I’ve always wanted to plant a tree over a small rock, and each year lower the soil line so the roots that wrap around the rock harden. Eventually the whole rock will be covered with roots, like a hand holding it. This would make the coolest walking stick!
I also thought it was hypocritical that she worked for playboy, admitted to essentially manipulating men's minds, and didn't seem to think that was part of the problem. I thought some kind of apology was coming but it didn't. Her views of men being missing from society because they aren't on the NY outdoor dining scene also seemed strange. It would be like my husband going to a wrestling meet and claiming women are just "missing" from society. Um, or maybe they have different hobbies???
“A book and a bubble bath” I.e. porn. That’s just porn. That’s the kind of book most women are reading in that situation. They are boasting about doing the exact same thing they are accusing men of abandoning them over—easy, stimulating titillation over human intimacy. I can’t help not having any sympathy for this plight of theirs.
The hoemath videos where he takes a normal looking girls and turns them into men and they're all mid come to mind. The average American woman is 5'3", 170 lbs and she's complaining about how there are no decent men out there. How about you lose 40 lbs darling?
I’m 5’ 8” if you want to know, and weigh less than that.
You’re an asshole. Decent people don’t say what you said.
You don’t use a profile pic or full name, as I do. You just talk shit about others. Women do not like being called “darling” by shitheads. Nor do we appreciate fat-phobic insults toward anyone.
If you’re single, I’ve got a helluva theory for you that explains why.
You didn’t address the main point of the commenter, which is that most women would do poorly as men. Fixating on weight isn’t productive for either of you.
That's a weird thing to assume. I have a big stack of books I'm reading/soon to read, and none of them are porn. Unless by "porn", you mean "looking at houses I will never buy on Redfin"? In that sense, then yes, women are looking at porn.
He said "most women," not "all women." You personally may not be reading those types of books, but lots of women obviously are, because romance/erotica is the highest grossing type of fiction in the world...by a wide margin.
(Yes, I realize there's technically a difference between romance and erotica, but they overlap quite a bit, and frequently there isn't much difference between the two. It's like the difference between softcore and hardcore porn.)
Ok, - but why on earth does he think it's "most women"?? I don't know one woman who intentionally watches porn - except one acquaintance who has made her career by being an openly slutty music critic. She was very pro-porn.
He was talking about reading literary porn rather than watching porn videos. If "normal" women weren't reading literary porn, then it wouldn't be selling as well as it is. ("50 Shades of Grey" sold more copies than Harry Potter. Let that sink in.) Also, if the women in your life were reading or viewing porn, I doubt that they would tell you about it, especially if they knew you were against it. I wouldn't take their words at face value...not when there are potential negative consequences for being honest.
I know, it's some of the worst prose I've ever seen. And the setup - a self-made 30 year old steel magnate? In today's economy? And a 21 year old who has the sexual knowledge of an 8 year old? It outdoes the bad prose for absurdity.
This tells you how bad it is. How bad the female gooning epidemic has become. It reminds me of this Kids in the Hall skit, where the old man is so addicted to paying for prostitutes that... well, watch the clip.
If I turn my head approximately 15 degrees to the left, I see Charles Dicken's Great Expectations, Plato’s Laws, and several biographies of various Founding Fathers and other great American men. This is literature.
Reading poorly written erotica tailored to the carnal desires of women is not “literature” any more than a Playboy magazine is literature.
Dumbass: My house is full of classic literature and nonfiction. I’ve read the majority of the books on any list of the “most important” books you’d care to name. I have an English minor and relish Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I love to read. Sometimes I do read some genre novels but they aren’t my preference. (There’s NOTHING WRONG with genre novels!)
So stop insinuating all women read just one thing. And unless you have a PhD in literature, or something similar, I’m pretty sure I’m better read than you are.
I’d really like to know why you felt it appropriate to claim women read only certain types of books. Sexism much? I’d also like you to know there’s nothing particularly impressive about having a nice library, because millions of us do.
Honestly? You? Yes. I find it inconceivable that you've read anything since High School which qualifies as literature. You have the self-awareness of an overweight 50 year old man in the Philippines.
Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? What makes you think "most" women are reading porn?
I'm happily coupled for going on 10 years, but some of my friends are not. They're not reading porn. They do have flaws - but to assume that women are like men is just ridiculous. The few I know who are still single, just have enough money and other stuff to do, than to bother with men, who will put them down for being over 35.
I feel sorry for you though. Your vibe is so incel.
What difference does it make whether he's single or not? If he told you he was married, would that change your mind? No, it wouldn't. You would still say he's wrong, so why even bring it up? This is an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
"They're not reading porn. They do have flaws - but to assume that women are like men is just ridiculous."
Translation: "I don't want to believe it, therefore it's not true." Ridiculous.
"The few I know who are still single, just have enough money and other stuff to do, than to bother with men"
If they don't bother with men, what does that have to do with whether or not they're reading literary porn? Absolutely nothing.
Also, you're not even TRYING to hide the fact that you consider women to be categorically superior to men. You've made it extremely obvious.
"I feel sorry for you though. Your vibe is so incel."
You should be ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is cowardly and childish. Someone says something you don't agree with and don't like, and you're unable to come up with a coherent or rational rebuttal, so instead you turn to bullying? Pathetic. You're a horrible human being. I feel extremely sorry for your husband or boyfriend. Ending up with someone like you is a MUCH worse fate than being single.
At least women have a valid reason to turn to something else to get their rocks off. Men cum always unless there is something wrong with them, and then they still goon like there’s no tomorrow. Not to mention erotica doesn’t thrive on exploitation like porn does.
Majority of gen z women watches visual porn too. And you literally put vibrating plastic inside yourself. Your male counterpart is basement dweller humping body pillows
LOL vibrators do NOT go inside you weirdo. And visual porn is far more harmful both to the consumer and the actors than literary porn could ever be. And again, at least men get off during sex, almost always. Most women don’t get off most times they have sex, so they have a more valid excuse to pleasure themselves instead. Idk why I’m arguing with an incel though, it literally will never get anywhere
I keep thinking about writing a post on the problem of commodification of relationships.
Basically we all know "the customer is always right" - which really just means that the business owner can't compel, only persuade the customer to buy, the customer always has veto power and freedom to go elsewhere with the transaction. (And yes, this does mean some customers go insane, thinking they can make insane demands which no business can possibly fulfill.)
But this doesn't really work if you want real relationships - romantic or platonic. To forge something real requires compromise from both parties. Too many people have gotten used to social media and apps giving the illusion that they are a customer and always right when it comes to relationships. So rather than swallow their ego, they just go looking elsewhere for "another store" that's more accommodating.
The problem as ever is that you can't have anything real with that mentality. Nobody with the attitude that you're replaceable will bother coming to your funeral.
