Look, I'm all about self improvement but when below average women want the top 0.5% of men, it's time for society to start viewing the situation from the opposite lens. It's not men that need to improve themselves any more, it's women who need to set realistic expectations.
We as a society seemed to recognize that men had unrealistic standards for women and we told men to stop having them. Women don't need to be feminine, women don't need to a healthy weight, women don't need to want to have sex all the time and it's fine for women to wear pants, sweatshirts, get face tattoos and piercings everywhere.
Okay, great. Now it's time to tell women to lower their expectations. Men don't need to be 6' tall 5'4" guys are fine. Men don't need to earn $100k/yr. $20k/yr is fine. Men don't need need to be fit, fat men and skinny men are fine. Men don't need to be romantic or caring about a woman's emotions, men can be blunt, harsh and inconsiderate. Men don't need to not want sex all the time. It's okay for men to want sex all the time.
Women need to be taught to lower their standards. Women have unrealistic standards.
It's not men that need to improve themselves any more, it's women who need to set realistic expectations.
Close but not quite. Women need realistic expectations enforced on them. They're never going to arrive at the realization that they need to shape up. They're physically incapable of it. Instead we need at the very least a restoration of social pressures applied to them.
"Hey you're fat and ugly and you'll die alone and unloved and that makes you a horrible person."
You are very right. I am well aware that women must have things forced upon them. I just hesitate to speak the truth about women on KIA2 because that's a quick way to get banned.
Shaming is only one tactic but it's not the most effective. Short of literal physical force, the most effective form of compulsion is financial leverage. One of the main causes for the relationship issues we're seeing today is the social push to make women 50/50 with men in earning power. This removed the financial leverage men used to have over women to force women into having realistic standards because women were forced to sacrifice their unrealistic standards to settle for money. Now, women have money and unrealistic standards and unironically, women have never been more unhappy.
Now, an egalitarian might suggest it's unfair to stop a woman from earning income if she deserves it based on the quality of her labor. Even if that were true, the problem in modernity is that our society unfairly gives too many resources to women despite her inferiority by taking from men and giving to women in order to promote a false ideal of equality. If we simply allocated resources truly based on nothing but merit, men would have significantly more resources than women and men would have a natural position of financial leverage over women to correct for many of the relationship problems that exist today. Abolish child support, abolish alimony, make resource distribution in separations default to what you bring in you get out, no 50/50. Then remove all social programs in society, cut taxes down to the bare minimum to support a defensive military and that's it. Allow for discrimination based on sex/gender (remove any human right suggesting this isn't allowed). Under such a system, women would be forced to reduce their expectations with men because women would be desperate for resources from men because under such a system men would have significantly more resources than women. The only reason women have so many resources isn't because women earn them, it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
You are correct in every point you have just laid out. The problem is how the hell do we implement such policies? That's the part that leaves me scratching my head.
Make the person unwilling to improve be a pariah. Women in general are social and hate being ignored. Either they will improve to the standard of social norm or be casted out for ignoring it. I bet even without concerning genders, this tactic will work beautifully because a lot of people want attention. Also give incentive to the people that will work themselves out to be according to their respective genders.
I think making a pariah out of whores, false accuser and troublemakers will probably do a trick. But to even implement what I'm suggesting, jews that implement the degenerate trends and norms need to go. Making a pariah isn't even a new thing, Japan has unspoken rule of following the basic social etiquette that's why people in general don't fall out of line. At least they are used to, now i'm not sure what's going on with Japan after they are failing to do anything about Johnny Somali guy.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
Race thinks that "the truth" is that, in his own words, "women are worthless and only fit to be sex slaves to men".
So I'm not exactly surprised that he cannot find a woman, despite thinking that he is in the top 0.35% of men. His bad attitude would be sufficient to vitiate it and more, even if true.
it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Child support is one of the biggest travesties of the modern era. On paper, it sounds like a good idea. Children should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their parents. The problem however, is that we don't live on paper, we live in the real world. In the real world, child support checks are made out to the mother, not the child. The money is not given the slightest bit of oversight in how it is spent, and as long as the child isn't a starving malnourished vegetable, the state doesn't care. The amount of money is also technically unlimited because it depends on the other spouse's salary, which is almost always a man.
This amount almost never goes down, but can easily go up should the mother want it to. See the case of Dave Foley, who lost his TV gig as a comedian. Because his child support payments were calculated around the salary he was commanding as a TV presenter, he was paying something like $10k Canadian per month. This was not sustainable for him, obviously, and he went to court multiple times to attempt to lower it, being unsuccessful in his attempt, and racking up lawyer fees. It got so bad that he had to flee Canada to the United States because he would have been locked up in prison for failure to pay child support, the modern debtors prison. His ex wife had moved and taken the children somewhere he could not find them, and he hasn't seen them since.
The amount of men who have killed themselves because they become indentured servants to their ex wives is too damn high, and it's solely because they are men that nobody gives a shit. If women were subject to even half the treatment that men are in the court system it would be considered a nationwide crisis.
Are there statistics on that? This is not a gotcha.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
They need the early reality check about their place on the SMV scale that men get without feminism pounding a sense of entitlement into their heads from birth. That's why pairing up in high school instead of letting women slut around was such a good system. It took the top 5 percenters out of the pool early instead of letting them run through all the women and delude them about their SMV.
We used to have suitors vetted by parents and peers in the past before a couple got serious in committing to one another. That concept has long gone. That's the difference.
Women are just completely out of touch with what men are like out there. According to the Female Delusion Calculator, only 0.35% of men in the age range of 30-39yo are as good as myself. I'm a not obese white man, 5'10" who isn't married and makes $135,000/yr. I can't even have casual sex with women. I haven't been on a date in two years. If I was paired with the top 0.35% of women, I'd be set. Instead, the only women who share any interest in me are single mothers and only if I'm willing to pay everything for them, do all the housework for them and without them having to have sex with me.
Men just want women to have realistic standards such that a woman understands where she falls in the relative attraction scale and goes for men who are relatively similar to her.
