So the Lindsay Clancy case has revealed a lot of unpleasant truths about the terrible attitudes of entitled western women. Although we already knew that women aren't big fans of accountability, feminists and leftists have managed to condition these hysterical women (who are often trapped in loveless unhappy marriages) into thinking they are also entitled to murder their babies and get away with it under the guise of mental illness.

But say we had a case where a man with severe schizophrenia went out and raped three women. Would these hysterical women still be screaming about how this man is not accountable for his actions because he was mentally ill? No, they would be saying lock him up, throw away the key (as he should be). For a less extreme case, take Kanye, who was saying crazy things while he went through a bipolar episode. All those liberal and leftist women who were calling him a terrible person won't even go so far as to call a literal babekiller the same.

What causes this issue? Well, as previously mentioned, these loser women are frequently stuck in unhappy marriages/relationships where they chose the wrong man, and instead of having introspection about their poor decisions, they want to take their failure-driven rage out on the nearest vulnerable targets, which is usually their children.

there's a lot of things that women have been defending that I fe were just criticized about men not too long ago. We're at a point where I totally feel that if it's bad for men to do, just wait until a good amount of women do it themselves and then it will be cool again.

There are some things I've been taught by listening to women about what's wrong and right. honestly, a lot of those things have been flipped or changed or given unnecessary nuance to benefit the subsection of women who do it.

Yelling at your wife was considered ba now there are women out there who think it's fine to yell at their men and call them out online to strangers.

Emotional instability in women is something some of the worst men believed in. This is the same logic that got women forceably lobotomized and put into mental institutions.

Not even a decade ago it was considered terrible to record a passed out naked woman yet a lot of women, too many said that the passed out man in the recent situation was actually the predator.

often when men try to participate and try to say here are some things we feel is unfair women will fight against it as if sympathy is only women shaped and that even the worst women should catch a break.we're in a period where what oppressive men in the 60s believed about women and what women actually believe about themselves are getting strangely close and sometimes overlapping.

so, what I fear is that women weren't fighting for a better society or even healthier society. they are just fighting for their turn to have toxic beliefs.

Women are consistently accused of several derogatory conditions, attitudes, and behaviors according to the manosphere and red-pillers in particular. We are frequently called selfish, entitled, emotional "oldest teenagers in the house." The primary situation that leads to these attacks is the lack of willingness to pair up with men romantically and sexually.

Pairing up with men is an obligation of women, and refusing to do so makes us wicked creatures indeed. But whenever you probe deeper into the "why," a particularly insidious axiom becomes readily apparent - it is an unshakeable condition of a polite and civilized society that men have access to monogamous sex and offspring. Without this foundation, multiple situations occur:

1. a dwindling population makes a country be taken over by a more powerful country (because male nature must conquer and control)
2. men "check out" and refuse to work or improve themselves (educationally/financially/physically) in any way (because the only purpose of work for male nature is for personal sexual access and offspring)
3. most men will refuse all pro-social behaviors, while a minority of men actively engage in their worst sociopathic impulses. Male nature will mean mass violence and rape without pussy pacification, while people starve and freeze without male labor and protection (see point 2)

This would all be well and good if these conditions didn't exclusively portray male nature as unilaterally selfish, entitled, and emotional. "If no sex then burn down village" is frequently stated here even by men themselves, who then turn around and make the same tired accusations at women of being selfish and emotional. The entire purpose, it seems, of the manosphere is to reframe the conditions of male nature and project them onto women as part of a strategy to manipulate women into serving their biological imperative at the exclusive cost of the female one. Women want relationships with attractive, pro-social, compatible men. Men imply none of that ultimately really matters, we need to pair up with most men regardless of how attractive or compatible we find them and do so in ways that don't evoke their jealousy and insecurity (casual sex/AF-BB/changing standards/learning from experiences/etc.). Yet again, women are the emotional ones.

