It used to be you had mothers and aunts that would dissuade a young girl of nonsense because they had a strong interest in getting her married so not to be a burden on the family, and of course continuing their genetic line. Young women in the same circles can't afford this sort of blunt talk, even if they wanted to. They are also dissuaded from leaning into their intrinsic value to men. Many men are also more than happy to encourage their delusions for short-term goals, ruining it for the rest of us.
To be fair to women, if men suddenly had intrinsic value and women catered to their every whim, they would crash out in different but equally catastrophic ways.
Studies have shown about 10% of men have been violent toward women. If you see 10% of a gender doing something, and think “that gender is the enemy”, then I’d shudder to hear your thoughts on race.
Try replacing “men” in your sentence with a race. How does that sentence feel? That feeling is a sign to step back and reflect on your thought patterns.
Women like you tend to choose the bottom layers of the mankind as partners and them generalize it to all women. Usually this happens because of some unresolved attachment issues with their fathers
Only if women stop continually going back to/staying with or starting relationships with, these POS. Remember, men can’t interfere in what a woman chooses to do. That’s mysoginy.
Actually, it’s best if men don’t get involved at all. That would be taking away women’s opportunities.
However, I do see an opportunity for this to work.
Men can police the other men they know who are violent to women (which we do anyway, there’s no pats on the back or high fives for that shit).
And in return women can police the behaviour of other women when they mistreat men (instead of telling each other “you go queen”, “he deserved it” “what did he expect you to do”?
Women literally don't see 90% of men, so they presume that the handful of terrible men they've voluntarily brought into their lives constitute the majority. It's that simple and that hilarious.
Just checked the rest of your account and it’s all pro-Palestine stuff. Are you a plant to prove all Muslim’s and other people who write funny are barbarians? Or did you forget to sign into your alt account?
Pro-Muslim but with the Sikh name Singh? Smells fishy.
Studies show that the rates of domestic violence between the sexes is relatively equal, if not more from the female side due to it being far more covert to the law (physical vs emotional abuse).
This article came at an interesting time for me because increasing female pickiness segues into female intrasexual aggression and competition. The biggest struggle with female friendships in college is that the women around me have no clue what their social status is and have no way of evaluating it. They either default to the way they would “evaluate” a man, ie projecting how much money they would make in the future, or default to blind aggression where the meaner and more you look down on somebody, the higher status you are — I’m sure this has been directly copied over from Disney movies. I am average in most traits but unusually open and disagreeable and I also do not hide that I have a strong maternal instinct. This means that since the boys around me entered puberty, I’ve had boyfriends who were specifically attracted to the traits they viewed as feminine or soft. This feeds back into the female aggression loop because many of my “friends” directly expressed to me that they felt disgusted and frustrated needing to compete with me for male attention because on all accounts, by their own standards, I was supposed to be lower status. It didn’t matter that the boyfriends I did have were awful and much lower status than me! They just could not even attract a guy who wanted to be a boyfriend. Now that I have a boyfriend that is higher status than me, the female aggression is off the charts and my female friends can barely stand to talk to me because now that they have boyfriends, they still feel like they’re “losing” even though they’re still projected to be doctors, lawyers, money making boss ladies and I’m very open that I would like to raise 5 kids. It’s never occurred to them that they’re evaluating themselves from the wrong set of criteria — they imagine they would be better than men but can’t hack why being better than men doesn’t make them desirable. They have failed to acknowledge that it leaves them worse off as not very good women. I just can’t figure it out. I imagine that being pickier and pickier leaves women lonelier and lonelier and creates the kind of “80% of women chasing after 20% men” phenomenon I’m seeing. Another problem is that I’m blunt because I genuinely care about these women, yet one of them stopped hanging out with me because I told her that if she could treat a man how she wants them to treat her, she would be able to get a boyfriend. This is a woman who complained about a date that wasn’t funny yet isn’t funny at all herself unless she’s drunken herself into a stupor. I guess I believe half of this insanity is human nature and human beings are necessarily this stupid and conflicted. But I think half of this is the misogynistic feminism that many of us have been drinking at the teat since we were old enough to remember that strips women of what makes them women.
This is one of the areas where women specifically seem to have a problem. Let me qualify this by saying that men have lots of problems of our own. But one that we DON'T have is trying to mimic what we find attractive in women, and then being frustrated when this does not attract women. This might help explain it to your girlfriends: tell them to imagine a guy who strives to achieve the most successful "feminine" traits as possible, and then ask them if he would be attractive. Obviously not
I watched a street videographer asking young women, all very cute, what they demand in a guy. All said they themselves were ‘8.5’s. Out of 10. They all thought that. What do they want: Over 6’ tall, under 30 making $150,000-$250,000 a year now, but on a career track for better than that. Very handsome. 6 pack, 6”. Family oriented and a good listener. And Funny. This was baseline minimum. The videographer asked them what percent of guys were that. Generally they estimated to be about 15-20% of guys. The interviewer said ‘under 30 making $150-$250 a year less than 1%. Add in 6’ or taller, very handsome’ etc. These girls wanted someone who maybe would be 1 in 1000. He said ‘are you a 1 in 1000 girl?’ No. They weren’t. But they weren’t prepared to marry less than that. Also, they were very cute. But they were 22 or so. Who isn’t at that age? These were average women. Upper average maybe. But they were destined, IF THEY PLAYED THEIR CARDS WELL, to have a half decent house in the burbs, a couple of modest but newish cars Honda/Volvo, not BMW 835s etc. Their husbands would be average, no six pack etc. A perfectly good life. A successful one. But they wanted something well outside their level and if they didn’t smarten up they would one night stand thejr way into a much worse life.
Society has trained women into thinking that success translates to bagging a "high-value man" based on superficial attractiveness and income criteria. But what they ought to desire is a decently attractive and morally good man whose company they enjoy and who will stick w/them, cherish and adore them, honor the marriage vow and be a good father to future children.
Society has trained women into thinking that success translates to bagging a "high-value man" based on superficial attractiveness and income criteria. But what they ought to desire is a decently attractive and morally good man whose company they enjoy and who will stick w/them, cherish and adore them, honor the marriage vow and be a good father to future children.
My wife has a number of single friends. She is 69. So this is less true now than it was 10 years ago. But 10 years ago my wife and her friends constantly were saying some woman is really funny, great looking, great personality, and can’t get a date! Well….she wasn’t any of those things. She would be loud, unpleasant, average looking at best. And very unappealing to men. And other women knew that and ENCOURAGED HER IN HER FOLLY. They loved the fact she wasn’t competition.
Is it anti-competitive behaviour? Or just intra-female virtue signalling, along the lines of “everyone is a 10”?
She is my friend, therefore I will assert she is wonderful without reference to any actual standard or evidence. Especially since by proxy I am also building myself up
Half and half I think. If she had been actual competition they would not have been lauding her though. I say that because we were having a dinner party and I suggested we invite a recently divorced woman. My wife said no. I asked if she had had a squabble with her but my wife explained none of the wives would appreciate her inviting an attractive, which she was, single woman! This blew me away. I said ‘you’re all friends! You run together. You do yoga.’ Nope. She said ‘don’t kid yourself. Joanie would scoop one of the husbands if she could.’
