Why the Knock on Providers?

[zekko]

There seems to be a consensus that if a woman sees you as a provider type that is a bad thing. Because you want them to see you as the bad boy sex guy, I guess. But I don't see why one would exclude the other.

It seems to me that any guy who makes a decent living is going to be seen as a potential provider type. And if you can't make a decent living, then you're not really succeeding at life (unless your goal is to be a monk or something). I don't see how you can be an alpha man without making a decent living. So why the knock on providers?

I happen to think the anti-provider bias comes from the fact that the community is geared toward young guys who have just reached drinking age. Those guys aren't generally established yet, so the PUA gurus want to assure potential customers that they don't have to have money to score with girls, and that it can even work against you. They want them to think that the only thing that matters is "game".

The other thing I would ask is if women want to marry provider types but have a short term fling with the bad boy, isn't it a greater compliment to be considereed a provider? You may just want the quick sex but from the girl's point of view, wouldn't a guy they want to marry be higher value in their eyes than a guy they would only want a one night stand with?

 

[hansol]

I think one of the main IRRATIONAL thought processes of women is their desire to "escape". The "provider" mindset is solid stuff when it comes to being a successful and mature man, in my opinion. However, HB9s and such tend to find it boring and limiting.

Women like an adventure, and I think the best thing a guy could do is somehow combine the two. You provide the stability that accompanies success, but also bring to the table some interesting not-every-day-you-see-that type things as well. I'm of course assuming an LTR angle, but I suppose it would work for short-term gigs as well: You play the sucessful/responsible angle while showing the contradictory "fun and wild" angle too.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

OP, you alluded to this catch-22 of DJing, now let me tell you where it comes from. The ULTIMATE achievement in our society is to be wealthy and successful, everybody knows this. IT IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GET UP IN THE MORNING. But like you said, the PUA movement is full of kids who work sh!t jobs, so what do they do? "Heh heh heh provider beta" To that I say, shine my shoes and STFU, no one cares what you think.

The universal truth of life in America, is that our country is full of broke and bitter people who devote their energy to trying to pull others down instead of lifting themselves up. I say let 'em. The only person they fool, the only one they hurt, is themselves. The successful, productive people support everybody else with their tax dollars, and then these bums point their fingers at the producers and call them evil, OR, attempt to undermine their success by calling them "provider betas".

Look at Roissy, he brags about being a BROKE LOSER in his blog. He's the worst of them all.

Deep down, we all know that getting women is a hollow and dubious pursuit. "So this is it?" you must've asked yourselves upon your first hints of success with women. GETTING RICH, EMPLOYING OTHERS (ie: POWER) IS THE NAME OF THE GAME, BOYS. It is ALL that matters.

 

[Tazman]

I don't think the provider is simply about making a good living, it also has to do with your mindset. You can be quite successful and still not be considered a provider if you don't commit to any one woman (or spread the wealth). I think a provider is more of a committed, monogamous person.

Having a lot of money just means you're viewed as great "potential".

 

[Jitterbug]

Being a Provider in this context means you use your resource to provide for and therefore attract women.

The other thing I would ask is if women want to marry provider types but have a short term fling with the bad boy, isn't it a greater compliment to be considereed a provider? You may just want the quick sex but from the girl's point of view, wouldn't a guy they want to marry be higher value in their eyes than a guy they would only want a one night stand with?

That's how men get cuckolded.

 

[zekko]

Being a Provider in this context means you use your resource to provide for and therefore attract women.

Having resources (also known as being successful) is attractive. Why is that a bad thing? Whether or not you choose to provide for any woman or women at any point is entirely up to you. If you have resources you will still be considered a good catch, or a potential provider type, whether or not you actually choose to be one.

That's how men get cuckolded.

Only if you're dumb enough to get cuckolded.

 

[Jitterbug]

Only if you're dumb enough to get cuckolded.

