Where to start here? I guess I'll begin with a disagreement. If we’re being honest, Tate has a lot of good takes. They get drowned out a lot by his absolute shit takes most of the time, but anytime he chooses to focus his message of the moment on "Men, go out and better yourselves," well there we go. Granted, that's about as milquetoast of a take as there is, but hey, Jordan Peterson made his millions off of telling people to get off their ass and clean their room so I guess this is where we're at.
As for the rest of your point here, I think this is one of those hard-to-swallow reddish black pills that so many people of either gender don't want to admit. You're right, there is no negotiating attraction or perceived status. It's binary, a yes or no, when everything else like stupid dating mind games of playing hard-to-get and the like has been boiled away.
Men don't like to hear it because it's proof that there exists a point on the scale where the real answer is "Why bother?" Like the meme showing I think it was Bezos with a model he was supposed to be dating yet there was a wide gap between them as he held her, "All the money in the world cannot close that gap," it said. Wish I could still find it. Obviously that wasn't true for Bezos in all cases, but it certainly was with that particular woman.
Women don't like to hear it because it pokes holes in the lies we all tell ourselves, that voice in your head that says "Nah, I'm not like that, I'm not that shallow, I'm different, I'm a good person!" Nobody who's not a sociopath likes to think of themselves as cruel, as willing to crush another person's feelings carelessly.
Yet that's what happens every time a woman is approached by a man honestly but that she doesn't desire and she reacts with visible disgust. Which is both a very particular set of circumstances yet at the same time something that happens uncommonly often, especially today.
To toss your own analogy back at you Kristin, you're right that when you boil it all down, a man asking a woman out is all of those things. But at the same time, for most honest men it is also this "I believe that I may want to eventually dedicate my life to your wellbeing. Here is all that I am currently. Do you accept that?" I like your stuff a lot Kristin, but as a woman you'll never quite get just how terrifying it is to do that, and how absolutely soul crushing it is to get a normal rejection, much less the visible disgust we're talking about here. And practically every man in the world has experienced it at least once in their life, even the 10/10, 6'5, 6-pack, multimillionaire Chad Thundercocks of the world.
The worst part is that it proves a subset of the incels right. I'm talking about the real ones, not the lazy shits who won't go out and follow those points where Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson happen to agree; lift weights, work hard, become capable of being dangerous if necessary, and clean your room bucko! No, I mean the real incels, the men who never had a chance and have every right to feel aggrieved that society fed them a complete lie about how the sexes interact so as to avoid the discomfort of having to sit down and explain that they lost the game before they even played.
It's the worst part because it seems like that movement as a whole gets larger and louder every year, and that's definitely not good for any one.
This is a really thoughtful comment and yes, I can imagine approaching is truly terrifying. Especially since girls have been known to record men and post them online, calling them horrible names just for saying hi. There's so much gross behavior. My audience skews heavily male, so this article was trying to explain something to them about women, in the context of how things are in society (rather than how we wish they were). I also wanted to frame it as something achieveable. Especially since the "chad thundercock" model of manhood isn't what you see when you look at newly married men or those who have long-term partners. The social media can show us the worst of humanity and male-female interractions, I hate that we've all become so cynical, believing these clickbait skits represent the whole picture. Single people just have to climb the ladder of progression. Are your looks squared away? Do you come off as someone she'd be proud to be linked to? Okay, now make sure she's the one you want to provide happiness and security for.
I wish more people on both sides of the gender aisle would follow that last few pieces of advice you said there. And I'd add in one of my own, ancient words of wisdom from wise sages indeed, "Be excellent to each other." Our society would definitely be better off if men and women could just do that more often.
Lots of this "I'M SICK OF THE GENDERRRR WARRRRS WHY CAN'T EVERYONE BE NICE TO EACH OTHER NOW BECAUSE MEN ARE SAD" is just coping because men can't get away with what they used to, in a minority of the world.
Men never thought to be nice to all women when they could keep women out of school, employment, politics, etc. Now they're reeling because they can't legally rape their wives anymore and women can get their own bank accounts, and you think being nice to everyone is going to solve it.
I just wanted to comment on this part: "Especially since the "chad thundercock" model of manhood isn't what you see when you look at newly married men or those who have long-term partners."
I recommend any man reading this please just go out to your local shopping center. Go to your church. Go anywhere you see people. I mall walk a lot and—good lord—the absolute schlubs you see walking around with (decently cute if not attractive) women! Even through my work I've seen the guys attractive, educated women with law degrees have for husbands.
The coupled aren't generally Maxim and Cosmopolitan models. They're just regular people! They're generally not misshapen mutants either!
There are tons of things that make dating difficult, I'm in the mess same as a lot of men and women, but we get so caught up on looks as THE major problem keeping men single. Not to say it isn't a part of the problem, but I don't think it's the main one. Seriously any men reading this just go see who the women are paired off with. It *should* be a confidence boost. Or heck, just ask ChatGPT to make a looksmatch if that's out of the question. It's not for lack of being an 11/10 Chad keeping you single!
I'd probably rephrase it but essentially I don't think there's any "main" problem. There's all sorts of issues affecting men and women that make the actual goal of relationship formation harder to achieve. The focus on how one looks isn't unimportant, but the guys who focus on looks *really* focus on it. But it just takes looking at the men who *are* in relationships to see there's more at play than just looks.
I'll expand on this because it doesn't add much. Just because average guy in relationship isn't attractive doesn't mean that attractiveness isn't important in getting relationship. Just so many people are in relationship that it's mathematically impossible for average couple to be immensely attractive
I was just in Costco today. I'm 50, over 6' tall, in decent shape, retired and financially stable. I saw exactly 4 women out of hundreds who were height/weight proportional. I saw slightly more men who were. The schlubbery is strong on both sides of the gender aisle.
This makes sense, however... The reality for even average or slightly-above-average men is that they don't qualify. That window of achievable might as well be the firing slit of a medieval castle with all of the implications that the metaphor contains. And, all the while, these men who are the 5's through 8's are being told by very mid women - and even objectively unattractive women - the overweight, the ones with multiple baby daddies, the ones on mood stabilizers, the ones who've defaced themselves with body piercings and tattoos and kool-aid hair - all the things and increasing number of men understand to be serious red flags - these men are being told they don't stack up. This is the thing that creates the black pill doomers and is especially socially damning for the true incels: the unrepentant intractable divorce from realistic standards. As Pook sagely observed so many years ago, most women would prefer to share an alpha than settle for monogamy with a faithful man they perceive as a beta. Finally, for every point that you make about a woman wanting to be with a man of whom they can be proud, so, too do men want a woman to whom they are proud to be married. These sorts of women are every bit as scarce as their male counterparts. But try telling a woman who's 5'4" and 200 lbs that maybe it's unrealistic to expect to be chosen for a relationship by a 6+ foot tall neurosurgeon millionaire...
~~hey, Jordan Peterson made his millions off of telling people to get off their ass and clean their room so I guess this is where we're at.~~
As I've joked for awhile, isn't it amazing how when you have a generation growing up with a dearth of fathers, there seems to be an explosion of father figures right as that generation reaches the age they needed them most?
You joke but honest to God the "common sense" he was giving came at a time when I needed it most, and I wasn't getting it from anywhere else! Peterson, Tate, and the rest wouldn't be big-name figures if they weren't filling in a massive void. I don't say that positively, of course.
Oh i’m not entirely joking for the reason you’re exactly right.
Too many seem to assume that “common wisdom” just floats down into people’s minds like oxygen, when it actually requires work and teaching like any other knowledge. The difference is that once upon a time, that work and teaching was so distributed across all of society, that it all felt effortless and like oxygen.
That distributed network has become incredibly disrupted for several decades now. The ones I’ve seen mock Peterson the hardest seem to be the ones who don’t understand how deprived the generation after them are of something they take for granted.
I do not mock JBP for this reason, because I see how much people need him (and I’ve been expecting figures like him to arise for a decade or more).
"And practically every man in the world has experienced it at least once in their life, even the 10/10, 6'5, 6-pack, multimillionaire Chad Thundercocks of the world."
Indeed. There really is no such thing as Chad Thundercock; just a number of men revolving through that position. When you're really on top of your shit, working out, dressing well, feeling good about life, and at a venue where you vibe - that's when you get to be Chad. But that level of energy isn't maintainable long-term, eventually you're going to have to work 60 hours a week for a year (and your fitness will suffer), or you'll get injured, or a life tragedy (death or betrayal by a loved one) will deflate your energy, and suddenly you'll just become a regular guy again.
