Post: #1

One of the most important pieces of wisdom from this community that I find myself always reminding myself of is the fact that women are like children -- especially when they get emotional.

Just repeating this fact to yourself when dealing with an irrationally emotional woman can be incredibly calming and very useful to help you go through life with as little frustration as possible.

I wanted to share some examples of all the situations that would be made a lot less frustrating through the simple reminder that women are like children. I've been in all these situations and every time reminding myself that women are like children made me feel like a cool-headed zen master in comparison.

When reading these scenarios, think to yourself the last time you were in a situation like this and imagine how you would have felt differently by reminding yourself that the woman you are dealing with is like a child.

When girls are unable to predict their future emotions or quickly change their minds
It's often frustrating to invest yourself emotionally in a girl and then feel whiplashed when she inexplicably changes course. Remember that she can't really predict her emotions very far in advance. Instead of letting yourself get hurt or bothered by her change of direction, just remind yourself that she probably can't even be sure of what she wants, needs, or feels when she is talking about her feelings for you one way or the other and she might reverse completely back in a few days anyway. Just be patient and go with the flow. And remember to keep your guard up emotionally until you know her very well.

When girls can't communicate their thoughts and feelings in a rational, well-thought out way
Instead of getting frustrated at their inability to talk through a disagreement or explain their feelings in a rational way, just try to listen, agree as much as you can, and communicate with them on their hyper-emotional level. Be patient and understanding while she tries to convert her jumble of emotions into words. Better to attempt rational discussion the next day when she has calmed down.

When girls are overly emotional and upset with you
I used to try to try to defend myself with logic and reason, but that just made things worse. Now I'll just agree and listen until she calms down. For most minor matters, just apologizing even if you shouldn't have to is a lot less strenuous and frustrating than trying to change her mind with logic and reasonable arguments. For major matters that could have long-term consequences, wait until she is not upset to deal with it.

In professional situations when a woman snaps at you or treats you rudely
All the situations that I can remember where someone in a professional situation unnecessarily lost their cool were with women (or gay men, curiously). Just remember to not take it personally and never react with anger or rudeness in kind. In the moment she probably had very little control over her emotions and maybe she will feel embarrassed about it after the fact. Her colleagues are probably embarrassed for her as well.

Summary
Do not underestimate the calming power of this mantra. Just in the past few weeks, reminding myself that women are children has helped me deal with every single one of these scenarios with a lot less frustration than I otherwise would have.

Whether it's listening to a colleague lash out at me to vent her anger over another problem of hers, calmly nodding and agreeing while on the phone with a female friend who's angry over some trivial issue, or nonchalantly dismissing a romantic interest's emotional 180s as temporary and unimportant, this mantra has significantly improved my quality of life. I hope you guys can rely on it in the moments you'll need it as well.

Post: #2

This is absolutely true, and I've voiced versions of this in various places. Although your mantra is very useful to keep in mind, the other side of the coin is also important: properly understood and managed, a woman's child-like inclinations can be your best friend.

A wide-eyed and enthusiastic child-woman can throw a tantrum on you, but will also follow you anywhere if you create a fun environment that triggers her natural curiosity for stimulation. They'll cry when you leave the room and behave if you are diligent about not showing any inconsistency in your expectations. I've often thought that it's far more accurate to describe women as animals than children, being driven by a far larger set of lizard-brain instincts than men (especially post-ejaculation). Animals can be lured and frightened and angered and excited much more easily than any human male. If you've ever raised a puppy, you no doubt know this already. It's terrifyingly similar.

If women were logical, grown-up creatures who--as the media tries to constantly tells us--have their emotions under control and are smarter than us, there would be no such thing as shitty bottle-service clubs, massively overpriced designer labels, or washed-up carousel riders desperately looking for a lifesaver in the cold Arctic waters of her 30s. These are the products of the marketplace pandering to the child- or animal-like desires of an entire demographic for profit.