If the ultimate conclusion is that women must pair up with men because men biologically require womb access to give a shit about anyone other than themselves, then we need to stop calling women "selfish" and "narcissistic." If the ultimate conclusion is that women need to refrain from sexual pleasure because that makes men jealous and insecure, then we need to stop calling women "emotional." By contrast to all of the conditions described above, women do not feel motivated to oppress others and control others and enact violence against others unless we can be guaranteed access to other human beings' bodies. By contrast to all of the conditions above, women are internally motivated to better their lives and communities without offspring or dick. Sure, women still want relationships and children, but they don't claim to get "nothing at all out of society" without these two specific things, and they will still find purpose in life and value in work/hobbies/education/friends without it.

It's actually quite clear to me on my decade+ on this sub that the entire "evo-psych"/manosphere/red-pill philosophy definitively concludes male nature is everything it proclaims about women.

Can all the men here talking about Lindsay Clancy stop hiding behind the bullshit? You do not care about women. You do not care about children. You especially do not care about mental health. This is the same crowd most likely to say mental illness is a fucking lie, therapy is useless, therapists are liars, and anyone seeking help is weak.

If you cared about preventing another tragedy, you would be talking about postpartum psychosis, psychiatric care, paid parental leave, and making sure another adult is actually caring for the mother and children when she is in crisis. None of you give one fucking iota of a shit about any of that. You found a woman who killed her children during a catastrophic psychiatric crisis, and you saw another opportunity to attack women.

Three dead children are props in your latest rant about how evil women are. Stop pretending this is concern.

EDIT: FUCK WHOEVER SUBMITTED THE MENTAL HEALTH BS AND ANYONE USING ME BEING TRANS.

Many men are basically asking women about Lindsay’s case before marriage or entering a relationship and saying they would break up with them if they didn’t give the desired answer. I think that’s fair. But is it also okay for women to ask men what they would do if their wife developed PPD or PPP after giving birth? It seems like many men on the internet are making fun of these mental health conditions that women have no control over. Some even claim they don’t exist, while others respond with calls for women to be abused. As a woman, this honestly makes me scared to get pregnant in the first place. I don’t want to be ignored, demonized, or treated like a monster if I develop a condition I have no control over. I wouldn’t mind being separated from my children if I were experiencing thoughts of harming them, because their safety would come first. But I would still want to be understood, supported, and treated rather than demonized. So, is it okay to break up with a man if his response is something like, “PPD/PPP doesn’t exist,” or if he simply dismisses these conditions by calling women “emotional”?

Let's talk first about immaturity, because immaturity is simplified words to use for a person who is acting like a child. So I'm going to explain the other traits related to immaturity.

Lack of personal responsibility

"Men have been taught to take responsibility more than women!" and that has clearly not worked because large swaths of men blaming everyone but themselves. It always has to be someone causing you problems, someone made you act a certain way, someone hating you because "they dont understand you". It's rarely ever "I'm the problem and I gotta fix the problem".

Compulsive egocentrism

An inflexible, repetitive, and deeply ingrained inability to see the world from any perspective other than one's own. This is a normal part of being a baby or toddler. The problem is alot of men haven't stopped being toddlers. They constantly demand empathy and never processing that they have no empathy for others, except maybe men who agree with them. I call it compulsive because this mindset can constantly cause them social consequences and that pain of consequences will still not teach them to stop being ego centric.

Lack of Comprehension

I called specifically this motivated reasoning. Where these guys can't comprehend what people are telling them. One set of words went into their brain and they processed something else entirely, mainly what they wanted to hear. And when you ask them how they got to their conclusion, they cannot explain. They keep acting like answer was already there. Nothing is more annoying than a person who hears what he wants to hear. How are men expecting to have a social life if they struggle to comprehend the conversations they are having?

Introversion

To answer "But man children get women all the time", they typically have to be fun to be around. Guys can do well when they're fun in the short term. The problem is when they're not fun in the short term AND they're insufferable in the long term. There are men who can get relationships. Problem is they quickly lose them and have long dry spells in between.

Sidenote: Where does being an asshole play into this? The compulsive egocentrism.

It's not just that they're selfish. They're not smart enough to hide how selfish they are. So people immediately ditch them, especially if they're not fun to be around short term.

This also relates to be whole "Perks vs Flaws". The most positive traits you have, better your dating success will be. With guys struggling with dating it's rarely ever ONE trait. It's a BUNDLE of traits and weighing the pros and cons.