My wife and some of her friends meet once a month to discuss the experience out there for women. The age group is 36-48 years (3 married with kids, 2 with partners and 4 single ladies). The single ladies are having a rough time out there. What surprises me the most though is every single one of the women do not understand why a man wouldn't want to approach them, or start up a relationship with the single women. I was asked on Friday as I had also shared this NYT article with my wife. My question to them was simple, why should any guy leave his peace for any of them? Being the problem is not what most women understand about themselves. Most boys are raised with a burden of performance, most girls assume they are performing because there is no burden of performance. In the NYT, the author is asking men to do something not for women to do anything.
I would be curious as to what their answers/reactions were, to your question?
Well done by the way, posing that stark reality check to these types and I say that, because while they may be representative of a majority, they are not for the whole - there are many great, normal, moral, intelligent, logical but passionate women out there and here on SS.
The types who write the NYT article and see the equation from an expectant and entitled place need that wake-up call.
“Just what is so giving, caring, life enriching and fun about you, that a man would want to put it all on the line for??”
Usually stops them in their tracks or the typical psycho-bable that is peddled by the radfem influencers comes out.
These ladies list their jobs and accomplishments, they can pay their own rent, like to travel and are great to be around. The single women value themselves through the same prism they value men. Specifically where these women screw up is when it comes to valuation of themselves and the lack of understanding of anything male related. The average woman knows almost nothing about what makes the average man tick. Even if you line up the average man and he scribbles down what makes him tick, the average woman would disagree with it. Next is valuation. My wife has some impressive friends that are still single (2 out of the four). What all the women have in common is that they value all the single women as above 8 (not just beauty). In my group of friends only one guy can rank himself above 7, everyone else gets made of fun if they try to climb above 5 (even on the days when you feel like an 11/10). One thing most single and maybe even married women lack is older women that keep them in check or tethered to reality. I always laugh at the end when the ladies leave our place because it is simply a sharing of emotions sessions. They don't share solutions between each other.
I have the same thing with my girlfriend's peer group, though I don't interact with them, but get great war stories from her.
You are correct, there is an element of self-delusion, fueled by the radicals, where their how their attributed are valued by men is concerned.
You can see it in the aesthetic bar that they all jump to meet - fish lips, stenciled on brows, the botox, plasticized death masks, that look like every other woman walking by. Most men I know think it all looks clownish, but if you try and explain that to them - they'll say, "we're not doing it for you".
Fair enough, but then you can't ask where the men have gone, if you're intent on staying siloed in the radfem echo chamber.
This article is just a more intelligent and hygienic version of the 4B crowd. I say to both please keep going, you're doing a great job. The more they continue the easier it is to identify the real women of value and there are plenty out there.
Man, you’re doing the thing! You’re doing the thing where you inadvertently reveal that you don’t value education for its own sake — you only see it as a means to an end (in this case attracting a mate).
Highly educated people (yes, including the women) often get an education because they value intellectual pursuits, not just to attract someone with their money. If they want to “show off,” it’s to signal that they’re smart and interesting, and they want a partner who also values intelligence and education for its own sake, and intelligence is such a virtue valued with an almost religious fervor that they are willing to die alone if they can’t find someone who values it.
The inability of so many red pilled guys to understand this is why so many people dismiss you all as dumb chuds.
That the manosphere is filled with morons who mistake their preference for stupid or uneducated women as indicative of a universal male desire instead of the consequences of assortative mating is a oft-remarked observation. It just happened to show up in the wild here.
But if I've missed the point, then, tell me: how have I missed it? Don't rely on snarky one-liners. Make your argument.
Education credentials do not signal intelligence anymore, & are negative signals of the other things men value in women. He's not "doing the thing"*, PasMacabre is discussing these women's willful cluelessness about what attracts men & wildly inflated self- or group-appraisals. His expressed opinion on degrees is "they don't attract men".
*the fact you think college is a useful way of getting an education for its' own is tellingly out of touch. Getting an education on a subject can be had for mere time & discipline on the internet (MIT Opencourseware exists, among other curricula). Paying tens of thousands of dollars for the ability to work towards a degree does not necessarily impart an education, it largely filters access to the job market. "dOIng THe tHINg" is frankly just being remotely intelligent.
I want to push you on this a little bit, because I think you've gotten to peak in at a very interesting group of women and possibly see across a gender divide.
"Fightin' internet gender discourse" can be _so_ reductionist. You'd think that the only things that matter are money status and height for men and youth and physical attractiveness for women. What a dark view of the world that this is all humans can be.
If you're married and in a long term relationship, perhaps you've had the thought that other things matter too...is a partner kind, caring, fun, adventurous, brave, emotionally available, interesting...or is a partner cold, shut down, angry and resentful, aloof, petty, etc.
(Maybe someone reading this comment sees this as gendered, but I don't actually know which gender I have in mind writing these things...I think both men and women can show up in relationships in good and bad ways.)
So for our single ladies having a rough time of it, is the problem that:
- They are less desirable than they think by the narrow reductionist terms of gender discourse (e.g. they're not as hot as they think) or
- They are less desirable in intangible ways that don't get talked about (e.g. when in a relationship they don't give their partner a kind of loving attention that he wants and he decides it isn't worth staying) or
- They are casting a narrow net by looking at narrow criteria (gotta be 6'+ with a bunch of career status)?
An analysis I read in a different substack that I thought was pretty on target was the idea that women were the gate keepers of casual romantic relationships/sex and men were the gate keepers of long term romantic relationships/commitment. But in a world where the women filter first (start the relationship/sex before long term/intimate) women's filtering was having the perverse effect of not allowing women to cast a wide net for a long term relationship. (This was written by a man, so ... YMMV.)
If your wife's friends are going "we are eights, why is this so hard", and you were going to give them a reality check the way you would a guy friend, what does that sound like?
EDIT: sorry, I forgot to include...or are they *mis-valuing* themselves? E.g. "I have so much education, why aren't guys into that?" Self mis-valuation is at the heart of the whole "resentful guy who doesn't have the cards" phenomenon, it's just self aware, e.g. "I have a steady job that could support family formation...I know this makes me a '4' but I am resentful that it doesn't make me a '7'."
And, yes, fighting internet gender discourse can be a cuaguemire. Money, status and height for men and youth and physical attractiveness for women are not the only things that matter. However, I think we are all lying to ourselves today when both men and women are opting for those characteristics first. Whether this is driven by social media, the dating apps or any other medium doesn’t really matter.
If you are a guy who verbalizes those things, you are an uneducated far-right misogynist. And as woman verbalizing the requirements for men, you are a far-left, educated, misandrist. The reason why the former doesn’t bother most men anymore is because of being acclimated to those reductive characterization or rather caricature.
I think we are simply trying to transform each of the gender into something they are not and that comes with consequences. And yes, I do agree with women contract sex (i.e. short relationships) and men control long term/intimate. Men and women are fighting over both with a select few men actually having the upperhand (oh oh).
If your wife's friends are going "we are eights, why is this so hard", and you were going to give them a reality check the way you would a guy friend, what does that sound like?
