Comradarie differences between the sexes - Or why women aren't as good friends as men. (self.TheRedPill)

{TheRedPill}

162 ups - 44 downs = 118 votes

We all know the stereotypes - Women infight, Men work together. But a little understanding of WHY, of the primal driving forces behind this is a great thing to have. And as most things, its not really any more complicated than basic primate group dynamics.

Why do men work together? Because as a group we are stronger. Remember our instincts. We aren't after a specific woman. We're after ALL the women. A powerful group is instant social proof of the best kind. I.E. Posse culture in the rap scene. Individually they're a bunch of guys. Together, they're an entourage.

This works because of the male abundance mentality. They are competing for mates yes, but not THE SAME ONE. Men are a shotgun. They're competing for mates, but there is no specific focus of competition. The competition is quantitative, who gets the most wins, but even if one clearly wins, the others don't specifically, explicitly lose and in fact, may even reap some rewards scrounging off the winner.

Shift to Women. Have you ever hung out with a group of women? I have. Its not that fun, wouldn't recommend it. In male groups the dominance struggles are overt and blatant, when 2 butt heads, they generally fight in some form and then its over, hierarchy established, problem solved and both stop wasting time as adversaries because even if you don't particularly love the guy you're still better off with him in your group. True fact: through the years a good few of my best friends were guys I couldn't stand at first, then we fought, one of us got knocked down and we never mentioned it again. Some of those fights I won, several I most surely didn't, but the thing is that ALL of them were one time things. We had a conflict, we took a run at each other, hierarchy was established and then we were friends. The winner knows he won, the loser knows he lost, but the winner also knows the loser is a fighter and thus worthy of respect. From the perspective of a guy who didn't get his growth spurts till junior year I want to point out that this applies to bullies as well. Fight them once, do as much damage as possible, never worry about them again because they go after easier targets. Predators focus attention on the weak and sick for a reason, hunting is energy intensive and dangerous as fuck. Wolf takes on a healthy caribou and gets its leg broke now its the one dieing.

But its exactly the opposite with the fairer sex and the reasons, I believe, stem from our conflicting sexual strategies. This one-and-done thing is something that women simply don't do. They simply CAN'T.

Remember men want all the women. Women want just the best man. They are in direct, unending conflict over the optimal mate. 6 men walk into a bar, they hit on every single woman in there, 6 women walk into a bar, they all want the same highroller. This constant competition leads to the bickering and subtle powerplays. Afterall, the best way to edge someone out from your perfect guy is for them to not think they have a chance in the first place.

The only time I have observed even temporary peace within female groups is when there is a very clearly dominant alpha. The 9 hanging out with 6's. They know they can't compete with her and she's their bait for guys. They won't get the best one, but quality guys hang out together. Invariably though, even if no one is challenging the herd matriarch, the lower rank still fights amongst themselves because they are still going after #2.

83 comments submitted at 22:05:15 on Nov 2, 2013 by Blggerfish

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 16 Points
  • 02:10:10, 3 November

i wrote the following in a few posts at RPW a while back and was pilloried by both the red pill women who are my cohorts and the other sub who came over to downvote and harrass me. "team woman" was in full effect that day on all sides.

"women lack character, honor, integrity, loyalty and fidelity in general and therefore while women have cohorts they call friends and behaviors they refer to as friendships they are not remotely what men think of as friendships because if men treated each other like women do there'd be blood in the streets 24/7

i devalue in myself any traits that i hold in common that i also devalue in women, this is called honesty. Yes I will throw over another woman in a heartbeat and I would never trust one [Edited for clarity: apparently this was extraordinarily unclear and people thought I meant I would fuck over a woman to poach her man. No. I meant I would drop women friends when I got a man]. Maybe after menopause I will. Female friends were always just things I used as the equivalent of wingmen when I was single and would drop them like a hot potato for a man. All of the people I've ever truly considered friends and treated like the Platonic form of friendship have been men, usually my SOs but many times when single my "best friends" .

i believe true friendship with unrelated women is simply not a natural thing for women, and that it is a male thing, based in male traits like the ones i spelled out. women arent defective for not having these male traits, they just arent males. male friendship arose from the need for unrelated males to work together for survival, i dont believe women ever had this need and never developed trait necessary to create and sustain "true" friendships what i am saying is that character, honor and integrity are MALE traits in general women have OTHER traits that i wouldnt describe with those words and are generally not wont to behave with these positive traits to UNRELATED women. the fact that there is the appearance of female friendships all around is doesnt really tell us what the NATURE of those friendships are in action.