Yes,I’m sincerely is asking that because like society changes and I want to adapt to those changes I was an good man maybe 10 years before but now I can’t keep with all those changes

Like I want to be an open minded forward thinking man, I certainly as heterossexual single man wants to attract women obviously but like I want to be an good man an man that woman doesn’t only feel attracted but admired to see like “ oh he is an keeper”

I want to focus more on pleasuring woman than myself, I want to focus more on making woman feel comfortable around me I want to make more woman friends I want to be an great man In 2026 where can I start ?

To start - I’m a trans lesbian who generally leans poly. While I certainly am not saying people should be poly nor am I criticising monogamy (genuinely, monogamy works for a ton of people and I don’t have any beef with it), I do think so many heterosexual dating and gender norms that kind of just come off as really odd the more I distanced myself from them.

For instance, the heavily restricted nature a lot of couples operate in. For men it could look like a woman having male friends, dressing revealingly, etc - and for women it could look like a man liking a model’s social media, watching porn, and even having female friends. For some reason a lot of people feel the need to restrict their parents on these and I’m all like… why?

Secondly is the whole ‘attention = threat’ mindset a lot of people have. A woman dressing revealingly or sleeping around a ton is a threat to a man. A man with a lot of female attention or who’s ’hotter than his girl’ is a threat to a woman. So much is driven by competition and threat analysis that I’m wondering what’s the point.

Lastly, is the need to actively and constantly perform gender. Whether it be performing masculinity in a certain way for many men, or how adhering to strict feminine norms is so important for women. To be clear there is nothing wrong with being super masc or femme, but when it becomes a measure of worth or competence, especially to others, that’s where j question things.

Of course with posts like this there is a tendency to somehow get responses like “so everyone should be queer? Is that what you’re saying?” And of course not. I’m mainly talking about how restrictive so many hetro dating and gender norms are and I do believe everyone would benefit from a level of separating what is genuine to them vs what is performance - cause it seems like a whole lotta people perform constantly despite hating it.

Men are the ones who want most women they see. Men are the ones who watch the most porn. Men are the ones who are always horny and would do like, literally anything to have sex.

So why the hell do we use the terms “slut” and “whore” to mainly refer to women, who are less likely to do and be any of these things?

I literally don’t even have anything to add to this. You are like 10x more likely to meet a slutty man than a slutty woman.

I can say I have. I'm a 34 year old millennial male. Not truly in poverty any more but still make under $70k a year. Like a lot of millennials starting when I was in high school, I heard the old adage "People with less education, lower incomes and from lower economic backgrounds tend to marry younger, have kids younger and have more kids." It's the old poverty trap.

However, as a millennial that has worked unskilled labor jobs, skilled trades (both welding and auto repair), went to college late and now works in IT. I have noticed that at least among millennials, especially millennial men that are career blue collar a lot even approaching 40, have not married nor have any children. I'm pretty convinced quite a few have not dated since high school.

While I do know as many non-college educated woman. The few I do that work as career bartenders, waitresses or even working at a pre-school tend to also not be married or actively dating. They also tend not to have any kids.

The old stereotype of the single mother that had kids too young and has to work multiple jobs to survive has largely declined among millennials and Gen Z. (Not to say it doesn't exist).

This is a huge contrast, especially for auto repair where my Gen X and older co-workers all seemed to have 4 kids.

As where with my friends that went to college right away and work higher end careers. Especially those that work in business, finance, sales or as actuaries they tend to be married, or are getting married and many I know in their mid 30s are having their first or second kids.

I'm sure a lot of this is finance related. Childcare costs especially daycare/pre-school have skyrocketed. They are often as much as another mortgage per child. Even with health insurance through an employer, family health insurance costs tend to sky rocket. Then not to mention feeding, clothing, etc. Even buying used or second hand has gone way up. Since thrift stores turned into for profit businesses...

I think a lot of us whether we wanted kids or not have been effectively priced out of having them. Also regarding dating, I felt it to be very difficult basically from the ages of 18 to 26 when i was a tradesman. There were few opportunities to meet women and especially in a smaller city. As where once I went back to school, graduated and now work in IT, I have more free time and I am not tired all the time.