Women absolutely refuse to accept they are no where close to as attractive as they think they are relatively speaking.
If this doesn't prove it's all about height and looks I don't know what does. Am I correct in assuming that you're in the bottom 95% in terms of facial features?
I'd say for facial features I'm about a 5.5/10 for white men. I think my overall physical appearance is about a 6.5-7/10. The biggest issue for me personally for relationships is I mostly just want to have sex. I don't actually find women enjoyable for much outside of sex. I like small talk, hanging out, cuddling, watching movies but I hate dating and I hate being on a woman's beck and call. I just like doing what I feel like. I can in fact attract 7-7.5/10 women but these women are always the reformed slut types. They rode the cock carousel and see me as the guy they're going to settle down with, out up the white picket fence, tick their boxes for "marriage" and live a life of keeping up with the Joneses. I have 0 interest in this type of lifestyle with a woman. I want to be the cock on the carousel she's riding but I can only attract 4-5/10 women for that. The 7-7.5/10 women can find 8-9/10 men to ride if that's all they want instead of me. The 4-5/10 women though are too ugly for me to be bothered to have sex with so that basically puts me into Incel territory. For me to have a standard monogamous long-term relationship with a woman, the relationship would have to be under my terms which would be very non-standard compared to most relationships. When a 7/10 decides to settle for me, she sees herself as lowering her standards already so she thinks she should be the one dictating terms for the relationship and I'm not about to compromise on anything just for the sake of making something work. Either it works for me or it doesn't and the kind of relationship most women want doesn't work for me. But ironically, if I was a 9-10/10 man, then the relationship I wanted with the woman would work. The only reason women negotiate for a relationship style they want with men like me is because they think they're doing men like me a favor giving me attention when I'd rather just be single than engage in a relationship structure that's driven by what the woman wants. So that's why I'm single... but I'm in the top 0.35% of men so if women think men are less like me the further they go up, they're sadly mistaken.
Interesting write up, thanks for that. My situation is that I absolutely refuse to uproot my life for a woman who doesn't significantly improve my quality of life, and those improvements simply aren't realistic in today's dating scene. I also refuse cohabitation, marriage, and kids. Since I'm not Chad no woman is going to stick around very long once she realizes that I refuse to jeopardize my future just to keep her around.
Yeah, I'd say that's basically me too. Women don't really add any value outside of sex, imo. Traditional relationships are worthless to me. Children and cohabitation are death sentences for men.
I'm about a 6.5-7.0 overall in looks but my face is above average. There's fat/chubby guys that have better faces than me but I beat them in physique. 5.5 might be a little conservative. Maybe 6 or 6.5 is better. I do think my body is better than my face and overall I'm def a 6.5-7/10 so whatever you think that would be.
I'd be fine with a 7/10 woman if she treated me like she treats 9-10/10 men or how a 4-5/10 woman treats me. I don't want a 7/10 woman treat me the way that 7/10 women do. It's not worth it for me.
Now factor in metrics that women care about such as height, weight, income, race and I'm a 9.5/10.
So I don't think it's outside the realm of reasonable to expect a 7/10 looking woman to treat me the way she would treat a 9/10 looking man despite the fact that I only am a 7/10 looking guy once all other aspects of myself are factored in.
There may be some stuff in your 'calculation' that you are missing. For one, you sound extraordinarily bitter and resentful. No one wants that sort of person around.
Why don't you want to? I don't have casual sex either but the reason I don't is because the women I can have casual sex with are too unattractive for me to be bothered.
Then you're suggesting to most men that sex entirely is stupid but most men I know enjoy sex and sometimes you can be intimate with a woman without children. You shouldn't cut down your fellow men simply because they have a difference in taste then you in this regard. Having children is admirable but there simply aren't a lot of women worth having children with out there and western societies have made it legally a nightmare for men to have children. It makes sense for most men not to want children in modernity through no fault of their own yet still many of these men will want a sexual relationship with a woman still and there's nothing wrong with that. Ideally, it would be great if men could only have sex with a woman they want to marry and have children with but in practice that doesn't work.
The bible says men who can't control their sexual desires should get a wife but in modernity there are no wives to go around. Men can't just take a wife like they may have been able to in the passed. Men are forced to have to adapt to the system that exists today and yes this system is far from ideal but you can't blame men for having to navigate in the weeds. Hardly any man wants the options available to them. They simply have no choice and are forced to adapt to our sick sick society.
Egg freezing was not about their careers. It was about being single or in very unstable relationships with men who were unwilling to commit to them.
it's a storm of multiple problems...
these women don't understand dating is a matching market. it's not like walking into whole foods and picking out an apple. in a matching market, the apple has to pick her back too.
any guy who even talks about standards is viciously attacked... they just don't want to hear the truth.
these women are trading on sex just to get attention from the top 1% of guys. their SMV overall is too low and if they weren't so easy, they would be invisible to these guys. definitionally, 99% of women are not worth commitment from the top 1% of men. that's how matching markets work. female sexual liberation was a mistake.
tell a woman to refuse to have sex with a guy outside a committed relationship, and very few will even entertain the idea. most lack the self awareness or IQ to comprehend what it means... they just see red and go into attack mode. they won't even consider it until their mid 30s when throwing sex at chad won't get them attention anymore, and many are still trying to chase chad while lining up the betabux.
Both conservatives and liberals bemoan men’s underrepresentation in higher education, their greater likelihood to die a “death of despair,” and the growing share of them who are not working or looking for work. But the chorus of concern rarely touches on how male decline shapes the lives of the people most likely to date or marry them—that is to say, women.
What a load of shit. This problem has been left to fester for decades, and the only reason anyone gives a shit now is because women are being inconvenienced. Well, that and their boogeyman Andrew Tate has men and boys questioning the feminist narrative that they've been fed since birth.
Egg freezing was not about their careers. It was about being single or in very unstable relationships with men who were unwilling to commit to them.
She was struck by how many young Arab men valued and looked forward to fatherhood—a sharp contrast with what she heard from young American women, who shared story after story of men “who were simply unready or unwilling to commit.”
