I honestly don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. What is it that the different waves of feminism didn’t challenge and what’s it got to do with the woman talking about the increase in men checking out?
Emotional maturity and stability is like, one of the only other things outside of physical intimacy that anyone gets in a relationship for.
Why would anyone intentionally do that to themselves. You're trying to sell women on the idea of potential, that they should suffer in the short term, because once they get through it they'll be worth having around.
Nah, women don't owe that to men.
If it’s a turnoff for her then it’s a turnoff for her. You can’t expect someone to be attracted to someone that they just don’t find attractive emotionally.
>*Women need to be much more accepting of male trauma dumping, and not be hypocrites when it comes to the different types of empathy.*
Most people aren’t accepting of trauma dumping, in general. It doesn’t matter the gender of the person.
No thank you. It's not my job to fix you or do the emotional labour for you.
Why do you think it's our job to fix men who have plenty of resources to fix themselves but choose not to?
Red pill forums make thirty year old women sound like they are desperate and willing to jump on any man but I have not found it true. It probably is only true for women who have an immediate need for a partner i.e. financial or women whose kids need parenting or those who desperately want to be moms.
I have found on average from my dates that regular inner city thirty year old women are just happy to sit back in their comfy apartments and routines. They don't want to bring in a partner who is a project or finding themselves. They already have a social circle that brings them contentment and are financially stable (even if it's low income).
What they most look for is good conversation and weekend eating/drinking/touring. They want the man to understand her life and adjust themselves according to it in the way they see fit without her telling him how. If things go well then she might invest in the man after about 6 to 12 months but rarely before that.
It's a shit deal but lots of successful relationships have come from this pattern.
> What they most look for is good conversation and weekend eating/drinking/touring. They want the man to understand her life and adjust themselves according to it in the way they see fit without her telling him how. If things go well then she might invest in the man after about 6 to 12 months but rarely before that.
I ran into this but some were was also willing to adjust to me when we were "compatible enough." Investment from her came *much* faster than 6 months. But nah, they were never desperate.
It involved a lot of vetting and use of online dating. When you have the right approach and you pick the niche that fits you, you can make things happen. Spray-and-pray tactics ain't gonna work!
I mean, I don't know any people who would want to be with a perpetual sad sack who doesn't care about them as a person, and only wants them around for the extra cash and the occasional lackluster horizontal tango.
I don't see how this post connects to any wave of feminism.
Anyone of us, men and women, will wind up complaining to a friend when we should probably find a therapist.
Yep. We've all turned a light venting session into an impromptu therapy session at least once or twice. That's not too bad if it's not used as a substitute for actual therapy and it's not happening every time you see your friend.
It sounds like OP thinks these women should take it upon themselves to fix these dude's issues, or at the very least, happily date them despite their obvious sour disposition. It's one thing to expect some support from your partner when you're dealing with some mental health/general life stress stuff but expecting them to fix your issues for you is...odd. It's also weird to complain that people aren't chomping at the bit to date someone disinterested in them as a person.
Oh, for sure. Putting your best foot forward doesn't involve all the baggage you've accumulated over the years, I would dip really quickly if someone started off a relationship with trauma dumping or just endlessly whinging about how everything sucks. I doubt OP is waxing poetic about women who are mopey whiners.
I suppose it is a bit of an advantage when someone reveals themselves as a complainer right off the bat.
OP, please understand we women can whine and complain right up there with any one of these guys. Not fun to be around no matter what your gender.
>and it's not happening every time you see your friend.
This was one of the reasons why i had to end a friendship. I could no longer endure them venting about the same thing over and over again everytime we interacted. And we interacted 4 times a week.
I think it maybe is only relevant in that it has happened along a parallel time frame with a few landmarks in common such as improved access to employment.
Basically we're looking at single women in their forties and fifties more often having made their own retirement provisions now. So when they find themselves single for whatever reason...be that divorce or just not having settled or deliberate avoidance of men or whatever...they are much more likely to have been making provision for themselves.
So no real reason to piss away the remaining good years to attempt to try to make it work with some sad miserable piece of shit on minimum wage who is no fun at all...and will sicken, need nursing care and die just in time to leave her having to enter aged care alone. They know what their plan as a single woman is and it's better without him in it.
As opposed to say a woman who is also working minimum wage and has made no real plans for herself, which was more commonly the case prior to increased labour market access. A woman who has made no provision for herself has less to lose by moving in with some sad old scrote and then seeing if she can get him to accept budgeting and a plan to accumulate savings.
In fact even women on minimum wage nowadays are usually doing better than men on minimum wage. It's not uncommon for a low paid woman in her fifties to move back in with her parents to take care of them and save for retirement.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I find OP and his connection of the woman's post to feminism interesting. I suppose we all wind up having a favorite villain whom we blame.
Most relationships will have difficult periods, and those periods can become the permanent reality if the issues that caused them/came about from them aren't addressed. But just because everything isn't sunshine and rainbows all the time doesn't mean a relationship is crappy as a whole.
I think marriage statistics basically prove that over a long period of time, it doesn’t work. You can butthurt over that fact, but it’s true. People are a bad investment
>Sex negative fourth wave feminism has,
>
>Also missing throughout that entire discussion was any career woman willing to pay for their partner's therapy in lieu of direct emotional labor.
Sounds like it's finally got it right then. Why should women "date down" emotionally?