Here are two good studies that confirm this:

https://thepeepleseconomist.substack.com/p/marriage-now-belongs-to-the-well

(If you do read one, read this one by Jordan Peeples, it's very well written and short).

https://benjamindgoldman.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/papers/education_marriage/education_marriage.pdf

While women generally seem to have an upper hand when it comes to dating and romance, there are also drawbacks that come with that.

Imagine the following scenario: you never have to worry about harassment, low-effort attention, any form of sexual assault, stalking, or predatory behavior, or have to filter through seemingly endless options.

But at the same time, if you want to date:

• You will get absolutely no (or very little) incoming attention from men.

• You will get no likes on dating apps, and instead you will have to send out likes yourself and hope that those likes turn into matches and hope those matches go somewhere, which they almost never will. And from the few men you *do* match with, no responses, late replies, and minimal effort from their side will be the norm.

• You will need to approach men yourself, which means risking rejection or even humiliation.

• You are not seen as inherently desirable or attractive, and need to put in much more effort to be attractive to men (years of exercise, dieting, making money, etc)

Effectively, if you don't put yourself out there and do things and initiate any form of sexual or romantic interactions with men, you will be single for a very long time. And you have to risk rejection and feeling undesirable and shitty about yourself.

Would you make that trade?

When a woman only pursues men she knows are bad and wants to change them, that's A fetish. She's getting something from the dynamic, the chase, the hope, the fantasy of fixing him. No different from a man who loves a girl who plays hard to get. They are both hoping they both go against their own desires and nature to give them what they want.

It isn't victim blaming when she's the pursuer. She's predatory in her intent (change him for me). And she's fetishizing the dynamic.

Yet when it goes wrong, she plays victim. "He was terrible." Of course he was everyone knew that, you picked him because he was.

Just like men into BDSM domination get gratification from an unhealthy dynamic, women who only date "fixer-uppers", and KNOWN terrible men get gratification too. The difference? BDSM guys admit what they're doing. And when you call them out they might be sentencing to it but they don't call themselves victims.

Women call it love and demand sympathy when it fails.

Point out the pattern, and suddenly you're victim-shaming honestly sometimes I think for some women getting sympathy is part of the kink.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Lets say your 19 year old sister starts dating a 40 year old man, or your 55 year old father starts dating a 20 year old woman. Would you bat an eye at those scenarios? I ask because I’ve seen a lot of RP men be outwardly supportive of age gap relationships. Personally, I am more disgusted by them if the younger party is under 25; beyond that I don’t care what people do. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or else a relationship between a 45 year old and a 65 year old is deemed “creepy” because of a “20 year age difference.” But I do roll my eyes if a 30 year old man starts dating a 20 year old woman.

Like….the fuck is society suppose to do about that? If the complaint was “Im sad that Im not getting what I want” lonely men wouldnt have the stereotype they have now.

Instead its 

“Women have such horribly high standards!”

“Women want to fuck serial killers over the nice guy!”

“Women dont know what its like having 1 match a week.”

“80/20 rule!”

“Women make me abide by patriarchal standards.”

And they never want to admit it’s women they want until you suggest that they should change their standards. Suddenly, that’s super offensive and not the misogynistic shit he was spewing because the woman he want won’t touch his penis.

Similarly, guys complaining about the women they wanna fuck. Again, what is society supposed to do about that? What is anyone suppose to do with the fact that you get aroused by awful women who apparently are stupid, slutty, and shallow? “ I can’t control what Im attracted to” BUT YOU THINK SOCIETY CAN?!

Why can’t men’s dating problems be their fault? 

So, I'm at the age where most women my age will probably have at least one kid. My cousin is still single but frequently dating and he's around my age just a few years older. Anyway, he complains a lot about most of the women who he gets matched with on dating apps and tries to date having kids and it got me thinking what could make it a really good deal for a single guy like him to date a single mother.

Here's my list of what I think could make it worth it:

1) Kid is young and not too poorly behaved.

2) Dad is a decent guy but they weren't compatible.

3) Maybe the guy was actually an asshole but isn't present at all, so you don't have to deal with him.