Well it's dumb to marry a woman who has a history of flings with bad boys and believe that she rates you more highly than them because she marries you. High chance of her relapsing and you getting cuckolded.

 

[Warrior74]

OP, you alluded to this catch-22 of DJing, now let me tell you where it comes from. The ULTIMATE achievement in our society is to be wealthy and successful, everybody knows this. IT IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GET UP IN THE MORNING. But like you said, the PUA movement is full of kids who work sh!t jobs, so what do they do? "Heh heh heh provider beta" To that I say, shine my shoes and STFU, no one cares what you think.

The universal truth of life in America, is that our country is full of broke and bitter people who devote their energy to trying to pull others down instead of lifting themselves up. I say let 'em. The only person they fool, the only one they hurt, is themselves. The successful, productive people support everybody else with their tax dollars, and then these bums point their fingers at the producers and call them evil, OR, attempt to undermine their success by calling them "provider betas".

Look at Roissy, he brags about being a BROKE LOSER in his blog. He's the worst of them all.

Deep down, we all know that getting women is a hollow and dubious pursuit. "So this is it?" you must've asked yourselves upon your first hints of success with women. GETTING RICH, EMPLOYING OTHERS (ie: POWER) IS THE NAME OF THE GAME, BOYS. It is ALL that matters.

It's a difference between being a producer and a provider. A provider takes care of a woman. A producer provides for his tribe. He is the one who learns how to hunt an animal and leads the hunting party to get it. The provider is a guy on the hunting party learning from the producer. Which one would you say is the alpha male? How do you then become your own alpha male in your domain? Become a producer.

 

[jophil28]

If you have resources you will still be considered a good catch, or a potential provider type, whether or not you actually choose to be one.

The alpha "bad boy" vs beta "provider" mindset is poorly defined, badly misunderstood and applied crudely to such an extent that most guys are operating under a false premise.

Just because a man is successful, wealthy and resourceful, and is willing to share some of his goodies with a woman, does not make him a chump, an AFC or a whipped pvssy. In fact the most successful men that I know willingly share their time, energy and resources with women BUT they do it on THEIR terms not HER's.
When I spend my resources on a woman I do so in ways that I know, from experience, will work for me. Her expectations of how much I SHOULD spend ,or how much she is 'entitled ' to is irrelevant to me..

Buying dinner for a woman on a first date does not make you a pvssified chump ..rather it is a powerful method of attracting her . It is all about how you plan the date, design the context and setting, and employ a moderate display of your resources. IN return I expect her to display her attributes and show a willingness to 'apply for the job' . Snooty, conceited women who believe that THEY are all that do not get a second date.

As Zekko says above, you will be considered a "good catch" whether or not you choose to actually be one and allow yourself to be "caught" .
That is YOUR choice not hers.

 

[squirrels]

There's no "knock on providers".

There IS a "knock" on providers who don't know when to provide, where to provide, or to whom to provide, or who provide as a means of seeking affection or approval, instead of out of the joy they receive for being a "provider".

 

[Bluntmaster]

It's OK to be a provider if you want to be. But it's not OK to be a providor while she milks your wallet and at the same time she is wishing she was riding on a different d!ck. If she wants you 100% and the feeling is mutual, provide away.

Does that clear everything up?

 

[jonwon]

There seems to be a consensus that if a woman sees you as a provider type that is a bad thing. Because you want them to see you as the bad boy sex guy, I guess. But I don't see why one would exclude the other.

It seems to me that any guy who makes a decent living is going to be seen as a potential provider type. And if you can't make a decent living, then you're not really succeeding at life (unless your goal is to be a monk or something). I don't see how you can be an alpha man without making a decent living. So why the knock on providers?

I happen to think the anti-provider bias comes from the fact that the community is geared toward young guys who have just reached drinking age. Those guys aren't generally established yet, so the PUA gurus want to assure potential customers that they don't have to have money to score with girls, and that it can even work against you. They want them to think that the only thing that matters is "game".