Post: #3

Agree this is one of the most sobering and helpful realizations that men need to internalize. All aware men understand this:

@ 3:20





They don't know what they want, don't know how to properly convey their feelings, don't know what's best for them, and when left totally unhinged and unguided, become aimless, ornery, self-destructive, etc. They want everything with none of the consequences, don't want to accept responsibility for their actions, shamelessly lie to get what they want and avoid conflict or punishment, live in he moment all the time, and are unapologetically inconsiderate and ignorant to people's needs around them.

Post: #4

Paramount to being able to convert out of the anger phase of the red pill is internalizing this belief. Rational logic and emotional instinct are oil and water.

Ultimately, we have to thank mother nature for this mechanism. If women were rational, the human race would have died out. Ask yourself these questions; 1. Would a logical being ever want a dick in them? 2. Would a logical person ever consciously agree to 9 months of pregnancy? 3. Birth?

The only caveat to this view is how naive the prior generations were on giving women responsibility. The entrusted far too much social capital in the "fairer sex" and now negative ROI's are pushing our society to the brink.

Post: #5

I was having a drink with a forum member Caractacus Potts when he said that "women were just tall children". I almost spilled my yac!

Post: #6

Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

Post: #7

(08-31-2015 06:27 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

I imagine you leave a lot of pussy on the table with this strategy. I do the same thing, and know that all too well. I did it today in fact with one who was bugging me with annoying behavior over text. When in hindsight, I could just play along, or not play/react at all, and she probably would have been at my place sometime this week.

Post: #8

That's why bratty little sister game works so well.

Post: #9

As a mindset for gaming girls, I think this is a useful shortcut. If your frame is already solid, it will give you that "amused mastery" flair that chicks dig.

Not sure if it's actually true, however, especially when it comes to women in relationships.

I've met many married women, secure in their position at home, who acted in a very a rational and cold way. There was nothing in their interaction with their husbands, kids, or colleagues, that would suggest they had any trouble keeping their emotions in check.

Among married men, a domineering wife is a common occurrence. It's the man who allows it to happen but for it to happen, there must be a woman capable of doing so. She will use emotion for sure, and I'll get to that in a bit, but she'll also use reason to plead her case such that the man finds it irresistible. Such as, "if you love me, you're going to want to spend all your free time with me, since the time spent otherwise would indicate that you value other things more than me."

If women indeed were like tall children at all stages of their lives, even weakly beta males would have no trouble keeping them in check, and we know that is not the case.

I've been thinking for this for years now, and am working on a hypothesis that I could call the "reverse butterfly": at the beginning, you start with a beautiful creature (the butterfly), whom you catch (or, does it catch you?), then it goes through a transformation in the cocoon of the LTR/marriage to emerge as ... I don't want to call it a maggot, but it's not as beautiful as it was before, and definitely not as (positively) emotional.

Admittedly this is a rather bizarre analogy but how else can you explain the 70% of divorces initiated by women? A child would certainly not "divorce" the parent unless in the most extreme circumstances.

There was a book that Roosh reviewed a few years ago, "The Manipulated Man" by Ester Villar. The author is a woman, and a feminist to boot, therefore her motivation could and should be questioned, however even after a few readings I find it utterly compelling. It describes women as parasites who'll find the host (the man) whom they can exploit so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves. Any emotions displayed and used in the process are merely a tool to manipulate the man into doing their bidding. A stream of tears you see on a woman's face could be very convincing however her emotional state could be very flat or indeed absent; all the woman is doing is making you obey.

At this point I consider the book's argument to be overblown. It surely is a parody. Or is it? If you have ever been in a marital argument, especially after the thousandth time, you'll start questioning the authenticity of women's emotional displays. The amount of rage is most often out of proportion to its alleged or actual cause. The woman's goal, however, is always clear - she is not wavering. Even in the middle of her outburst, she'll be ready to recite her demands in a most logical way.