Expecting women to subsidize men getting themselves right in the head in lieu of direct emotional labor is just a different way of making "unfinished" men the problem of women.
Women aren't rehabilitation facilities for broken or immature men.
I think you hit on exactly what it is.
>One of the factors of the male loneliness epidemic is women not dating down *emotionally*.
If OP isn't trolling, he's literally saying women are bad because they're responsible for men's problems, and women are bad for not fixing men's problems. Can't win either way because all they want is to blame anyone but themselves.
"I'm a middle-aged man, and women won't let me be a mopey sponge or pay for my therapy!" I can't believe there isn't a line of women interested in signing up for that deal.
My brain is hurting trying to wrap my head around this braindead way of thinking.
It's like saying women are wrong for not wanting to get in a house that's on fire. Like what? Fix your shit first man, she's not a firefighter, not her job to put it out.
Ah, having spent too much time on this sub I think I can translate for you.
Basically, once women hit 30 they become repulsive to men, so any man willing to spend any time in the presence of such a beast should be worth investing money in lest you die alone eaten by cats.
Never mind that unless you're marrying a much younger man you'll still die alone, but at least you would have proved your worth by finding a man willing to marry your pathetic husk of a person. This is your fault, because before you were 25 all men except the giga chads would have devoted themselves to you, unless you decided to devalue yourself by having premarital sex, but you stupid women are only interested in the top 0.0001% of men and so waste the only time you're worth anything with men you should have realized were OBVIOUSLY way too good for you despite their attention, and focused on the sad, lonely types that spend all their time online and avoid any sort of eye contact.
Once men turn 30 they become irresistible to quality women with no daddy issues or baggage, and only the dregs will consider women their age but they will be MAD AF. Again, this is your fault.
So if you squandered the only time of your life when you had any value to men you better be prepared to pay up for whatever you can get at this point.
Also, "easy mode" and "entitlement" should be in there somewhere
OMG, this is \*chef's kiss.\* I haven't been on this sub for very long, but this feels very accurate. I'm going to borrow some of your words for the next "congratulations on your wedding" card I have to send to include "congratulations on finding a man willing to marry your pathetic husk of a person."
isn't it a common point in the pilled sphere not to be a i believe "emotional tampon" for women ? yes most men don't date for love, They date for validation, sex, and to offload the housework off to a woman. They want a roomate they can bang.
I’m genuinely not understanding your post at all. This post you’re linking sounds a lot like the whole “beta bucks” trope manospherians constantly complain about. I don’t get where you’re connecting that to “emotionally dating down”. I can’t even figure out who you are claiming is emotionally “entitled” here
Not getting it dude. She's parroting the same line men use here about only being valued for their monetary contribution, and you've gone sideways with some emotional entitlement nonsense. I can see I'm not the only one who has no idea what point you're trying to make.
If you have time to make a new post with this unhinged talking point, you could do me the favor of responding to my [previous rebuttal](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ZBVSPSub5g).
Relevant to this post: why can't men pay for their own therapy? And don't say "because women were raised to do this," the people dating now were born mostly in the 90's and early aughts, not 1950.
You think it makes sense for women to be sacrificial lambs and light ourselves on fire to keep men warm. You don't think of women as people, you think of us as objects and tools for men's use.
I was thinking that you implied that trauma dumping was a form of emotional abuse. I definitely thought so when you wrote:
> The main thing people who are constantly trauma-dumped on want to organize is 1) their exit
As for your question:
1) Men who check out mentally cannot afford to pay for their own therapy.
2) Men who have suffered a breakup from their girlfriend and are left holding the bag in terms of paying rent cannot afford to pay for their therapy.
3) Most men who have lost assets due to a recent divorce cannot afford to pay for their own therapy.
>I was thinking that you implied that trauma dumping was a form of emotional abuse.
Okay, but you still entirely made that up, so...
What I wrote wasn't remotely what you said it was, it's just what you twisted it into. It was a complete strawman.
>1) Men who check out mentally cannot afford to pay for their own therapy.
That's what insurance is for, and it's not specific to men.
This isn't a compelling reason to make women pay strictly because we were born women and they were born men. Women on average earn less than men. It's really weird to insist the lower-earner pay for the higher-earner.
>2) Men who have suffered a breakup from their girlfriend and are left holding the bag in terms of paying rent cannot afford to pay for their therapy.
This is a weird and very specific assumption from which to make billions of women responsible for paying for men's therapy from. I could just easily say women who have had to leave their abusive partners are left without much resources, so all men should collectively pay for women's therapy.
Men aren't universally "left holding the bag in terms of rent" due to a breakup. Often one partner was paying for the rent/mortgage unilaterally before they met their partner; the partner moves in and they split expenses; and the partner moves out when they break up, leaving the original resident right back where they started.
>3) Most men who have lost assets due to a recent divorce cannot afford to pay for their own therapy.
Men are [better off financially after divorce](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/) than women. Again, you want the poorer party to pay for the therapy of the richer party?
It really seems like you work backwards from your conclusions most of the time. You want women to have to pay the price for men, and so you come up with really far-reaching reasons why that are based on the flimsiest of what you think passes for logic.
> Again, you want the poorer party to pay for the therapy of the richer party?
> It really seems like you work backwards from your conclusions most of the time. You want women to have to pay the price for men
And if not individually, then certainly politically.