I confess that I’m a blunt instrument and recognizing that I could never provide reality check to a woman the way I would a guy friend. I learnt a lot giving advice to my sister. However, what I find is the common thread is that most women think the relationship is about them and for them. We wrongly assume that historically, men were happy in relationships and the women didn’t have a choice and were miserable. I mentioned a burden of performance in a previous post and that burden of performance starts very early for boys and young men. The reason we are having a crisis with relationship formation is primarily because either because we are equal, women also have that burden of performance or young men today don’t see any value in carrying that burden for their partner. I believe it is more the latter.
The reason why I keep reminding my wife’s friend about mis-valuing is simple. If a product cost x and no one is willing to buy that product for x, then the product needs to reprice. Yes, this is a neanderthal thinking (I don’t use my Masters degree very well). Imagine if most guy walk around rating themselves 7 but really they are a 4, what do you think happens? You will have a bunch of men and women reminding that they are a 4.
Again, the reason young men, don’t want this burden of performance is simple, they can rate themselves closer to what they are. What they don’t want to do is thinking the burden of performance is 4 but have to work at a 7 level. That’s stupidity and a life with no peace. Yes, you can achieve short-term results but will be left with long term burden and scars.
Women think they are pricing themselves out of the dating market due to an overall overvaluing things that men on average don’t value at the same level and the opposite is also true of men. There is no longer a middle man/woman (your father/mother/aunts/uncles/grandmothers) to help with the valuation. The responsibility of valuing the other gender is all in one person’s hand or in people who are also not in relationships. I remember in the 90s, it was mostly single women giving advice on how to get a guy. Now we have non-commital men giving advice on how get a girl. The closer we get to parity, the weirder it will get.
But that completely contradicts his article! He is saying women have priced themselves out of the dating market and need to lower their standards. If there is no burden of performance for girls then why do you think they have priced themselves out of the dating market?
Furthermore, what you say is just incorrect. Girls have outperformed boys in schools going as far back as we have data, including when they had no expectation of going to college or earning a wage.
I was a little bit surprised by "lower their standards"...I think for the men who are looking at a sort of 'economy of the dating market' dynamic, the choice would be for older women to lower their price (lower their standards in the men they pick) or perform better (raise their value).
If you have a very narrow view of female value (be youthful and hot) then there's not much an older woman can do, so all you can do is lower your price.
I think where I get off the bus and don't like these kinds of discussions is how reductionist they are of the human experience.
And what the original article hints at here (I think mostly in the form of griping about double standards and hypocracy, but I must admit I read it on half a cup of coffee and probably retained less) is that older women could adopt a "do work on myself, be the best me" attitude toward themselves that is similar to what both men and women advocate as the cure for men who are having trouble finding women.
I don't think this is totally crazy...I think the idea "I can only control my end of the see-saw" in romantic relationships is a good one because it gives people agency without encouraging control, manipulation, etc. I am not sure what that self work would be.
Re: the burden of performance from the original commenter, I took that as men traditionally being the ones to show initiative and 'do the asking' in starting a relationship. But I think this ignores the covert initiative women have to do on their side.
If the quality of education is so bad, then why don't boys just race ahead of girls, if it's so easy? Oh, it's definitely because they *choose* not to, and if they put their mind to it, they would of course succeed wildly. Actual slacker mentality that is the favored worldview of losers everywhere. It definitely has nothing to do with average sex differences in conscientiousness. (And don't come at me with the old canard that education is "feminized" and discriminates against boys. If you think education was better in the past when we were beating boys and putting them in dunce caps, then you are more than welcome to make the retvrn argument for that schooling system! Sounds very pro-male!)
"Education is obviously worse" is literally just a factually unsupported view that you use to soothe your mind to the fact that a lot of boys are falling behind because of reasons that you accurately pinpoint in your article -- the availability of dopamine-destroying porn and video games that disproportionately affect a population that scores lower on conscientiousness and has higher rates of ADHD.
FWIW, education has probably gotten more competitive, at least at the highest levels. To my knowledge the average SAT scores at Ivy League schools has increased, and the average MCAT score has also increased.
SAT scores inflated is because the SAT was changed to be easier. For example, the reading passages for English were recently reduced in length. Sometime in the (early?) 00's I believe the math section was changed to remove the logic puzzles, which would have made the SAT far less IQ/intelligence-loaded.
I've never written an article on this site. That aside, "population that scores lower on conscientiousness and has higher rates of ADHD" would absolutely do worse under the regimented structure of public schooling. "Sit down, don't talk, by fastidious with your work & play nice with the teacher" absolutely selects for a particular personality type & energy level, ignoring concerns of the social & behavioral standards enforced. I can't imagine why this group might opt out of 4 more years of expensive schooling.
So apparently we agree on the grounds for "the old canard".
The hostile darts about pornography & video games are frankly misplaced. You try to throw some moral responsibility gotcha onto society-wide problems which start at around 11 years of age. Which we both know you won't be doing anything useful to help. This is counterproductive to any conversation, at all.
I want to have a productive discussion. I worry about boys and men falling behind or dropping out, but I'm also worried about the fact that it seems the majority of spaces online dedicated to discussing men in society have become blatantly misogynistic. Ten years ago, I was also opposed to internet (and, when it seeped into the real world) tumblr feminism. Red pill stuff seems to me to be the exact mirror image of that. So I want to hear your solutions, rather than just blind rage about how bad the system is.
"Sit down, don't talk, by fastidious with your work & play nice with the teacher"
When has school *not* been like this? In the past, we dealt with children who misbehaved in this way using corporal punishment or public shaming. We have (imo rightfully) done away with that. But it seems like children lower in conscientiousness struggle with school, and this is attenuated by the fact that we require more years of schooling than in the past.
So what do you think we should do for low-conscientiousness children? Should we bring back corporal punishment? Should we require less school? You mock lowered SAT standards, but it is one actionable way to get more people to take the tests. It seems that one way to get low-conscientiousness children to do better in school without hitting them or kicking them out of school is to "lower standards" in some way, the same way making the SAT easier increases access to less intelligent people in a world that values education.
And I 100% hate dopamine-addiction forming infinite scrolling social media. I try not to use it in my own life and I think there should be government regulations around it.
You don't know what you're talking about. Average IQ of students dropped significantly and what else could we expect when college went from 3% of population to 30?
"How do you write good female characters? Write a male character, but take out reason and accountability."
Drucker is this saying personified. I wondered if I was reading the New York Times or the Onion at one point.
And I would honestly say that I want this woman to be a pariah; it would be much better for society at large. I could point to her as an example to be kid on how not to live life.
This comment section is extremely misogynistic. Although I found the article’s argument to be muddled, I largely took it to advocate throwing off traditional gender roles, which I agree with. But no one is going to take your arguments seriously, OP, if you don’t push back on this kind of bile. You’ll only attract troglodytes with little influence on the real world.
Which article are we talking about? The NYT one or this Substack one? I am referring to this substack one, and, although I think the argument is muddled, it does read to me to obviously be advocating for women to take up traditionally masculine roles (like pursuing) in a modern dating landscape.