This is the core of my frustration with the endless carousel. That it's not a question of "Where will you be in 5 years?" but "Where are you right now?"
Yeah a lot of the guys whining online are utterly pathetic and repulsive, but you're missing a very important piece of the puzzle: women tend to make absolutely terrible decisions.
Do you know how many women roll with *literally* dirty dudes who stink, have disgustingly greasy hair, and are so broke they have to bum money from their girl to buy a can of redbull? As someone whose worked in bars and a ski resort for years, I can tell you it's *a lot* of young women.
Obviously the whiney internet shut-in with an anime avatar is repulsive, but it's not like the degenerate dirtbag with more molly pills than dollar bills is an example of a good pick, but lots of young women pick that guy with zero hesitation.
That type of woman likely grew up without a father. Just being real; I had a friend (RIP) who had awful taste in men. She didn't understand about standards, about how to evaluate. She grew up in a household where very girl had a different dad, and it took me a long time to understand the implications of not having a template for a good man. I grew up with a father, and Kristin is correct: If I had picked any of the sort of men my fatherless friend picked, I would have to explain myself to my family first. Especially since I have my father as an example.
All of the men my friend picked fell *so* far short of the example my father set that my family would think I was stupid, or wonder if I was on drugs or something to pick such a loser. My friend was neglected as a child, so she would have thought it judgmental to rule out a man with poor hygiene. After all, she was sent to school with a dirty face and uncombed hair, and she wasn't a bad person, so who is she to judge? She had this mental block about having standards, because she confused it with being judgmental. I've noticed that especially in younger generations the very concept of standards is considered "bad" or "problematic" in some way.
“She had this mental block about having standards, because she confused it with being judgmental. I've noticed that especially in younger generations the very concept of standards is considered "bad" or "problematic" in some way.”
Omg THIS. It’s to blame for so many of the horrible sex and dating behavior we see
For us men, yes. For women there’s a nuance in definitions. They don’t considering being judgmental as “using good judgment” which I think is what we do. They define judgmental more akin to “discriminatory” or “cruel” which obviously have negative connotations.
Yeah and you can be judgmental to somebody without necessarily judging them on the moral and spiritual level. If a guy is bad at hygiene or work ethics I’m not saying he’s a malicious person. But I probably don’t want to date him. Whether I’m willing to date someone is not a judgement on their moral worth
There are 2 axes of female acceptance. The spoken one is how he presents and invests. The unspoken one is “strong and exciting,” for a wide range of what that means.
Men can win privately with the second and NOT the first. That isn’t deviant, it’s widespread, and if you need the explanation that is itself a negative filter for the unspoken axis #2.
Public winning and commitment is a harder row to hoe with that combo, for relevant reasons on *both* sides. Which is why that combo breaks many female hearts. But if he triggers other girls on “strong and interesting,” that preselection is itself social proof on axis #1. Hence non-hidden, and then you see it and ask “is she really going out with HIM?”
Yeah I was going to stay basically the same thing but you pretty much summed it up for me. The author basically blows her own thesis by refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are lots of low value women out there.
None of this is an argument against repealing the 19th.
While I'm not really an advocate for that, there's plenty of good reasons why women never should've been given the right to vote.
Put simply, they don't build society in the way men do. Not even remotely close.
They give birth to new humans, of course. But so does every woman in a bumfuck county no one has heard of.
Men naturally have more skin in the game, women do not.
Also, your average woman in the U.S. is equal to the man in the photo by physical standards alone. Your average woman 18-65 has a very high body fat percentage.
While I agree desire can't be negotiated, that's beside the point. If the 19th would be repealed it wouldn't or at least shouldn't be done so men like this can chain her up to the bed and stove.
It would be on the grounds that women still do not contribute to society or infrastructure as men do and thus failed to earn equal say in policy. Plus they don't go and fight the wars.
I was using “repeal the 19th crowd“ loosely in reference to the online group who advocates for the abolition of higher education except for the hard sciences, perhaps barring women from the workforce, removing no fault divorce, or any divorce at all. Speaking only on the issue of the 19th amendment, I too, am firmly against universal suffrage. Though it would take a more brilliant mind than my own to decide voting rights in accordance with a free country that is also prosperous rather than one that exploits the earners in favor of the takers.
Yea I kinda figured since you talked about multiple different things I only hit on that harder because it was in the subtitle so forgive me for ranting on about that.
It's certainly vastly more than there are female equivalents. We could go on to famous composers even more famous philosophers, scientists, artists... Even today, with all the vaunted choice and access available to them, the female contingent has yet to produce artistic, scientific, creative, industrial or commercial titans on the scale of what men have achieved. Even with the top ten (or is it 20) wealthiest women, all but two inherited their wealth, or obtained it by divorce. There used to be three female self made billionaires in that upper echelon, but... Theranos...
You used screenshot of tweet as example for "loser who wants to force women to be attracted to him" so I'll defend his positions. First is limiting women from prestigious positions. It's good policy because women don't want to date men with lower socioeconomical status and all men won't outcompete all women even in "equal playing field". Add to that the fact that playing field isn't equal and you get massive problem in dating and matrimonial market. Second is fighting hook up culture which also is good. If you want people to date seriously instead of fucking each other chasing dopamine hits and destroying their ability to form meaningful relationships then why is it bad thing?
Also it's his saving fertility policies which makes even more sense. Career oriented boss bitches have less children because that would hurt their career.
Robert Heinlein did this decades ago: citizenship to be earned by meritorious service. Otherwise you were a legal born-naturalized resident. No one was forced to serve, but you had to serve in order to vote or to hold office.
You didn't build any society today. You played video games for 10 hours.
Lol "fight wars"? Why don't you be logical and not start them in the first place? Is that how you build--destroy everything because you can't control yourself?
Thanks for proving my point--men shouldn't be allowed to vote. There's a reason Afghanistan is a disgusting failure and Finland is superior, and nobody is leaving Finland.
Btw, obesity isn't about women not voting. That's an entire other issue that is unrelated to your nonsense. Men have higher obesity rates anyway.
The overwhelming majority of oil field workers, electricians, construction workers, engineers, power linemen, firefighters, police officers, combat vets, loggers, and welders are men. Yes, we still build society on a scale women would never be capable of.
There's zero data to back up what you just said. Women wouldn't last a month without those roles being filled and they wouldn't fill them themselves.
You also forget that test tube babies are a thing. Yep, artificial wombs. The world would not be a better place without men. You only believe this believe this because you're retarded lol
Actually, we'd only need to get rid of 13% of men to drop the crime rates by half. Ironically, it's the female voters who've made that 13% increasingly hard to deal with for the civilized portion of the population.
I'm not saying that *should* be our policy. I'm just sayin'.
Apparently you should have provided an exhaustive list of male-dominated occupations and/or male contributions to the labor force, inventions, productivity, etc. Something tells me it’s just a wee bit more than 1%. Lol.
I can't wait for tomorrow for when Kristin reprints this article exactly just swapping the genders in it. ;)
I do wonder how much dating woes nowadays are people's refusal to understand the reality of trade-offs. Women want a rich guy with a iron bod? Ok fair enough. But the time requirement to get that rich AND work out to get that body is basically going to leave the guy with about... 2 hrs a week to spend with a girl. Not unless you're going to start joining him and helping him out. (and hey, I think it's awesome to see couples at the gym) Sole exception would be to marry a guy who's job IS physically demanding on him too - like a farmer. (Not sure how popular those guys are though... Though a lot of my cousins have gotten happily married.)
I do find it annoying that today the discussion seems to assume our only choices are between arranged marriages vs the current state of absolute anarchy. Maybe we can find some moderate ground between them where we have some structure to courtship so men and women can navigate mating while protecting both parties?
Let's be clear. The girls actually bagging the six pack, 6 foot, 6 zeroes are on the same program. I don't know any millionaires seriously bringing home fat bartenders
Well those girls can devote more time to their fitness and looks by foregoing career aspirations. A lot of actual reasons for pay gaps is that women often take jobs that offer more flexible times which pay less. That does not hurt their chances with men.
They didn’t suck less, they just died younger and in greater numbers. And also women had to settle for whatever man would have them in order to have children or have a home. Now they don’t have to settle.
It seems to me that by most metrics women care about in practice: conscientiousness, fitness, verbal iq, status seeking, men were better off in the past then they are now with relaxed standards for women.