Early arranged marriage avoids many of these issues. A woman is basically locked in to whatever social status from her husband that their parents could get for her, and can primarily improve it by investing in the family
Not saying arranged marriages is a panacea - it can be bad if your parents don’t choose well for you. But it does avoid a lot of the mess you describe above
Brilliant analysis from the incels today, talking about arranged marriages in 2025 as if they’re truly beneficial to the women and men that end up in them
male competition for selection for sex from a female is quite literally just about the most ubiquitous forms of reproduction across the entire animal kingdom. Men having power in human mating is only a very recent invention, and is still the dominant form across much of the earth. We are seeing a “return to tradition” so to speak, and the weak men now losing are angrily lashing out at a system they are too weak to find success in.
Women haven't returned to monkey, they've gained power by throwing around huge amounts of rhetoric about human equality.
Saying that women control dating isn't just some preference being exercised, it's the ability to have a family gatekept because women simply don't care about men having that. If you're suggesting we abandon equality at that level, then by all means, say it loudly for everyone to hear.
women are the ones that birth the children! they should indeed be the ones controlling for a father they think will be ideal. considering the inherent inequality in having a uterus vs not having one, I think we won’t be having an “equality” conversation for a while. make yourself attractive to a would-be mother or be removed from the gene pool, plain and simple.
We tried "the strongest men get all the women" societies.
They SUCK. Bigtime. Enforced monogamy has been the secret to Western success for centuries. Jewish feminists fooled us into abandoning it a half century ago and our birthrate has crashed beyond levels that are historically recoverable.
How do you suggest ridding the system of “Jewish feminists” and convincing “Chad and Tyrone” (who clearly benefit from this system, if not moreso than the arranged marriage system) to join ranks with you? You, and people like you, hold no societal power to implement any of your philosophy, because you are by definition social rejects.
The irony is that "empowerment" is just another word for charity. We've essentially created a national cultural platform to dole out charity to women and pretend it's progress, but eventually the chickens come home to roost and debts must be paid.
They are, actually. Arranged marriage cultures survived for millenia.
We let women choose for themselves a mere half century ago and our population crash and civilizational annihilation is likely irreversible at this point.
It's because women, for solid evolutionary reasons, are not really interested in anyone but the top 5% of men.
The bottom 95% can go die in a fire for all women care.
Men came up with enforced monogamy for a reason. Those civilizations survived for a reason.
The others died out, much like ours will.
At least, we can serve as a warning to the Chinese.
The men who have the power to enforce a system like that, don’t even want to because they are capable of attracting women! Weak and angry men resort to begging strong men to subdue women for them, as if the strong man would subdue a woman or reduce her to property for anyone other than himself. Your wish to change the social structure of man to fill your own needs will never come to pass, and you will die alone. If the rule you followed has led you to this point, of what use was the rule?
Women don't know how to choose good fathers who create good civilizations. We let them choose, and who do they choose? Chad and Tyrone, who pump and dump them because a man is commanded to spread his seed as widely as possible.
Why should they stick around? Limit themselves to a single woman in a world where they can inseminate hundreds?
Meanwhile the women lose the ability to pair bond and get the thousand-cock stare.
They retreat into misery, wiccanism, cats and box wine.
I can promise you that they are nowhere near as miserable as you are ❤️ even the miserable ones found connection at some point in their life, you will die angry over the fact you never received any :)
polygamy only works when a sizable amount of men are dying in war to create a gender imbalance in favor of women - you will be the first to die on the frontlines against Pakistan 🤣
Your way has failed utterly. We're going back. Allowing society to be governed by the hyper-emotional whims of leftist women was the worst possible choice we could've ever made. You had your shot. You blew it.
who is “we” ? are you going to lead the uprising of boys that get no pussy? even in the past, you would’ve been too ugly, poor, and bad at socializing to get a wife. no amount of anti-feminism will ever rescue from your misery, you sad little boy :)
I once had a female colleague practically bragging that she would never stoop so low as to *snort* bring her boyfriend a glass of water if he was thirsty because he can damn well go get it himself. A few months later she was crying because he'd had an affair with her friend - a cute, feminine and kind girl. Somehow I wasn't surprised.
I've noticed this -- something I've always found odd is that many women I think are kind of average-looking frequently have higher expectations of physical attractiveness (etc) in a partner than many very good-looking women. I've been criticized by other women for dating guys they thought weren't "attractive enough" (though worth mentioning here that two of the boyfriends who were criticized in this way were both similarly attractive to me, but also part-Asian, and the comments came from fully white women who didn't think Asian men were attractive). I think with a lot of very hot women, they know they're hot and don't need validation of that -- with more average women, securing a "hot" man validates their own attractiveness.
Interestingly, PUAs noticed back in the 90s and 00s that 10/10 women weren’t harder to get than other women, they’re just different. And that they get approached a lot less. Otoh, 7/10s were mass approached at all times due to all the guys who perceived her as “attainable attractive” rather than out of their league. Nowadays, I work with a ton of 7/10 gen z girls who complain about never being approached irl. 🤷
About the dating Asian men thing, I have definitely noticed that non-Asian women that are more “basic” have more of a resistance to dating Asian men than women that are “alternative” in some way. Like I know that a non-Asian woman who is a goth or artistic type is much more likely to say yes to me asking her out than someone who dresses in basic clothing. This probably correlates to psychology: women that are high in trait openness tend to be more open in both romantic options and hobbies.
From an alternative scene, that was mostly male but very ethnically diverse, especially for its time. I also noticed that the Asian guys I saw getting a lot of girls were into the same things I and the other guys were into: hard music, motorcycles, tattoos, martial arts, weight lifting, etc. A muscular Korean American guy on a motorcycle who shredded at heavy metal guitar seemed pretty popular with girls. Not even that tall either .
Yeah, and back in the 90s, the most prominent Asian American guys (not counting Jackie Chan because he’s not American) were alternative musicians: James Iha from Smashing Pumpkins and John Myung from Dream Theater.
This probably goes for inter-ethnic dating in general? But I mean, yes, one of the guys I'm referring to was a half-Filipino poet / radio DJ I met in a screenwriting class in undergrad. So there you go.
Another factor is the college/white collar gap that’s growing.
Fewer men are going to college, and white collar jobs often require degrees even if it’s a bullshit degree for a bullshit job. Corporate and bureaucratic environments dominated by women (HR/Marketing/admin/government/teaching) are also unappealing to men for many reasons.
So we’ve got a bunch of women with degrees and relatively good-paying jobs who still want to marry up, but the supply of guys with degrees who also earn more than them is going down.
Smart women who are average attractiveness or lower settle for average guys with good work ethic, because they understand the clock is ticking and their choices only get worse as they get older.
But a staggering number of college-educated women aren’t wise or self-aware enough to understand that Joe the HVAC tech is the best they’re gonna get, so they wait and wait and wait and then discover they’ve hit the mid-30s wall and Joe the HVAC tech is no longer available because he married some 27 year old cashier a few years ago.
The status signal of a college degree is going to fall precipitously, and men are ahead of the curve. As the status collapses, so will the bullshit jobs. The number of "project managers" will go off a cliff. Men are always ahead of women on social trends.