Are women really like children? The young ones indeed seem so in an irresistible way. Then, something happens, and they lose this lovable weakness. Usually after they get the ring. Which makes me wonder if it's ever been there at all. If it wasn't just a show to make me fall in love - and commit to her.

--
The above isn't really meant to argue against the OP's points, which I find useful for gaming. I've been thinking about this topic for a long time now and thought this thread might be a good place for me to try to give my thoughts some form - and open them for critique.

Post: #10

(09-01-2015 02:09 PM)Teekay Wrote:  Not sure if it's actually true, however, especially when it comes to women in relationships.

Are women really like children? The young ones indeed seem so in an irresistible way. Then, something happens, and they lose this lovable weakness. Usually after they get the ring. Which makes me wonder if it's ever been there at all. If it wasn't just a show to make me fall in love - and commit to her.

I think there is some merit to this.

In serious relationships chicks will be trying to manifest this ideal they have in their heads about the future of the relationship. Children aren't that calculating.

I think generally chicks don't have any idea what they want, but sometimes they do and that is usually the point where they become dangerous. Kind of like how children have no idea what they want, except in the instances where they do for periods of time.

When a chick in a relationship wants to push towards marriage it doesn't going to matter if the guy doesn't want it. She will continue to hack away at it until she gets it or realizes the guy won't give it to her.

Maybe this is similar to a child wanting something from a parent like some new gadget or toy but the magnitude is greater.

The child sees that all of it's friends are getting this cool new toy and throw a fuss to get it from the parent. The woman sees that all of her friends are getting this cool new husband and throw a fuss to get it from the boyfriend.

After a child gets the parent to give in the kid will enjoy the new toy for a while then probably get bored and cast it aside. This probably isn't dissimilar to when a girl gets a guy to give in and marry her.

I don't think that lovable weakness is totally lost. I think it's that the superficial lust for the object(husband) goes away after she gets it.

Maybe this is because chicks have a toxic view about what a marriage is. Maybe they see it as an object the can posses and not something greater.

I think a hard comparison between chicks and children isn't totally objective. It's a useful aphorism for game, but what we are really talking about is immaturity. The truth is probably that women mature in certain aspects but not in others.

Post: #11

(09-01-2015 02:09 PM)Teekay Wrote:  As a mindset for gaming girls, I think this is a useful shortcut. If your frame is already solid, it will give you that "amused mastery" flair that chicks dig.

Not sure if it's actually true, however, especially when it comes to women in relationships.

I've met many married women, secure in their position at home, who acted in a very a rational and cold way. There was nothing in their interaction with their husbands, kids, or colleagues, that would suggest they had any trouble keeping their emotions in check.

Among married men, a domineering wife is a common occurrence. It's the man who allows it to happen but for it to happen, there must be a woman capable of doing so. She will use emotion for sure, and I'll get to that in a bit, but she'll also use reason to plead her case such that the man finds it irresistible. Such as, "if you love me, you're going to want to spend all your free time with me, since the time spent otherwise would indicate that you value other things more than me."

If women indeed were like tall children at all stages of their lives, even weakly beta males would have no trouble keeping them in check, and we know that is not the case.

I've been thinking for this for years now, and am working on a hypothesis that I could call the "reverse butterfly": at the beginning, you start with a beautiful creature (the butterfly), whom you catch (or, does it catch you?), then it goes through a transformation in the cocoon of the LTR/marriage to emerge as ... I don't want to call it a maggot, but it's not as beautiful as it was before, and definitely not as (positively) emotional.

Admittedly this is a rather bizarre analogy but how else can you explain the 70% of divorces initiated by women? A child would certainly not "divorce" the parent unless in the most extreme circumstances.