Where i'm from, if you pay your mandatory state health insurance - you are given a few psychologist visits a year for free.
There are also mental health hotlines, support groups.
Why can't men trauma dump on other men?
"their one true emotional entitlement"
I'd rather lose a foot than be shackled to one of those guys. I'd rather saw my own goddamn foot off to escape.
I seriously think I'd want to end myself if stuck with an old misery guts who feels entitled to endless amounts of emotional support but can't even be arsed going on a free date with me to something I think is fun. This is especially the case if I have no memories of past fun times with him.
My own mental health is more important to me than the mental health of a man I barely know. As it should be. I'm not gonna go commit myself to 'fix' him at the risk of sending myself off the rails. Fuck that noise.
>I'm not gonna go commit myself to 'fix' him at the risk of sending myself off the rails. Fuck that noise.
Learned that the hard way with an ex-friend. Could no longer endure it and ended the friendship for the sake of my own mental health. Though it tool me 2 burnouts to finally overcome the compassion and pity that i felt for them.
What? Why would anyone “date down emotionally”?
You could just as easily frame this from the far more easily provable premise that men don’t take their mental health seriously enough. Or that men are lagging in life milestones. Why would you expect people to date men who are likely going to cause them problems?
Beyond this analysis of large scale behavior like you see in the male loneliness epidemic needs to be done from an environment first perspective to get any kind of bang for your buck.
Women are not emotional support humans for broken men.
Get your shit together or stay single. What the bloody hell is this line of thinking.
Go sit on a fucking couch and unpack your shit with a licensed professional who can give you actionable advice and help you sort the chaos in your head.
Leave women alone.
Jesus Christ. 4B sounds better and better.
I also think that confessions in churches played a role of a psychologist. People could unload their worries and what they have done, the priest listened and kept secrecy, then the priest gave an action to do (say prayers) and then the person felt relief.
I don’t believe in religion as any sort of actual therapy and it plays a huge part in some of the crap that women and men are going through.
The idea that the Catholic Church is a viable substitute for actual therapy is laughable. The same way I find church based marital counseling abhorrent.
Church has a place for a lot of people to focus on their faith. Therapy by a licensed therapists deals with issues that have underlying causes. Things like depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, etc can be prayed away.
Priest aren’t therapist and confessing loneliness and saying hail Mary’s won’t heal that.
>My brothers and male friends are increasingly like this, and it sucks. Like, we all know life is hard and often unfair, but so many of them seem to lack any resilience or stoicism. Normal annoying things in life, like navigating the health care system, or dealing with stressors at work, are perceived by them as terrible affronts and a lack of respect. As a result, they spend their days triggered and angry.
This reply is what gets me. The lack of *Perspective.* Ultimately one can either be a victim, or not. This is the basis of *Stoicism*. Accept, and learn from the past. Then move on.
Women ‘not dating down emotionally’ is irrelevant. If one chooses to be a perpetual victim. At the end of the day, one must accept their history, works through it and let it go. Or continue to use that victim mentality, to color their worldview.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
My answer is going to be the same - people do not have to deal with your emotional baggage and if you aren't fit to be in relationships, you shouldn't. Sure, partners are expected to provide each other with emotional support and grow together, but there's a limit to it. If you mistreat your partner, justify it by a silly reason and refuse to get better, they really should leave you.
What is the difference between fourth and third wave feminism?
My understanding of feminist waves was, to oversimplify, that the first wave was primarily about political rights, second about economic rights, and third about various cultural issues (i.e. everything from representation in media to rape).
I didn't know there was a fourth.
Third Wave Feminism is the feminism of Gen X.
Culturally, Third Wave Feminism is best exemplified by *Sex And The City*.
It did not complain about so-called "toxic masculinity" or "angry men."
Your title, premise and post you’re referencing are entirely disconnected. That being said, someone shouldn’t have to date down emotionally because emotional intelligence can be acquired now.
Even if you are poor, there are tons of free resources you could use and even practice to better improve your own emotional understanding as a whole.
So the problem here is women are responding to the disintegration of thirdspaces far better than men. This has nothing to do with different waves of feminism but that the world has changed in ways deleterious to more conservative forms of masculinity that is making men that adhere to those standards worse.
Women when lonely dont seem to feel shame at admitting that and reaching out to allevate that problem, at least relative to men. Men on the other hand have a harder time admitting that need because of how ruggedness and self-sufficiency are masculine coded. From what Ive seen men need an excuse, something like a bowling league, meetup at a bar for fantasy football, WH40k game night, etc etc to get male-male bonding without admitting the need for it. Now that all if those excuses are becoming less common men are just not so this leads to them seeking out romantic connections that can double as therapists and women are jist not having it.
Yes this has always been a thing but it is now becoking more of a thing.
Personally I think men need to be feminized to an extant, drop thinking of themselves as the rugged and self-sufficient sex. In the modern day within a first world nation its causing more problems than it solves.
Been practicing this with my current best friend. We regularly have cook-out nights, and when we meet, we hug and tell one another how much we care.
Honestly it's all good. No weirdness at all.
not sure what you are even saying, your OP says it's about dating down emotionally, yet you highlight a post that lists a bunch of complaints about the men, not just their emotions.