"Unwilling to commit" is the key point here. Once again their worldview starts making sense when you substitute in "Chad and Tyrone" whenever they say "men".
egg freezing ... is not a process anyone undergoes lightly. It entails injecting high doses of hormones over a period of days or weeks to induce multiple oocytes to grow (in a typical ovulatory cycle, a single oocyte matures in preparation for fertilization), frequent in-clinic monitoring with blood draws and often transvaginal ultrasounds, and a retrieval under sedation. The eggs are then rapidly cooled, at which point they can be stored for years. In the U.S., the procedure—which is starting to more commonly, though not predominantly, be covered by employer insurance plans—can cost anywhere from $7,500 to $18,000 per cycle, depending on the city and the clinic, plus annual storage fees of $500 to $1,000 a year.
Imagine going through all of this because you hate betas so much. These whores deserve every bit of misery that they've brought upon themselves.
Inhorn categorizes this army of the “unready or unwilling” into 10 archetypes the women claim are responsible for their dating misery
Funny how they don't ask the men their side of the story. Maybe it's time to look at the roastie in mirror?
As long as these patterns hold, the growing chasm between college-educated men and women is going to leave some women partnerless.
Tell them to fuck off and die, just as they gleefully tell the male incels. I know a number of women who found a husband before the age of 25, and they were all able to do so because they made it priority. It's the ones who rode the cock carousel until the age of 35 and expect a billionaire gigachad to descend from the heavens and marry them that are having issues, and they can go get fucked in the bed they made.
She was struck by how many young Arab men valued and looked forward to fatherhood—a sharp contrast with what she heard from young American women, who shared story after story of men “who were simply unready or unwilling to commit.”
Could it be that becoming a father in the arab world doesn't place a sword above your neck that the mother can release for any or no reason at all?
Arab men actually have a serious amount of power in a relationship, so of course they're going to look forward to fatherhood - they have a social guarantee that they'll get atleast SOMETHING out of the entire fucking thing.
Whereas, in the west, we constantly play deference to women and anything ill that happens, the man is blamed for it.
People are shocked that men aren't stupid and can read the room and culture, film at 11.
Imagine going through all of this because you hate betas so much.
Did the right go from telling men to man up and be "alphas" to blaming women for not wanting some soy-infused beta loser?
Tell them to fuck off and die, just as they gleefully tell the male incels
I haven't seen women, not even the obnoxious college-educateds, say that men "deserve to be raped" because they won't marry women.
It's the ones who rode the cock carousel until the age of 35 and expect a billionaire gigachad to descend from the heavens and marry them that are having issues, and they can go get fucked in the bed they made.
Did the right go from telling men to man up and be "alphas" to blaming women for not wanting some soy-infused beta loser?
Betas are just men who don't get chosen for their looks and height and have to offer prostitution adjacent "relationships" to get women. All soy infused losers are betas, but not all betas are soy infused losers.
Why are you bitter about 'the bed they made'?
Why are you resorting to feminist shaming tactics to shut down anyone who comments on civilization destroying social trends? I've already been sized up for betabuxxing and extricating myself from that situation was not a good time. It's high time these entitled feminists learned to take "no" for an answer.
Betas are just men who don't get chosen for their looks and height
Except that when they do get chosen, you claim that it's just for "beta bux", even when there is no evidence at all for that. So in essence, you're just in your own way.
And if you just look around outside, you find a lot of couples where the man is fat, short, badly dressed, rather abominable, certainly more so than the woman. Clearly, women's standards are not that high, in fact, they may be way too low and that is part of what is destroying civilization.
Why are you resorting to feminist shaming tactics
I'm not shaming anyone. It's just noticeable that you sound bitter.
It's the ones who rode the cock carousel until the age of 35 and expect a billionaire gigachad to descend from the heavens and marry them that are having issues, and they can go get fucked in the bed they made.
Why would you be mad about some hypothetical woman "riding the cock carousel", and then having bad consequences fore it? Did she wrong you in any way?
to shut down anyone who comments on civilization destroying social trends?
Because you don't comment on the trend as much as you try to individualize the blame. People respond to incentives, and if men could get supermodels until age 35 (which is what you claim), exactly 100% would be doing that.
I've already been sized up for betabuxxing and extricating myself from that situation was not a good time. It'
So this is gonna be a mess to respond to the way I usually do, but a couple things:
I'm not in my own way, because I'm out of the dating market. Maybe that bitterness you sense is frustration, because I'm certainly frustrated. Both by women trying to betabux me on a personal level, and by the way romantically unsuccessful people are either demonized or coddled depending on whether they have dicks. I'm not interested in dating, but I get how hard it must be for men who are. It's hard to take an interest in men's issues and not conclude that Imp is right about a nontrivial proportion of the female population.
Yes I individualize the blame. They wanted their precious choice, so they can take responsibility for once in their lives. Having watched numerous women in my life make good choices when it came to dating and marriage I have zero sympathy for the ones who fuck it up. But it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't drag me into their crap and pump out shit articles about how men need to "step up" to save them from the retarded decisions they made with the "liberation" our great grandfathers made the mistake of giving them.
The "cock carousel" comment you mention is meant to draw a contrast between the carousel riders and women that I've personally witnessed not fuck it up. You know what they didn't do? They didn't sleep around with top men who would never commit to them. They married the best man they could find early (just like the Manosphere advises) and started raising families by their mid 20s. Those women experienced the same incentives that the carousel riders did, but because they thought beyond the tingles Chad gives them they got the families they wanted instead of becoming inspins at the age of 40. You're right that there's an incentive problem, but it's not an excuse for the bad choices these whores made, and it's certainly not an excuse for them demanding high income men ride to their rescue because they didn't like their options when they had them.
I'm not in my own way, because I'm out of the dating market. Maybe that bitterness you sense is frustration, because I'm certainly frustrated.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. It wasn't "LOLZ U MAD CUZ U CAN'T GET BITCHES", but that you expressed seeming malice towards women who don't settle down until they are 35. How exactly have they wronged you? Of course, I can understand it towards the specific women who then demand that valuable men marry them, but that's just a few urinalist article writers. I actually feel sorry for them (except if they are feminists), because they may be ruining their own lives.