There was a book that Roosh reviewed a few years ago, "The Manipulated Man" by Ester Villar. The author is a woman, and a feminist to boot, therefore her motivation could and should be questioned, however even after a few readings I find it utterly compelling. It describes women as parasites who'll find the host (the man) whom they can exploit so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves. Any emotions displayed and used in the process are merely a tool to manipulate the man into doing their bidding. A stream of tears you see on a woman's face could be very convincing however her emotional state could be very flat or indeed absent; all the woman is doing is making you obey.

At this point I consider the book's argument to be overblown. It surely is a parody. Or is it? If you have ever been in a marital argument, especially after the thousandth time, you'll start questioning the authenticity of women's emotional displays. The amount of rage is most often out of proportion to its alleged or actual cause. The woman's goal, however, is always clear - she is not wavering. Even in the middle of her outburst, she'll be ready to recite her demands in a most logical way.

Are women really like children? The young ones indeed seem so in an irresistible way. Then, something happens, and they lose this lovable weakness. Usually after they get the ring. Which makes me wonder if it's ever been there at all. If it wasn't just a show to make me fall in love - and commit to her.

--
The above isn't really meant to argue against the OP's points, which I find useful for gaming. I've been thinking about this topic for a long time now and thought this thread might be a good place for me to try to give my thoughts some form - and open them for critique.

This is only true for men who lose their frame to women - and the same is true for parents who lose their frame to their children - or a master ho loses frame to a dog.

Children and pack animals alike will try to test your dominance. It's a natural and instinctual function to make sure you are fit to be a leader and command the pack/family. Just like weak parents will have asshole children who walk all over them, weak masters will have uncontrollable dogs that do what they please, and weak husbands/boyfriends will have unruly women who disrespect them and walk all over them.

It's all about maintaining the proper dynamic of the relationship so all parties are content and functioning properly.

There are certainly some women that are particularly conniving and manipulative, but I would say for the most part, women of any age are not that aware of what actually makes them happy and what they actually want in the grand scheme of things. They are concerned with how they feel and the here and now. They will shit test you and if hey find a weakness they will exploit it for their own selfish and inconsiderate gain just like a child or a dog.

Post: #12

(09-01-2015 03:43 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  This is only true for men who lose their frame to women - and the same is true for parents who lose their frame to their children - or a master ho loses frame to a dog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple

Bad consequences when lower maturity creatures have license . . .

witnesses testified that Knoller and Noel had repeatedly refused to control the dogs; a professional dog walker testified that, after she told Noel to muzzle his dogs, he told her to "shut up" and called her offensive names.

Post: #13

I wonder if women didn't reach their peak SMV until later in life, like men, if they might not be the carousel riding immature children that they are. Think about how immature most guys are in their late teens and sometimes even early 20s. Well, women are basically "attraction gods" having men of all ages worship them with their thirst and they (the women) are at their absolute sexual peak at this age, looks wise.

Yet, maturity wise , they're only teenagers or in their early 20s. They're basically kids from an 'age' standpoint. They haven't had enough time to live and accumulate the wisdom of life like a man at peak SMV in his mid 30s. So, in essence, it's kind of like they're immature kids being worshipped for their looks. It's too much for a young girl's ego to handle sometimes so they succumb to the carousel, and their entitled behavior.

Maybe if females didn't reach a peak in their sexual desire and a peak in their looks until they'd lived a bit longer, the way a man does, like say 28 to mid 30s, they would have accumulated much more wisdom and wouldn't be as slutty and waste their peak SMV on carousel riding. It's typically easier to talk an immature person into sex and get her to be slutty than it is someone with some maturity.

An impossible concept to test, I realize, as it is not reality nor biology, but just a bit of a hypothetical thought experiment.

Post: #14

(09-01-2015 07:44 PM)robreke Wrote:  Yet, maturity wise , they're only teenagers or in their early 20s. They're basically kids from an 'age' standpoint.

I find that to be a round-a-bout excuse of their bad behavior. The "under 25 year old is still a child" belief is part of contemporary western culture but not of any other culture I am aware of, either historical or modern.