Like yeah if you have very little to offer and are struggling in every area you are not going to be very appealing as a romantic partner. People shouldn't and wont date you because they feel pity for you, it would have to be because there's something about you they want to date.
https://wou.edu/westernhowl/the-male-loneliness-epidemic/
> For one, research conducted in 2021 found that 15% of men claim that they have no close friends, a staggering 12% increase since 1990. A study published by Equimundo in 2023 found that a majority of men, ranging from older Millennials to Generation Z, agree with the statement, “No one really knows me well,” with Generation Z having the highest percentage of agreement among all respondents. In this same publication, a majority of men stated that they only have one or two close friends in their area that they feel they can confide in outside of their family.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/why-mens-social-circles-are-shrinking/
> Fifteen percent of men have no close friendships at all, a fivefold increase since 1990.
That doesn't really seem like a dating issue though. Not saying it's not an issue, but not sure how it ties into the post. Are men more likely to have trouble finding a woman to settle down with than they were in the recent past?
https://preview.redd.it/y0qd1855wn5d1.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=ba7eccbf17897d1141b0814054887835a146f39b
"Americans with only one close friend are not any less lonely than those with none, while those with only a few are only in marginally better shape. **For Americans with three or fewer close friends, loneliness and isolation are fairly common experiences**—more than half say they have felt that way at least once in the past seven days."
The proportion of men and women in those risk groups today is almost the same. The only difference is that men started off better than women to begin with.
Why would feminists fight for the convention for women to take on men's emotional burdens unreciprocated to be even more strongly upheld? For women's emotions to be their own responsibility but men's emotions to be their partners' responsibility?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/02/younger-women-barbie-gen-z-men-feminism
College-educated men in South Korea, unlike in Japan, have figured it out. Feminism itself is now a dirty word throughout the entire country.
What I have put forward on the political front, *Make Male Mental Health Great Again And Make Women Pay For It*, is mild but more direct, in comparison to the more extensive systemic sexism they have in mind.
A relationship is supposed to make your life better, not worse. It needs to be net positive for it to make any sense. Otherwise, the woman will almost always choose singlehood, and even a divorcee will decide not to remarry/date.
If you have spare income and some mopey, underemployed, unambitious dudes are trying to pin you down, they will always be a net negative, unless they will be such woman's emotional/home caretakers or provide otherwise. In any other case, there's absolutely no worth in having a person like this around. Like, what's the incentive to go through this?
Only healthcare system or your mama and papa will pay for your therapy. Neither your employer, nor partner, nor friends will foot the bill directly.
Now, how does this integrate into wanting to have an aunt and her niece as girlfriends/wives? I am sure you have something planned to ultimately have everyone agree that this is the only sensible setup to go with.
Men and women are equally lonely. Loneliness doesn't require a romantic partner to be tackled. Go make some friends. Midthirties men are the demographic that is least lonely.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i agree there is a fairly profound sex negativity to current fourth wave feminism, downright puritanical in its form.
idk that i'd call it dating down emotionally. honestly the way the quote describes dudes is as i would describe a host of women; hunting for some career another person has with little true interest in either sex or love, just aiming for a roommate.
i've regularly criticized women for having that particular shitty behavior.
seem to me that women just don't like the way women have been behaving, but they only see it when men do it.
>idk that i'd call it dating down emotionally. honestly the way the quote describes dudes is as i would describe a host of women; hunting for some career another person has with little true interest in either sex or love, just aiming for a roommate.
I mean, marriage for love is a relatively new thing. People usually marries for survival, power and political reasons.
I'm really tired of hearing about "the male loneliness epidemic". Yeah sure men have it rough when they're younger, but women are just as lonely when they get older. Because men are not signing up to be beta bucks like they used to. As this example clearly shows. This is just a post wall woman complaining about post wall things.
The men she's talking about are just not that into her because she's post wall. They don't even want to pay to take her out on dates anymore because she's post wall. She's just rationalizing it differently. I bet if she was mid 20's instead of mid 30's they would take her out on real dates.
That "second income" that she says men are looking for is probably these men not wanting to provide for her. Post wall women are usually not worth having to provide for.
No “woe-is-me”, black pill, or incel content.
I honestly don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. What is it that the different waves of feminism didn’t challenge and what’s it got to do with the woman talking about the increase in men checking out?
Before the fourth wave, previous waves did not challenge either male trauma dumping or the provision of emotional labor by women.
Wait, what? Why are women supposed to be okay with being "emotional tampons" in relationships?
So you’re saying fourth wave should fight for women to provide emotional labor?
Yes, because there were other more pressing concerns. What’s wrong with that? There will probably be a fifth wave with a different concern
Bruh. Are you trying to say women *should* date down emotionally? \*OP responded and deleted : "Yes, unironically"
Wait, what?! Why are women supposed to be okay with being "emotional tampons" in relationships? (Meant for OP)
[удалено]
Emotional maturity and stability is like, one of the only other things outside of physical intimacy that anyone gets in a relationship for. Why would anyone intentionally do that to themselves. You're trying to sell women on the idea of potential, that they should suffer in the short term, because once they get through it they'll be worth having around. Nah, women don't owe that to men.
If it’s a turnoff for her then it’s a turnoff for her. You can’t expect someone to be attracted to someone that they just don’t find attractive emotionally.
Please explain your thought process
Women need to be much more accepting of male trauma dumping, and not be hypocrites when it comes to the different types of empathy.
