Why do you think women in the Anglosphere prefer to date Lovers and not Providers?

[ArchibaultNew]

As I dealt deeper into the game I realize that there's two types of game:


Provider(Money, Status)
Lover(Looks, Game/Charisma)

[Cornfed]

Itis quite simple. The system provides females the necessities of provision. protection and status. Once those are taken care of, everything else (sex, getting the lawn mowed etc.) becomes a specialist function provided by the appropriate specialist.

[galii]

As I dealt deeper into the game I realize that there's two types of game:


Provider(Money, Status)
Lover(Looks, Game/Charisma)

Because that is what they really desire

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Because Western society enables women to do so. Western society protects, caters, celebrates, care about, and focuses on women's needs only. Any thing a men need is tossed aside. Women can screw up, F*ck as many guys as she wants, no accountability for her actions, and curse like a drunken sailor and people still find that cute. In Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it's a different story. They make the B*tch behave or else...they get a nice hard b*tch slap.
I don't know about Latin America...

[Cornfed]

Because Western society enables women to do so. Western society protects, caters, celebrates, care about, and focuses on women's needs only. Any thing a men need is tossed aside. Women can screw up, F*ck as many guys as she wants, no accountability for her actions, and curse like a drunken sailor and people still find that cute. In Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it's a different story. They make the B*tch behave or else...they get a nice hard b*tch slap.
I don't know about Latin America...

Women in Eastern Europe are sluts. Probably a lot in the Middle East are as well.

[Cornfed]

Because Western society enables women to do so. Western society protects, caters, celebrates, care about, and focuses on women's needs only. Any thing a men need is tossed aside. Women can screw up, F*ck as many guys as she wants, no accountability for her actions, and curse like a drunken sailor and people still find that cute.

Yes, feminism is very expensive, but a huge proportion of public expenditure in the West goes on propping it up. That is the entirety of the problem.

[MrMan]

I hear the divorce rate went up as women entered the workforce. It makes staying single and having affairs affordable. It also makes divorce more affordable... although divorce destroys a lot of family wealth.

If we want to look at past stages of history as a baseline against which to judge the modern situation, we have to realize that in the US, for example, 150 years ago, many people lived on family farms, which would have employed quite a bit of female labor. Women weren't clamoring for men's jobs when those jobs were digging holes for fence posts or standing behind the plough. Women still worked very hard preparing food, spinning thread, putting urine on the yarn to treat it, weaving cloth, shelling beans, hand washing clothes, etc. Women nursed the babies and were entrusted with a lot of the child care responsibilities for the younger children, but children also grew up as farm laborers. Economies have diverse activities and some women were employed washing clothes or teaching children.

In medieval times, many of us who are white probably had a majority of ancestors from that time period who were peasants working on some lord's farm, doing the same sort of thing without owning the land.

So female labor has always been a thing. Then we had the industrial revolution where many of the women still stayed home with the children, and the men worked long hours in factories or offices. Air conditioning had been invented. Appliances had been invented to lighten the load on some more onerous jobs like washing clothing. So women took care of the house but also joined charity events. When feminists started promoting the idea that more women should have careers, that probably appealed bored women sitting at home watching TV for much of the day. They had to put clothes in the wash, cook on the stove, vacuum, mop and iron, but with prepackaged foods and washing machines, the work load had decreased.

Women being able to work is not the only factor that led to divorce, or the only component of feminism. Rejecting traditional beliefs about marriage, which in the US and much of the west were intertwined with Christian values, was another component. Ideas that marriage does not have to be permanent, that wives do not need to submit to their husbands, and the eventual lack of social stigma for divorcing one spouse to marry another also played a role. The sexual revolution happening at the same time also played a role.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Because Western society enables women to do so. Western society protects, caters, celebrates, care about, and focuses on women's needs only. Any thing a men need is tossed aside. Women can screw up, F*ck as many guys as she wants, no accountability for her actions, and curse like a drunken sailor and people still find that cute. In Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it's a different story. They make the B*tch behave or else...they get a nice hard b*tch slap.
I don't know about Latin America...

Women in Eastern Europe are sluts. Probably a lot in the Middle East are as well.

Well at least in Russia, Putin decriminalized domestic violence. The men can hit the B*tch if she doesn't behave and not get arrested.
The Middle East.. I hear they can stone the B*tch if she committed adultery and families can honor kill her. The irony is that the Western Feminist doesn't go there and campaign for the rights of women there.. they might get killed in a second. That's why all the feminist are concentrated in the Western Society and "Hen Pack" all the men there because they don't face any consequences. The consequences of that is Western societies tend to import all the filthy turd worlder scumbags into their society and their men can't defend the women from getting mass raped or killed.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Because Western society enables women to do so. Western society protects, caters, celebrates, care about, and focuses on women's needs only. Any thing a men need is tossed aside. Women can screw up, F*ck as many guys as she wants, no accountability for her actions, and curse like a drunken sailor and people still find that cute.