I'm in marketing and I've already seen the impact of AI on absolutely deleting low level copywriting jobs. I'm now effectively a senior editor of ChatGPT output because it does a good enough job giving me a framework and basic filler text. It's already wiped out a bunch of low level graphic designer jobs, and it's coming hard for the marketing manager jobs, which are overwhelmingly held by white women.
The bullshit jobs are going to disappear, and a lot of very secure women are going to find themselves insecure for the first time in their lives. Their LinkedIn networks won't help them land the next job because most of their peers will also be looking for an increasingly shrinking pool of jobs that consist of pushing stuff around on spreadsheets and putting it into a slide deck.
It will be interesting to see how society is going to react to that.
It's shocking how much time is spent on slide decks, just astonishing. Also boilerplate emails no one reads. I'm in software, but in a hyper-niche area where AI is a force-multiplier at most.
AI is a multiplier for me as well, because someone has to check its output and develop the correct prompts to get it as close as possible before editing. If I had to guess though, the marketing manager women are going to try to say they're qualified for this role, even though many of them have demonstrated zero understanding of how to create content that appeals to anyone other than marketing managers.
This isn't happening though, it's the exact opposite, as Rohan noted. Women with college degrees have not had any reduction in their marriage rates whatsoever for the past 40 years, while women without's marriage rates have plunged. Their rate of marriage is now literally half that of women with college degrees. They are also more likely to get divorced. It is not educated "upper half" women who are having a problem finding and getting into relationships, it is women on the bottom half, as Rohan noted. No one will commit to them. I don't understand why people keep talking about this as if it's the other way around, the stats are very clear and it's not a small difference it's a massive one.
They talk about it because the educated feminist cohort is pushing all this rhetoric and it seems like it SHOULD be more fair for them to be eating the consequences. This isn’t reality, and I will say that I don’t think educated women are having a dating utopia either, they just have the sense to eventually make a choice.
It’s perverse, especially since women in the lower middle class and below need marriage far more. But some of the push might be to create government support for single mothers, and that has all sorts of possible motives.
Definitely, they absolutely DO need it more and are basically screwed now. Men no longer feel any pressure to commit to them, so they just don't and instead play the field or lie/juggle multiple women bc they see no benefit to settling down if they don't have to, these women have no leverage anymore, and I view a lot of this big talk as just a defense mechanism to put on a brave face about their circumstances and cover their insecurities. In reality most of them are DESPERATE for a committed partner and just fronting like they don't care bc they can't lock one down anyway. It's the upper half always chattering and discoursing about such things, but the actual nightmare is in the bottom and of course they don't usually even know those people or have any real sense of their social circumstances. The "average woman" he mentions being 5'3" and 170 lbs is ALSO an unmarried mother who works 40 hrs a week in some crappy job that pays $40k and who no man will propose to but who just has a series of boyfriends who cheat on her or forever situationship her...it is bleak.
Of course it’s bleak. There’s no contradiction between the ugliness of this situation and saying that of low status men, who can’t get women to touch them. It’s just that low status women can get laid, but then the men they fool around with run, simply because they think they can do better. The stigma has been dropped to nothing, sex positivity has made accidental pregnancy acceptable.
This is simply about status, with respect to the weaknesses of the respective sexes. Some men can’t have sex. Some women can have sex but not lock up a commitment. They might be too picky or not understand where they stand, but they are low status people.
I wonder how much it all has to do with the erosion of empathy brought on by the fact that people get more and more impressions about the world from social media instead of from actual human interaction… And online everyone is so angry and opinionated.
So we all get the feeling that people are mean and stupid and not worth bothering with… and we get this weird perpetual gender war where people who are supposed to be looking for partners seem to a priori despise each other and find each other pointless and pathetic…
And then even when we meet in the real world, our views are already tainted by the conflicts we keep encountering online. The conflicts that are pushed because they’re best scrolling fodder for the algo, not because they’re the views most worth sharing.
I don’t think we fully appreciate all the ways in which social media has screwed us over.
Social media makes it all worse, but I’m older and I can tell you that this is nothing new. The pecking order of sex and relationships becomes obvious for what people don’t say, and some of these guys are autists who are capable of very little besides pattern recognition. The factor that really messed them up was thinking that they would be able to meet someone as long as they were decent and employed. The rest of the games are just bad for them, and with a culture that says women are more into character than the physical and status stuff, they were unprepared to find that women are actually people and they have to do more.
Guys are lazy and narrow, but the expectations have shifted under them, so they’re also drowning in fable.
I find it funny that not having a lot of hobbies is considered an unattractive quality in a man. 😄 Because if he DOES have a lot of hobbies, doesn’t that tend to imply that he's a major geek/nerd, that he spends a lot of time alone, that he's socially and romantically unsuccessful? I think this is a situation where men can't win. If a guy doesn't have a lot of hobbies, women will complain that that's unattractive, but if he does have a lot of hobbies, they'll complain about that too.
"he has no hobbies boooring" "he has hobbies so coool - 10 years and 2 kids later - why do you spend so much time and money with your hobbies I'm going to divorce you"
Not all hobbies are created equally…especially if you’ve seen the chart that was going around recently of what hobbies women found attractive/unattractive. I think women love to complain about hobbies like video games and collecting action figures because those are low status hobbies with little to no clout/social value
Video games and toy collecting are consumption-based and self-serving. Women love men who have hobbies like woodwork or DIY construction because they can benefit from it and it shows that these men have some kind of competency that potentially benefits more than just them.
In very superficial materialistic societies hobbies are often a pose more than anything. A way to tick a box on a dating profile for the sake of good normie vibes.
It implies that men with hobbies are self-interested and less likely to provide for women who want a man who will selflessly provide for them. Unless that hobby is something like woodwork or construction--which women apparently find very attractive--because it's a hobby they can benefit from.
This is incredibly underestimated, which shows how much feminism has completely obliterated sane cultural norms. JD Unwin goes at length on this issue. Promiscuity consistently rewards the bad actors and behaviors straying from collective wellbeing.
It’s the opposite: promiscuity destroys female self worth because the man never sticks around to raise the babies that might have been created by the act - with baby making being the ult reason women engage in sex even if unconscious of that - as humans tend to be about their drives. The hardness one sees with women nowadays is cope about a system that doesn’t work for them from a biological perspective
Picky yes, but in a society where shame doesn't exist and there are governmental protections(welfare) for irresponsible behavior, women's pickiness is shifting towards sexual attractiveness and not overall responsibility for societal benefit. Women used to think holistically before choosing a mate; now they just choose for themselves. If they choose wrong and get pregnant, they can murder the baby or go to the government for "free money". Modern politics subsidizes bad behavior to give more importance to an ever-growing State. It's a win-win for the elites.
This notion had been overused to justify the selfishness of women. They are really just self centred consumers. And 80% of consumption - most percentage of climate change - is caused by them technically. Most of times I hear “women are mothers” well, mother to only her child - which they are now aborting as unborn to indulge without back pull. Begs the question - are we going to drop the notion and see women as is? Selfish self-centred consumption oriented creatures of underworld.
Well, except for all the work done by evolutionary psychologists. But, yes, it is an assumption—all theories—even those based on empirical evidence—are assumptions in the sense that no theory can be justified due to the logical impossibility of inductive logic (e.g., the empirical evidence shows that all swans are white…until we see a black swan).