i am hardly the first person to notice the fickle, backstabbing underhanded "frenemy" nature of female friendships and ill point out that two other women ppped up immediately to agree with me in this thread without being pilloried lol. my POINT is that when men behaved WITHOUT honor integrity or fidelity to OTHER UNRELATED men they were KILLED throughout almost all human history and that this pressure was NOT brought to bear on women and that women didnt generally develop those traits. women are giving, loving, altruistic etc TO THEIR OWN GENERALLY and while they are ABLE to extend those traits to unrelated females, i dont believe they GENERALLY actually do

another point, "friends" made of REALLY unrelated people is a fairly recent phenomenon. throughout most of human history up until very recently people PARTICULARLY women spent most of their lives with extended family and siblings. not with "girlfriends"

i believe humans generally developed to only trust kin. initially humans lived in closely kinship bands, that over time got larger and larger, becoming tribes, then clans, then villages, then towns then cities etc and the kin relationships got more attentuated with each step. outside the band structure women became less and less likely to work very closely with unrelated women, whereas men became more and more likely to. men being more aggressive, dominant and hierarchical than women would have had to develop more ways to tone down competition and aggression in order to work with and trust non-kin men than women would have had need for when they were still working mostly with related females. even with nonrelated females, women dont have the same hierarchical dominance structure that meant lack of the traits i listed like "honor" etc would have led to them being killed"

  • [-]
  • Blggerfish
  • 11 Points
  • 02:18:28, 3 November

I see where you're coming from, but I can also see where the specific language you used would get you into trouble talking to other women.

$10 says half the women who attacked you didn't get past the first 3 sentences before they started typing their reply.

Also, paragraphs. I like paragraphs.

But seriously, you have a few points, particularly the "Men can't treat men the way women treat women" bit. We're simply too physical for that to work. Women don't really have a nuclear option in regards to other women, about the worst you'll usually do to each other is try to discredit each other and spread rumors. Men require more.... immediate conflict resolution.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 2 Points
  • 02:31:39, 3 November

Sorry about the paragraphs, it was cut and paste poorly from several posts through the argument

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 17:11:37, 3 November

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 2 Points
  • 21:12:11, 3 November

yes, that too

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 3 Points
  • 07:44:28, 3 November

It's not natural to you, but that doesn't mean other women can't have true friends. I know women who say that they don't trust other women or claim to not have any women friends. Usually, after I've gotten to know them for a while, I figure out why. They approach friendships like they're competitions in every aspect of life, especially when it comes to guys. It gets to the point where other women don't want to be their friend. And then they come to the conclusion that the reason why they don't have female friends is because something must be wrong with all other females. What made you think the problem was everyone else and not you and other women that are like you?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 2 Points
  • 08:43:53, 3 November

Yes all observations on human nature are solely personal in nature when they come to a conclusion you don't like . I wrote a lengthy explanation of why thought it was everyone, why I thought those traits were male traits, and that I thought women had OTHER good traits they extended to their families. that you don't Like the conclusion I come to doesn't in any way show to me that it's just "me" nor make an argument against what I said. There is no Gilgamesh and Enkidu female archetype for a reason, a reason that lies in a near universal observation of character.

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 1 Points
  • 08:51:47, 3 November

> I wrote a lengthy explanation of why thought it was everyone. that you don't Like the conclusion I come to doesn't in any way show to me that it's just American nor make an argument against what I said

Can you reword this? It makes no sense as it is now.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 08:54:21, 3 November

I Did, posting on phone, sorry

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 2 Points
  • 09:09:05, 3 November

> i believe true friendship with unrelated women is simply not a natural thing for women, and that it is a male thing, based in male traits like the ones i spelled out. women arent defective for not having these male traits, they just arent males.

I just think your definition of friendship is very limiting. If you're going to couch it in terms of how males define friendship then yeah, we're not going to fit, but that doesn't mean the way females relate to each other isn't friendship. It's just a different type of friendship, and it's not inherently worse or better, just different. You then go on to say that females can't have friendships because friendships involve male traits such as honor and integrity. What evidence do you have that shows that women lack honor and integrity? These are human traits, not male traits. So you are essentially saying that women are by nature dishonorable and deceitful while men are paragons of virtue?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 09:24:14, 3 November

Yes men are paragon of male virtues when they are paragons and women aren't . I addressed female virtues. I explained it was an analysis of female behavior regarding NON-"kin". In fact I pretty much said everything you just said. Different doesn't always mean bad. Women don't have the history necessary for developing the traits required of "comrades at arms". This isn't because they are bad

I don't hold your fundamental first premise that there are "human" traits so we'll have to agree to disagree there. I think men and women are psychologically different to the point of being alien to each other.

