I don't get the income-hate, though. A 30-year-old who makes over $75,000 a year is in the top income quartile for his age. That's pretty respectable, but I suspect that most young women are as delusional about money as they are about height. A woman who thinks that 6'2" is average is also likely to think that $75,000 a year is below average
Get a load of this:
CC: @polishknight, @moorekom, @loneliness-inc, @goodmansaysfuckyou, @Kevin32
Wow. You misrepresented the gist of my post and put words in my mouth. Therefore, I can't respond to this.
This is an excellent example of the dangers of backwards thinking.
What's backwards thinking? Backwards thinking is starting with the conclusion you want to reach, and finding reasoning and evidence to support it, instead of starting with the evidence, and asking yourself what conclusion it supports.
@Loneliness-inc appears to have sat down to think about "reasons why women shouldn't be whores", and persuaded himself that promiscuity would have led to the extinction of the human race, ergo marriage.
Problem is, if he had started with the evidence, he would have learned with one quick web search that the earliest evidence of marriage as an institution is references in the Code of Hammurabi, about 2300 BC. In order to support HIS conclusion, he needs to make the argument that marriage, or something equivalent to it, existed in the paleolithic era.
That's a giant leap of faith.
Also, if he had started with the evidence, he would have looked at mating among the great ape species, NONE of whom are monogamous, ALL of whom have children which require a lot of care (although not as much as humans), and yet all of whom manage to survive just fine until growing human populations destroy their habitat.
If I had to speculate upon how early humans raised children, and where marriage comes from, based on what evidence I have seen, I would guess that:
Pre-human apes, and paleolithic humans, did not form monogamous mating bonds, but existed with tribes or bands as their primary social unit. Mothers were primarily responsible for child care, with other females of the tribe sharing childcare labour as secondary support, and tribal males in a tertiary support role.
Marriage has its origins in the NEOlithic era, which is the point at which significant property could be owned, such as farmland, and herds of domesticated animals.
Marriage is an economic adaptation, not a biological one. If monogamy were required for human survival, humans would be instinctively monogamous... they are not.
@redpillschool Yes, just noticed @loneliness-inc's post in the feed. I was going to tag you as "Reddit's ambassador in TRP" or "Reddit's reincarnation" but for now you get a pass.
I think that @fumbor should read the sequel to 12 rules for life.
It's called - 13 rules to not be a fucking cuck - by turd flinging monkey.
writing articles
It's actually a YouTube video.
No, I didn't watch. I saw the headline as disingenuous considering the things I know about her.
hanging around with the girls on RPW.
Ugh. The few times I lurked there, reading their drivel made my brain hurt.
Also, I share @loneliness-inc's stance that there's no such thing as a Red Pilled woman.
However, I can see how it might be edumacational to someone with more patience than I possess (and not to toot my own horn, but I'm a bit too patient for my own good sometimes).
[the rest]
I had not thought that was the direction you were going when I originally responded. At all.
Well said, and strongly agree. Women need patriarchy, and I strongly believe we'll see an increasing number of them begging for its return over the next few decades.
Read More@fumbor so far, the stuff you have mentioned is a net positive for Dr. Peterson.
However, keep in mind that the dude is blue pilled and gynocentric.
He preaches male responsibility, but doesn't advocate for the corresponding male authority.
And what is responsibility without authority? Anyone?
(Tag @lurkerhasarisen, @loneliness-inc)
It's a shame that I don't have the time to write up a full response to your thought out reply. Hopefully, a shorter reply will suffice. My apologies.
What you're describing here is not being territorial, it is a hierarchy!
Men competing for their place on the totem pole, not necessarily for the top position. A hierarchy has many layers and not everyone is aiming for the very top.
It's a dominance hierarchy because everyone is working to overcome SOMETHING - to dominate that thing.
This is how we improve as men. By competing with - and ultimately dominating over - challenges that face us.
The challenges can be human, but that isn't necessarily so. Anyone who got good at something, dominated over that something.
The things we dominate become new steps under our proverbial feet, lifting us higher as men. This in turn, increases our value to women.
Thus, the dominance instinct in men and the hypergamy instinct in women, operate in tandem with one another.
Read More