Both by women trying to betabux me on a personal level
How do you know though? You say that it's not possible for men to get a good relationship, but at the same time, you seem to frame women who do want a relationship with you as 'betabux' - whatever that means.
Historically, women have always relied on the incomes of their husbands. The difference now is that some of them have their own income, which makes that somewhat dubious.
and by the way romantically unsuccessful people are either demonized or coddled depending on whether they have dicks.
Oh no, Trancels are beloved, even though they have dicks.
Yes I individualize the blame. They wanted their precious choice, so they can take responsibility for once in their lives.
That's like me saying that you had your choice, and that you failed because you did not become a secret agent astronaut millionaire bodybuilder who can get any girl. Both the 'unsuccessful' men and the miserable women would have been perfectly fine throughout all of recorded history and probably before, but for the present system that makes that much harder.
They didn't sleep around with top men who would never commit to them.
Imagine for a moment that 20-year-old guys could get and sleep with supermodels (who would not commit to them). How many do you think would not make use of that. Probably fewer than the females.
They married the best man they could find early (just like the Manosphere advises) and started raising families by their mid 20s.
They didn't get that advice from the 'Manosphere', nor from education, nor from society. All are telling them that they can 'have it all'. Basically the only place where you can get this is your family. If you're not raised right, then you basically have no chance - unless you can figure this out from first principles, which basically no one can.
You're right that there's an incentive problem, but it's not an excuse for the bad choices these whores made, and it's certainly not an excuse for them demanding high income men ride to their rescue because they didn't like their options when they had them.
No one needs to 'ride' to anyone's rescue. That said, even feminist women are victims of today's rotten culture. Had they grown up in any other time, they'd be just fine, just like the 'unsuccessful' men - they are all the products of an unbroken sequence of genetic winners, after all.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. It wasn't "LOLZ U MAD CUZ U CAN'T GET BITCHES"
Fair enough. I was sensing that the all too predictable incel slur was coming, and it's much easier to take a charitable view of what you're saying now that I know I was mistaken.
Oh no, Trancels are beloved, even though they have dicks.
Touché.
There's plenty more I could say, but it's getting late.
Fair enough. I was sensing that the all too predictable incel slur was coming, and it's much easier to take a charitable view of what you're saying now that I know I was mistaken.
And that's very cool of you. Wokies call me an 'incel' as well as soon as I say something they don't like. It's basically like all their other words - from conspiracy theorist to racist - it has the same meaning.
I can't get mad about this one, because its a self correcting problem.
Egg freezing is incredibly unviable, the chance of it succeeding is super low, and by the time most women try to use them they only have a scant few chances for that low success rate to work because they can't just conjure up more. But at the same time, its draining them of money by the truckload for literally no gain other than a hope and a prayer.
They don't talk about that part because it would shatter their lucrative business model of swindling rich aging sluts, but its almost a failure guaranteed system. But they keep promising its effectiveness to the point that women live their life assuming they have this safety net ready for later, only for it to slowly creep in that it was never there to begin with.
They also get the wrong impression of how successful it can be because of the apex fallacy. They always focus on the winners in the media but we never really hear of the failures unless its a tragic story the media can print to pull the heart strings of the public.
The thing is, what winners? Like, I honestly cannot even think of one highly publicized one. I can think of a lot of high profile freezing from celebs and big names, but none of them that ever followed through and said they ended up pregnant to term.
So its even worse than the apex fallacy. Its just straight up believing something because it tells you what you want to hear.
In Motherhood on Ice: The Mating Gap and Why Women Freeze Their Eggs, Marcia C. Inhorn, a medical anthropologist at Yale, tells this side of the story. Beginning in 2014, she conducted interviews with 150 American women who had frozen their eggs—most of them heterosexual women who wanted a partner they could have and raise children with. She concluded that, contrary to the commonly held notion that most professional women were freezing their eggs so they could lean into their jobs, “Egg freezing was not about their careers. It was about being single or in very unstable relationships with men who were unwilling to commit to them.”
Let me translate that into normal human speak: These bitches be fucking crazy and can't hold a relationship together.
Egg freezing is the natural solution to these women's delusion: that they aren't responsible for their own situation.
The researcher realized it but look at it from her perspective: she can't destroy her entire target audience for the study. So...the only option is to blame men for it and feed into their delusion to ensure financing continues.
It highlights an uncomfortable biological truth. Men don't care about marrying down because they get a career in order to provide for their families. In contrast, women get a career because of social status, they look down on men without college degrees (even if it's something as stupid as gender studies) as inferiors because they will degrade their social status in the eyes of their female peers
If they just picked one deal breaker finding someone would be doable. The problem is they make all their "standards" deal breakers. About 1/3 of men have a bachelor's degree or higher. That's still a lot of men that a given woman could choose from. The problem is that they add that he also has to be 6 foot whatever, make $100k+, look like a male model, etc. They end up creating a man in their heads that either doesn't exist or has every woman within 100 miles chasing him.
When Venezuela failed it was said that 70% of all the women in the country immediately started to prostitute themselves. None of them went to find a husband or even a boyfriend, just sold themselves on the streets for anybody who had the money for some pussy. Modern women essentially don't aim for relationships and just assume it will happen magically due to pussy power, and are always shocked when their vaginas don't have magical powers.
Modern women essentially don't aim for relationships and just assume it will happen magically due to pussy power, and are always shocked when their vaginas don't have magical powers.
You can't blame them for thinking that, since their vaginas do have magical powers on the men they don't want. The men they do want are the men that all the other women want, and those guys get so much pussy that it has no effect on them.
When Venezuela failed it was said that 70% of all the women in the country immediately started to prostitute themselves
Said by whom?
None of them went to find a husband or even a boyfriend
None of that "70%" of women or no woman at all? Sounds like a weird criticism. Obviously, those who whored themselves out did not try to find a husband (or I hope so).
the funny thing is.. women are hogging up all the "high paying jobs" that are prestigious. Mostly upper managerial jobs and being picked for CEO positions. So technically women are to be blamed for lack of well off men.. since women practically took at least half of those jobs.