Yes, feminism is very expensive, but a huge proportion of public expenditure in the West goes on propping it up. That is the entirety of the problem.

Yes, it is very expensive and requires lot of taxpayer money instead of investing in infrastructure and other useful things. Third world governments can't afford expensive welfare program for women. Russia isn't exactly strapped with cash like the U.S. They are not the Soviet Union anymore.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I hear the divorce rate went up as women entered the workforce. It makes staying single and having affairs affordable. It also makes divorce more affordable... although divorce destroys a lot of family wealth.

If we want to look at past stages of history as a baseline against which to judge the modern situation, we have to realize that in the US, for example, 150 years ago, many people lived on family farms, which would have employed quite a bit of female labor. Women weren't clamoring for men's jobs when those jobs were digging holes for fence posts or standing behind the plough. Women still worked very hard preparing food, spinning thread, putting urine on the yarn to treat it, weaving cloth, shelling beans, hand washing clothes, etc. Women nursed the babies and were entrusted with a lot of the child care responsibilities for the younger children, but children also grew up as farm laborers. Economies have diverse activities and some women were employed washing clothes or teaching children.

In medieval times, many of us who are white probably had a majority of ancestors from that time period who were peasants working on some lord's farm, doing the same sort of thing without owning the land.

So female labor has always been a thing. Then we had the industrial revolution where many of the women still stayed home with the children, and the men worked long hours in factories or offices. Air conditioning had been invented. Appliances had been invented to lighten the load on some more onerous jobs like washing clothing. So women took care of the house but also joined charity events. When feminists started promoting the idea that more women should have careers, that probably appealed bored women sitting at home watching TV for much of the day. They had to put clothes in the wash, cook on the stove, vacuum, mop and iron, but with prepackaged foods and washing machines, the work load had decreased.

Women being able to work is not the only factor that led to divorce, or the only component of feminism. Rejecting traditional beliefs about marriage, which in the US and much of the west were intertwined with Christian values, was another component. Ideas that marriage does not have to be permanent, that wives do not need to submit to their husbands, and the eventual lack of social stigma for divorcing one spouse to marry another also played a role. The sexual revolution happening at the same time also played a role.

Don't mistake Feminism as contribution of female liberation.
It's the technological advancements such as household appliances, contraceptives, automobile, machines, computers, and others that contributed massively in enabling women to have time to work and not be tied down in a family farm. Feminism likes to take all the credit and give false narratives that all women are oppressed by all men and they must smash "patriarchy".

[ArchibaultNew]

I do believe the Anglo Society is an "Equity Society" or as close to an Equity Society than many other societies were some people are given certain privileges and others are not. Maybe it might come from Monarchs were Monarchs had certain laws while the masses had other laws. At least studying French Society it seems more Egalitarian and less equity since women are not believed right away but rather the civil law judges people in terms of individuals or at least they try.

Meanwhile, in the Anglo society what matters is which group do you belong to. For instance, if you belong to X group you are evaluated a certain way if you belong to Y group a different standard applies. Honestly, if that' how they want to live their lives that's fine. However, I feel if you are a hetero man you should be aware than you are at a disadvantage and might have it better in other places.

This is the main different that I see. In that women in the Anglosphere are "valued" for who they are. Just like the Monarchs in times old were valued by the fact of being Monarchs. Meanwhile, in other Societies women need to live up to certain standards, this standards can vary between societies. However, what I've seen is that there is an expectation.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I do believe the Anglo Society is an "Equity Society" or as close to an Equity Society than many other societies were some people are given certain privileges and others are not. Maybe it might come from Monarchs were Monarchs had certain laws while the masses had other laws. At least studying French Society it seems more Egalitarian and less equity since women are not believed right away but rather the civil law judges people in terms of individuals or at least they try.

Meanwhile, in the Anglo society what matters is which group do you belong to. For instance, if you belong to X group you are evaluated a certain way if you belong to Y group a different standard applies. Honestly, if that' how they want to live their lives that's fine. However, I feel if you are a hetero man you should be aware than you are at a disadvantage and might have it better in other places.

This is the main different that I see. In that women in the Anglosphere are "valued" for who they are. Just like the Monarchs in times old were valued by the fact of being Monarchs. Meanwhile, in other Societies women need to live up to certain standards, this standards can vary between societies. However, what I've seen is that there is an expectation.