For a woman in her fifties, taking the passive approach to finding a man ("inviting and leaving the door open") is delusional. Women in their twenties whose level of attractiveness is average or better can usually get away with taking the passive approach, because there are plenty of interested guys who will seek them out.
After a woman reaches thirty or thirty-five-ish, she usually can't get away with passivity anymore, because she doesn't have the same cards she had when she was younger. The number of interested men drops precipitously as she gets older and older, and simply being female isn't going to be enough to command attention and desire anymore. This doesn't mean all hope is lost, but it does mean that a woman has to be more proactive to make up for her disadvantages in the marketplace, and she has to have something to offer a man, other than just having a vagina. It sounds harsh, and it's politically incorrect, but I don't make the rules, ladies...men's biology does. Men can't turn off their attraction mechanisms any more than women can.
This woman will probably have a uniquely hard time because she's uniquely terrible in the way she brags about her career manipulating men.
Like, imagine a red pill guy was having trouble dating and you find out he has an article titled "What Defending Domestic Abusers in Court Taught me About Masculinity" - where he extols the dark virtues of his abusive clients.
It's not even that his job was immoral necessarily, it's his gleeful attitude toward hurting women
Here’s a real question. Look at a group of women say together (which obviously won’t be dating these days in person) and listen for their humming and singing - it’s gone.
The American woman’s bird song is gone. I didn’t realize it until one day few years ago I heard a maid who was Hispanic humming along happily to herself as she was vacuuming, and I realized I hadn’t heard it in years. That is not natural and that is their instincts telling them something, it’s not that they miss us. You would think a scout would’ve noticed sooner, but I finally did.
She proudly declared she “optimized” online porn engagement among 18 -35 year old men. (Surely none younger 🙄). You absolute ghoul. I don’t think women or gay men get how toxic “porn” is for straight men because of the gender dynamic. They’re watching women get defiled and apparently love it from the onset of puberty. Besides the ignoble voyuerism and sadism, that’s primal hetero-male rage bait. No dis to women or gay men, but for many hetero men porn is toxic rage-bait and appeals to the worst in men. It’s terrorism. Its purpose is to terrify women and enrage men. Foisting it on the population empowers predators and is literally about demoralizing our society. It preys on teens and weaponizes puberty against boys.
Statistically, porn that depicts violence against women (and violent porn in general) is more popular among women than it is among men. Which makes sense when you consider the fact that men are hard-wired to protect and care for women (if they weren't, the human speckes wouldn't have survived), and women are hard-wired to partner up with the strongest, most dominant men for protection and provision (like it or not, violence is often a proxy for strength and dominance). I'm not saying there aren't any men who are aroused by sadism, but there are significantly fewer of those men than the amount of violent porn on the Internet would suggest.
Ya agree. The shit they put out I don’t believe anyone wants. Its purpose is to be as demeaning and demoralizing an experience as possible for the consumer or website visitor. They hate their “customers “
There's an interesting theory sort of hiding in the bushes here. When women withdraw from dating, men struggle to get dates, for the simple reason that there aren't as many available women around. When men withdraw from the dating, women struggle to get commitment; but for a more convoluted reason. A minority of men are willing to obsessively increase their dating output in response to any gaps in the market, so when the average guy drops out, he is immediately replaced by a commitment-phobe. When men drop out, the perceived value of men drops, because women start interacting exclusively with the jerkwads.
“I'm not implying that she should be a pariah” Maybe you should be. Women have never been more far removed from the consequences of their actions and lifestyles than they are now. In fact our sick society rewards them for being as transgressive as possible.
For a man who wants to sacrificially love a wife and family for his life work, what does a high value woman look like? Someone with a beautiful soul, a beautiful body, enough maturity to raise children and put up with him, and similar values. Those are the cards.
I think the boring truth (that you get at) about all this discourse is that neither men nor women prioritize relationships (or put forth the effort to get into them, at least) the way they used to.
This doesn't mean that the status quo we've arrived at is ideal--I think in the end, both genders could use some friendly pushes into dating in a deliberate fashion, as I do think it's the generally uncomfortable option that nonetheless leads to longer-term happiness, but I don't think it's the special fault of one gender or the other (contrary to what 90% of people who talk about this sort of thing say).
I do think, though, that people liable to complain about the general status quo wrt their own lack of success need to touch grass and change their own behaviors more than anything else.
I don’t usually comment. But… that stick. It is BEAUTIFUL!
The hardest choice of all men....
Perfect stick vs perfect rock?
Perfect stick. Eventually I'm going to throw the rock at something and lose it
No, you can pick the rock back up. That's the beauty of the rock. Nothing beats rock.
wait a sec…
what if we tied the rock to the stick and had both???
#HowItAllBegan
I’ve always wanted to plant a tree over a small rock, and each year lower the soil line so the roots that wrap around the rock harden. Eventually the whole rock will be covered with roots, like a hand holding it. This would make the coolest walking stick!
That sounds like a great elven weapon for some background lore right there. ;)
And here I always thought it was just my dog obsessed with finding the perfect stick. Guess that's why they are man's best friend.
Fuckin A' what a stick
I also thought it was hypocritical that she worked for playboy, admitted to essentially manipulating men's minds, and didn't seem to think that was part of the problem. I thought some kind of apology was coming but it didn't. Her views of men being missing from society because they aren't on the NY outdoor dining scene also seemed strange. It would be like my husband going to a wrestling meet and claiming women are just "missing" from society. Um, or maybe they have different hobbies???
I'm sure she only worked at Playboy for the articles. 😆
Playboy has ARTICLES?
“A book and a bubble bath” I.e. porn. That’s just porn. That’s the kind of book most women are reading in that situation. They are boasting about doing the exact same thing they are accusing men of abandoning them over—easy, stimulating titillation over human intimacy. I can’t help not having any sympathy for this plight of theirs.
The hoemath videos where he takes a normal looking girls and turns them into men and they're all mid come to mind. The average American woman is 5'3", 170 lbs and she's complaining about how there are no decent men out there. How about you lose 40 lbs darling?
How about you fuck off?
How about no?
No one was talking to you but you're 5'3 170 aren't you?
I’m 5’ 8” if you want to know, and weigh less than that.
You’re an asshole. Decent people don’t say what you said.
You don’t use a profile pic or full name, as I do. You just talk shit about others. Women do not like being called “darling” by shitheads. Nor do we appreciate fat-phobic insults toward anyone.
If you’re single, I’ve got a helluva theory for you that explains why.
yeah, we can tell you’re lying by that profile pic - I’m 6’1 and 135 pounds, look at mine and tell me I’m lying!
You’re addressing me?
"Don't tell me how to fix my problems, tell me that my problems will fix themselves! Waaaah! You're being mean to me! Mansplaining!"
Lose 40 lbs and he will!
You didn’t address the main point of the commenter, which is that most women would do poorly as men. Fixating on weight isn’t productive for either of you.
