeutscher Moze. :-).

I was reading an amusing claim from some spinster that single women are reportedly "happier" than single women. Ahem, as a married man of 21 years, I'm reminded of the joke: A man asks his friend how he's doing. The friend says "I can't complain.". The friend asks: "So that's good?" He says "I can't complain."

Hence, any study that claims single women are reportedly more "happy" is laughable. Women use terms such as "emotional intelligence" but can't decide where they want to go for dinner. They complain endlessly as a form of happiness while, again, if my wife is NOT complaining about something I check for poison in my tea.

I learned about "stoicism" some time ago and sometimes it's taken to an extreme, but on a practical basis, I think it's the notion of finding happiness but not fretting about happiness. That the happiness women out there are the ones who are quiet about it.

@mattyanon I have a true (checkmark!) story about my little sister about 30 years ago. She got angry that I told it online even though I didn't name her. I'm risking her ire by sharing with you:

She told me about a new guy she was seeing. He was handsome, had two houses, a nice car, and took her out to dinner. He gave her three orgasms in one night.

I asked her if she was pleased and she said "No."

"I think he's using me for sex".

I told this to my girlfriend at the time and she laughed so hard she peed her pants. "That's a woman!" she said.

Indeed, women have these hangups on sex. Sure, they can get "great' sex but they have this guilt about it. In theory, a "real man" should give them great sex AND commitment but that often doesn't happen and even then, it often doesn't work out for them anyway as they get bored and want a "bad boy".

Another story: A former manager of mine was/is a certified Chad. Tall, well built naturally, and has a good education. His first marriage was to a pleasant woman and he got notified by a note from her lover who was jealous that she was cheating on him. So he got a good, clean divorce out of it.

He was EVERYTHING ANY woman could want and the woman cheated on him. So the guy, not being dumb, married one of the wealthiest women with a massive inheritance in Alexandria, Virginia. Their children are set for life. He lives well.

Women lack impulse control. A man can sit in an economy class seat on the way to paris and find a way to have a good time, a woman can sit in first class with champagne and be miserable about something. Watch Real Housewives series on Bravo: A bunch of rich B's prattling on and fighting each other.

Some women found a way to enjoy sex, and life, because they didn't the world revolved around pleasing them perfectly. As feminism progressed, this mindset was replaced with an entitlement one and we're all angry when we're refused an entitlement. If you ordered cheese on a burger, you get angry if it's not there. The more we think we're entitled, the more miserable we are if the world doesn't live up to that expectation.

That's why Type-A people are miserable: They want more out of life than they have to "push" themselves but they can't pause and smell the roses, laugh, or orgasm.

@deeplydisturbed @Typo-MAGAshiv I didn't get fully RP'd until about 20 years ago when I busted my arse in Corporate America and got laid off anyways in favor of the soy boys, foreigner mafias that bribed their way in, and feminists. Here's the thing: Why should management of a big corporation care about profits or even customer satisfaction IF they don't suffer personally for it?

Yeah yeah yeah, Reagan economics right? Hear me out please: One of them tried to say that they wanted to run the company like "baseball" and fire off the "low performers" regardless of how well the company was doing. The dork apparently never heard of "beating the spread". If a baseball team is going to win anyway, why not ruin the point spread and take a bribe from a bookie? Win-win, yes? Or heck, even if the team loses but you're still the best player, you keep your job and the team loses but you still come out ahead. Watch what Hyman Roth said in Godfather II.

As long as the manager is liked by his upper management, he can always blame someone else if there are problems from firing a top performer who told him off. I've seen management circle the wagons on it. They'll even risk losing profits compared to losing face.

Reaganomics? More money for Musk so he can hire Americans, right? Nope: Look up H-1bs. Few of those jobs are for us. 737 Max, Crowdstrike, NCTracks? All boondoggles but who cares? They still make money. Dennis Muilenburg's cost cutting measures laying off Americans got 360 people killed. He got a $62 million exit package. I calculated he could fill 360 body bags with $50 bills.

He never served a day in prison for killing 360 people.

When feminists blabber on about The Patriarchy, what they refer to actually is a society of responsible men who band together and have a strong, high trust society to hold their leaders accountable. The Individualist/Libertarian era of white guys on their own in log cabins doing our own thing means we hunted by the hyenas in the identity groups and corporate PACs. The Patriarchy was basically the responsible men disarming the Feudalist system and establishing worker's rights in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries.

Then the women who viewed themselves as "ladies" (namely, noblewomen) both made the serfs (men) as oppressors while claiming to be equal via entitlements.

One of my favorite movies: North Dallas Forty. Here's it's explained what is really meant in corporations by "teamwork".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNiisYtYcRk

@First-light The challenge to a democratic solution is we live in a balkanized society: Foreign born/2nd generation men will tend to vote Democrat and feminist for tribal affiliations. Not only that, but our own oligarchs such as Musk regard us as "losers" and chattel and would happily replace us and ignore the feminized society in the interest of corporate profit.

Ironically, the women's vote has resulted in women being dupes for the same Patriarchy that the feminists claimed to tear down: the wealthy industrialists wanted to lower the cost of labor AND need for goods so women entering the workforce did well for that. As full dupes, such as in Sweden, the feminists make excuses for Islamist culture. I've even seen American feminists tow the party line on that.

There is a break in the ranks with the feminists such as the TERFs who are angry that trans-women are being treated EQUAL to women showing their "we only want equality" was a ruse all along.

@woodsmoke Consider that a little over a century ago, back when women were "oppressed", they were expected to "chase" men much in the same way that PUA Game teaches men today: They networked, learned how to open conversations with men, had a goal towards marriage (not "having fun" or "finding themselves"). Trad-fems would later consider women who were like this as "pick mes" or "desperate". My maternal grandmother back in 1925 had a sister who broke off an engagement so... she grabbed the guy for herself!

This nation of ambivalent and passive-aggressive waiting for men to "wow" them and pass their little tests slowly emerged over the generations. My mother was proud she only gave my father her first and last name and made him look up her phone number if a book. Over time, even "nice" women we regard today were raised to treat men like dogs to perform tricks.

Eff Dee Ess has a point we should pick up on: We need to adopt (reasonable) standards that, by themselves, make us valuable. Men who set standards show leadership that women crave but also raise the bar for how men should be treated. It also means that women who crave men to "lead" (abdicate responsibility) should accept the burden of being a follower: That the man's opinion should be respected by default because he EARNED it.

It's not a paradox to say that men need to lead our way out of this, but that also means we need to hold women to higher standards. Women who have reasonable standards can easily find a decent husband if she puts in a fraction of the work that men do.