She writes about how many women in her cohort of female doctoral students, faced with men intimidated by their achievements,
You will never once hear a Man say how afraid he is to approach a Woman at a bar "because she might have a PhD Bro" That's such an outlandish concept leftist comedians haven't thought to make lame SNL skits about it.
Intimidated by their achievements is code for either scaring dudes off with “maybe my future husband should take my name” type shit in the talking phase or it’s that dudes they dated that weren’t fully submitting to their doctorly authority could only possibly have done so in some fit of illogical resentment.
why women are struggling to find a male co-parent.
male co-parent.
The word you're after is "husband" or "father".
Even though she's since married, my ex wouldn't dream of calling me "male co-parent", it shouts the utter contempt anyone using it holds for men in general.
not married
white
at least 6' tall
not obese
earning at least $40,000 per year
According to statistical data, the probability a guy of the U.S. male population ages 20 to 27 meets your standards is 0.93% that is 1.7% of all white men in that age range.
Seems like there's something deeply wrong with American men.
6' tall you eliminate the bottom 85%, leaving you with 15% of the population.
Not obese, you eliminate about 30% of men, leaving you with 70%.
$40k or more per year, you eliminate about 50%.
White, you eliminate 40% of the population leaving you with 60%.
Not sure how many are married but if we assume 50%.
So 15% * 70% * 60% * 50% * 50% = 1.5% roughly speaking. The issue is when you want multiple qualities that are a "must", that's when you start eliminating huge parts of the population. For instance I could say "I want a woman who's a virgin" and bam, 95% of the female population is eliminated instantly. Add blue eyes and blonde hair, fit, etc, and you're looking at a minuscule amount.
I can see why women find it almost impossible to find someone decent. If you want a non-obese who is not married, you're left with 15%, and if you have minimal standards on the other points, in the single digits.
Both conservatives and liberals bemoan men’s underrepresentation in higher education, their greater likelihood to die a “death of despair,” and the growing share of them who are not working or looking for work.
Yeah, I'm stopping right there. Anyone on the left, and a decent number of the center and right, don't care at all about any of that.
The important take away is that these women will die poor, unloved and alone. They will be miserable their whole lives. Self inflicted punishment for their unrealistic expectations. I have no sympathy for lesser opinions, so I certainly have no forgiveness here.
Inhorn categorizes this army of the “unready or unwilling” into 10 archetypes the women claim are responsible for their dating misery, among them “feminist men” who “claim they are feminist but do not pitch in, pay, or help out, all in the name of gender equality”;
It is. Our great grandfathers failed the shit test and gave women the vote.
Sure, but they're blaming modern men, not their ancestors who made this mess. Modern men are making the most rational choice they can under the circumstances: not playing the game at all.
Look, I'm all about self improvement but when below average women want the top 0.5% of men, it's time for society to start viewing the situation from the opposite lens. It's not men that need to improve themselves any more, it's women who need to set realistic expectations.
We as a society seemed to recognize that men had unrealistic standards for women and we told men to stop having them. Women don't need to be feminine, women don't need to a healthy weight, women don't need to want to have sex all the time and it's fine for women to wear pants, sweatshirts, get face tattoos and piercings everywhere.
Okay, great. Now it's time to tell women to lower their expectations. Men don't need to be 6' tall 5'4" guys are fine. Men don't need to earn $100k/yr. $20k/yr is fine. Men don't need need to be fit, fat men and skinny men are fine. Men don't need to be romantic or caring about a woman's emotions, men can be blunt, harsh and inconsiderate. Men don't need to not want sex all the time. It's okay for men to want sex all the time.
Women need to be taught to lower their standards. Women have unrealistic standards.
Close but not quite. Women need realistic expectations enforced on them. They're never going to arrive at the realization that they need to shape up. They're physically incapable of it. Instead we need at the very least a restoration of social pressures applied to them.
"Hey you're fat and ugly and you'll die alone and unloved and that makes you a horrible person."
Cruel you say? Maybe, but fair and accurate.
You are very right. I am well aware that women must have things forced upon them. I just hesitate to speak the truth about women on KIA2 because that's a quick way to get banned.
Shaming is only one tactic but it's not the most effective. Short of literal physical force, the most effective form of compulsion is financial leverage. One of the main causes for the relationship issues we're seeing today is the social push to make women 50/50 with men in earning power. This removed the financial leverage men used to have over women to force women into having realistic standards because women were forced to sacrifice their unrealistic standards to settle for money. Now, women have money and unrealistic standards and unironically, women have never been more unhappy.
Now, an egalitarian might suggest it's unfair to stop a woman from earning income if she deserves it based on the quality of her labor. Even if that were true, the problem in modernity is that our society unfairly gives too many resources to women despite her inferiority by taking from men and giving to women in order to promote a false ideal of equality. If we simply allocated resources truly based on nothing but merit, men would have significantly more resources than women and men would have a natural position of financial leverage over women to correct for many of the relationship problems that exist today. Abolish child support, abolish alimony, make resource distribution in separations default to what you bring in you get out, no 50/50. Then remove all social programs in society, cut taxes down to the bare minimum to support a defensive military and that's it. Allow for discrimination based on sex/gender (remove any human right suggesting this isn't allowed). Under such a system, women would be forced to reduce their expectations with men because women would be desperate for resources from men because under such a system men would have significantly more resources than women. The only reason women have so many resources isn't because women earn them, it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
You are correct in every point you have just laid out. The problem is how the hell do we implement such policies? That's the part that leaves me scratching my head.
Make the person unwilling to improve be a pariah. Women in general are social and hate being ignored. Either they will improve to the standard of social norm or be casted out for ignoring it. I bet even without concerning genders, this tactic will work beautifully because a lot of people want attention. Also give incentive to the people that will work themselves out to be according to their respective genders.