The other thing I would ask is if women want to marry provider types but have a short term fling with the bad boy, isn't it a greater compliment to be considereed a provider? You may just want the quick sex but from the girl's point of view, wouldn't a guy they want to marry be higher value in their eyes than a guy they would only want a one night stand with?

Simply because when or if you go through a bad spell, you can pritty much guarantee she'll be off!

When the money dries up so does she.

Personnally I'd rather date and be with a woman because she actually wants to date me as the whole package, rather than simply what I can provide for her.

Nothing wrong with providing if thats what you want, but if the money dries up, she will be gone, also its not uncommon for the provider guys GF/Wife, to be riding some other mans meat whilst the provider guy is at home - She gets the best of both worlds - a Guy who pays and a guy who satisfy's, personnally, a guy needs to be hovering around the middle.

But thats not to pay for the women, nope he should be financially secure and not as a means to attract a gold digger ho!

 

[spider_007]

Providing financialy = trickin'

Women have equal rights and freedoms as men -> earn it b!tch.

That being said, i've "tricked" too. It's why i keep coming back here.

You succeed for your self. So that you will have the financial freedom, and freedom of time. Time and money that you can spend with things that are important to you like your kids, wife, hobbies, friends.... Your success makes you grow as a person, expands your confidence and your influence. You get to change other peoples lives for the better (your employees, your customers, people in the comunity, people you help...). All this can make a man very happy.

 

[5string]

As many know, I'm married. There have been a number of times when my wifes female friends come over. They take one look at the house, ask her what I do for a living and say sh!t like "he's a keeper, you scored, wow, I can't belive you live here, if you don't want him anymore, CALL ME", etc. A guys social/economic status creates desire in women. They all, at some point, want this type of guy for a LTR. Lot's of these women hit on me. Sometimes right in front of the wife. As a result, this all creates competition anxiety with my wife. She knows I can walk right out the door, sit down at the pub across the street, and there would be a reasonable chance I could find some hb to take her place asap. So, she makes sure she takes care of me constantly, in and out of the bedroom. Works well in my situation.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

From an idealized point of view, Men have a much longer list of prerequisites they need to fill for women than women do for Men. What you're debating is from the perspective of the beta provider vs. the alpha provider. The trick that eludes most guys is balancing being a good Cad with being a good Dad.

It is entirely possible to be an Alpha provider, in fact that's more or less the feminine ideal. However well this works from an LTR perspective, it does little to create the excitement a woman craves when you're in the first stages of attraction and dating non-exclusively. Having the means to be a good provider (i.e. money, dependability, empathy, etc.) is certainly a consideration for the long term, it takes a back seat to the excitement, uncertainty and passion the bad boy offers. Women will seriously consider marrying the banker while they're ƒucking the rockstar, but in a perfect world they want a rockstar-banker. Women are hypergamous, they want the best mating deal their looks will afford them.

 

[Zarky]

For an analysis of how a "provider" gets screwed over while a "broke bad boy" gets the girl and the money, download and watch the movie CASINO with Robert Deniro and James Woods. You should have no further questions after that.

 

[backbreaker]

this forum is so full of stereotypes.

like if you have a little money, you are a trick.

or the archetypal broke dj.

not all guys who make money throw it at women


not all guys who are broke have game.


I really think this was more than anything great freaking marketing on the guru's part. you dont' have money? man **** that, money doesn't count anyway, that's how AFC'S get laid (woooooooo)

the worse thing you can be called in the DJ community is an AFC. that's like calling a christian an atheist.


I find this very fascinating. somewhere along the line, Dave D and the gang has trained people to thinkt hat money=AFC. somewhere, that connection was made and it could not be futher from the truth.

truth be told, most.. (most) successful people, the traits that make you successful in business, in life, are going to make you decently successful with women.