40% of men in the history of all Homo sapiens reproduced, yet 80% of women in our history did. This is hard, biological evidence that demonstrates Hypergamy, and is seen across the overwhelming majority of species in the mammalian kingdom.
A woman’s value is derived from what she IS inherently. A man’s from what he DOES. Of course there will be contradictions in evaluating from the other perspective. My wife as a man? Insufferable and useless. As a woman? Soulmate.
This is a much more articulate way of putting what I’ve always thought when hearing women complain about men: “you would kill yourself if you lived in our world of shit.”
It's impossible for me to comprehend Americans' mean weights, which are just insanely high. I know the data comes from the CDC, which seems like a trustworthy source, but it's so hard for me to believe.
I think you have stated but not emphasized the class aspect nearly enough here. What you are describing is "lower half" dynamics period. Who are all these obese people? They are people in the bottom half. Who are women who talk the way you describe? You are describing the worldview and manner of speaking of someone from an impoverished background, I've never heard women talk remotely like the way you describe, or even mention money or earning power with respect to men unless she was a stripper/poor/filled with "delusions" as you say, from... TV I guess? But also just in general a lot of those people are extremely naive and delusional about the world in general?? To me this is no different from the fact that tons of teenagers think they actually have a shot to become sports stars or otherwise rich and famous one day, our society runs of delusions and promotes them in virtually every media product produced.
Also, the fact that the pickings are respectively slim in the bottom half is a huge understatement. By age 23, more than a third of white men in the US have been arrested and have a criminal record and mug shot in the system, and the stats are even higher for black and Hispanic men, as you can likely imagine. Do you know how difficult it is to get a good job once you have a criminal record? I think you are severely underestimating how dire the economic and social circumstances are for those in the "bottom half". Their social and relationship dysfunction is just one facet of dysfunction across every element of their lives, and plenty of people profit from it.
But it's really a shame that rage bait and clips (like obviously edited and curated nonsense where supposedly every girl thinks she's entitled to a guy under 30 making siz figures when in reality every woman I've known was amazed and happy if a guy that age had a job good enough to have health insurance) from the internet have now started to infect people who are NOT in those circumstances. They're being exposed to cross cultural stuff that doesn't actually apply to them own sub-culture and thinking it does. The gender-war dynamics that now seem to be the rage with college educated middle class people have been the norm since at least the 80s in the underclass. They've been suspicious of and calling women useless hos who can't be trusted for decades, while the women treat them with the same disdain, degradation, and like a walking wallet. On both sides it's delusion bc quite frankly there's nothing IN those wallets, and none of them are in a position to try to "own" or use the other, it's just all fake fronting and acting cooler and better than to feel better about their own shitty circumstances.
"in reality every woman I've known was amazed and happy if a guy that age had a job good enough to have health insurance"
As a zoomer guy in my mid 20's, this has not been my experience with women at all. Most of my friends are perpetually single (involuntarily celibate, even), despite having "good" jobs with health insurance and a middle class salary.
Probably bc they prefer to be single than to lower their standards or compromise/settle down then. This doesn't reflect a norm bc only about 50% of people have health insurance through their job...only 54% of employers offer health plans at all, and that drops to 44% for companies that mostly employ young workers. Then even if an employer offers it, young people are more likely to be ineligible bc of frequent drop changes, contract/gig status, etc, and even if they are eligible, they might not enroll bc they can't afford the premium. However, ever since ACA allowed parents to keep their kids on their plan til 26, I'm guessing a lot of this is less obvious. Anyway, if you don't know anyone without coverage it just goes to my point that the lives of the upper and lower halves of society are quite different. Are these friends of your interested in or willing to date a working class girl with no degree who works as a cashier?
I don't think their standards are particularly high, and yeah, I think many of them would be open to dating girls without a degree.
The real problem is that most of them do most of their searching through the apps (which, incidentally, is why I know their standards aren't high; these guys will swipe right on anyone). On Hinge, making 70k a year with health and dental doesn't exactly get you likes the way that being 6'4" does, at least not if you're under 30. They might have better luck if they were searching IRL... but then again, these are guys who play MTG, so maybe not.
To what extent have these dynamics been moving up the educational ladder in the past couple of decades as more people go to college? My impression is that the marginal college student/graduate who is a woman isn’t really that much smarter than average. And there are substantially more women who go to and graduate from college than men (in the US).
Probably quite a lot. You have tons of people going to college who have no academic talent of inclinations at all, who often don't graduate or take forever to do it and then come out with tons of debt and no degree that actually provides economic value, putting them in an actually WORSE situation while also likely giving them higher aspirations/expectations. My guess is that that's probably a HUGE element for the collapse of pairing up around sort of the middle/bottom half, bc that's where you get a real gender discrepancy in graduation rates. There's really no difference in the rates of college attendance amongst the traditional college bound population. It's the marginal cases and range where it's probably doing them no good to go where you have twice as many women as men attending. This is probably a huge factor, good point.
There is a set of behaviors in female mammals called female reproductive suppression. It’s just what it sounds like. Females attempt to prevent other females from reproducing successfully.
In humans its extreme form is harem politics, which includes infant and child murder.
The women are psychologically sabotaging each other.
It used to be you had mothers and aunts that would dissuade a young girl of nonsense because they had a strong interest in getting her married so not to be a burden on the family, and of course continuing their genetic line. Young women in the same circles can't afford this sort of blunt talk, even if they wanted to. They are also dissuaded from leaning into their intrinsic value to men. Many men are also more than happy to encourage their delusions for short-term goals, ruining it for the rest of us.
To be fair to women, if men suddenly had intrinsic value and women catered to their every whim, they would crash out in different but equally catastrophic ways.
That is the core of the problem: 60 years of feminsim has taught women that men are the enemy, and have no intrinsic value to women.
Absolute rubbish. Men teach women that all by themselves with the absurd rates of violence.
Studies have shown about 10% of men have been violent toward women. If you see 10% of a gender doing something, and think “that gender is the enemy”, then I’d shudder to hear your thoughts on race.
Then it must be the same 10% doing it over and over again. Would you and the other men please do a better job of policing them
Try replacing “men” in your sentence with a race. How does that sentence feel? That feeling is a sign to step back and reflect on your thought patterns.
Women like you tend to choose the bottom layers of the mankind as partners and them generalize it to all women. Usually this happens because of some unresolved attachment issues with their fathers
I’ve been married 21 years to a wonderful man who is a dedicated and hard working father. You can fuck off having a go at my husband.
Only if women stop continually going back to/staying with or starting relationships with, these POS. Remember, men can’t interfere in what a woman chooses to do. That’s mysoginy.
Actually, it’s best if men don’t get involved at all. That would be taking away women’s opportunities.
However, I do see an opportunity for this to work.
Men can police the other men they know who are violent to women (which we do anyway, there’s no pats on the back or high fives for that shit).
And in return women can police the behaviour of other women when they mistreat men (instead of telling each other “you go queen”, “he deserved it” “what did he expect you to do”?
Deal?
Women literally don't see 90% of men, so they presume that the handful of terrible men they've voluntarily brought into their lives constitute the majority. It's that simple and that hilarious.
Being violent towards women is fun.