I think making a pariah out of whores, false accuser and troublemakers will probably do a trick. But to even implement what I'm suggesting, jews that implement the degenerate trends and norms need to go. Making a pariah isn't even a new thing, Japan has unspoken rule of following the basic social etiquette that's why people in general don't fall out of line. At least they are used to, now i'm not sure what's going on with Japan after they are failing to do anything about Johnny Somali guy.
Race thinks that "the truth" is that, in his own words, "women are worthless and only fit to be sex slaves to men".
So I'm not exactly surprised that he cannot find a woman, despite thinking that he is in the top 0.35% of men. His bad attitude would be sufficient to vitiate it and more, even if true.
Child support is one of the biggest travesties of the modern era. On paper, it sounds like a good idea. Children should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their parents. The problem however, is that we don't live on paper, we live in the real world. In the real world, child support checks are made out to the mother, not the child. The money is not given the slightest bit of oversight in how it is spent, and as long as the child isn't a starving malnourished vegetable, the state doesn't care. The amount of money is also technically unlimited because it depends on the other spouse's salary, which is almost always a man.
This amount almost never goes down, but can easily go up should the mother want it to. See the case of Dave Foley, who lost his TV gig as a comedian. Because his child support payments were calculated around the salary he was commanding as a TV presenter, he was paying something like $10k Canadian per month. This was not sustainable for him, obviously, and he went to court multiple times to attempt to lower it, being unsuccessful in his attempt, and racking up lawyer fees. It got so bad that he had to flee Canada to the United States because he would have been locked up in prison for failure to pay child support, the modern debtors prison. His ex wife had moved and taken the children somewhere he could not find them, and he hasn't seen them since.
The amount of men who have killed themselves because they become indentured servants to their ex wives is too damn high, and it's solely because they are men that nobody gives a shit. If women were subject to even half the treatment that men are in the court system it would be considered a nationwide crisis.
Are there statistics on that? This is not a gotcha.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Just to be clear, you make an empirical claim and have absolutely nothing to back it up with?
Good to know, thanks for the reply making it clear.
Suck my cock you sophist faggot. Go back to Reddit where you belong.
They need the early reality check about their place on the SMV scale that men get without feminism pounding a sense of entitlement into their heads from birth. That's why pairing up in high school instead of letting women slut around was such a good system. It took the top 5 percenters out of the pool early instead of letting them run through all the women and delude them about their SMV.
We used to have suitors vetted by parents and peers in the past before a couple got serious in committing to one another. That concept has long gone. That's the difference.
Step one: burning the entirety of Jane Austen's works.
Women are just completely out of touch with what men are like out there. According to the Female Delusion Calculator, only 0.35% of men in the age range of 30-39yo are as good as myself. I'm a not obese white man, 5'10" who isn't married and makes $135,000/yr. I can't even have casual sex with women. I haven't been on a date in two years. If I was paired with the top 0.35% of women, I'd be set. Instead, the only women who share any interest in me are single mothers and only if I'm willing to pay everything for them, do all the housework for them and without them having to have sex with me.
Men just want women to have realistic standards such that a woman understands where she falls in the relative attraction scale and goes for men who are relatively similar to her.
Women absolutely refuse to accept they are no where close to as attractive as they think they are relatively speaking.
If this doesn't prove it's all about height and looks I don't know what does. Am I correct in assuming that you're in the bottom 95% in terms of facial features?
I'd say for facial features I'm about a 5.5/10 for white men. I think my overall physical appearance is about a 6.5-7/10. The biggest issue for me personally for relationships is I mostly just want to have sex. I don't actually find women enjoyable for much outside of sex. I like small talk, hanging out, cuddling, watching movies but I hate dating and I hate being on a woman's beck and call. I just like doing what I feel like. I can in fact attract 7-7.5/10 women but these women are always the reformed slut types. They rode the cock carousel and see me as the guy they're going to settle down with, out up the white picket fence, tick their boxes for "marriage" and live a life of keeping up with the Joneses. I have 0 interest in this type of lifestyle with a woman. I want to be the cock on the carousel she's riding but I can only attract 4-5/10 women for that. The 7-7.5/10 women can find 8-9/10 men to ride if that's all they want instead of me. The 4-5/10 women though are too ugly for me to be bothered to have sex with so that basically puts me into Incel territory. For me to have a standard monogamous long-term relationship with a woman, the relationship would have to be under my terms which would be very non-standard compared to most relationships. When a 7/10 decides to settle for me, she sees herself as lowering her standards already so she thinks she should be the one dictating terms for the relationship and I'm not about to compromise on anything just for the sake of making something work. Either it works for me or it doesn't and the kind of relationship most women want doesn't work for me. But ironically, if I was a 9-10/10 man, then the relationship I wanted with the woman would work. The only reason women negotiate for a relationship style they want with men like me is because they think they're doing men like me a favor giving me attention when I'd rather just be single than engage in a relationship structure that's driven by what the woman wants. So that's why I'm single... but I'm in the top 0.35% of men so if women think men are less like me the further they go up, they're sadly mistaken.
Interesting write up, thanks for that. My situation is that I absolutely refuse to uproot my life for a woman who doesn't significantly improve my quality of life, and those improvements simply aren't realistic in today's dating scene. I also refuse cohabitation, marriage, and kids. Since I'm not Chad no woman is going to stick around very long once she realizes that I refuse to jeopardize my future just to keep her around.
Yeah, I'd say that's basically me too. Women don't really add any value outside of sex, imo. Traditional relationships are worthless to me. Children and cohabitation are death sentences for men.
So you're saying that you're a 5.5/10, can attract 5/10s, but want 9-10s?
You need some work on your interpretation.
I'm about a 6.5-7.0 overall in looks but my face is above average. There's fat/chubby guys that have better faces than me but I beat them in physique. 5.5 might be a little conservative. Maybe 6 or 6.5 is better. I do think my body is better than my face and overall I'm def a 6.5-7/10 so whatever you think that would be.
I'd be fine with a 7/10 woman if she treated me like she treats 9-10/10 men or how a 4-5/10 woman treats me. I don't want a 7/10 woman treat me the way that 7/10 women do. It's not worth it for me.