If I had to give someone my 5 most important things to be a successful business person they would be


1. never settle for anything

2. learn how to learn from your mistakes

3. know when you to cut your losses.

4. Have as detailed a plan as you possibly can and follow it to the best of your ability

5. Have fun with what you do




guys if that is not DJism 101 I don't know what is.


I'm not saying There aren't rich AFC's. I'm not saying there aren't broke guys that dont' get laid. but that is very Archetypal.

 

[Todd Preston]

There's a lot that could be said about this post, but I'm going to limit my respond to the word u used: "Provider."

The very word, Provider con notates a father figure. Fathers provide for their families (or at least that's what were we taught).

The Provider Mentality serves its purpose well when it is applied to raising a family (but that's a another topic).

...Women are attracted to men with money because money buys fun and security...

But money also creates another set of problems...finding a women who loves you for yourself (money or not).

The man with the money gets a wife (or i should say prostitute...lets call it what it is) because she is looking for someone who can support and raise her children (which takes a lot of money these days).

However, Any women who picks a man because he can "provide" a better lifestyle is basically selling her arse to the highest bidder (she's a Hoe).

Any guy who participates is this obvious business transaction is a John.

Plain and Simple.

If i'm a millionaire, and i have needs that i want satisfied, i gonna advertise it. That means that i advertise (or make the rounds) what i'm looking for. I'm going to interview and "test drive" as many chicks as i can to find what i am looking for.

Then, when i find what i want...Its becomes a negotiation.

Here's what i want...here's what i'm willing to pay. (God knows what Larry King paid in his pre-nup).

That's the end result of having the "Provider" mentality.

Many guys pay with their life's fortune. That's why they have pre-nups and all the legal issues that must be settled in advance (amazing that Men actually go through with the act of getting married after negotiating a pre-nup....how do you do that?)

You want to learn a big lesson?

Go talk to the dudes who got "cleaned out" by some gold digger who was looking for a "provider!"

...bha hahhahahhah!

Interview 4 or 5 guys who have gotten burned...Lets see if you want to be a provider after that...



PS.
An Alpha male is not what i described above.

 

[zekko]

It's interesting to see the different perspectives people have on this. I agree with backbreaker that the whole money=AFC thing is a marketing scheme. To me, a provider type = a successful man. What you do with that success is up to you.

Todd, you seem to be describing a chump, not a provider. Certainly in this day and age a man has to be careful with his assets, especially when it comes to women.

Jophil points out that all these terms are just stereotypes (how true). One point I wanted to make was that if you go by the community's stereotypes, the bad boy does NOT get the girl. He may fvck her and move to the next, but he doesn't keep her. Girls are only interested in the cads short term. So why the knock on providers? Obviously they have higher value in the girl's eyes than the cad.

The assumption is that the girl only wants the guy for his money. And I'm sure that's true in a lot of cases. But it's also true that if a guy is successful, that in itself is attractive to women.

 

[5string]

Here is another perspective. Let's say I have done well in life. I went to school, educated myself and have a great career. I earned it and paid for it. My dues so to speak. Many men IMO, who have achieved social and financial status, display the same traits in business and in their personal lives that they utilize with women. In other words, to rise to a high level in business, don't you have to have "game" there as well? I think many of the same principals apply. You have to be able to communicate with others well and control the frame in all areas of life. Not just with women. So, I think that those who have achieved in life, are more likely than not to have superior social skills and frame. Just because a man has risen above others, does not make him an AFC who has to rely on his money and status to get the women. Many women who are attracted to an achiever, are not always soley after his money or to associate themselves with his status in life. She may just be attracted to him for who he is, and the rest is desert which makes him even more of a "prize". If a man involves himself with a women who is there only for the "desert", and he fails to recognize this, he is an absolute chump, and she is probably nothing more than a goldigger. A man has to have the ability to evaluate women he associates with and be able to identify the reasons a particular woman is attracted to him.