That's a myth that they "settled". The fact that modern women still end up not getting the men they truly desire 80% of the time proves they still have to "settle". It's also pure speculation and a matter of perspective what settling even means for either sex.
One could easily argue that women didn't settle at all back then because they actually landed and got commitment from men who were still higher in value than them but only by a slight bit enough to satisfy the hypergamous side of things.
Now they (on occasion) get with guys so far out of their league they never end up getting commitment from them because let's be honest, these men have zero reason to commit. They can easily replace her with someone younger and hotter.
Women had to settle because they had no choices and couldn't access employment, education, or their own bank accounts.
Men think women actually picked them, rather than settling out of desperation in a system rigged by men.
Lol replacing with "younger and hotter"? Fine, then why would any woman agree to marry a man if he hates her that much? Thanks for admitting women are right for avoiding male trash.
This statement you made has zero basis in reality. Women in general have never really been oppressed or "treated like crap" throughout all of human history. Women have always enjoyed the status of the protected sex.
Yeah, women were protected during the Roman Empire when men could legally beat their wives to death under paterfamilias. Or under American law until the 1970s when they couldn’t get their own bank account, or until the 1940s where they weren’t accepted into medical school.
Yes, they couldn't have bank accounts or credit cards. So they also couldn't collect or be put into debt. Now women carry most of the college tuition debt. Congratulations. Lol
I'm not sure what you're basing this on. Even in "the olden days" when women lived with their parents until marriage, courtship standards meant the man doing the courting had to pass muster with her family. I wish I could remember the journal or article where I saw this discussed, but basically:
1) Who were his people? Were they respectable? 2) What did he bring to the table? Did he come from money, or could he make an honest living? 3) What was HIS reputation? Prone to drunken brawls, or did he show up clean to church? Did he have the respect of his peers?
Note in this case the woman (and her family) are holding the cards here. Having to pass muster with the woman and *her* family contributed to social pressure for a man to NOT be a loser. Treating the woman as second class was not the path to masculine greatness, removing the power from the woman and her family is a path to dysfunction.
If you're stuck on this point -- this belief that a lack of women's freedom is a social good -- consider this: Social scientists noticed a phenomenon post-WWI that's applicable to our modern age. Specifically, villages across France lost an entire generation of young men during the Great War. Men of family-starting age. As a result, the women (who still had the drive to reproduce) demonstrated *why* Bronze Age cultures engaged in polygyny: with a dearth of men, period, let alone men who could fulfill the parameters of quality, the women flocked to the few men left. In the pre-Christian ages you would see prosperous older men benefitting from this.
But the women of the post-war 20th century in that situation were obliged to lower their own standards of conduct. After all, they couldn't just move out and go to a town with more men, could they? Live on their own? Go to university? Strike out on their own to start their own business to put food on their table? Not in the age where the norm is to remain all your life in the town of your birth. So with fewer men available to them, and no *evil* freedom to give them options, easier virtue becomes the most optimal reproductive strategy, where before it wasn't.
Tandem with this, women also lowered the standards for the quality of men they picked. The losers they would have bypassed before, now stood a chance. We can see in our modern age the dysfunction this produces. I have never, not once, witnessed a positive outcome for having a woman think that "there is nothing better out there for me." When she thinks a loser is all there is, she gets with the the loser. He stays a loser, because unlike previously, he doesn't have to be a better man to get a woman. In the long run, she loses, he loses, their children lose, and the society around them loses.
>Note in this case the woman (and her family) are holding the cards here. Having to pass muster with the woman and *her* family contributed to social pressure for a man to NOT be a loser.
In practice, this produced generations of men who were not losers. What have the standards of modern day produced?
1) It assumes women’s standards filter for the right traits by default.
2) It ignores how the disdain for “sub standard men” leads to social changes that can be harmful.
For 1), I often see the argument women rejecting men is right because it is darwinian. This ignores the fact that a lot of traits are natural, but we restrict them in order to maintain society. What we evolved to be attracted to was based on how humans lived for most of human history, in tribal societies. Modern civilization is a relatively new phenomenon and requires limitations of natural behaviors, every enduring culture I’ve ever known about valued things like chastity, monogamy, and often arranged marriages.
If you don’t believe me, explain why so many women end up with men who cheat on them, abuse them, or are just unempathetic or uncaring. Was that the result of them just ignoring their instincts and going for “sub standard men”? I don’t think so. There is plenty of examples of women going for men who are clearly bad for long term relationships. The “bad boy” trope. Various studies have even found men higher in dark triad traits like narcissism can be more attractive. One example we take for granted is confidence. The main way people become confident is when they do something a lot and get used to it, or have lots of fall back options. As a result a guy who has been with tons of women and has plenty of women to choose from would be more confident than a guy who doesn’t, does that mean he will be a better long term partner?
The way you describe what men are asking of women when they pursue them, getting them alone, putting them in a vulnerable position, would imply to men the best way to gain a woman’s interest is being as gentle and non-threatening as possible, perhaps even feeble to be less physically intimidating. But we all know those are generally not the traits of the most attractive men, as reflected in erotic literature popular among women such as 50 shades of grey. (Though yes, trust is also relevant).
If women really were the best selectors, and have more selecting power than ever before, you’d think we’d be hearing about women being far more in successful relationships and satisfied with the dating climate. Instead the discourse is even more hostility, and endless complaints about “situationships” or “love bombing”.
Regarding 2), as you point out its not just rejection, but often hostility. We are seeing this manifest in changes in social etiquette, but this doesn’t just effect “sub standard men”. The more the cultural message is hostility towards men pursuing women, the less socially conscious men will do it. Likely that also includes men who are higher in empathy. Almost every month I see viral posts among young women on tiktok or twitter either bemoaning how modern men aren’t approaching or courting women enough or correctly, or demonizing and complaining about how men still approach them or pursue them. While it makes sense that individually women are hostile to men they view as sub standard pursuing them, and also want men who they view as standard or above pursuing them, that’s lost in a cultural message because the man really doesn’t know what she will clock him as before he makes a move.
There was a viral study claiming a large rise in younger men not bothering to approach women, the base of the data was essentially a survey shared on Twitter so I don’t know how accurate it is, but anecdotally it does seem to me there is a growth in men checking out of pursuing women in person at all. I don’t think women’s hostility to sub standard men is the main reason why, but I suspect it is a factor.
It also ignores that the hostility itself makes substandard men worse. Women are repelled by men with low self esteem, negative mindsets, and neediness. Most men will just become more like this the less positive experience they get with women. It’s easy to be high self esteem and not needy when you feel like people like you. Much harder when people insult you for even trying. This can just make people spiral and become even worse as they become more negative and receive more negative reactions.
"Was that the result of them just ignoring their instincts and going for “sub standard men”? I don’t think so."
What are you basing that on? The friend I spoke about in a post above this actually DID ignore her instincts. It was something we talked about, how she had this disconnect. She was genuinely adrift, because again, she did not have a father. She didn't even know who he was. The kind of women you're describing tend to be fatherless, they tend to be searching for what they were supposed to have had while growing up: Love, affirmation, validation, and protection from a man. This has been a problem in American society since the 60s, I'm curious why so few are picking up on the consequences of fatherlessness.
My friend broke the cycle in her family by having her children IN wedlock, but she mentioned her ex-husband cheated on her and never brushed his teeth. He at one point had them leaving in a vermin-infested house.
Before you condemn her, I'll point out that if you grew up with two parents in a loving, middle class (or working class) house hold, a lot of what seems like common sense really isn't. My friend was neglected as a child, so hygiene wasn't a given. Being able to distinguish a sign of dysfunction vs. bad luck was difficult for her. Being unable to spot seemingly obvious danger signs in a person led her to becoming victimized. Loving parents teach their kids to spot these signs, but she didn't have that advantage.
She grew up poor, so expecting a potential boyfriend to have an adult level income -- meaning, having his own place without roommates or living with his parents -- came across as judgmental to her. Which made it difficult to spot hobosexuals. Yes, the B is there on purpose, hoBosexuals are moochers who are attracted to those who have a place to live.
Anyway, when you see a woman constantly choosing the wrong kind of man, ask yourself what template she had for choosing a good one. More than likely she didn't have one. And I suspect the unsuccessful Tinder-guy Kristin wrote about did not have a father to help him out, either.