That's a weird thing to assume. I have a big stack of books I'm reading/soon to read, and none of them are porn. Unless by "porn", you mean "looking at houses I will never buy on Redfin"? In that sense, then yes, women are looking at porn.
He said "most women," not "all women." You personally may not be reading those types of books, but lots of women obviously are, because romance/erotica is the highest grossing type of fiction in the world...by a wide margin.
(Yes, I realize there's technically a difference between romance and erotica, but they overlap quite a bit, and frequently there isn't much difference between the two. It's like the difference between softcore and hardcore porn.)
Ok, - but why on earth does he think it's "most women"?? I don't know one woman who intentionally watches porn - except one acquaintance who has made her career by being an openly slutty music critic. She was very pro-porn.
But normal women aren't.
He was talking about reading literary porn rather than watching porn videos. If "normal" women weren't reading literary porn, then it wouldn't be selling as well as it is. ("50 Shades of Grey" sold more copies than Harry Potter. Let that sink in.) Also, if the women in your life were reading or viewing porn, I doubt that they would tell you about it, especially if they knew you were against it. I wouldn't take their words at face value...not when there are potential negative consequences for being honest.
Ugh I tried reading 50 Shades of Grey - it was so bad!!! The writing...SO BAD.
I know, it's some of the worst prose I've ever seen. And the setup - a self-made 30 year old steel magnate? In today's economy? And a 21 year old who has the sexual knowledge of an 8 year old? It outdoes the bad prose for absurdity.
This tells you how bad it is. How bad the female gooning epidemic has become. It reminds me of this Kids in the Hall skit, where the old man is so addicted to paying for prostitutes that... well, watch the clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKj6I1CJABw
The article "Sarah J. Mass ruined an entire generation of women" from the American Sun may be enlightening for you.
Trollop, don't lie. Every last one of you is an unrepentant gooner and reads Sarah J. Maas.
I’m reading The Horus Heresy books (thanks again, Rohan).
Oh hey me too
A timeless hobby!
Why do you think it’s porn? Is it inconceivable that we like to read literature?!?
Lmao sure you do 💅💅💅
Will she choose the literature with the werewolf or the vampire! It's not porn, I swear! It's ROMANCE
I write about literature fairly often, dumbass.
If I turn my head approximately 15 degrees to the left, I see Charles Dicken's Great Expectations, Plato’s Laws, and several biographies of various Founding Fathers and other great American men. This is literature.
Reading poorly written erotica tailored to the carnal desires of women is not “literature” any more than a Playboy magazine is literature.
Dumbass: My house is full of classic literature and nonfiction. I’ve read the majority of the books on any list of the “most important” books you’d care to name. I have an English minor and relish Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I love to read. Sometimes I do read some genre novels but they aren’t my preference. (There’s NOTHING WRONG with genre novels!)
So stop insinuating all women read just one thing. And unless you have a PhD in literature, or something similar, I’m pretty sure I’m better read than you are.
I’d really like to know why you felt it appropriate to claim women read only certain types of books. Sexism much? I’d also like you to know there’s nothing particularly impressive about having a nice library, because millions of us do.
Honestly? You? Yes. I find it inconceivable that you've read anything since High School which qualifies as literature. You have the self-awareness of an overweight 50 year old man in the Philippines.
Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? What makes you think "most" women are reading porn?
I'm happily coupled for going on 10 years, but some of my friends are not. They're not reading porn. They do have flaws - but to assume that women are like men is just ridiculous. The few I know who are still single, just have enough money and other stuff to do, than to bother with men, who will put them down for being over 35.
I feel sorry for you though. Your vibe is so incel.
"Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend?"
What difference does it make whether he's single or not? If he told you he was married, would that change your mind? No, it wouldn't. You would still say he's wrong, so why even bring it up? This is an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
"They're not reading porn. They do have flaws - but to assume that women are like men is just ridiculous."
Translation: "I don't want to believe it, therefore it's not true." Ridiculous.
"The few I know who are still single, just have enough money and other stuff to do, than to bother with men"
If they don't bother with men, what does that have to do with whether or not they're reading literary porn? Absolutely nothing.
Also, you're not even TRYING to hide the fact that you consider women to be categorically superior to men. You've made it extremely obvious.
"I feel sorry for you though. Your vibe is so incel."
You should be ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is cowardly and childish. Someone says something you don't agree with and don't like, and you're unable to come up with a coherent or rational rebuttal, so instead you turn to bullying? Pathetic. You're a horrible human being. I feel extremely sorry for your husband or boyfriend. Ending up with someone like you is a MUCH worse fate than being single.
If anything, she's dating some Non-White Federal Agent like Lauren Simonsen did or she's a Barren, Empty-Egg-Carton Trollop like PhilosophiCat.
Majority of women read porn and own vibrators.
At least women have a valid reason to turn to something else to get their rocks off. Men cum always unless there is something wrong with them, and then they still goon like there’s no tomorrow. Not to mention erotica doesn’t thrive on exploitation like porn does.
Majority of gen z women watches visual porn too. And you literally put vibrating plastic inside yourself. Your male counterpart is basement dweller humping body pillows
LOL vibrators do NOT go inside you weirdo. And visual porn is far more harmful both to the consumer and the actors than literary porn could ever be. And again, at least men get off during sex, almost always. Most women don’t get off most times they have sex, so they have a more valid excuse to pleasure themselves instead. Idk why I’m arguing with an incel though, it literally will never get anywhere
It doesn't matter whether it goes inside, it's still weird and comparable to humping body pillows.
“And visual porn is far more harmful both to the consumer and the actors than literary porn could ever be.”
Like I said majority of gen z women watches visual porn too.
“Idk why I’m arguing with an incel though, it literally will never get anywhere”
I'm arguing with gooner, it is what it is
Watch*
There Are No Incels. You're A Lying Trollop.
That’s a pretty weird thing to ask.
Especially if you prefer the company of obese women, like me. I'm really cool
Oh, FFS. Now I get it — virtually every man who feels it necessary to advertise his Christianity in his bio turns out to be nasty and sexist.
Are you IRL a Paki pasting nonsense from a warehouse in Karachi? Lol
LOL
I keep thinking about writing a post on the problem of commodification of relationships.
Basically we all know "the customer is always right" - which really just means that the business owner can't compel, only persuade the customer to buy, the customer always has veto power and freedom to go elsewhere with the transaction. (And yes, this does mean some customers go insane, thinking they can make insane demands which no business can possibly fulfill.)
But this doesn't really work if you want real relationships - romantic or platonic. To forge something real requires compromise from both parties. Too many people have gotten used to social media and apps giving the illusion that they are a customer and always right when it comes to relationships. So rather than swallow their ego, they just go looking elsewhere for "another store" that's more accommodating.
The problem as ever is that you can't have anything real with that mentality. Nobody with the attitude that you're replaceable will bother coming to your funeral.
This is so insightful.