For example, in Medieval Italy, it was considered a shame for a family not to have at least bretrothed a daughter by the age of 12; in Renaissance Italy, it was age 13. Other cultures had women marry young; if you want a later example of the "Anglosphere" before the cultural collapse, the protagonist of Emma, which takes place around the Regency era, is still only 21 I believe, yet despite that she is the object of numerous marriage proposal attempts and gossip, and in no ways considered unable or unsuitable to consent or commit to marriage, which no doubt is the most crucial decision of her life. When the real Jane Austen died at only 41, she would have been considered an off-the-market too-late-now spinster for perhaps 15 years-or-so beforehand. Nowadays she would be told "50 is the new 25" and would be just "finding her groove as a maturing woman author".

Nor is the "18 to 25 still a kid belief" biologically sound, which explains why no other culture but ours believes it; your 'kid' girl of 25, for instance, has been fully fertile and capable of bearing offspring for 13 years or so, and is nearly halfway through her fertility's life span.

More likely scenario: All women are perpetual children compared to men, but in our society, spoiled brats because of feminism, socialism, mass immigration (ratio ruining), social media, and obesity.

Post: #15

I'd really chalk it all up to modern Western culture where we coddle women(and men) until much later ages(or indefinitely). In bygone eras women were expected to be able to manage a household and raise children during their youthful years. They were taught to grow up fast and handle responsibility at a younger age. This is no longer the case.

Who knows, part of it could also have to do with the fact that people tend to live a lot longer now. Perhaps part of it is adaptation. Getting your shit together ASAP and having a family was pretty important when you didn't live much past your 40's - now people live into their 70's on average. We've effectively doubled our expected lifespan over the past 100 years. That's a huge biological change in a very short amount of time.

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

That is bound to cause social and cultural shifts - not to mention there have been major advancements in recent years in the realm of curing old age and increasing lifespans indefinitely. I know this is getting a tad off topic but food for thought.

It's always generally been understood that within their respective roles - women mature at an earlier age than men, which makes sense. This can be seen most obviously when looking at males and females in early developmental years. Puberty also typically starts earlier and ends earlier in girls.

Post: #16

One of the downsides of girls from outside of western culture is that many of them live with their parents through their twenties and thirties. The child mentality is even stronger because they still have parent providers and have never had to depend on themselves or live on their own. They aren't forced to grow up.

One of the downsides of highly attractive girls is they know there will be a long line of guys eagerly waiting to help them whenever they screw up their lives. They aren't forced to grow up if they are always depending on thirsty men to bail them out.

There are both pros and cons to the types of girls that RVF guys go after. I'm not suggesting that guys shouldn't go after these girls but you need to "know your audience" and understand what you are dealing with.

Post: #17

(08-31-2015 03:25 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  being driven by a far larger set of lizard-brain instincts than men (especially post-ejaculation).

Post-Ejaculation: True Thoughts of Modern Man

NY Times Best Seller

Post: #18

Let's be honest a lot of young men are coddled also. They probably don't read RVF.

We have all met these soft dudes who's strongest trait is that they are mouthy. Can'r do shit but can talk all day.

Post: #19

(08-31-2015 08:05 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 06:27 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

I imagine you leave a lot of pussy on the table with this strategy. I do the same thing, and know that all too well. I did it today in fact with one who was bugging me with annoying behavior over text. When in hindsight, I could just play along, or not play/react at all, and she probably would have been at my place sometime this week.

I appreciate what Mister X is saying but I agree with Vaun on this. In theory it makes sense to always address things head on but it doesn't work in real life when you are dealing with irrational short-term thinking animals (i.e. humans).

The way you address the shitty behavior will need to be different for a attractive young girl versus an older man, different for a low wage subordinate employee versus your boss or his boss, different for girls from different cultures, etc.