Now factor in metrics that women care about such as height, weight, income, race and I'm a 9.5/10.
So I don't think it's outside the realm of reasonable to expect a 7/10 looking woman to treat me the way she would treat a 9/10 looking man despite the fact that I only am a 7/10 looking guy once all other aspects of myself are factored in.
There may be some stuff in your 'calculation' that you are missing. For one, you sound extraordinarily bitter and resentful. No one wants that sort of person around.
A black man with my height age and income is like 0011 iirc. I can have casual sex but I don't want to.
Why don't you want to? I don't have casual sex either but the reason I don't is because the women I can have casual sex with are too unattractive for me to be bothered.
I'm a Christian and it's just stupid to have sex with women that I wouldn't potentially want children with
Then you're suggesting to most men that sex entirely is stupid but most men I know enjoy sex and sometimes you can be intimate with a woman without children. You shouldn't cut down your fellow men simply because they have a difference in taste then you in this regard. Having children is admirable but there simply aren't a lot of women worth having children with out there and western societies have made it legally a nightmare for men to have children. It makes sense for most men not to want children in modernity through no fault of their own yet still many of these men will want a sexual relationship with a woman still and there's nothing wrong with that. Ideally, it would be great if men could only have sex with a woman they want to marry and have children with but in practice that doesn't work.
The bible says men who can't control their sexual desires should get a wife but in modernity there are no wives to go around. Men can't just take a wife like they may have been able to in the passed. Men are forced to have to adapt to the system that exists today and yes this system is far from ideal but you can't blame men for having to navigate in the weeds. Hardly any man wants the options available to them. They simply have no choice and are forced to adapt to our sick sick society.
citation fucking needed
Oh, I don't believe men did at all. I'm going by what disingenuous feminists were pretending to believe to increase their power over men.
FTA:
it's a storm of multiple problems...
What a load of shit. This problem has been left to fester for decades, and the only reason anyone gives a shit now is because women are being inconvenienced. Well, that and their boogeyman Andrew Tate has men and boys questioning the feminist narrative that they've been fed since birth.
"Unwilling to commit" is the key point here. Once again their worldview starts making sense when you substitute in "Chad and Tyrone" whenever they say "men".
Imagine going through all of this because you hate betas so much. These whores deserve every bit of misery that they've brought upon themselves.
Funny how they don't ask the men their side of the story. Maybe it's time to look at the roastie in mirror?
Tell them to fuck off and die, just as they gleefully tell the male incels. I know a number of women who found a husband before the age of 25, and they were all able to do so because they made it priority. It's the ones who rode the cock carousel until the age of 35 and expect a billionaire gigachad to descend from the heavens and marry them that are having issues, and they can go get fucked in the bed they made.
Ah, yet another permutation of the tired Hillary Clinton's "primary victims".
Notice the mocking, shaming tone "the chorus of concern".
Feminists have zero empathy for men, they only care about how they are affected when they lose access to them as utilities.
"Men dying in despair, women most affected."
Could it be that becoming a father in the arab world doesn't place a sword above your neck that the mother can release for any or no reason at all?
Fixing the family court grift is the real 3rd rail of American politics.
Arab men actually have a serious amount of power in a relationship, so of course they're going to look forward to fatherhood - they have a social guarantee that they'll get atleast SOMETHING out of the entire fucking thing.
Whereas, in the west, we constantly play deference to women and anything ill that happens, the man is blamed for it.
People are shocked that men aren't stupid and can read the room and culture, film at 11.
Did the right go from telling men to man up and be "alphas" to blaming women for not wanting some soy-infused beta loser?
I haven't seen women, not even the obnoxious college-educateds, say that men "deserve to be raped" because they won't marry women.
Why are you bitter about 'the bed they made'?
Betas are just men who don't get chosen for their looks and height and have to offer prostitution adjacent "relationships" to get women. All soy infused losers are betas, but not all betas are soy infused losers.
Why are you resorting to feminist shaming tactics to shut down anyone who comments on civilization destroying social trends? I've already been sized up for betabuxxing and extricating myself from that situation was not a good time. It's high time these entitled feminists learned to take "no" for an answer.
Except that when they do get chosen, you claim that it's just for "beta bux", even when there is no evidence at all for that. So in essence, you're just in your own way.
And if you just look around outside, you find a lot of couples where the man is fat, short, badly dressed, rather abominable, certainly more so than the woman. Clearly, women's standards are not that high, in fact, they may be way too low and that is part of what is destroying civilization.
I'm not shaming anyone. It's just noticeable that you sound bitter.
It's the ones who rode the cock carousel until the age of 35 and expect a billionaire gigachad to descend from the heavens and marry them that are having issues, and they can go get fucked in the bed they made.
Why would you be mad about some hypothetical woman "riding the cock carousel", and then having bad consequences fore it? Did she wrong you in any way?
Because you don't comment on the trend as much as you try to individualize the blame. People respond to incentives, and if men could get supermodels until age 35 (which is what you claim), exactly 100% would be doing that.
See your first sentence.
So this is gonna be a mess to respond to the way I usually do, but a couple things:
I'm not in my own way, because I'm out of the dating market. Maybe that bitterness you sense is frustration, because I'm certainly frustrated. Both by women trying to betabux me on a personal level, and by the way romantically unsuccessful people are either demonized or coddled depending on whether they have dicks. I'm not interested in dating, but I get how hard it must be for men who are. It's hard to take an interest in men's issues and not conclude that Imp is right about a nontrivial proportion of the female population.
Yes I individualize the blame. They wanted their precious choice, so they can take responsibility for once in their lives. Having watched numerous women in my life make good choices when it came to dating and marriage I have zero sympathy for the ones who fuck it up. But it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't drag me into their crap and pump out shit articles about how men need to "step up" to save them from the retarded decisions they made with the "liberation" our great grandfathers made the mistake of giving them.