ਅਕਾਲ
Just checked the rest of your account and it’s all pro-Palestine stuff. Are you a plant to prove all Muslim’s and other people who write funny are barbarians? Or did you forget to sign into your alt account?
Pro-Muslim but with the Sikh name Singh? Smells fishy.
Yup, you choose the bear.
We got it.
Spinster cat lady.
Studies show that the rates of domestic violence between the sexes is relatively equal, if not more from the female side due to it being far more covert to the law (physical vs emotional abuse).
Citation?
Precisely
This article came at an interesting time for me because increasing female pickiness segues into female intrasexual aggression and competition. The biggest struggle with female friendships in college is that the women around me have no clue what their social status is and have no way of evaluating it. They either default to the way they would “evaluate” a man, ie projecting how much money they would make in the future, or default to blind aggression where the meaner and more you look down on somebody, the higher status you are — I’m sure this has been directly copied over from Disney movies. I am average in most traits but unusually open and disagreeable and I also do not hide that I have a strong maternal instinct. This means that since the boys around me entered puberty, I’ve had boyfriends who were specifically attracted to the traits they viewed as feminine or soft. This feeds back into the female aggression loop because many of my “friends” directly expressed to me that they felt disgusted and frustrated needing to compete with me for male attention because on all accounts, by their own standards, I was supposed to be lower status. It didn’t matter that the boyfriends I did have were awful and much lower status than me! They just could not even attract a guy who wanted to be a boyfriend. Now that I have a boyfriend that is higher status than me, the female aggression is off the charts and my female friends can barely stand to talk to me because now that they have boyfriends, they still feel like they’re “losing” even though they’re still projected to be doctors, lawyers, money making boss ladies and I’m very open that I would like to raise 5 kids. It’s never occurred to them that they’re evaluating themselves from the wrong set of criteria — they imagine they would be better than men but can’t hack why being better than men doesn’t make them desirable. They have failed to acknowledge that it leaves them worse off as not very good women. I just can’t figure it out. I imagine that being pickier and pickier leaves women lonelier and lonelier and creates the kind of “80% of women chasing after 20% men” phenomenon I’m seeing. Another problem is that I’m blunt because I genuinely care about these women, yet one of them stopped hanging out with me because I told her that if she could treat a man how she wants them to treat her, she would be able to get a boyfriend. This is a woman who complained about a date that wasn’t funny yet isn’t funny at all herself unless she’s drunken herself into a stupor. I guess I believe half of this insanity is human nature and human beings are necessarily this stupid and conflicted. But I think half of this is the misogynistic feminism that many of us have been drinking at the teat since we were old enough to remember that strips women of what makes them women.
This is one of the areas where women specifically seem to have a problem. Let me qualify this by saying that men have lots of problems of our own. But one that we DON'T have is trying to mimic what we find attractive in women, and then being frustrated when this does not attract women. This might help explain it to your girlfriends: tell them to imagine a guy who strives to achieve the most successful "feminine" traits as possible, and then ask them if he would be attractive. Obviously not
True but generally when men try to attract women, they do it by mimicking what they find attractive in men.
Not attractive; admirable.
lol!
That is actually very astute! I hadn't thought of that.
A kindly request: Could you do something for us? Please drop the word "guy" from your vocabulary. "Dude" and all the others, too.
We are MEN.
Words have power. Use them as weapons to fight like a man.
I’m a biological male and ur insistence on using the word “men” is more effeminate and insecure than I am
This is a Code Lavender, repeat we have a Code Lavender
"biological male" There's only one kind. "Biological" is redundant. If you're not a biological male, you're female.
Gotcha, bro
I watched a street videographer asking young women, all very cute, what they demand in a guy. All said they themselves were ‘8.5’s. Out of 10. They all thought that. What do they want: Over 6’ tall, under 30 making $150,000-$250,000 a year now, but on a career track for better than that. Very handsome. 6 pack, 6”. Family oriented and a good listener. And Funny. This was baseline minimum. The videographer asked them what percent of guys were that. Generally they estimated to be about 15-20% of guys. The interviewer said ‘under 30 making $150-$250 a year less than 1%. Add in 6’ or taller, very handsome’ etc. These girls wanted someone who maybe would be 1 in 1000. He said ‘are you a 1 in 1000 girl?’ No. They weren’t. But they weren’t prepared to marry less than that. Also, they were very cute. But they were 22 or so. Who isn’t at that age? These were average women. Upper average maybe. But they were destined, IF THEY PLAYED THEIR CARDS WELL, to have a half decent house in the burbs, a couple of modest but newish cars Honda/Volvo, not BMW 835s etc. Their husbands would be average, no six pack etc. A perfectly good life. A successful one. But they wanted something well outside their level and if they didn’t smarten up they would one night stand thejr way into a much worse life.
Society has trained women into thinking that success translates to bagging a "high-value man" based on superficial attractiveness and income criteria. But what they ought to desire is a decently attractive and morally good man whose company they enjoy and who will stick w/them, cherish and adore them, honor the marriage vow and be a good father to future children.
Society has trained women into thinking that success translates to bagging a "high-value man" based on superficial attractiveness and income criteria. But what they ought to desire is a decently attractive and morally good man whose company they enjoy and who will stick w/them, cherish and adore them, honor the marriage vow and be a good father to future children.
Competition between women is the biggest unlooked at factor in society.
My wife has a number of single friends. She is 69. So this is less true now than it was 10 years ago. But 10 years ago my wife and her friends constantly were saying some woman is really funny, great looking, great personality, and can’t get a date! Well….she wasn’t any of those things. She would be loud, unpleasant, average looking at best. And very unappealing to men. And other women knew that and ENCOURAGED HER IN HER FOLLY. They loved the fact she wasn’t competition.
Is it anti-competitive behaviour? Or just intra-female virtue signalling, along the lines of “everyone is a 10”?
She is my friend, therefore I will assert she is wonderful without reference to any actual standard or evidence. Especially since by proxy I am also building myself up
Half and half I think. If she had been actual competition they would not have been lauding her though. I say that because we were having a dinner party and I suggested we invite a recently divorced woman. My wife said no. I asked if she had had a squabble with her but my wife explained none of the wives would appreciate her inviting an attractive, which she was, single woman! This blew me away. I said ‘you’re all friends! You run together. You do yoga.’ Nope. She said ‘don’t kid yourself. Joanie would scoop one of the husbands if she could.’
The whole exchange was weird.
Early arranged marriage avoids many of these issues. A woman is basically locked in to whatever social status from her husband that their parents could get for her, and can primarily improve it by investing in the family
Not saying arranged marriages is a panacea - it can be bad if your parents don’t choose well for you. But it does avoid a lot of the mess you describe above
Brilliant analysis from the incels today, talking about arranged marriages in 2025 as if they’re truly beneficial to the women and men that end up in them
The entirety of the modern romantic situation is the result of the three generations of female empowerment. This is what you’ve done with that power.
We’re men. When we see obvious incompetence, we want to solve the problem and start looking for options. And my God, are modern women incompetent.
male competition for selection for sex from a female is quite literally just about the most ubiquitous forms of reproduction across the entire animal kingdom. Men having power in human mating is only a very recent invention, and is still the dominant form across much of the earth. We are seeing a “return to tradition” so to speak, and the weak men now losing are angrily lashing out at a system they are too weak to find success in.