Post: #20

(08-31-2015 08:05 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 06:27 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

I imagine you leave a lot of pussy on the table with this strategy. I do the same thing, and know that all too well. I did it today in fact with one who was bugging me with annoying behavior over text. When in hindsight, I could just play along, or not play/react at all, and she probably would have been at my place sometime this week.

Haha, dude, always. I'm just more big on peace of mind and maintaining my respect in her eyes (and in my own) that there's shit that I just can't deal with. Truth be told, if I swallowed my pride, and just accepted it, I could end things in a lay. But I feel so disrespected at that point that it's a major boner killer and I'm no longer as attracted to her as I once was.

I feel like there's two conflicting theories on this as most red pill forums will tell you not to condone shitty behavior from girls and "always be ready to walk" while some people say shit like "if she flakes, just play it cool and laugh it off, and reschedule. Girls are like that sometimes." And I get that - but I feel like, if I'm not part of the solution, then I'm part of the problem. If a girl does some fucked up shit, I call her on it immediately. If it makes me come off as beta, or insecure, or whatever the fuck she rationalizes me as being, and her pussy dries up and she moves on, fuck it. Rather we end things and I maintain my frame and can happily accept that I stuck with my zero tolerance policy, than sell out on my principles for some poon.

Pussy isn't worth it if I have to break my own rules.

Post: #21

(09-03-2015 12:58 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:05 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 06:27 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

I imagine you leave a lot of pussy on the table with this strategy. I do the same thing, and know that all too well. I did it today in fact with one who was bugging me with annoying behavior over text. When in hindsight, I could just play along, or not play/react at all, and she probably would have been at my place sometime this week.

I appreciate what Mister X is saying but I agree with Vaun on this. In theory it makes sense to always address things head on but it doesn't work in real life when you are dealing with irrational short-term thinking animals (i.e. humans).

The way you address the shitty behavior will need to be different for a attractive young girl versus an older man, different for a low wage subordinate employee versus your boss or his boss, different for girls from different cultures, etc.

I struggle with this as I feel like - if men as a whole were more consistent - we could start to do away with some of the shitty behaviors we talk about on this forum.

If more men called women out for flaking, among other things, as opposed to playing it cool and thus nonverbally condoning the behavior - maybe shit would be easier as a whole.

Post: #22

A fat hag at my work is raving about the latest Star Wars toys. She’s 26.

Any idea why grown women go crazy over kids toys?

Post: #23

(09-03-2015 12:58 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:05 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 06:27 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Not going to argue the effectiveness of this approach, but for me personally - I have a zero tolerance policy for shitty behavior and when people act shitty I address it head on, male or female. I don't look at it like "well she's a woman and she can't help it." I tell them like I'll tell any man.

I imagine you leave a lot of pussy on the table with this strategy. I do the same thing, and know that all too well. I did it today in fact with one who was bugging me with annoying behavior over text. When in hindsight, I could just play along, or not play/react at all, and she probably would have been at my place sometime this week.

I appreciate what Mister X is saying but I agree with Vaun on this. In theory it makes sense to always address things head on but it doesn't work in real life when you are dealing with irrational short-term thinking animals (i.e. humans).

The way you address the shitty behavior will need to be different for a attractive young girl versus an older man, different for a low wage subordinate employee versus your boss or his boss, different for girls from different cultures, etc.

Women are covert in their dealings and men are overt. This goes double for attractive young women.

Dealing with them overtly (head on) short circuits their hamsters and translates to "what an A-hole" or "what a creep" or them doing this:

Post: #24

(09-03-2015 12:55 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Let's be honest a lot of young men are coddled also. They probably don't read RVF.

We have all met these soft dudes who's strongest trait is that they are mouthy. Can'r do shit but can talk all day.

Well now with the addition of the Pajama Boy photo I'll admit that this thread is not going in the direction I was hoping for

Post: #25

^^^You don't like my selfie? That is me brah.