As i read your post, i wondered to myself "Perhaps she doesnt understand how similar the genders are when it comes to this"? Which might explain the disdain some men also feel about this issue.
Yes, we fully understand that there are few things worse than being with an embarrassing significant other. We know.
Why do you think a vast majority of men want nothing to do with fatties? It goes beyond the physical repulsion of having to deal with her giant arms, big back and fupa. That can be tolerated in private.
Publicly though? No man WANTS to be seen with a fatty. No man wants to introduce a fatty to his friend group as his serious girlfriend 🤢🤮. It is humiliating and tells other men "Hey i'm so low value all i could get was a fatty".
Now if you're a woman reading this and it stings, i'll offer you thesame advice the author offered to the men. YOU can do something about it. But do you? Nah... You spend years chastizing men for not wanting to date overweight women. You coin terms like "Big Beautiful Women" and on dating apps you write "Swipe left if you're not into Big women" like its supposed to be this thing we as a society just accept. The equivalent of that is that fish guy writing "Swipe left if you're not into losers". Its all laughable.
The worst part? A woman loser is significantly easier to change than the issues the men you describe are facing.
You dont need to make a lot of money, you dont need to be highly educated, charismatic, confident, assertive etc. For you... Just be nice, not promiscous and not fat. THATS IT. Fit, feminine and friendly.
Yet, these same OBJECTIVELY embarrassing women will look at a man who is quite literally their looks match and say "Sorry i cant be with you because you will embarrass me".
Its almost like you're implying: "Most women including the fatties are perfect the way they are and are JUSTIFIED in rejecting you for being embarrassing even though they are just as equally embarrassing". And that is the issue. The delusion. Every woman is a 10!
Most embarrassing men KNOW they are embarrassing. They KNOW they are losers. What they dont understand is why women who are equally losers act above them.
Unlike the objectively embarrassing women, these loser men would be absolutely overjoyed and content to have their looks match as a partner. They are not delusional...
The source of rage comes from the realization that "I'm willing to accept her even though shes objectively embarrassing because I too am embarrassing, but shes not willing to accept me because she thinks she deserves thesame man Halle Berry can command".
Thats the rage. And its a justified, rightous rage. Thats the part i would love you to address.
“Most embarrassing men KNOW they are embarrassing. They KNOW they are losers. What they dont understand is why women who are equally losers act above them.” Because male thirst creates an unequal power balance. Women are happier being single than settling for an embarrassing man. Men would rather settle for an embarrassing woman than be single. And women know that. So at least in terms of bargaining power at the acquisition stage of dating… they ARE above men
Yes, except it is not thirst. At 20 if I could have got the kind of girlfriend who tells me she loves me and kisses me both in private and public, but at the cost of never actually having sex, I would have absolutely gladly accepted this. I wanted a relationship far more than sex.
I am 47 and was thinking about this thing on and off for over a quarter century, and I am still not 100% sure what was going on. I think there might have been something with my mother, perhaps, she loved me too conditionally and I needed some other woman to love me unconditionally, now I am leaning towards this explanation but still not sure. All I know is that all four socio-sexual loser boys in high school were a lot like this. We all wanted some kind of a Virgin Mary type archetypical mother figure to worship on a pedestal. Sex was not important.
But isn't this the same with Tinder Guy? Doesn't he look like someone who has an invisible but certainly very towering mother figure written all over him? He is easy to imagine being 3 and holding mom's hand, right?
A lot of the mysteriousness about how to be an attractive man is to really leave the inner child behind, it is mostly that simple.
Men would rather settle but for what? Relationship or sex?! That’s somewhat of an equaliser of the power imbalance you describe. Only somewhat as we also want to leave a legacy.
who is to say that a man is “sub-standard”? The feminist-driven culture blames and shames men for everything, so many have simply walked away. MGTOW is a thing and has been very successful .
Which is why men are increasingly going MGTOW, and walking away from women, dating sex, and especially marriage. Then Rachel Drucker writes in the New York Times, "Men, please come back". But they won't, because they have bigger fish to fry.
A man would have to be an idiot to get married under today's "family court" laws. Why men keep volunteering to walk into the wood chipper on this is beyond me. Marriage is just the worst deal available. She cheats on you and divorces you and you have to keep paying her for it for years into the future. It's worse if you have kids. She will weaponize them against you
You should give up on online dating and just meet girls the old ways - friend of friend, colleague, etc. As long as you aren’t an asshole or right wing you’ll be fine, very average guys get partners. Just don’t aim out of your league.
True, but that’s only half the battle. It’s very important to vet women for the smallest sign of feminism, as that can be a man’s undoing. That’s not “right wing”, that is Red Pill common sense.
I think what frank and many others are saying, is that a man is not sub standard due to being undesirable to a particular woman. This kind of is how a lot of women think, though. The “sexually unattractive to me, personally” has translated into ridiculous social exile that’s not appropriate for what the guy did, which is typically nothing wrong.
The article is talking about two different things here, casual sex or an actual relationship. For casual sex, the bar is pretty low, women will fuck a homeless guy. For an actual relationship, the requirements will vary from woman to woman.
Yes and no. If the casual sex is utterly clandestine, you're correct. But if her friend group/family is aware of her situationship status with the guy, she's still judged for sleeping with him if he's substandard in their eyes. "Oh, that's who you roll with? Okay girl..."
I have (on one occasion) seen card tricks work on a pretty lady. The young man was average looking but had a Gambit-like swag to him and a Marlboro red dangling from his lip. Girl went home with him
What Mystery famously obscured in his guides is that he was a pretty famous professional magician. If a half naked guy with a 6 pack comes to your table and starts doing professional magic, then invites you back to his Hollywood mansion that he shares with other B to C listers....that's not a "funny hat"
i try to tell the (few) men in my life, esp the ones still single, you need to render yourself worthy of desire instead of just looking at the world seeing things you want
you need to he ‘wantable’ - so hit the gym, hit the books, stack paper if thats what you need but you need a Thing
So much in life -- love, sex, career, joy -- is about aspiring to be someone that should be admired. You cannot control actual admiration coming your way. But you should aspire to be someone that ought to be admired. Which means you ought to aspire to be someone that you (yourself) would admire. Which means you should be on a quest to learn that which ought to be admired. And this is not about financial results, trophies, possessions, or jobs -- it is ultimately about character. We should be spending a great deal of time on this in the public schools, and churches should prioritize the raising of children to be admirable.
Where to start here? I guess I'll begin with a disagreement. If we’re being honest, Tate has a lot of good takes. They get drowned out a lot by his absolute shit takes most of the time, but anytime he chooses to focus his message of the moment on "Men, go out and better yourselves," well there we go. Granted, that's about as milquetoast of a take as there is, but hey, Jordan Peterson made his millions off of telling people to get off their ass and clean their room so I guess this is where we're at.
As for the rest of your point here, I think this is one of those hard-to-swallow reddish black pills that so many people of either gender don't want to admit. You're right, there is no negotiating attraction or perceived status. It's binary, a yes or no, when everything else like stupid dating mind games of playing hard-to-get and the like has been boiled away.
Men don't like to hear it because it's proof that there exists a point on the scale where the real answer is "Why bother?" Like the meme showing I think it was Bezos with a model he was supposed to be dating yet there was a wide gap between them as he held her, "All the money in the world cannot close that gap," it said. Wish I could still find it. Obviously that wasn't true for Bezos in all cases, but it certainly was with that particular woman.
Women don't like to hear it because it pokes holes in the lies we all tell ourselves, that voice in your head that says "Nah, I'm not like that, I'm not that shallow, I'm different, I'm a good person!" Nobody who's not a sociopath likes to think of themselves as cruel, as willing to crush another person's feelings carelessly.
Yet that's what happens every time a woman is approached by a man honestly but that she doesn't desire and she reacts with visible disgust. Which is both a very particular set of circumstances yet at the same time something that happens uncommonly often, especially today.
To toss your own analogy back at you Kristin, you're right that when you boil it all down, a man asking a woman out is all of those things. But at the same time, for most honest men it is also this "I believe that I may want to eventually dedicate my life to your wellbeing. Here is all that I am currently. Do you accept that?" I like your stuff a lot Kristin, but as a woman you'll never quite get just how terrifying it is to do that, and how absolutely soul crushing it is to get a normal rejection, much less the visible disgust we're talking about here. And practically every man in the world has experienced it at least once in their life, even the 10/10, 6'5, 6-pack, multimillionaire Chad Thundercocks of the world.