My wife and some of her friends meet once a month to discuss the experience out there for women. The age group is 36-48 years (3 married with kids, 2 with partners and 4 single ladies). The single ladies are having a rough time out there. What surprises me the most though is every single one of the women do not understand why a man wouldn't want to approach them, or start up a relationship with the single women. I was asked on Friday as I had also shared this NYT article with my wife. My question to them was simple, why should any guy leave his peace for any of them? Being the problem is not what most women understand about themselves. Most boys are raised with a burden of performance, most girls assume they are performing because there is no burden of performance. In the NYT, the author is asking men to do something not for women to do anything.
I would be curious as to what their answers/reactions were, to your question?
Well done by the way, posing that stark reality check to these types and I say that, because while they may be representative of a majority, they are not for the whole - there are many great, normal, moral, intelligent, logical but passionate women out there and here on SS.
The types who write the NYT article and see the equation from an expectant and entitled place need that wake-up call.
“Just what is so giving, caring, life enriching and fun about you, that a man would want to put it all on the line for??”
Usually stops them in their tracks or the typical psycho-bable that is peddled by the radfem influencers comes out.
These ladies list their jobs and accomplishments, they can pay their own rent, like to travel and are great to be around. The single women value themselves through the same prism they value men. Specifically where these women screw up is when it comes to valuation of themselves and the lack of understanding of anything male related. The average woman knows almost nothing about what makes the average man tick. Even if you line up the average man and he scribbles down what makes him tick, the average woman would disagree with it. Next is valuation. My wife has some impressive friends that are still single (2 out of the four). What all the women have in common is that they value all the single women as above 8 (not just beauty). In my group of friends only one guy can rank himself above 7, everyone else gets made of fun if they try to climb above 5 (even on the days when you feel like an 11/10). One thing most single and maybe even married women lack is older women that keep them in check or tethered to reality. I always laugh at the end when the ladies leave our place because it is simply a sharing of emotions sessions. They don't share solutions between each other.
Thanks for the reply on this.
It all rings true.
I have the same thing with my girlfriend's peer group, though I don't interact with them, but get great war stories from her.
You are correct, there is an element of self-delusion, fueled by the radicals, where their how their attributed are valued by men is concerned.
You can see it in the aesthetic bar that they all jump to meet - fish lips, stenciled on brows, the botox, plasticized death masks, that look like every other woman walking by. Most men I know think it all looks clownish, but if you try and explain that to them - they'll say, "we're not doing it for you".
Fair enough, but then you can't ask where the men have gone, if you're intent on staying siloed in the radfem echo chamber.
This article is just a more intelligent and hygienic version of the 4B crowd. I say to both please keep going, you're doing a great job. The more they continue the easier it is to identify the real women of value and there are plenty out there.
That's retarded Hopium Delusion, Brezhnen. There are no women of value; All Women Are Like That.
There Is No Light.
Ashes and Echoes
Your contempt for the feminine is ugly. Yes, women are different from men; why respond to that by sneering?
Man, you’re doing the thing! You’re doing the thing where you inadvertently reveal that you don’t value education for its own sake — you only see it as a means to an end (in this case attracting a mate).
Highly educated people (yes, including the women) often get an education because they value intellectual pursuits, not just to attract someone with their money. If they want to “show off,” it’s to signal that they’re smart and interesting, and they want a partner who also values intelligence and education for its own sake, and intelligence is such a virtue valued with an almost religious fervor that they are willing to die alone if they can’t find someone who values it.
The inability of so many red pilled guys to understand this is why so many people dismiss you all as dumb chuds.
Do you make a habit of missing the point?
That the manosphere is filled with morons who mistake their preference for stupid or uneducated women as indicative of a universal male desire instead of the consequences of assortative mating is a oft-remarked observation. It just happened to show up in the wild here.
But if I've missed the point, then, tell me: how have I missed it? Don't rely on snarky one-liners. Make your argument.
Education credentials do not signal intelligence anymore, & are negative signals of the other things men value in women. He's not "doing the thing"*, PasMacabre is discussing these women's willful cluelessness about what attracts men & wildly inflated self- or group-appraisals. His expressed opinion on degrees is "they don't attract men".
*the fact you think college is a useful way of getting an education for its' own is tellingly out of touch. Getting an education on a subject can be had for mere time & discipline on the internet (MIT Opencourseware exists, among other curricula). Paying tens of thousands of dollars for the ability to work towards a degree does not necessarily impart an education, it largely filters access to the job market. "dOIng THe tHINg" is frankly just being remotely intelligent.
Lmao you can't be serious. Pursuit of truth and education matters for autists. Most women go to education for status signaling
Lol, You're an overeducated stuffed shirt and someone should chuck you off a building.
I want to push you on this a little bit, because I think you've gotten to peak in at a very interesting group of women and possibly see across a gender divide.
"Fightin' internet gender discourse" can be _so_ reductionist. You'd think that the only things that matter are money status and height for men and youth and physical attractiveness for women. What a dark view of the world that this is all humans can be.
If you're married and in a long term relationship, perhaps you've had the thought that other things matter too...is a partner kind, caring, fun, adventurous, brave, emotionally available, interesting...or is a partner cold, shut down, angry and resentful, aloof, petty, etc.
(Maybe someone reading this comment sees this as gendered, but I don't actually know which gender I have in mind writing these things...I think both men and women can show up in relationships in good and bad ways.)
So for our single ladies having a rough time of it, is the problem that:
- They are less desirable than they think by the narrow reductionist terms of gender discourse (e.g. they're not as hot as they think) or
- They are less desirable in intangible ways that don't get talked about (e.g. when in a relationship they don't give their partner a kind of loving attention that he wants and he decides it isn't worth staying) or
- They are casting a narrow net by looking at narrow criteria (gotta be 6'+ with a bunch of career status)?
An analysis I read in a different substack that I thought was pretty on target was the idea that women were the gate keepers of casual romantic relationships/sex and men were the gate keepers of long term romantic relationships/commitment. But in a world where the women filter first (start the relationship/sex before long term/intimate) women's filtering was having the perverse effect of not allowing women to cast a wide net for a long term relationship. (This was written by a man, so ... YMMV.)
If your wife's friends are going "we are eights, why is this so hard", and you were going to give them a reality check the way you would a guy friend, what does that sound like?
EDIT: sorry, I forgot to include...or are they *mis-valuing* themselves? E.g. "I have so much education, why aren't guys into that?" Self mis-valuation is at the heart of the whole "resentful guy who doesn't have the cards" phenomenon, it's just self aware, e.g. "I have a steady job that could support family formation...I know this makes me a '4' but I am resentful that it doesn't make me a '7'."
Hi Ben. I appreciate your feedback.
And, yes, fighting internet gender discourse can be a cuaguemire. Money, status and height for men and youth and physical attractiveness for women are not the only things that matter. However, I think we are all lying to ourselves today when both men and women are opting for those characteristics first. Whether this is driven by social media, the dating apps or any other medium doesn’t really matter.