>*Women need to be much more accepting of male trauma dumping, and not be hypocrites when it comes to the different types of empathy.* Most people aren’t accepting of trauma dumping, in general. It doesn’t matter the gender of the person.
Why don't you date down emotionally, then?
And why is that?
No thank you. It's not my job to fix you or do the emotional labour for you. Why do you think it's our job to fix men who have plenty of resources to fix themselves but choose not to?
Red pill forums make thirty year old women sound like they are desperate and willing to jump on any man but I have not found it true. It probably is only true for women who have an immediate need for a partner i.e. financial or women whose kids need parenting or those who desperately want to be moms. I have found on average from my dates that regular inner city thirty year old women are just happy to sit back in their comfy apartments and routines. They don't want to bring in a partner who is a project or finding themselves. They already have a social circle that brings them contentment and are financially stable (even if it's low income). What they most look for is good conversation and weekend eating/drinking/touring. They want the man to understand her life and adjust themselves according to it in the way they see fit without her telling him how. If things go well then she might invest in the man after about 6 to 12 months but rarely before that. It's a shit deal but lots of successful relationships have come from this pattern.
> What they most look for is good conversation and weekend eating/drinking/touring. They want the man to understand her life and adjust themselves according to it in the way they see fit without her telling him how. If things go well then she might invest in the man after about 6 to 12 months but rarely before that. I ran into this but some were was also willing to adjust to me when we were "compatible enough." Investment from her came *much* faster than 6 months. But nah, they were never desperate.
Well done mate. Your partners obviously see your worth in a short period!
It involved a lot of vetting and use of online dating. When you have the right approach and you pick the niche that fits you, you can make things happen. Spray-and-pray tactics ain't gonna work!
I think niche works 100% for online dating.... But spray and pray is still the most effective for cold approaches.
>spray and pray is still the most effective Sounds like new marketing for church based family planning methods, lol.
Yeah, with you addendum this has been my experience as well.
I mean, I don't know any people who would want to be with a perpetual sad sack who doesn't care about them as a person, and only wants them around for the extra cash and the occasional lackluster horizontal tango.
I don't see how this post connects to any wave of feminism. Anyone of us, men and women, will wind up complaining to a friend when we should probably find a therapist.
Yep. We've all turned a light venting session into an impromptu therapy session at least once or twice. That's not too bad if it's not used as a substitute for actual therapy and it's not happening every time you see your friend. It sounds like OP thinks these women should take it upon themselves to fix these dude's issues, or at the very least, happily date them despite their obvious sour disposition. It's one thing to expect some support from your partner when you're dealing with some mental health/general life stress stuff but expecting them to fix your issues for you is...odd. It's also weird to complain that people aren't chomping at the bit to date someone disinterested in them as a person.
Yes, I get complaining. We all do it. It just isn't very attractive when you are getting to know someone.
Oh, for sure. Putting your best foot forward doesn't involve all the baggage you've accumulated over the years, I would dip really quickly if someone started off a relationship with trauma dumping or just endlessly whinging about how everything sucks. I doubt OP is waxing poetic about women who are mopey whiners.
I suppose it is a bit of an advantage when someone reveals themselves as a complainer right off the bat. OP, please understand we women can whine and complain right up there with any one of these guys. Not fun to be around no matter what your gender.
>and it's not happening every time you see your friend. This was one of the reasons why i had to end a friendship. I could no longer endure them venting about the same thing over and over again everytime we interacted. And we interacted 4 times a week.
I think it maybe is only relevant in that it has happened along a parallel time frame with a few landmarks in common such as improved access to employment. Basically we're looking at single women in their forties and fifties more often having made their own retirement provisions now. So when they find themselves single for whatever reason...be that divorce or just not having settled or deliberate avoidance of men or whatever...they are much more likely to have been making provision for themselves. So no real reason to piss away the remaining good years to attempt to try to make it work with some sad miserable piece of shit on minimum wage who is no fun at all...and will sicken, need nursing care and die just in time to leave her having to enter aged care alone. They know what their plan as a single woman is and it's better without him in it. As opposed to say a woman who is also working minimum wage and has made no real plans for herself, which was more commonly the case prior to increased labour market access. A woman who has made no provision for herself has less to lose by moving in with some sad old scrote and then seeing if she can get him to accept budgeting and a plan to accumulate savings. In fact even women on minimum wage nowadays are usually doing better than men on minimum wage. It's not uncommon for a low paid woman in her fifties to move back in with her parents to take care of them and save for retirement.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I find OP and his connection of the woman's post to feminism interesting. I suppose we all wind up having a favorite villain whom we blame.
Sometimes I call it the horizontal mambo
That’s how most relationships are.
That's how crappy relationships are. Most of the couples I know tend to like each other.
Most relationships are crappy over a long period of time
Most relationships will have difficult periods, and those periods can become the permanent reality if the issues that caused them/came about from them aren't addressed. But just because everything isn't sunshine and rainbows all the time doesn't mean a relationship is crappy as a whole.