The worst part is that it proves a subset of the incels right. I'm talking about the real ones, not the lazy shits who won't go out and follow those points where Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson happen to agree; lift weights, work hard, become capable of being dangerous if necessary, and clean your room bucko! No, I mean the real incels, the men who never had a chance and have every right to feel aggrieved that society fed them a complete lie about how the sexes interact so as to avoid the discomfort of having to sit down and explain that they lost the game before they even played.
It's the worst part because it seems like that movement as a whole gets larger and louder every year, and that's definitely not good for any one.
This is a really thoughtful comment and yes, I can imagine approaching is truly terrifying. Especially since girls have been known to record men and post them online, calling them horrible names just for saying hi. There's so much gross behavior. My audience skews heavily male, so this article was trying to explain something to them about women, in the context of how things are in society (rather than how we wish they were). I also wanted to frame it as something achieveable. Especially since the "chad thundercock" model of manhood isn't what you see when you look at newly married men or those who have long-term partners. The social media can show us the worst of humanity and male-female interractions, I hate that we've all become so cynical, believing these clickbait skits represent the whole picture. Single people just have to climb the ladder of progression. Are your looks squared away? Do you come off as someone she'd be proud to be linked to? Okay, now make sure she's the one you want to provide happiness and security for.
I wish more people on both sides of the gender aisle would follow that last few pieces of advice you said there. And I'd add in one of my own, ancient words of wisdom from wise sages indeed, "Be excellent to each other." Our society would definitely be better off if men and women could just do that more often.
You should go talk to the Taliban.
Lots of this "I'M SICK OF THE GENDERRRR WARRRRS WHY CAN'T EVERYONE BE NICE TO EACH OTHER NOW BECAUSE MEN ARE SAD" is just coping because men can't get away with what they used to, in a minority of the world.
Men never thought to be nice to all women when they could keep women out of school, employment, politics, etc. Now they're reeling because they can't legally rape their wives anymore and women can get their own bank accounts, and you think being nice to everyone is going to solve it.
That ship has sailed. Men don't deserve it.
Found the embittered, single, cat lady. I hope the ice-cream tubs taste good.
LOL YAWN
You guys usually go with wine, not ice-cream. Dummy
Which is why you're binging on ice-cream, cat-lady, because you literally cannot, and will not, ever be with "one of us guys". Only your cats.
I just wanted to comment on this part: "Especially since the "chad thundercock" model of manhood isn't what you see when you look at newly married men or those who have long-term partners."
I recommend any man reading this please just go out to your local shopping center. Go to your church. Go anywhere you see people. I mall walk a lot and—good lord—the absolute schlubs you see walking around with (decently cute if not attractive) women! Even through my work I've seen the guys attractive, educated women with law degrees have for husbands.
The coupled aren't generally Maxim and Cosmopolitan models. They're just regular people! They're generally not misshapen mutants either!
There are tons of things that make dating difficult, I'm in the mess same as a lot of men and women, but we get so caught up on looks as THE major problem keeping men single. Not to say it isn't a part of the problem, but I don't think it's the main one. Seriously any men reading this just go see who the women are paired off with. It *should* be a confidence boost. Or heck, just ask ChatGPT to make a looksmatch if that's out of the question. It's not for lack of being an 11/10 Chad keeping you single!
And what's "THE major problem keeping men single"?
I'd probably rephrase it but essentially I don't think there's any "main" problem. There's all sorts of issues affecting men and women that make the actual goal of relationship formation harder to achieve. The focus on how one looks isn't unimportant, but the guys who focus on looks *really* focus on it. But it just takes looking at the men who *are* in relationships to see there's more at play than just looks.
Yeah but looks help
I'll expand on this because it doesn't add much. Just because average guy in relationship isn't attractive doesn't mean that attractiveness isn't important in getting relationship. Just so many people are in relationship that it's mathematically impossible for average couple to be immensely attractive
I was just in Costco today. I'm 50, over 6' tall, in decent shape, retired and financially stable. I saw exactly 4 women out of hundreds who were height/weight proportional. I saw slightly more men who were. The schlubbery is strong on both sides of the gender aisle.
This makes sense, however... The reality for even average or slightly-above-average men is that they don't qualify. That window of achievable might as well be the firing slit of a medieval castle with all of the implications that the metaphor contains. And, all the while, these men who are the 5's through 8's are being told by very mid women - and even objectively unattractive women - the overweight, the ones with multiple baby daddies, the ones on mood stabilizers, the ones who've defaced themselves with body piercings and tattoos and kool-aid hair - all the things and increasing number of men understand to be serious red flags - these men are being told they don't stack up. This is the thing that creates the black pill doomers and is especially socially damning for the true incels: the unrepentant intractable divorce from realistic standards. As Pook sagely observed so many years ago, most women would prefer to share an alpha than settle for monogamy with a faithful man they perceive as a beta. Finally, for every point that you make about a woman wanting to be with a man of whom they can be proud, so, too do men want a woman to whom they are proud to be married. These sorts of women are every bit as scarce as their male counterparts. But try telling a woman who's 5'4" and 200 lbs that maybe it's unrealistic to expect to be chosen for a relationship by a 6+ foot tall neurosurgeon millionaire...
~~hey, Jordan Peterson made his millions off of telling people to get off their ass and clean their room so I guess this is where we're at.~~
As I've joked for awhile, isn't it amazing how when you have a generation growing up with a dearth of fathers, there seems to be an explosion of father figures right as that generation reaches the age they needed them most?
You joke but honest to God the "common sense" he was giving came at a time when I needed it most, and I wasn't getting it from anywhere else! Peterson, Tate, and the rest wouldn't be big-name figures if they weren't filling in a massive void. I don't say that positively, of course.
Oh i’m not entirely joking for the reason you’re exactly right.
Too many seem to assume that “common wisdom” just floats down into people’s minds like oxygen, when it actually requires work and teaching like any other knowledge. The difference is that once upon a time, that work and teaching was so distributed across all of society, that it all felt effortless and like oxygen.
That distributed network has become incredibly disrupted for several decades now. The ones I’ve seen mock Peterson the hardest seem to be the ones who don’t understand how deprived the generation after them are of something they take for granted.
I do not mock JBP for this reason, because I see how much people need him (and I’ve been expecting figures like him to arise for a decade or more).
"And practically every man in the world has experienced it at least once in their life, even the 10/10, 6'5, 6-pack, multimillionaire Chad Thundercocks of the world."
Indeed. There really is no such thing as Chad Thundercock; just a number of men revolving through that position. When you're really on top of your shit, working out, dressing well, feeling good about life, and at a venue where you vibe - that's when you get to be Chad. But that level of energy isn't maintainable long-term, eventually you're going to have to work 60 hours a week for a year (and your fitness will suffer), or you'll get injured, or a life tragedy (death or betrayal by a loved one) will deflate your energy, and suddenly you'll just become a regular guy again.
This is the core of my frustration with the endless carousel. That it's not a question of "Where will you be in 5 years?" but "Where are you right now?"
Great comment
Yeah a lot of the guys whining online are utterly pathetic and repulsive, but you're missing a very important piece of the puzzle: women tend to make absolutely terrible decisions.
Do you know how many women roll with *literally* dirty dudes who stink, have disgustingly greasy hair, and are so broke they have to bum money from their girl to buy a can of redbull? As someone whose worked in bars and a ski resort for years, I can tell you it's *a lot* of young women.
Obviously the whiney internet shut-in with an anime avatar is repulsive, but it's not like the degenerate dirtbag with more molly pills than dollar bills is an example of a good pick, but lots of young women pick that guy with zero hesitation.
That type of woman likely grew up without a father. Just being real; I had a friend (RIP) who had awful taste in men. She didn't understand about standards, about how to evaluate. She grew up in a household where very girl had a different dad, and it took me a long time to understand the implications of not having a template for a good man. I grew up with a father, and Kristin is correct: If I had picked any of the sort of men my fatherless friend picked, I would have to explain myself to my family first. Especially since I have my father as an example.
All of the men my friend picked fell *so* far short of the example my father set that my family would think I was stupid, or wonder if I was on drugs or something to pick such a loser. My friend was neglected as a child, so she would have thought it judgmental to rule out a man with poor hygiene. After all, she was sent to school with a dirty face and uncombed hair, and she wasn't a bad person, so who is she to judge? She had this mental block about having standards, because she confused it with being judgmental. I've noticed that especially in younger generations the very concept of standards is considered "bad" or "problematic" in some way.