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 3 Points
  • 10:01:38, 3 November

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think there are certain traits that are fundamentally human and are not gender-exclusive. The ability to empathize with another human being is one of them. The ability to experience loss, fall in love, form parental attachments. They're all human. We may go about them in slightly different ways, but at the end of the day, we're not talking about an entirely different species when we mention the opposite sex. If guys and girls can be such good friends, then we must not be totally alien to each other.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 3 Points
  • 13:51:09, 3 November

i want to thank you for a pleasant interaction, this is exactly what im seeking with people who disagree with me

  • [-]
  • VZPurp
  • 0 Points
  • 07:54:18, 3 November

Women don't appear to have anything resembling friendships that men have.

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 2 Points
  • 08:53:33, 3 November

Yes, our friendships are different, but that doesn't mean we don't have friendships at all (which is what the person I'm replying to is arguing).

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 21:08:43, 3 November

actually what i wrote was:

>while women have cohorts they call friends and behaviors they refer to as friendships they are not remotely what men think of as friendships because if men treated each other like women do there'd be blood in the streets 24/7

see how thats saying specifically that women DO have friendships but that they are not like male friendships, therefore different?

  • [-]
  • drzoidburger
  • 1 Points
  • 23:37:26, 3 November

I went back and reread your post and while I now see the distinction you made between related and unrelated women, I'm still not convinced that women can't be giving or altruistic to unrelated women. Have you ever been in the bathroom and asked a stranger for a pad or tampon? Without the kindness of female strangers, I would have been SOL so many times in my life. I've also been through a visible breakup where women I met on the street reached out to me and sat down to comfort me about it. I don't think you give our sex enough credit. We're not all backstabbing harpies.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 00:34:17, 4 November

of course we arent lol i always have this problem because i talk about "men" and "women" like i would talk about abalones or shoes, of COURSE theres variation within any group, of COURSe theres even some overlap on the edges of men and women of COURSE no generalization describes every single member of a group. i really do know that :) i try to discuss the humans the way an entomologist discusses ants, i know this may be weird or offputting. and of course ive been on the receiving end of female kindness and on the giving end. im pretty sure when i say honor and integrity and fidelity, i mean them more in a sort of greco-roman martial sense, then maybe people are hearing them, that these are valuable traits and that i TEND to have found them lacking in women really really really doesnt mean i DONT think women HAVE valuable traits, i think women are way maore altruistic for example, look at the kind of women who have served as valiant nurses in horrible conditions, comforting strangers and the dying etc. friendship is not "all good things", i t is A "good thing", one that i GENUINELY without rancor is one that involves more masculine traits and virtues than women display (lets not say possess) to each other in what THEY call friendships

i hope some of that made sense i just finished working out and im fah-schvitzed

  • [-]
  • luckybuck
  • 1 Points
  • 06:45:56, 3 November

You should edit your posts before posting. The language was erratic and difficult to read. I could barely follow anything you wrote. It discredits your point.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 08:44:31, 3 November

It was cobbled together from several posts I probably shouldn't have done that

  • [-]
  • VZPurp
  • 1 Points
  • 02:43:50, 3 November

> i believe humans generally developed to only trust kin.

Significant cooperation between non-kin is exceedingly rare in the animal kingdom, and seems to be a mostly human development. So yes, trust and cooperation is relegated to kin, with humans able to extend that (usually through a distribution of force/weaponry).

  • [-]
  • iBendYourSpoon
  • 2 Points
  • 14:40:47, 3 November

It's that we've expanded kin into other historical dividers such as City, Country, Religion, Ethnicity, etc.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 2 Points
  • 21:11:53, 3 November

we have, but culture by culture and ethne by ethne this is uneven in the world, and still through most of history if you look back and think about it, women were fairly cloistered with closely related people and extended family, because they were more protected in general. it is really MEN who began increasingly interacting with and trusting strangers, especially in the roman/christian west which broke the clan/cousin marriage style of human family still present in much of the arab world, for example, in which there is a great deal of clan mistrust and conflict.