No it's not. Anglo society gives off a strong pretense of "equality, liberty and fraternity" but Anglo society is just as "unequal" as any others, just with different social structures, privileges and rights. You should check out the homes of the "politician class" near Washington D.C. They live in mini "Versailles" with every house worth more than 2 million dollars and amount of staff that is there to cater to them such as drivers, cooks, maids, security guards. And you should check out lives of billionaires and famous celebrities and compare that to the life of the working poor in Chicago or New York. Do you think Anglo society is equal now? Now the "upward mobility" is just a bunch of horse dung. Sure man can learn skills to get a better job, but he is still under the ownership of the CEO class. He is at their mercy. You can go on welfare, but once you are in it, it's very hard to get out unless you have strong willpower... I think Northern European countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland fits in more with the "Equality, Liberty and Fraternity" better than any Anglo societies. Anglo societies has became a sick parody of itself.

[Outcast9428]

You can be both a lover and a provider. I don’t really see an inherent contradiction between those two which is assumed in the premise of this thread. I’d argue the most passionately intense relationships are ones in which the guy is a good caretaker for his girlfriend/wife.

[ArchibaultNew]

I do believe the Anglo Society is an "Equity Society" or as close to an Equity Society than many other societies were some people are given certain privileges and others are not. Maybe it might come from Monarchs were Monarchs had certain laws while the masses had other laws. At least studying French Society it seems more Egalitarian and less equity since women are not believed right away but rather the civil law judges people in terms of individuals or at least they try.

Meanwhile, in the Anglo society what matters is which group do you belong to. For instance, if you belong to X group you are evaluated a certain way if you belong to Y group a different standard applies. Honestly, if that' how they want to live their lives that's fine. However, I feel if you are a hetero man you should be aware than you are at a disadvantage and might have it better in other places.

This is the main different that I see. In that women in the Anglosphere are "valued" for who they are. Just like the Monarchs in times old were valued by the fact of being Monarchs. Meanwhile, in other Societies women need to live up to certain standards, this standards can vary between societies. However, what I've seen is that there is an expectation.

No it's not. Anglo society gives off a strong pretense of "equality, liberty and fraternity" but Anglo society is just as "unequal" as any others, just with different social structures, privileges and rights. You should check out the homes of the "politician class" near Washington D.C. They live in mini "Versailles" with every house worth more than 2 million dollars and amount of staff that is there to cater to them such as drivers, cooks, maids, security guards. And you should check out lives of billionaires and famous celebrities and compare that to the life of the working poor in Chicago or New York. Do you think Anglo society is equal now? Now the "upward mobility" is just a bunch of horse dung. Sure man can learn skills to get a better job, but he is still under the ownership of the CEO class. He is at their mercy. You can go on welfare, but once you are in it, it's very hard to get out unless you have strong willpower... I think Northern European countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland fits in more with the "Equality, Liberty and Fraternity" better than any Anglo societies. Anglo societies has became a sick parody of itself.

Hey man, I appreciate the post. At the same time, I'd like to add that I wrote "Equity" not "equality." Equity is when you favor some groups over others. I said that like you as well that American culture and English speaking cultures favors certain groups over others.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I do believe the Anglo Society is an "Equity Society" or as close to an Equity Society than many other societies were some people are given certain privileges and others are not. Maybe it might come from Monarchs were Monarchs had certain laws while the masses had other laws. At least studying French Society it seems more Egalitarian and less equity since women are not believed right away but rather the civil law judges people in terms of individuals or at least they try.

Meanwhile, in the Anglo society what matters is which group do you belong to. For instance, if you belong to X group you are evaluated a certain way if you belong to Y group a different standard applies. Honestly, if that' how they want to live their lives that's fine. However, I feel if you are a hetero man you should be aware than you are at a disadvantage and might have it better in other places.

This is the main different that I see. In that women in the Anglosphere are "valued" for who they are. Just like the Monarchs in times old were valued by the fact of being Monarchs. Meanwhile, in other Societies women need to live up to certain standards, this standards can vary between societies. However, what I've seen is that there is an expectation.

No it's not. Anglo society gives off a strong pretense of "equality, liberty and fraternity" but Anglo society is just as "unequal" as any others, just with different social structures, privileges and rights. You should check out the homes of the "politician class" near Washington D.C. They live in mini "Versailles" with every house worth more than 2 million dollars and amount of staff that is there to cater to them such as drivers, cooks, maids, security guards. And you should check out lives of billionaires and famous celebrities and compare that to the life of the working poor in Chicago or New York. Do you think Anglo society is equal now? Now the "upward mobility" is just a bunch of horse dung. Sure man can learn skills to get a better job, but he is still under the ownership of the CEO class. He is at their mercy. You can go on welfare, but once you are in it, it's very hard to get out unless you have strong willpower... I think Northern European countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland fits in more with the "Equality, Liberty and Fraternity" better than any Anglo societies. Anglo societies has became a sick parody of itself.

Hey man, I appreciate the post. At the same time, I'd like to add that I wrote "Equity" not "equality." Equity is when you favor some groups over others. I said that like you as well that American culture and English speaking cultures favors certain groups over others.

Oh My bad. And yes, The American culture favors some groups over others..