“She had this mental block about having standards, because she confused it with being judgmental. I've noticed that especially in younger generations the very concept of standards is considered "bad" or "problematic" in some way.”
Omg THIS. It’s to blame for so many of the horrible sex and dating behavior we see
Having standards and being judgmental are the same thing, though.
For us men, yes. For women there’s a nuance in definitions. They don’t considering being judgmental as “using good judgment” which I think is what we do. They define judgmental more akin to “discriminatory” or “cruel” which obviously have negative connotations.
“Cruelty” is debatable, but being judgmental is also equivalent to being discriminatory, in the sense you’re not literally being indescriminate.
Yeah and you can be judgmental to somebody without necessarily judging them on the moral and spiritual level. If a guy is bad at hygiene or work ethics I’m not saying he’s a malicious person. But I probably don’t want to date him. Whether I’m willing to date someone is not a judgement on their moral worth
There are 2 axes of female acceptance. The spoken one is how he presents and invests. The unspoken one is “strong and exciting,” for a wide range of what that means.
Men can win privately with the second and NOT the first. That isn’t deviant, it’s widespread, and if you need the explanation that is itself a negative filter for the unspoken axis #2.
Public winning and commitment is a harder row to hoe with that combo, for relevant reasons on *both* sides. Which is why that combo breaks many female hearts. But if he triggers other girls on “strong and interesting,” that preselection is itself social proof on axis #1. Hence non-hidden, and then you see it and ask “is she really going out with HIM?”
Yeah I was going to stay basically the same thing but you pretty much summed it up for me. The author basically blows her own thesis by refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are lots of low value women out there.
None of this is an argument against repealing the 19th.
While I'm not really an advocate for that, there's plenty of good reasons why women never should've been given the right to vote.
Put simply, they don't build society in the way men do. Not even remotely close.
They give birth to new humans, of course. But so does every woman in a bumfuck county no one has heard of.
Men naturally have more skin in the game, women do not.
Also, your average woman in the U.S. is equal to the man in the photo by physical standards alone. Your average woman 18-65 has a very high body fat percentage.
While I agree desire can't be negotiated, that's beside the point. If the 19th would be repealed it wouldn't or at least shouldn't be done so men like this can chain her up to the bed and stove.
It would be on the grounds that women still do not contribute to society or infrastructure as men do and thus failed to earn equal say in policy. Plus they don't go and fight the wars.
I was using “repeal the 19th crowd“ loosely in reference to the online group who advocates for the abolition of higher education except for the hard sciences, perhaps barring women from the workforce, removing no fault divorce, or any divorce at all. Speaking only on the issue of the 19th amendment, I too, am firmly against universal suffrage. Though it would take a more brilliant mind than my own to decide voting rights in accordance with a free country that is also prosperous rather than one that exploits the earners in favor of the takers.
Yea I kinda figured since you talked about multiple different things I only hit on that harder because it was in the subtitle so forgive me for ranting on about that.
You should be working in a coal mine.
Men were meant for labor, not trying to organize their irrational thoughts into sentences.
I literally work as a contractor for the Texas coal mines you fucking cunt. 😄
Go back to the fucking kitchen. No. Scratch that. Even that is far above your capabilities.
Just go away bitch
Would you tell that to Aristotle? Socrates? Descartes? Newton? Thomas Aquinas? Einstein? Heisenberg?
That's not all men lol
It's certainly vastly more than there are female equivalents. We could go on to famous composers even more famous philosophers, scientists, artists... Even today, with all the vaunted choice and access available to them, the female contingent has yet to produce artistic, scientific, creative, industrial or commercial titans on the scale of what men have achieved. Even with the top ten (or is it 20) wealthiest women, all but two inherited their wealth, or obtained it by divorce. There used to be three female self made billionaires in that upper echelon, but... Theranos...
You used screenshot of tweet as example for "loser who wants to force women to be attracted to him" so I'll defend his positions. First is limiting women from prestigious positions. It's good policy because women don't want to date men with lower socioeconomical status and all men won't outcompete all women even in "equal playing field". Add to that the fact that playing field isn't equal and you get massive problem in dating and matrimonial market. Second is fighting hook up culture which also is good. If you want people to date seriously instead of fucking each other chasing dopamine hits and destroying their ability to form meaningful relationships then why is it bad thing?
Also it's his saving fertility policies which makes even more sense. Career oriented boss bitches have less children because that would hurt their career.
Robert Heinlein did this decades ago: citizenship to be earned by meritorious service. Otherwise you were a legal born-naturalized resident. No one was forced to serve, but you had to serve in order to vote or to hold office.
Pass the 28th--men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
You didn't build any society today. You played video games for 10 hours.
Lol "fight wars"? Why don't you be logical and not start them in the first place? Is that how you build--destroy everything because you can't control yourself?
Thanks for proving my point--men shouldn't be allowed to vote. There's a reason Afghanistan is a disgusting failure and Finland is superior, and nobody is leaving Finland.
Btw, obesity isn't about women not voting. That's an entire other issue that is unrelated to your nonsense. Men have higher obesity rates anyway.
Thanks for proving my point.
The overwhelming majority of oil field workers, electricians, construction workers, engineers, power linemen, firefighters, police officers, combat vets, loggers, and welders are men. Yes, we still build society on a scale women would never be capable of.
Yeah, that’s like less than 1% of the population. 97% of males could disappear and things would actually get better with no crime on top of that.
If 97% of women disappeared the civilization would be over in a generation.
You’re not building anything. You probably play video games half the day anyway.
There's zero data to back up what you just said. Women wouldn't last a month without those roles being filled and they wouldn't fill them themselves.
You also forget that test tube babies are a thing. Yep, artificial wombs. The world would not be a better place without men. You only believe this believe this because you're retarded lol
LOL
Men can’t even wash themselves, and a moid like you thinks they can keep entire human being alive on their own?
You’re all delusional. Like I said, men shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
GET BACK TO THE COAL MINE
Men are inherently more responsible than women. Those who are more responsible should be the ones voting.
Plus, men are the ones defending the country. Case closed.
Actually, we'd only need to get rid of 13% of men to drop the crime rates by half. Ironically, it's the female voters who've made that 13% increasingly hard to deal with for the civilized portion of the population.
I'm not saying that *should* be our policy. I'm just sayin'.
Apparently you should have provided an exhaustive list of male-dominated occupations and/or male contributions to the labor force, inventions, productivity, etc. Something tells me it’s just a wee bit more than 1%. Lol.
majority of violent criminals, rapists, pedophiles, domestic abusers, drug addicts, motorist deaths, drunk drivers, and the homeless too!
I can't wait for tomorrow for when Kristin reprints this article exactly just swapping the genders in it. ;)
I do wonder how much dating woes nowadays are people's refusal to understand the reality of trade-offs. Women want a rich guy with a iron bod? Ok fair enough. But the time requirement to get that rich AND work out to get that body is basically going to leave the guy with about... 2 hrs a week to spend with a girl. Not unless you're going to start joining him and helping him out. (and hey, I think it's awesome to see couples at the gym) Sole exception would be to marry a guy who's job IS physically demanding on him too - like a farmer. (Not sure how popular those guys are though... Though a lot of my cousins have gotten happily married.)
I do find it annoying that today the discussion seems to assume our only choices are between arranged marriages vs the current state of absolute anarchy. Maybe we can find some moderate ground between them where we have some structure to courtship so men and women can navigate mating while protecting both parties?
Let's be clear. The girls actually bagging the six pack, 6 foot, 6 zeroes are on the same program. I don't know any millionaires seriously bringing home fat bartenders
Well those girls can devote more time to their fitness and looks by foregoing career aspirations. A lot of actual reasons for pay gaps is that women often take jobs that offer more flexible times which pay less. That does not hurt their chances with men.
Why do you think the average man sucked less 100 or 200 years ago when there were more strict restrictions on women's behavior?
They didn’t suck less, they just died younger and in greater numbers. And also women had to settle for whatever man would have them in order to have children or have a home. Now they don’t have to settle.
It seems to me that by most metrics women care about in practice: conscientiousness, fitness, verbal iq, status seeking, men were better off in the past then they are now with relaxed standards for women.
That's a myth that they "settled". The fact that modern women still end up not getting the men they truly desire 80% of the time proves they still have to "settle". It's also pure speculation and a matter of perspective what settling even means for either sex.