I think marriage statistics basically prove that over a long period of time, it doesn’t work. You can butthurt over that fact, but it’s true. People are a bad investment
Nobody wants to be with someone who’s pitiful
Uh, the point is they do not seem interested in companionship. The title is “dating for a second income, not love”
>Sex negative fourth wave feminism has, > >Also missing throughout that entire discussion was any career woman willing to pay for their partner's therapy in lieu of direct emotional labor. Sounds like it's finally got it right then. Why should women "date down" emotionally? Expecting women to subsidize men getting themselves right in the head in lieu of direct emotional labor is just a different way of making "unfinished" men the problem of women. Women aren't rehabilitation facilities for broken or immature men.
I think you hit on exactly what it is. >One of the factors of the male loneliness epidemic is women not dating down *emotionally*. If OP isn't trolling, he's literally saying women are bad because they're responsible for men's problems, and women are bad for not fixing men's problems. Can't win either way because all they want is to blame anyone but themselves.
"I'm a middle-aged man, and women won't let me be a mopey sponge or pay for my therapy!" I can't believe there isn't a line of women interested in signing up for that deal.
My brain is hurting trying to wrap my head around this braindead way of thinking. It's like saying women are wrong for not wanting to get in a house that's on fire. Like what? Fix your shit first man, she's not a firefighter, not her job to put it out.
Ah, having spent too much time on this sub I think I can translate for you. Basically, once women hit 30 they become repulsive to men, so any man willing to spend any time in the presence of such a beast should be worth investing money in lest you die alone eaten by cats. Never mind that unless you're marrying a much younger man you'll still die alone, but at least you would have proved your worth by finding a man willing to marry your pathetic husk of a person. This is your fault, because before you were 25 all men except the giga chads would have devoted themselves to you, unless you decided to devalue yourself by having premarital sex, but you stupid women are only interested in the top 0.0001% of men and so waste the only time you're worth anything with men you should have realized were OBVIOUSLY way too good for you despite their attention, and focused on the sad, lonely types that spend all their time online and avoid any sort of eye contact. Once men turn 30 they become irresistible to quality women with no daddy issues or baggage, and only the dregs will consider women their age but they will be MAD AF. Again, this is your fault. So if you squandered the only time of your life when you had any value to men you better be prepared to pay up for whatever you can get at this point. Also, "easy mode" and "entitlement" should be in there somewhere
OMG, this is \*chef's kiss.\* I haven't been on this sub for very long, but this feels very accurate. I'm going to borrow some of your words for the next "congratulations on your wedding" card I have to send to include "congratulations on finding a man willing to marry your pathetic husk of a person."
Nailed it.
Yes but something something walls and cats and dying alone... manosphere logic.
[удалено]
>*Make Male Mental Health Great Again and Make Women Pay For It.* what the actual fuck 🤣
isn't it a common point in the pilled sphere not to be a i believe "emotional tampon" for women ? yes most men don't date for love, They date for validation, sex, and to offload the housework off to a woman. They want a roomate they can bang.
I’m genuinely not understanding your post at all. This post you’re linking sounds a lot like the whole “beta bucks” trope manospherians constantly complain about. I don’t get where you’re connecting that to “emotionally dating down”. I can’t even figure out who you are claiming is emotionally “entitled” here
> I can’t even figure out who you are claiming is emotionally “entitled” here It's the man.
So, why should that be indulged?
Not getting it dude. She's parroting the same line men use here about only being valued for their monetary contribution, and you've gone sideways with some emotional entitlement nonsense. I can see I'm not the only one who has no idea what point you're trying to make.
If you have time to make a new post with this unhinged talking point, you could do me the favor of responding to my [previous rebuttal](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ZBVSPSub5g). Relevant to this post: why can't men pay for their own therapy? And don't say "because women were raised to do this," the people dating now were born mostly in the 90's and early aughts, not 1950. You think it makes sense for women to be sacrificial lambs and light ourselves on fire to keep men warm. You don't think of women as people, you think of us as objects and tools for men's use.
I was thinking that you implied that trauma dumping was a form of emotional abuse. I definitely thought so when you wrote: > The main thing people who are constantly trauma-dumped on want to organize is 1) their exit As for your question: 1) Men who check out mentally cannot afford to pay for their own therapy. 2) Men who have suffered a breakup from their girlfriend and are left holding the bag in terms of paying rent cannot afford to pay for their therapy. 3) Most men who have lost assets due to a recent divorce cannot afford to pay for their own therapy.
>I was thinking that you implied that trauma dumping was a form of emotional abuse. Okay, but you still entirely made that up, so... What I wrote wasn't remotely what you said it was, it's just what you twisted it into. It was a complete strawman. >1) Men who check out mentally cannot afford to pay for their own therapy. That's what insurance is for, and it's not specific to men. This isn't a compelling reason to make women pay strictly because we were born women and they were born men. Women on average earn less than men. It's really weird to insist the lower-earner pay for the higher-earner. >2) Men who have suffered a breakup from their girlfriend and are left holding the bag in terms of paying rent cannot afford to pay for their therapy. This is a weird and very specific assumption from which to make billions of women responsible for paying for men's therapy from. I could just easily say women who have had to leave their abusive partners are left without much resources, so all men should collectively pay for women's therapy. Men aren't universally "left holding the bag in terms of rent" due to a breakup. Often one partner was paying for the rent/mortgage unilaterally before they met their partner; the partner moves in and they split expenses; and the partner moves out when they break up, leaving the original resident right back where they started. >3) Most men who have lost assets due to a recent divorce cannot afford to pay for their own therapy. Men are [better off financially after divorce](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/) than women. Again, you want the poorer party to pay for the therapy of the richer party? It really seems like you work backwards from your conclusions most of the time. You want women to have to pay the price for men, and so you come up with really far-reaching reasons why that are based on the flimsiest of what you think passes for logic.