Women haven't returned to monkey, they've gained power by throwing around huge amounts of rhetoric about human equality.
Saying that women control dating isn't just some preference being exercised, it's the ability to have a family gatekept because women simply don't care about men having that. If you're suggesting we abandon equality at that level, then by all means, say it loudly for everyone to hear.
women are the ones that birth the children! they should indeed be the ones controlling for a father they think will be ideal. considering the inherent inequality in having a uterus vs not having one, I think we won’t be having an “equality” conversation for a while. make yourself attractive to a would-be mother or be removed from the gene pool, plain and simple.
We tried "the strongest men get all the women" societies.
They SUCK. Bigtime. Enforced monogamy has been the secret to Western success for centuries. Jewish feminists fooled us into abandoning it a half century ago and our birthrate has crashed beyond levels that are historically recoverable.
How do you suggest ridding the system of “Jewish feminists” and convincing “Chad and Tyrone” (who clearly benefit from this system, if not moreso than the arranged marriage system) to join ranks with you? You, and people like you, hold no societal power to implement any of your philosophy, because you are by definition social rejects.
The irony is that "empowerment" is just another word for charity. We've essentially created a national cultural platform to dole out charity to women and pretend it's progress, but eventually the chickens come home to roost and debts must be paid.
They are, actually. Arranged marriage cultures survived for millenia.
We let women choose for themselves a mere half century ago and our population crash and civilizational annihilation is likely irreversible at this point.
It's because women, for solid evolutionary reasons, are not really interested in anyone but the top 5% of men.
The bottom 95% can go die in a fire for all women care.
Men came up with enforced monogamy for a reason. Those civilizations survived for a reason.
The others died out, much like ours will.
At least, we can serve as a warning to the Chinese.
Whose population is also crashing.
The men who have the power to enforce a system like that, don’t even want to because they are capable of attracting women! Weak and angry men resort to begging strong men to subdue women for them, as if the strong man would subdue a woman or reduce her to property for anyone other than himself. Your wish to change the social structure of man to fill your own needs will never come to pass, and you will die alone. If the rule you followed has led you to this point, of what use was the rule?
Women don't know how to choose good fathers who create good civilizations. We let them choose, and who do they choose? Chad and Tyrone, who pump and dump them because a man is commanded to spread his seed as widely as possible.
Why should they stick around? Limit themselves to a single woman in a world where they can inseminate hundreds?
Meanwhile the women lose the ability to pair bond and get the thousand-cock stare.
They retreat into misery, wiccanism, cats and box wine.
I can promise you that they are nowhere near as miserable as you are ❤️ even the miserable ones found connection at some point in their life, you will die angry over the fact you never received any :)
Distributing goods among the warband, such as women, is one of the roles of the chieftan.
Man's first loyalty is to the warband.
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ
polygamy only works when a sizable amount of men are dying in war to create a gender imbalance in favor of women - you will be the first to die on the frontlines against Pakistan 🤣
Oh, no. Not the INTHELS!!!
Your way has failed utterly. We're going back. Allowing society to be governed by the hyper-emotional whims of leftist women was the worst possible choice we could've ever made. You had your shot. You blew it.
who is “we” ? are you going to lead the uprising of boys that get no pussy? even in the past, you would’ve been too ugly, poor, and bad at socializing to get a wife. no amount of anti-feminism will ever rescue from your misery, you sad little boy :)
And how else do you expect an incel to get married?
money, mainly? I sure hope they don’t, though!
Usually the couple have veto power, jointly and separately.
Arranged marriages by and large work in a world where your expectations and behavior are largely set for you by the society you live in.
"I gotta be me!" doesn't play a role in it.
I see arranged
I once had a female colleague practically bragging that she would never stoop so low as to *snort* bring her boyfriend a glass of water if he was thirsty because he can damn well go get it himself. A few months later she was crying because he'd had an affair with her friend - a cute, feminine and kind girl. Somehow I wasn't surprised.
Feminism should be called masculism, because it is the uncritical adoption and promotion of male values and beliefs.
Very insightful comment. I've seen this play out with my nicest girl friends.
M
M
M
“I am average in most traits but unusually open and disagreeable and I also do not hide that I have a strong maternal instinct.”
This describes me as well, except maybe the maternal instinct. I do have a caretaker personality but I guess it’s not what people expect.
I've noticed this -- something I've always found odd is that many women I think are kind of average-looking frequently have higher expectations of physical attractiveness (etc) in a partner than many very good-looking women. I've been criticized by other women for dating guys they thought weren't "attractive enough" (though worth mentioning here that two of the boyfriends who were criticized in this way were both similarly attractive to me, but also part-Asian, and the comments came from fully white women who didn't think Asian men were attractive). I think with a lot of very hot women, they know they're hot and don't need validation of that -- with more average women, securing a "hot" man validates their own attractiveness.
Interestingly, PUAs noticed back in the 90s and 00s that 10/10 women weren’t harder to get than other women, they’re just different. And that they get approached a lot less. Otoh, 7/10s were mass approached at all times due to all the guys who perceived her as “attainable attractive” rather than out of their league. Nowadays, I work with a ton of 7/10 gen z girls who complain about never being approached irl. 🤷
About the dating Asian men thing, I have definitely noticed that non-Asian women that are more “basic” have more of a resistance to dating Asian men than women that are “alternative” in some way. Like I know that a non-Asian woman who is a goth or artistic type is much more likely to say yes to me asking her out than someone who dresses in basic clothing. This probably correlates to psychology: women that are high in trait openness tend to be more open in both romantic options and hobbies.
I’ve noticed this as well. I come
From an alternative scene, that was mostly male but very ethnically diverse, especially for its time. I also noticed that the Asian guys I saw getting a lot of girls were into the same things I and the other guys were into: hard music, motorcycles, tattoos, martial arts, weight lifting, etc. A muscular Korean American guy on a motorcycle who shredded at heavy metal guitar seemed pretty popular with girls. Not even that tall either .
Yeah, and back in the 90s, the most prominent Asian American guys (not counting Jackie Chan because he’s not American) were alternative musicians: James Iha from Smashing Pumpkins and John Myung from Dream Theater.
This probably goes for inter-ethnic dating in general? But I mean, yes, one of the guys I'm referring to was a half-Filipino poet / radio DJ I met in a screenwriting class in undergrad. So there you go.
Yeah, sounds like guys I knew years ago too.
Interesting. I would have thought the opposite.
Another factor is the college/white collar gap that’s growing.
Fewer men are going to college, and white collar jobs often require degrees even if it’s a bullshit degree for a bullshit job. Corporate and bureaucratic environments dominated by women (HR/Marketing/admin/government/teaching) are also unappealing to men for many reasons.
So we’ve got a bunch of women with degrees and relatively good-paying jobs who still want to marry up, but the supply of guys with degrees who also earn more than them is going down.
Smart women who are average attractiveness or lower settle for average guys with good work ethic, because they understand the clock is ticking and their choices only get worse as they get older.
But a staggering number of college-educated women aren’t wise or self-aware enough to understand that Joe the HVAC tech is the best they’re gonna get, so they wait and wait and wait and then discover they’ve hit the mid-30s wall and Joe the HVAC tech is no longer available because he married some 27 year old cashier a few years ago.