One could easily argue that women didn't settle at all back then because they actually landed and got commitment from men who were still higher in value than them but only by a slight bit enough to satisfy the hypergamous side of things.
Now they (on occasion) get with guys so far out of their league they never end up getting commitment from them because let's be honest, these men have zero reason to commit. They can easily replace her with someone younger and hotter.
Women had to settle because they had no choices and couldn't access employment, education, or their own bank accounts.
Men think women actually picked them, rather than settling out of desperation in a system rigged by men.
Lol replacing with "younger and hotter"? Fine, then why would any woman agree to marry a man if he hates her that much? Thanks for admitting women are right for avoiding male trash.
Run along and go play your video games.
Oh stfu bitch. 😄
Your bullshit feminist drivel is annoying and old
You shut up bitch.
Get back to swiping on Tinder and wondering why nobody wants you.
One could also easily argue that both men and women settled because both genders had to sacrifice their internal mating strategy.
Wrong.
Men didn't settle. They rigged the system, treated women like crap, and then declared themselves moral protectors when wife-beating was legal.
You're doing it now.
This statement you made has zero basis in reality. Women in general have never really been oppressed or "treated like crap" throughout all of human history. Women have always enjoyed the status of the protected sex.
Look at this subtard.
Yeah, women were protected during the Roman Empire when men could legally beat their wives to death under paterfamilias. Or under American law until the 1970s when they couldn’t get their own bank account, or until the 1940s where they weren’t accepted into medical school.
You’re a liar. Shut up.
You got on this thread bitching and whining. Not me. No one asked you to be here shithead. 😄
Yes, they couldn't have bank accounts or credit cards. So they also couldn't collect or be put into debt. Now women carry most of the college tuition debt. Congratulations. Lol
I'm not sure what you're basing this on. Even in "the olden days" when women lived with their parents until marriage, courtship standards meant the man doing the courting had to pass muster with her family. I wish I could remember the journal or article where I saw this discussed, but basically:
1) Who were his people? Were they respectable? 2) What did he bring to the table? Did he come from money, or could he make an honest living? 3) What was HIS reputation? Prone to drunken brawls, or did he show up clean to church? Did he have the respect of his peers?
Note in this case the woman (and her family) are holding the cards here. Having to pass muster with the woman and *her* family contributed to social pressure for a man to NOT be a loser. Treating the woman as second class was not the path to masculine greatness, removing the power from the woman and her family is a path to dysfunction.
If you're stuck on this point -- this belief that a lack of women's freedom is a social good -- consider this: Social scientists noticed a phenomenon post-WWI that's applicable to our modern age. Specifically, villages across France lost an entire generation of young men during the Great War. Men of family-starting age. As a result, the women (who still had the drive to reproduce) demonstrated *why* Bronze Age cultures engaged in polygyny: with a dearth of men, period, let alone men who could fulfill the parameters of quality, the women flocked to the few men left. In the pre-Christian ages you would see prosperous older men benefitting from this.
But the women of the post-war 20th century in that situation were obliged to lower their own standards of conduct. After all, they couldn't just move out and go to a town with more men, could they? Live on their own? Go to university? Strike out on their own to start their own business to put food on their table? Not in the age where the norm is to remain all your life in the town of your birth. So with fewer men available to them, and no *evil* freedom to give them options, easier virtue becomes the most optimal reproductive strategy, where before it wasn't.
Tandem with this, women also lowered the standards for the quality of men they picked. The losers they would have bypassed before, now stood a chance. We can see in our modern age the dysfunction this produces. I have never, not once, witnessed a positive outcome for having a woman think that "there is nothing better out there for me." When she thinks a loser is all there is, she gets with the the loser. He stays a loser, because unlike previously, he doesn't have to be a better man to get a woman. In the long run, she loses, he loses, their children lose, and the society around them loses.
>Note in this case the woman (and her family) are holding the cards here. Having to pass muster with the woman and *her* family contributed to social pressure for a man to NOT be a loser.
In practice, this produced generations of men who were not losers. What have the standards of modern day produced?
The problem I have with this argument is twofold,
1) It assumes women’s standards filter for the right traits by default.
2) It ignores how the disdain for “sub standard men” leads to social changes that can be harmful.
For 1), I often see the argument women rejecting men is right because it is darwinian. This ignores the fact that a lot of traits are natural, but we restrict them in order to maintain society. What we evolved to be attracted to was based on how humans lived for most of human history, in tribal societies. Modern civilization is a relatively new phenomenon and requires limitations of natural behaviors, every enduring culture I’ve ever known about valued things like chastity, monogamy, and often arranged marriages.
If you don’t believe me, explain why so many women end up with men who cheat on them, abuse them, or are just unempathetic or uncaring. Was that the result of them just ignoring their instincts and going for “sub standard men”? I don’t think so. There is plenty of examples of women going for men who are clearly bad for long term relationships. The “bad boy” trope. Various studies have even found men higher in dark triad traits like narcissism can be more attractive. One example we take for granted is confidence. The main way people become confident is when they do something a lot and get used to it, or have lots of fall back options. As a result a guy who has been with tons of women and has plenty of women to choose from would be more confident than a guy who doesn’t, does that mean he will be a better long term partner?
The way you describe what men are asking of women when they pursue them, getting them alone, putting them in a vulnerable position, would imply to men the best way to gain a woman’s interest is being as gentle and non-threatening as possible, perhaps even feeble to be less physically intimidating. But we all know those are generally not the traits of the most attractive men, as reflected in erotic literature popular among women such as 50 shades of grey. (Though yes, trust is also relevant).
If women really were the best selectors, and have more selecting power than ever before, you’d think we’d be hearing about women being far more in successful relationships and satisfied with the dating climate. Instead the discourse is even more hostility, and endless complaints about “situationships” or “love bombing”.
Regarding 2), as you point out its not just rejection, but often hostility. We are seeing this manifest in changes in social etiquette, but this doesn’t just effect “sub standard men”. The more the cultural message is hostility towards men pursuing women, the less socially conscious men will do it. Likely that also includes men who are higher in empathy. Almost every month I see viral posts among young women on tiktok or twitter either bemoaning how modern men aren’t approaching or courting women enough or correctly, or demonizing and complaining about how men still approach them or pursue them. While it makes sense that individually women are hostile to men they view as sub standard pursuing them, and also want men who they view as standard or above pursuing them, that’s lost in a cultural message because the man really doesn’t know what she will clock him as before he makes a move.
There was a viral study claiming a large rise in younger men not bothering to approach women, the base of the data was essentially a survey shared on Twitter so I don’t know how accurate it is, but anecdotally it does seem to me there is a growth in men checking out of pursuing women in person at all. I don’t think women’s hostility to sub standard men is the main reason why, but I suspect it is a factor.
It also ignores that the hostility itself makes substandard men worse. Women are repelled by men with low self esteem, negative mindsets, and neediness. Most men will just become more like this the less positive experience they get with women. It’s easy to be high self esteem and not needy when you feel like people like you. Much harder when people insult you for even trying. This can just make people spiral and become even worse as they become more negative and receive more negative reactions.
"Was that the result of them just ignoring their instincts and going for “sub standard men”? I don’t think so."
What are you basing that on? The friend I spoke about in a post above this actually DID ignore her instincts. It was something we talked about, how she had this disconnect. She was genuinely adrift, because again, she did not have a father. She didn't even know who he was. The kind of women you're describing tend to be fatherless, they tend to be searching for what they were supposed to have had while growing up: Love, affirmation, validation, and protection from a man. This has been a problem in American society since the 60s, I'm curious why so few are picking up on the consequences of fatherlessness.
My friend broke the cycle in her family by having her children IN wedlock, but she mentioned her ex-husband cheated on her and never brushed his teeth. He at one point had them leaving in a vermin-infested house.
Before you condemn her, I'll point out that if you grew up with two parents in a loving, middle class (or working class) house hold, a lot of what seems like common sense really isn't. My friend was neglected as a child, so hygiene wasn't a given. Being able to distinguish a sign of dysfunction vs. bad luck was difficult for her. Being unable to spot seemingly obvious danger signs in a person led her to becoming victimized. Loving parents teach their kids to spot these signs, but she didn't have that advantage.
She grew up poor, so expecting a potential boyfriend to have an adult level income -- meaning, having his own place without roommates or living with his parents -- came across as judgmental to her. Which made it difficult to spot hobosexuals. Yes, the B is there on purpose, hoBosexuals are moochers who are attracted to those who have a place to live.