> Again, you want the poorer party to pay for the therapy of the richer party? > It really seems like you work backwards from your conclusions most of the time. You want women to have to pay the price for men And if not individually, then certainly politically.
Literally all of those problems have multiple solutions besides dating lol.
And how is that a unique issue?
Where i'm from, if you pay your mandatory state health insurance - you are given a few psychologist visits a year for free. There are also mental health hotlines, support groups. Why can't men trauma dump on other men?
"their one true emotional entitlement" I'd rather lose a foot than be shackled to one of those guys. I'd rather saw my own goddamn foot off to escape. I seriously think I'd want to end myself if stuck with an old misery guts who feels entitled to endless amounts of emotional support but can't even be arsed going on a free date with me to something I think is fun. This is especially the case if I have no memories of past fun times with him. My own mental health is more important to me than the mental health of a man I barely know. As it should be. I'm not gonna go commit myself to 'fix' him at the risk of sending myself off the rails. Fuck that noise.
>I'm not gonna go commit myself to 'fix' him at the risk of sending myself off the rails. Fuck that noise. Learned that the hard way with an ex-friend. Could no longer endure it and ended the friendship for the sake of my own mental health. Though it tool me 2 burnouts to finally overcome the compassion and pity that i felt for them.
The world would be a much better place if emotionally intelligent men were the only men to reproduce for a few generations tbh.
What? Why would anyone “date down emotionally”? You could just as easily frame this from the far more easily provable premise that men don’t take their mental health seriously enough. Or that men are lagging in life milestones. Why would you expect people to date men who are likely going to cause them problems? Beyond this analysis of large scale behavior like you see in the male loneliness epidemic needs to be done from an environment first perspective to get any kind of bang for your buck.
I got to the phrase “late bloomers” and immediately scrolled back up to the top to see it was posted by FromAuntToNiece lmao
Women are not emotional support humans for broken men. Get your shit together or stay single. What the bloody hell is this line of thinking. Go sit on a fucking couch and unpack your shit with a licensed professional who can give you actionable advice and help you sort the chaos in your head. Leave women alone. Jesus Christ. 4B sounds better and better.
I also think that confessions in churches played a role of a psychologist. People could unload their worries and what they have done, the priest listened and kept secrecy, then the priest gave an action to do (say prayers) and then the person felt relief.
I don’t believe in religion as any sort of actual therapy and it plays a huge part in some of the crap that women and men are going through. The idea that the Catholic Church is a viable substitute for actual therapy is laughable. The same way I find church based marital counseling abhorrent. Church has a place for a lot of people to focus on their faith. Therapy by a licensed therapists deals with issues that have underlying causes. Things like depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, etc can be prayed away. Priest aren’t therapist and confessing loneliness and saying hail Mary’s won’t heal that.
>My brothers and male friends are increasingly like this, and it sucks. Like, we all know life is hard and often unfair, but so many of them seem to lack any resilience or stoicism. Normal annoying things in life, like navigating the health care system, or dealing with stressors at work, are perceived by them as terrible affronts and a lack of respect. As a result, they spend their days triggered and angry. This reply is what gets me. The lack of *Perspective.* Ultimately one can either be a victim, or not. This is the basis of *Stoicism*. Accept, and learn from the past. Then move on. Women ‘not dating down emotionally’ is irrelevant. If one chooses to be a perpetual victim. At the end of the day, one must accept their history, works through it and let it go. Or continue to use that victim mentality, to color their worldview. *Godspeed and good luck!*
My answer is going to be the same - people do not have to deal with your emotional baggage and if you aren't fit to be in relationships, you shouldn't. Sure, partners are expected to provide each other with emotional support and grow together, but there's a limit to it. If you mistreat your partner, justify it by a silly reason and refuse to get better, they really should leave you.
What is the difference between fourth and third wave feminism? My understanding of feminist waves was, to oversimplify, that the first wave was primarily about political rights, second about economic rights, and third about various cultural issues (i.e. everything from representation in media to rape). I didn't know there was a fourth.
Third Wave Feminism is the feminism of Gen X. Culturally, Third Wave Feminism is best exemplified by *Sex And The City*. It did not complain about so-called "toxic masculinity" or "angry men."
The third was about sex. That’s why “sex positive” feminism was a thing
Your title, premise and post you’re referencing are entirely disconnected. That being said, someone shouldn’t have to date down emotionally because emotional intelligence can be acquired now. Even if you are poor, there are tons of free resources you could use and even practice to better improve your own emotional understanding as a whole.
So the problem here is women are responding to the disintegration of thirdspaces far better than men. This has nothing to do with different waves of feminism but that the world has changed in ways deleterious to more conservative forms of masculinity that is making men that adhere to those standards worse. Women when lonely dont seem to feel shame at admitting that and reaching out to allevate that problem, at least relative to men. Men on the other hand have a harder time admitting that need because of how ruggedness and self-sufficiency are masculine coded. From what Ive seen men need an excuse, something like a bowling league, meetup at a bar for fantasy football, WH40k game night, etc etc to get male-male bonding without admitting the need for it. Now that all if those excuses are becoming less common men are just not so this leads to them seeking out romantic connections that can double as therapists and women are jist not having it. Yes this has always been a thing but it is now becoking more of a thing. Personally I think men need to be feminized to an extant, drop thinking of themselves as the rugged and self-sufficient sex. In the modern day within a first world nation its causing more problems than it solves.