The status signal of a college degree is going to fall precipitously, and men are ahead of the curve. As the status collapses, so will the bullshit jobs. The number of "project managers" will go off a cliff. Men are always ahead of women on social trends.
I'm in marketing and I've already seen the impact of AI on absolutely deleting low level copywriting jobs. I'm now effectively a senior editor of ChatGPT output because it does a good enough job giving me a framework and basic filler text. It's already wiped out a bunch of low level graphic designer jobs, and it's coming hard for the marketing manager jobs, which are overwhelmingly held by white women.
The bullshit jobs are going to disappear, and a lot of very secure women are going to find themselves insecure for the first time in their lives. Their LinkedIn networks won't help them land the next job because most of their peers will also be looking for an increasingly shrinking pool of jobs that consist of pushing stuff around on spreadsheets and putting it into a slide deck.
It will be interesting to see how society is going to react to that.
It's shocking how much time is spent on slide decks, just astonishing. Also boilerplate emails no one reads. I'm in software, but in a hyper-niche area where AI is a force-multiplier at most.
AI is a multiplier for me as well, because someone has to check its output and develop the correct prompts to get it as close as possible before editing. If I had to guess though, the marketing manager women are going to try to say they're qualified for this role, even though many of them have demonstrated zero understanding of how to create content that appeals to anyone other than marketing managers.
Not to mention: AI ☠️
This isn't happening though, it's the exact opposite, as Rohan noted. Women with college degrees have not had any reduction in their marriage rates whatsoever for the past 40 years, while women without's marriage rates have plunged. Their rate of marriage is now literally half that of women with college degrees. They are also more likely to get divorced. It is not educated "upper half" women who are having a problem finding and getting into relationships, it is women on the bottom half, as Rohan noted. No one will commit to them. I don't understand why people keep talking about this as if it's the other way around, the stats are very clear and it's not a small difference it's a massive one.
They talk about it because the educated feminist cohort is pushing all this rhetoric and it seems like it SHOULD be more fair for them to be eating the consequences. This isn’t reality, and I will say that I don’t think educated women are having a dating utopia either, they just have the sense to eventually make a choice.
It’s perverse, especially since women in the lower middle class and below need marriage far more. But some of the push might be to create government support for single mothers, and that has all sorts of possible motives.
Definitely, they absolutely DO need it more and are basically screwed now. Men no longer feel any pressure to commit to them, so they just don't and instead play the field or lie/juggle multiple women bc they see no benefit to settling down if they don't have to, these women have no leverage anymore, and I view a lot of this big talk as just a defense mechanism to put on a brave face about their circumstances and cover their insecurities. In reality most of them are DESPERATE for a committed partner and just fronting like they don't care bc they can't lock one down anyway. It's the upper half always chattering and discoursing about such things, but the actual nightmare is in the bottom and of course they don't usually even know those people or have any real sense of their social circumstances. The "average woman" he mentions being 5'3" and 170 lbs is ALSO an unmarried mother who works 40 hrs a week in some crappy job that pays $40k and who no man will propose to but who just has a series of boyfriends who cheat on her or forever situationship her...it is bleak.
Of course it’s bleak. There’s no contradiction between the ugliness of this situation and saying that of low status men, who can’t get women to touch them. It’s just that low status women can get laid, but then the men they fool around with run, simply because they think they can do better. The stigma has been dropped to nothing, sex positivity has made accidental pregnancy acceptable.
This is simply about status, with respect to the weaknesses of the respective sexes. Some men can’t have sex. Some women can have sex but not lock up a commitment. They might be too picky or not understand where they stand, but they are low status people.
I wonder how much it all has to do with the erosion of empathy brought on by the fact that people get more and more impressions about the world from social media instead of from actual human interaction… And online everyone is so angry and opinionated.
So we all get the feeling that people are mean and stupid and not worth bothering with… and we get this weird perpetual gender war where people who are supposed to be looking for partners seem to a priori despise each other and find each other pointless and pathetic…
And then even when we meet in the real world, our views are already tainted by the conflicts we keep encountering online. The conflicts that are pushed because they’re best scrolling fodder for the algo, not because they’re the views most worth sharing.
I don’t think we fully appreciate all the ways in which social media has screwed us over.
Social media makes it all worse, but I’m older and I can tell you that this is nothing new. The pecking order of sex and relationships becomes obvious for what people don’t say, and some of these guys are autists who are capable of very little besides pattern recognition. The factor that really messed them up was thinking that they would be able to meet someone as long as they were decent and employed. The rest of the games are just bad for them, and with a culture that says women are more into character than the physical and status stuff, they were unprepared to find that women are actually people and they have to do more.
Guys are lazy and narrow, but the expectations have shifted under them, so they’re also drowning in fable.
I find it funny that not having a lot of hobbies is considered an unattractive quality in a man. 😄 Because if he DOES have a lot of hobbies, doesn’t that tend to imply that he's a major geek/nerd, that he spends a lot of time alone, that he's socially and romantically unsuccessful? I think this is a situation where men can't win. If a guy doesn't have a lot of hobbies, women will complain that that's unattractive, but if he does have a lot of hobbies, they'll complain about that too.
Many hobbies are social. In general any hobby is seen as time spent not jacking off while/or playing video games.
🤣
"he has no hobbies boooring" "he has hobbies so coool - 10 years and 2 kids later - why do you spend so much time and money with your hobbies I'm going to divorce you"
just making up a person to get mad at in your head, lmao
Yeah, you've never left your computer and engaged with real humans in the real world.
and you’re too busy writing some shitty dark fantasy novel nobody gives a fuck about to get a girlfriend 🤣 loser
Not all hobbies are created equally…especially if you’ve seen the chart that was going around recently of what hobbies women found attractive/unattractive. I think women love to complain about hobbies like video games and collecting action figures because those are low status hobbies with little to no clout/social value
Video games and toy collecting are consumption-based and self-serving. Women love men who have hobbies like woodwork or DIY construction because they can benefit from it and it shows that these men have some kind of competency that potentially benefits more than just them.
In very superficial materialistic societies hobbies are often a pose more than anything. A way to tick a box on a dating profile for the sake of good normie vibes.
It implies that men with hobbies are self-interested and less likely to provide for women who want a man who will selflessly provide for them. Unless that hobby is something like woodwork or construction--which women apparently find very attractive--because it's a hobby they can benefit from.
A culture of promiscuity (i.e., how get laid?!) naturally inflates women's sexual value into unreality.
Men then try to inhabit that unreality, and the result is they just end up drooling and making fools of themselves, by and large.
This is incredibly underestimated, which shows how much feminism has completely obliterated sane cultural norms. JD Unwin goes at length on this issue. Promiscuity consistently rewards the bad actors and behaviors straying from collective wellbeing.
Agreed but feminism is just one small part of the larger issue being the deification of the ego
It’s the opposite: promiscuity destroys female self worth because the man never sticks around to raise the babies that might have been created by the act - with baby making being the ult reason women engage in sex even if unconscious of that - as humans tend to be about their drives. The hardness one sees with women nowadays is cope about a system that doesn’t work for them from a biological perspective
Aren’t women evolutionarily wired to have more at stake when picking potential fathers, so they are naturally more picky?