Anyway, when you see a woman constantly choosing the wrong kind of man, ask yourself what template she had for choosing a good one. More than likely she didn't have one. And I suspect the unsuccessful Tinder-guy Kristin wrote about did not have a father to help him out, either.
I doubt that all women complaining about situationships and love bombing are fatherless
I would say that is an example of why some of their preferences could be wrong
As i read your post, i wondered to myself "Perhaps she doesnt understand how similar the genders are when it comes to this"? Which might explain the disdain some men also feel about this issue.
Yes, we fully understand that there are few things worse than being with an embarrassing significant other. We know.
Why do you think a vast majority of men want nothing to do with fatties? It goes beyond the physical repulsion of having to deal with her giant arms, big back and fupa. That can be tolerated in private.
Publicly though? No man WANTS to be seen with a fatty. No man wants to introduce a fatty to his friend group as his serious girlfriend 🤢🤮. It is humiliating and tells other men "Hey i'm so low value all i could get was a fatty".
Now if you're a woman reading this and it stings, i'll offer you thesame advice the author offered to the men. YOU can do something about it. But do you? Nah... You spend years chastizing men for not wanting to date overweight women. You coin terms like "Big Beautiful Women" and on dating apps you write "Swipe left if you're not into Big women" like its supposed to be this thing we as a society just accept. The equivalent of that is that fish guy writing "Swipe left if you're not into losers". Its all laughable.
The worst part? A woman loser is significantly easier to change than the issues the men you describe are facing.
You dont need to make a lot of money, you dont need to be highly educated, charismatic, confident, assertive etc. For you... Just be nice, not promiscous and not fat. THATS IT. Fit, feminine and friendly.
Yet, these same OBJECTIVELY embarrassing women will look at a man who is quite literally their looks match and say "Sorry i cant be with you because you will embarrass me".
Its almost like you're implying: "Most women including the fatties are perfect the way they are and are JUSTIFIED in rejecting you for being embarrassing even though they are just as equally embarrassing". And that is the issue. The delusion. Every woman is a 10!
Most embarrassing men KNOW they are embarrassing. They KNOW they are losers. What they dont understand is why women who are equally losers act above them.
Unlike the objectively embarrassing women, these loser men would be absolutely overjoyed and content to have their looks match as a partner. They are not delusional...
The source of rage comes from the realization that "I'm willing to accept her even though shes objectively embarrassing because I too am embarrassing, but shes not willing to accept me because she thinks she deserves thesame man Halle Berry can command".
Thats the rage. And its a justified, rightous rage. Thats the part i would love you to address.
“Most embarrassing men KNOW they are embarrassing. They KNOW they are losers. What they dont understand is why women who are equally losers act above them.” Because male thirst creates an unequal power balance. Women are happier being single than settling for an embarrassing man. Men would rather settle for an embarrassing woman than be single. And women know that. So at least in terms of bargaining power at the acquisition stage of dating… they ARE above men
Yes, except it is not thirst. At 20 if I could have got the kind of girlfriend who tells me she loves me and kisses me both in private and public, but at the cost of never actually having sex, I would have absolutely gladly accepted this. I wanted a relationship far more than sex.
I am 47 and was thinking about this thing on and off for over a quarter century, and I am still not 100% sure what was going on. I think there might have been something with my mother, perhaps, she loved me too conditionally and I needed some other woman to love me unconditionally, now I am leaning towards this explanation but still not sure. All I know is that all four socio-sexual loser boys in high school were a lot like this. We all wanted some kind of a Virgin Mary type archetypical mother figure to worship on a pedestal. Sex was not important.
But isn't this the same with Tinder Guy? Doesn't he look like someone who has an invisible but certainly very towering mother figure written all over him? He is easy to imagine being 3 and holding mom's hand, right?
A lot of the mysteriousness about how to be an attractive man is to really leave the inner child behind, it is mostly that simple.
Men would rather settle but for what? Relationship or sex?! That’s somewhat of an equaliser of the power imbalance you describe. Only somewhat as we also want to leave a legacy.
who is to say that a man is “sub-standard”? The feminist-driven culture blames and shames men for everything, so many have simply walked away. MGTOW is a thing and has been very successful .
The woman being propositioned does. As she always has. And always will
Which is why men are increasingly going MGTOW, and walking away from women, dating sex, and especially marriage. Then Rachel Drucker writes in the New York Times, "Men, please come back". But they won't, because they have bigger fish to fry.
A man would have to be an idiot to get married under today's "family court" laws. Why men keep volunteering to walk into the wood chipper on this is beyond me. Marriage is just the worst deal available. She cheats on you and divorces you and you have to keep paying her for it for years into the future. It's worse if you have kids. She will weaponize them against you
Your are 100% correct.
What fish are those?
ANY fish. This article will help you see what is going on.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/mankeeping-is-why-women-are-done-with-dating/
You should give up on online dating and just meet girls the old ways - friend of friend, colleague, etc. As long as you aren’t an asshole or right wing you’ll be fine, very average guys get partners. Just don’t aim out of your league.
True, but that’s only half the battle. It’s very important to vet women for the smallest sign of feminism, as that can be a man’s undoing. That’s not “right wing”, that is Red Pill common sense.
The flaw in the "man keeping" argument is that girlfriends and wives often discourage the man from maintaining this male friendships.
Exactly!
I think what frank and many others are saying, is that a man is not sub standard due to being undesirable to a particular woman. This kind of is how a lot of women think, though. The “sexually unattractive to me, personally” has translated into ridiculous social exile that’s not appropriate for what the guy did, which is typically nothing wrong.
The article is talking about two different things here, casual sex or an actual relationship. For casual sex, the bar is pretty low, women will fuck a homeless guy. For an actual relationship, the requirements will vary from woman to woman.
Yes and no. If the casual sex is utterly clandestine, you're correct. But if her friend group/family is aware of her situationship status with the guy, she's still judged for sleeping with him if he's substandard in their eyes. "Oh, that's who you roll with? Okay girl..."
Broken women don’t give a shit. I think this year I am in a healthier place and no longer want to involve myself with broken women any more.
A homeless guy?! Nah. Unless she’s homeless too.
Broken women don’t care.
So you're saying I shouldn't continue to flirt with corny jokes and silly magic tricks then?!?
I have (on one occasion) seen card tricks work on a pretty lady. The young man was average looking but had a Gambit-like swag to him and a Marlboro red dangling from his lip. Girl went home with him
What Mystery famously obscured in his guides is that he was a pretty famous professional magician. If a half naked guy with a 6 pack comes to your table and starts doing professional magic, then invites you back to his Hollywood mansion that he shares with other B to C listers....that's not a "funny hat"
Tate is a grifting pimp.
The deviant pictures who failed out at Tinder is a low-rank in any hierarchy.
Your points are well made & coherent. Men do need to git gud. Some women have absurd standards, but that's women.
absolutely nothing but facts
i try to tell the (few) men in my life, esp the ones still single, you need to render yourself worthy of desire instead of just looking at the world seeing things you want
you need to he ‘wantable’ - so hit the gym, hit the books, stack paper if thats what you need but you need a Thing
So much in life -- love, sex, career, joy -- is about aspiring to be someone that should be admired. You cannot control actual admiration coming your way. But you should aspire to be someone that ought to be admired. Which means you ought to aspire to be someone that you (yourself) would admire. Which means you should be on a quest to learn that which ought to be admired. And this is not about financial results, trophies, possessions, or jobs -- it is ultimately about character. We should be spending a great deal of time on this in the public schools, and churches should prioritize the raising of children to be admirable.
I don't know if this is a hot take or not, I'm still going to shout it into the void in good faith.
Men are literally diminishing womens rights now by attrition.
If you don't believe me, I can't blame you. For I'm not expert.
My only proof is the number of men not signing up for the meat grinder of marriage, careers, dating or even basic civil service.
Men and their labor is life blood of society and we're bleeding out.
Bingo.
"And despite their glaring suck-itude (which every woman can clock at a distance, btw)"
Must explain all those single mothers.🤔
The men who were able to reproduce have accomplished what they set out to. This article is for men wondering why they can’t hit that [milestone]
Half the pregnancies on earth were unplanned.
From sex. Which the men I’m speaking to in my article aren’t having
That’s an interesting perspective on all this that I haven’t heard before. Thanks for writing it.