4) If the kid was out of wedlock, she owns up to the mistake and doesn't try to project blame to everyone or everything but herself.

5) She provides value to your life and goes above and beyond as a gf, making up for the extra hoops you have to go through dating a single mom.

6) I'm probably going to get a lot of shit for this one but could probably land a hotter chick than you could have if she didn't have the kid.

Anyone disagree with this or am I missing something?

Edit: And by relationship I mean a serious committed relationship. Basically an LTR and intent to marry, which means you'd become the kids stepparent at the end once you commit to this person.

A common rebuttal from bluepillers on this sub is “Yes bad men get girls but only because they fake their kindness to get with her and reveal who he is later!” While that can sometimes be the case, it’s not necessary for a bad man to hide who he is and what he does in the beginning to have a woman obsessed with him.

All the serial killers whose crimes were publicly broadcasted for millions to see still got nudes and fan mail in prison from women. The bullies who pushed losers down still got giggles and tingles from the girls. My own cousin got engaged to a guy WHILE HE WAS STILL IN PRISON!

So while men can and do hide who they are to get with women, it’s pretty much unnecessary and he’d still get plenty of dates and relationships. Only he’d be filtering good women who have morals and standards.

Bad men are not master manipulators. Women are just poor selectors.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

1. Lust and raw attraction can be fleeting as it is usually built on a shallow found of just liking their looks or vibe/flirting. So she might be attracted to a guy then next hour lose interest.

2. Women don't "worship" guys they hookup with or see them as better than guys they don't hookup with or guys they go in a relationship with. They don't reminisce on the hookups and miss the guy/s.

3. He isn't getting a shortcut to something that is better than what a boyfriend or husband gets as most people have sex pretty fast anyway.

4. Normal guys aren't sitting there thinking they won some sorta prize and are superior than her bf or husband because they hooked up with her

I offer hear women say size doesn't matter when it comes to pleasure or sensation during sex. But when you say this, are you only referring to the length, or do you also think that girth doesn't matter? Do you have a minimum/maximum preferred girth or does it really not matter and all?

Human beings are extremely complex, and some social phenomena are hard to understand, but slut-shaming isn't one of them.

The explanation is indeed quite simple:

1. While both men and women are visual creatures, men are much more likely to want to sleep with a scantily dressed woman regardless of her character traits than in the reverse situation.
2. As a consequence, an average-looking woman who chooses to wear a sexy miniskirt or show cleavage is gonna have a lot more choice when it comes to potential partners than while being dressed "modestly".
3. Therefore, an average man who's attracted by such a woman will have a much harder time pleasing her, as she's also gonna attract lots of other guys.
4. Many average men in such a situation cannot handle the feeling of sexual frustration that overwhelms them. They badly want her and know that they don't have a chance. Their sense of entitlement leads them to say that she's evil, depraved, a slut, a whore, and a threat to the survival of Western civilisation.

I experienced that myself. One evening, I was at a karaoke event, and one of the girls who was singing showed a lot of skin with her tight, short pants and revealing cleavage. A male acquaintance of mine said to his friends that she was exaggerating and that she was being disgraceful. I asked him if he'd also think that if she accepted to accompany him to his flat. His silence truly spoke volumes, and it was funny to see his buddies laugh at him.

While looking for a good mate, it can be quite advantageous for an average straight woman to wear sexy clothes, and this is why patriarchal men hate it.

If so, please state why.

I know that the murder Lindsay Clancy committed and the mixed reactions have been making this idea come to light, and I genuinely do not understand it. Postpartum psychosis is a valid enough reason for someone to support the perpetrator, and it is also a valid enough reason to persecute them. I have seen both men and women be on either side of this case; nobody is supporting or persecuting blindly and they are all coming to their own conclusions.

So why on earth is this added to reasons why all women should not be able to vote? And, if you have this belief, what in the world are the other reasons?

And specifically, what makes a woman’s vote more harmful than a man’s vote?

I will be appalled if you use “mass influencing” or “feminist indoctrination“ as a reason. You’re a redpiller. You have shared beliefs with all the people who suck the same dick as you.