Yes, but this instinct has gone off the rails with modern society. Seee also: porn in men
That's where you realize that normalized promiscuity is a real obstacle to the formation of long lasting, productive couples.
Picky yes, but in a society where shame doesn't exist and there are governmental protections(welfare) for irresponsible behavior, women's pickiness is shifting towards sexual attractiveness and not overall responsibility for societal benefit. Women used to think holistically before choosing a mate; now they just choose for themselves. If they choose wrong and get pregnant, they can murder the baby or go to the government for "free money". Modern politics subsidizes bad behavior to give more importance to an ever-growing State. It's a win-win for the elites.
This notion had been overused to justify the selfishness of women. They are really just self centred consumers. And 80% of consumption - most percentage of climate change - is caused by them technically. Most of times I hear “women are mothers” well, mother to only her child - which they are now aborting as unborn to indulge without back pull. Begs the question - are we going to drop the notion and see women as is? Selfish self-centred consumption oriented creatures of underworld.
There’s no evidence base for it, so that assumption is just that, an assumption.
Well, except for all the work done by evolutionary psychologists. But, yes, it is an assumption—all theories—even those based on empirical evidence—are assumptions in the sense that no theory can be justified due to the logical impossibility of inductive logic (e.g., the empirical evidence shows that all swans are white…until we see a black swan).
40% of men in the history of all Homo sapiens reproduced, yet 80% of women in our history did. This is hard, biological evidence that demonstrates Hypergamy, and is seen across the overwhelming majority of species in the mammalian kingdom.
Excellent piece. A big part of the dating/mating crisis is the fact women have become too picky. I get into the reasons why that is here: https://getbettersoon.substack.com/p/pickiness-how-men-and-women-miss
A woman’s value is derived from what she IS inherently. A man’s from what he DOES. Of course there will be contradictions in evaluating from the other perspective. My wife as a man? Insufferable and useless. As a woman? Soulmate.
This is a much more articulate way of putting what I’ve always thought when hearing women complain about men: “you would kill yourself if you lived in our world of shit.”
One of them even did - and she was a lesbian! (Look up Norah Vincent and her book, "Self Made Man.")
Oh yeah , read about her years ago. Sadly she committed legal suicide in Europe somewhere. Very sad.
It's impossible for me to comprehend Americans' mean weights, which are just insanely high. I know the data comes from the CDC, which seems like a trustworthy source, but it's so hard for me to believe.
We’re the land of extremes. We have the fattest, and the fittest people.
You’re starting to blow up man…well deserved.
Only thanks to people like you, thank you for reading :)
Kill the internet. Got it.
Would solve a lot of problems tbh
I think you have stated but not emphasized the class aspect nearly enough here. What you are describing is "lower half" dynamics period. Who are all these obese people? They are people in the bottom half. Who are women who talk the way you describe? You are describing the worldview and manner of speaking of someone from an impoverished background, I've never heard women talk remotely like the way you describe, or even mention money or earning power with respect to men unless she was a stripper/poor/filled with "delusions" as you say, from... TV I guess? But also just in general a lot of those people are extremely naive and delusional about the world in general?? To me this is no different from the fact that tons of teenagers think they actually have a shot to become sports stars or otherwise rich and famous one day, our society runs of delusions and promotes them in virtually every media product produced.
Also, the fact that the pickings are respectively slim in the bottom half is a huge understatement. By age 23, more than a third of white men in the US have been arrested and have a criminal record and mug shot in the system, and the stats are even higher for black and Hispanic men, as you can likely imagine. Do you know how difficult it is to get a good job once you have a criminal record? I think you are severely underestimating how dire the economic and social circumstances are for those in the "bottom half". Their social and relationship dysfunction is just one facet of dysfunction across every element of their lives, and plenty of people profit from it.
But it's really a shame that rage bait and clips (like obviously edited and curated nonsense where supposedly every girl thinks she's entitled to a guy under 30 making siz figures when in reality every woman I've known was amazed and happy if a guy that age had a job good enough to have health insurance) from the internet have now started to infect people who are NOT in those circumstances. They're being exposed to cross cultural stuff that doesn't actually apply to them own sub-culture and thinking it does. The gender-war dynamics that now seem to be the rage with college educated middle class people have been the norm since at least the 80s in the underclass. They've been suspicious of and calling women useless hos who can't be trusted for decades, while the women treat them with the same disdain, degradation, and like a walking wallet. On both sides it's delusion bc quite frankly there's nothing IN those wallets, and none of them are in a position to try to "own" or use the other, it's just all fake fronting and acting cooler and better than to feel better about their own shitty circumstances.
"in reality every woman I've known was amazed and happy if a guy that age had a job good enough to have health insurance"
As a zoomer guy in my mid 20's, this has not been my experience with women at all. Most of my friends are perpetually single (involuntarily celibate, even), despite having "good" jobs with health insurance and a middle class salary.
Probably bc they prefer to be single than to lower their standards or compromise/settle down then. This doesn't reflect a norm bc only about 50% of people have health insurance through their job...only 54% of employers offer health plans at all, and that drops to 44% for companies that mostly employ young workers. Then even if an employer offers it, young people are more likely to be ineligible bc of frequent drop changes, contract/gig status, etc, and even if they are eligible, they might not enroll bc they can't afford the premium. However, ever since ACA allowed parents to keep their kids on their plan til 26, I'm guessing a lot of this is less obvious. Anyway, if you don't know anyone without coverage it just goes to my point that the lives of the upper and lower halves of society are quite different. Are these friends of your interested in or willing to date a working class girl with no degree who works as a cashier?
I don't think their standards are particularly high, and yeah, I think many of them would be open to dating girls without a degree.
The real problem is that most of them do most of their searching through the apps (which, incidentally, is why I know their standards aren't high; these guys will swipe right on anyone). On Hinge, making 70k a year with health and dental doesn't exactly get you likes the way that being 6'4" does, at least not if you're under 30. They might have better luck if they were searching IRL... but then again, these are guys who play MTG, so maybe not.
To what extent have these dynamics been moving up the educational ladder in the past couple of decades as more people go to college? My impression is that the marginal college student/graduate who is a woman isn’t really that much smarter than average. And there are substantially more women who go to and graduate from college than men (in the US).
Probably quite a lot. You have tons of people going to college who have no academic talent of inclinations at all, who often don't graduate or take forever to do it and then come out with tons of debt and no degree that actually provides economic value, putting them in an actually WORSE situation while also likely giving them higher aspirations/expectations. My guess is that that's probably a HUGE element for the collapse of pairing up around sort of the middle/bottom half, bc that's where you get a real gender discrepancy in graduation rates. There's really no difference in the rates of college attendance amongst the traditional college bound population. It's the marginal cases and range where it's probably doing them no good to go where you have twice as many women as men attending. This is probably a huge factor, good point.
There is a set of behaviors in female mammals called female reproductive suppression. It’s just what it sounds like. Females attempt to prevent other females from reproducing successfully.
In humans its extreme form is harem politics, which includes infant and child murder.
The women are psychologically sabotaging each other.
This is an extremely important comment. Upvoted.
Nickelback photo is appropriate