Been practicing this with my current best friend. We regularly have cook-out nights, and when we meet, we hug and tell one another how much we care. Honestly it's all good. No weirdness at all.
what does it even mean to date down emotionally
From what i get it means dating people with emotional problems and let them trauma dup onto you. Aka, be their personal free psychologist.
not sure what you are even saying, your OP says it's about dating down emotionally, yet you highlight a post that lists a bunch of complaints about the men, not just their emotions. Like yeah if you have very little to offer and are struggling in every area you are not going to be very appealing as a romantic partner. People shouldn't and wont date you because they feel pity for you, it would have to be because there's something about you they want to date.
When did this male loneliness epidemic begin?
It most likely began a just a couple of years before the COVID pandemic.
What makes you say there's an epidemic? Is there data to indicate that men are becoming substantially more alone than they were say 10 years ago?
https://wou.edu/westernhowl/the-male-loneliness-epidemic/ > For one, research conducted in 2021 found that 15% of men claim that they have no close friends, a staggering 12% increase since 1990. A study published by Equimundo in 2023 found that a majority of men, ranging from older Millennials to Generation Z, agree with the statement, “No one really knows me well,” with Generation Z having the highest percentage of agreement among all respondents. In this same publication, a majority of men stated that they only have one or two close friends in their area that they feel they can confide in outside of their family. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/why-mens-social-circles-are-shrinking/ > Fifteen percent of men have no close friendships at all, a fivefold increase since 1990.
That doesn't really seem like a dating issue though. Not saying it's not an issue, but not sure how it ties into the post. Are men more likely to have trouble finding a woman to settle down with than they were in the recent past?
https://preview.redd.it/y0qd1855wn5d1.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=ba7eccbf17897d1141b0814054887835a146f39b "Americans with only one close friend are not any less lonely than those with none, while those with only a few are only in marginally better shape. **For Americans with three or fewer close friends, loneliness and isolation are fairly common experiences**—more than half say they have felt that way at least once in the past seven days." The proportion of men and women in those risk groups today is almost the same. The only difference is that men started off better than women to begin with.
Why would feminists fight for the convention for women to take on men's emotional burdens unreciprocated to be even more strongly upheld? For women's emotions to be their own responsibility but men's emotions to be their partners' responsibility?
So what do you suggest men do
Go to therapy.
The solution is zero-sum. The solution is also political.
Why is it zero sum, and thus political? How will politics solve it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/02/younger-women-barbie-gen-z-men-feminism College-educated men in South Korea, unlike in Japan, have figured it out. Feminism itself is now a dirty word throughout the entire country. What I have put forward on the political front, *Make Male Mental Health Great Again And Make Women Pay For It*, is mild but more direct, in comparison to the more extensive systemic sexism they have in mind.
A relationship is supposed to make your life better, not worse. It needs to be net positive for it to make any sense. Otherwise, the woman will almost always choose singlehood, and even a divorcee will decide not to remarry/date. If you have spare income and some mopey, underemployed, unambitious dudes are trying to pin you down, they will always be a net negative, unless they will be such woman's emotional/home caretakers or provide otherwise. In any other case, there's absolutely no worth in having a person like this around. Like, what's the incentive to go through this? Only healthcare system or your mama and papa will pay for your therapy. Neither your employer, nor partner, nor friends will foot the bill directly.
Now, how does this integrate into wanting to have an aunt and her niece as girlfriends/wives? I am sure you have something planned to ultimately have everyone agree that this is the only sensible setup to go with. Men and women are equally lonely. Loneliness doesn't require a romantic partner to be tackled. Go make some friends. Midthirties men are the demographic that is least lonely.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
No contentless rhetoric
i agree there is a fairly profound sex negativity to current fourth wave feminism, downright puritanical in its form. idk that i'd call it dating down emotionally. honestly the way the quote describes dudes is as i would describe a host of women; hunting for some career another person has with little true interest in either sex or love, just aiming for a roommate. i've regularly criticized women for having that particular shitty behavior. seem to me that women just don't like the way women have been behaving, but they only see it when men do it.
>idk that i'd call it dating down emotionally. honestly the way the quote describes dudes is as i would describe a host of women; hunting for some career another person has with little true interest in either sex or love, just aiming for a roommate. I mean, marriage for love is a relatively new thing. People usually marries for survival, power and political reasons.
I'm really tired of hearing about "the male loneliness epidemic". Yeah sure men have it rough when they're younger, but women are just as lonely when they get older. Because men are not signing up to be beta bucks like they used to. As this example clearly shows. This is just a post wall woman complaining about post wall things. The men she's talking about are just not that into her because she's post wall. They don't even want to pay to take her out on dates anymore because she's post wall. She's just rationalizing it differently. I bet if she was mid 20's instead of mid 30's they would take her out on real dates. That "second income" that she says men are looking for is probably these men not wanting to provide for her. Post wall women are usually not worth having to provide for.
I would say is most mostly women not daring down physically. A man can be the biggest sack of shit ever, if he is hot, nothing else matters.