If you are a guy who verbalizes those things, you are an uneducated far-right misogynist. And as woman verbalizing the requirements for men, you are a far-left, educated, misandrist. The reason why the former doesn’t bother most men anymore is because of being acclimated to those reductive characterization or rather caricature.
I think we are simply trying to transform each of the gender into something they are not and that comes with consequences. And yes, I do agree with women contract sex (i.e. short relationships) and men control long term/intimate. Men and women are fighting over both with a select few men actually having the upperhand (oh oh).
If your wife's friends are going "we are eights, why is this so hard", and you were going to give them a reality check the way you would a guy friend, what does that sound like?
I confess that I’m a blunt instrument and recognizing that I could never provide reality check to a woman the way I would a guy friend. I learnt a lot giving advice to my sister. However, what I find is the common thread is that most women think the relationship is about them and for them. We wrongly assume that historically, men were happy in relationships and the women didn’t have a choice and were miserable. I mentioned a burden of performance in a previous post and that burden of performance starts very early for boys and young men. The reason we are having a crisis with relationship formation is primarily because either because we are equal, women also have that burden of performance or young men today don’t see any value in carrying that burden for their partner. I believe it is more the latter.
The reason why I keep reminding my wife’s friend about mis-valuing is simple. If a product cost x and no one is willing to buy that product for x, then the product needs to reprice. Yes, this is a neanderthal thinking (I don’t use my Masters degree very well). Imagine if most guy walk around rating themselves 7 but really they are a 4, what do you think happens? You will have a bunch of men and women reminding that they are a 4.
Again, the reason young men, don’t want this burden of performance is simple, they can rate themselves closer to what they are. What they don’t want to do is thinking the burden of performance is 4 but have to work at a 7 level. That’s stupidity and a life with no peace. Yes, you can achieve short-term results but will be left with long term burden and scars.
Women think they are pricing themselves out of the dating market due to an overall overvaluing things that men on average don’t value at the same level and the opposite is also true of men. There is no longer a middle man/woman (your father/mother/aunts/uncles/grandmothers) to help with the valuation. The responsibility of valuing the other gender is all in one person’s hand or in people who are also not in relationships. I remember in the 90s, it was mostly single women giving advice on how to get a guy. Now we have non-commital men giving advice on how get a girl. The closer we get to parity, the weirder it will get.
You sound like a delusional Hopium Addict who's Squeamish About Feeling Bad.
Nothing Good Has Ever Happened.
But that completely contradicts his article! He is saying women have priced themselves out of the dating market and need to lower their standards. If there is no burden of performance for girls then why do you think they have priced themselves out of the dating market?
Furthermore, what you say is just incorrect. Girls have outperformed boys in schools going as far back as we have data, including when they had no expectation of going to college or earning a wage.
I was a little bit surprised by "lower their standards"...I think for the men who are looking at a sort of 'economy of the dating market' dynamic, the choice would be for older women to lower their price (lower their standards in the men they pick) or perform better (raise their value).
If you have a very narrow view of female value (be youthful and hot) then there's not much an older woman can do, so all you can do is lower your price.
I think where I get off the bus and don't like these kinds of discussions is how reductionist they are of the human experience.
And what the original article hints at here (I think mostly in the form of griping about double standards and hypocracy, but I must admit I read it on half a cup of coffee and probably retained less) is that older women could adopt a "do work on myself, be the best me" attitude toward themselves that is similar to what both men and women advocate as the cure for men who are having trouble finding women.
I don't think this is totally crazy...I think the idea "I can only control my end of the see-saw" in romantic relationships is a good one because it gives people agency without encouraging control, manipulation, etc. I am not sure what that self work would be.
Re: the burden of performance from the original commenter, I took that as men traditionally being the ones to show initiative and 'do the asking' in starting a relationship. But I think this ignores the covert initiative women have to do on their side.
you have good coffee (half a cup but better understanding than other commenters here)
And what has happened to the quality of education over the years?
If the quality of education is so bad, then why don't boys just race ahead of girls, if it's so easy? Oh, it's definitely because they *choose* not to, and if they put their mind to it, they would of course succeed wildly. Actual slacker mentality that is the favored worldview of losers everywhere. It definitely has nothing to do with average sex differences in conscientiousness. (And don't come at me with the old canard that education is "feminized" and discriminates against boys. If you think education was better in the past when we were beating boys and putting them in dunce caps, then you are more than welcome to make the retvrn argument for that schooling system! Sounds very pro-male!)
"Education is obviously worse" is literally just a factually unsupported view that you use to soothe your mind to the fact that a lot of boys are falling behind because of reasons that you accurately pinpoint in your article -- the availability of dopamine-destroying porn and video games that disproportionately affect a population that scores lower on conscientiousness and has higher rates of ADHD.
FWIW, education has probably gotten more competitive, at least at the highest levels. To my knowledge the average SAT scores at Ivy League schools has increased, and the average MCAT score has also increased.
SAT scores inflated is because the SAT was changed to be easier. For example, the reading passages for English were recently reduced in length. Sometime in the (early?) 00's I believe the math section was changed to remove the logic puzzles, which would have made the SAT far less IQ/intelligence-loaded.
I've never written an article on this site. That aside, "population that scores lower on conscientiousness and has higher rates of ADHD" would absolutely do worse under the regimented structure of public schooling. "Sit down, don't talk, by fastidious with your work & play nice with the teacher" absolutely selects for a particular personality type & energy level, ignoring concerns of the social & behavioral standards enforced. I can't imagine why this group might opt out of 4 more years of expensive schooling.
So apparently we agree on the grounds for "the old canard".
The hostile darts about pornography & video games are frankly misplaced. You try to throw some moral responsibility gotcha onto society-wide problems which start at around 11 years of age. Which we both know you won't be doing anything useful to help. This is counterproductive to any conversation, at all.
Oh, my bad, I thought you were the substack author.
I want to have a productive discussion. I worry about boys and men falling behind or dropping out, but I'm also worried about the fact that it seems the majority of spaces online dedicated to discussing men in society have become blatantly misogynistic. Ten years ago, I was also opposed to internet (and, when it seeped into the real world) tumblr feminism. Red pill stuff seems to me to be the exact mirror image of that. So I want to hear your solutions, rather than just blind rage about how bad the system is.
"Sit down, don't talk, by fastidious with your work & play nice with the teacher"
When has school *not* been like this? In the past, we dealt with children who misbehaved in this way using corporal punishment or public shaming. We have (imo rightfully) done away with that. But it seems like children lower in conscientiousness struggle with school, and this is attenuated by the fact that we require more years of schooling than in the past.
So what do you think we should do for low-conscientiousness children? Should we bring back corporal punishment? Should we require less school? You mock lowered SAT standards, but it is one actionable way to get more people to take the tests. It seems that one way to get low-conscientiousness children to do better in school without hitting them or kicking them out of school is to "lower standards" in some way, the same way making the SAT easier increases access to less intelligent people in a world that values education.
And I 100% hate dopamine-addiction forming infinite scrolling social media. I try not to use it in my own life and I think there should be government regulations around it.
Are you a feminist?
You don't know what you're talking about. Average IQ of students dropped significantly and what else could we expect when college went from 3% of population to 30?
Lol, that's just because The Jews have ruined the school systems. Why are you such a BUTTFAGGOT Simp?
That NYT article is bait. Pure bait, nothing else. Don’t even get mad about it. No one who buys into it is worth ten seconds of your time.
"How do you write good female characters? Write a male character, but take out reason and accountability."
Drucker is this saying personified. I wondered if I was reading the New York Times or the Onion at one point.
And I would honestly say that I want this woman to be a pariah; it would be much better for society at large. I could point to her as an example to be kid on how not to live life.
This comment section is extremely misogynistic. Although I found the article’s argument to be muddled, I largely took it to advocate throwing off traditional gender roles, which I agree with. But no one is going to take your arguments seriously, OP, if you don’t push back on this kind of bile. You’ll only attract troglodytes with little influence on the real world.
The article is not about pushing back against gender roles? I sympathized greatly with the article but k don’t think that’s what it’s about.
If anything the article reinforces them. ‘Men should act like they used to’ is its thesis.
Which article are we talking about? The NYT one or this Substack one? I am referring to this substack one, and, although I think the argument is muddled, it does read to me to obviously be advocating for women to take up traditionally masculine roles (like pursuing) in a modern dating landscape.
No, you're just misandric, causing things that are true and accurate to appear misogynistic to you.
Fix yourself and do better.
For a woman in her fifties, taking the passive approach to finding a man ("inviting and leaving the door open") is delusional. Women in their twenties whose level of attractiveness is average or better can usually get away with taking the passive approach, because there are plenty of interested guys who will seek them out.
After a woman reaches thirty or thirty-five-ish, she usually can't get away with passivity anymore, because she doesn't have the same cards she had when she was younger. The number of interested men drops precipitously as she gets older and older, and simply being female isn't going to be enough to command attention and desire anymore. This doesn't mean all hope is lost, but it does mean that a woman has to be more proactive to make up for her disadvantages in the marketplace, and she has to have something to offer a man, other than just having a vagina. It sounds harsh, and it's politically incorrect, but I don't make the rules, ladies...men's biology does. Men can't turn off their attraction mechanisms any more than women can.
This woman will probably have a uniquely hard time because she's uniquely terrible in the way she brags about her career manipulating men.
Like, imagine a red pill guy was having trouble dating and you find out he has an article titled "What Defending Domestic Abusers in Court Taught me About Masculinity" - where he extols the dark virtues of his abusive clients.
It's not even that his job was immoral necessarily, it's his gleeful attitude toward hurting women
That’s not going to negatively impact his dating life, sorry.
Lol
I was inspired to write
https://andrewhastie.substack.com/p/women-where-have-you-gone-please
I read it. 🤣
Here’s a real question. Look at a group of women say together (which obviously won’t be dating these days in person) and listen for their humming and singing - it’s gone.
The American woman’s bird song is gone. I didn’t realize it until one day few years ago I heard a maid who was Hispanic humming along happily to herself as she was vacuuming, and I realized I hadn’t heard it in years. That is not natural and that is their instincts telling them something, it’s not that they miss us. You would think a scout would’ve noticed sooner, but I finally did.
What I notice listening in public is there is hardly any music or invitation in the speaking voices either.
The Bird song stopped by instinct. They are afraid.
Because they’re alone.
Just like they said.
So true tragic 😓
She proudly declared she “optimized” online porn engagement among 18 -35 year old men. (Surely none younger 🙄). You absolute ghoul. I don’t think women or gay men get how toxic “porn” is for straight men because of the gender dynamic. They’re watching women get defiled and apparently love it from the onset of puberty. Besides the ignoble voyuerism and sadism, that’s primal hetero-male rage bait. No dis to women or gay men, but for many hetero men porn is toxic rage-bait and appeals to the worst in men. It’s terrorism. Its purpose is to terrify women and enrage men. Foisting it on the population empowers predators and is literally about demoralizing our society. It preys on teens and weaponizes puberty against boys.
Statistically, porn that depicts violence against women (and violent porn in general) is more popular among women than it is among men. Which makes sense when you consider the fact that men are hard-wired to protect and care for women (if they weren't, the human speckes wouldn't have survived), and women are hard-wired to partner up with the strongest, most dominant men for protection and provision (like it or not, violence is often a proxy for strength and dominance). I'm not saying there aren't any men who are aroused by sadism, but there are significantly fewer of those men than the amount of violent porn on the Internet would suggest.
Ya agree. The shit they put out I don’t believe anyone wants. Its purpose is to be as demeaning and demoralizing an experience as possible for the consumer or website visitor. They hate their “customers “
It’s boys who wete lured by internet porn into video libraries of primal rage bait driving the demand
I stomped all over you with #MeToo and claims of your toxic masculinity, now please come back!
The article is actually less intelligent than that.
There's an interesting theory sort of hiding in the bushes here. When women withdraw from dating, men struggle to get dates, for the simple reason that there aren't as many available women around. When men withdraw from the dating, women struggle to get commitment; but for a more convoluted reason. A minority of men are willing to obsessively increase their dating output in response to any gaps in the market, so when the average guy drops out, he is immediately replaced by a commitment-phobe. When men drop out, the perceived value of men drops, because women start interacting exclusively with the jerkwads.
I think you’re spot on and this should be discussed as a primary mechanism of these hardships
“I'm not implying that she should be a pariah” Maybe you should be. Women have never been more far removed from the consequences of their actions and lifestyles than they are now. In fact our sick society rewards them for being as transgressive as possible.
Shame Every Last Trollop.
Titanium Burkhas.
For a man who wants to sacrificially love a wife and family for his life work, what does a high value woman look like? Someone with a beautiful soul, a beautiful body, enough maturity to raise children and put up with him, and similar values. Those are the cards.
Its a pretty common behavior to never apologize or have any sense that they are even capable of being a problem.
I think the boring truth (that you get at) about all this discourse is that neither men nor women prioritize relationships (or put forth the effort to get into them, at least) the way they used to.
This doesn't mean that the status quo we've arrived at is ideal--I think in the end, both genders could use some friendly pushes into dating in a deliberate fashion, as I do think it's the generally uncomfortable option that nonetheless leads to longer-term happiness, but I don't think it's the special fault of one gender or the other (contrary to what 90% of people who talk about this sort of thing say).
I do think, though, that people liable to complain about the general status quo wrt their own lack of success need to touch grass and change their own behaviors more than anything else.
Shut the fuck up you coked out trollop Shyster. Nothing you say counts for shit because your womb is polluted with Cocaine and you never had children.
Male Failure Is Default; Female Failure Is Unforgivable.
someone was having a normal one four days ago
Bitch, this is my every day. There is no Normal One, There is only Eternal Misery.