The "cock carousel" comment you mention is meant to draw a contrast between the carousel riders and women that I've personally witnessed not fuck it up. You know what they didn't do? They didn't sleep around with top men who would never commit to them. They married the best man they could find early (just like the Manosphere advises) and started raising families by their mid 20s. Those women experienced the same incentives that the carousel riders did, but because they thought beyond the tingles Chad gives them they got the families they wanted instead of becoming inspins at the age of 40. You're right that there's an incentive problem, but it's not an excuse for the bad choices these whores made, and it's certainly not an excuse for them demanding high income men ride to their rescue because they didn't like their options when they had them.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. It wasn't "LOLZ U MAD CUZ U CAN'T GET BITCHES", but that you expressed seeming malice towards women who don't settle down until they are 35. How exactly have they wronged you? Of course, I can understand it towards the specific women who then demand that valuable men marry them, but that's just a few urinalist article writers. I actually feel sorry for them (except if they are feminists), because they may be ruining their own lives.
How do you know though? You say that it's not possible for men to get a good relationship, but at the same time, you seem to frame women who do want a relationship with you as 'betabux' - whatever that means.
Historically, women have always relied on the incomes of their husbands. The difference now is that some of them have their own income, which makes that somewhat dubious.
Oh no, Trancels are beloved, even though they have dicks.
That's like me saying that you had your choice, and that you failed because you did not become a secret agent astronaut millionaire bodybuilder who can get any girl. Both the 'unsuccessful' men and the miserable women would have been perfectly fine throughout all of recorded history and probably before, but for the present system that makes that much harder.
Imagine for a moment that 20-year-old guys could get and sleep with supermodels (who would not commit to them). How many do you think would not make use of that. Probably fewer than the females.
They didn't get that advice from the 'Manosphere', nor from education, nor from society. All are telling them that they can 'have it all'. Basically the only place where you can get this is your family. If you're not raised right, then you basically have no chance - unless you can figure this out from first principles, which basically no one can.
No one needs to 'ride' to anyone's rescue. That said, even feminist women are victims of today's rotten culture. Had they grown up in any other time, they'd be just fine, just like the 'unsuccessful' men - they are all the products of an unbroken sequence of genetic winners, after all.
Fair enough. I was sensing that the all too predictable incel slur was coming, and it's much easier to take a charitable view of what you're saying now that I know I was mistaken.
Touché.
There's plenty more I could say, but it's getting late.
And that's very cool of you. Wokies call me an 'incel' as well as soon as I say something they don't like. It's basically like all their other words - from conspiracy theorist to racist - it has the same meaning.
Women that don't settle down till 35 have wronged society. We cannot function as society in the long term with illogical behavior like that
But "society" is telling them to be promiscuous, "have it all", etc.
Most of the "right" are retards who just chase the latest psyop directed at them. "Muh 19th" is the latest psyop so there you go.
I can't get mad about this one, because its a self correcting problem.
Egg freezing is incredibly unviable, the chance of it succeeding is super low, and by the time most women try to use them they only have a scant few chances for that low success rate to work because they can't just conjure up more. But at the same time, its draining them of money by the truckload for literally no gain other than a hope and a prayer.
They don't talk about that part because it would shatter their lucrative business model of swindling rich aging sluts, but its almost a failure guaranteed system. But they keep promising its effectiveness to the point that women live their life assuming they have this safety net ready for later, only for it to slowly creep in that it was never there to begin with.
They also get the wrong impression of how successful it can be because of the apex fallacy. They always focus on the winners in the media but we never really hear of the failures unless its a tragic story the media can print to pull the heart strings of the public.
The thing is, what winners? Like, I honestly cannot even think of one highly publicized one. I can think of a lot of high profile freezing from celebs and big names, but none of them that ever followed through and said they ended up pregnant to term.
So its even worse than the apex fallacy. Its just straight up believing something because it tells you what you want to hear.
I love this part:
Let me translate that into normal human speak: These bitches be fucking crazy and can't hold a relationship together.
Egg freezing is the natural solution to these women's delusion: that they aren't responsible for their own situation.
The researcher realized it but look at it from her perspective: she can't destroy her entire target audience for the study. So...the only option is to blame men for it and feed into their delusion to ensure financing continues.
And thus, the feminist grift continues unabated.
It highlights an uncomfortable biological truth. Men don't care about marrying down because they get a career in order to provide for their families. In contrast, women get a career because of social status, they look down on men without college degrees (even if it's something as stupid as gender studies) as inferiors because they will degrade their social status in the eyes of their female peers
If they just picked one deal breaker finding someone would be doable. The problem is they make all their "standards" deal breakers. About 1/3 of men have a bachelor's degree or higher. That's still a lot of men that a given woman could choose from. The problem is that they add that he also has to be 6 foot whatever, make $100k+, look like a male model, etc. They end up creating a man in their heads that either doesn't exist or has every woman within 100 miles chasing him.
Pretty sure freezing eggs has a really high failure rate too. It's a sad situation and the people that push these things are evil.
When Venezuela failed it was said that 70% of all the women in the country immediately started to prostitute themselves. None of them went to find a husband or even a boyfriend, just sold themselves on the streets for anybody who had the money for some pussy. Modern women essentially don't aim for relationships and just assume it will happen magically due to pussy power, and are always shocked when their vaginas don't have magical powers.
You can't blame them for thinking that, since their vaginas do have magical powers on the men they don't want. The men they do want are the men that all the other women want, and those guys get so much pussy that it has no effect on them.
Said by whom?
None of that "70%" of women or no woman at all? Sounds like a weird criticism. Obviously, those who whored themselves out did not try to find a husband (or I hope so).
the funny thing is.. women are hogging up all the "high paying jobs" that are prestigious. Mostly upper managerial jobs and being picked for CEO positions. So technically women are to be blamed for lack of well off men.. since women practically took at least half of those jobs.
“Men won’t commit!”
We typically don’t to gold digging post-wall whores.
You will never once hear a Man say how afraid he is to approach a Woman at a bar "because she might have a PhD Bro" That's such an outlandish concept leftist comedians haven't thought to make lame SNL skits about it.
Intimidated by their achievements is code for either scaring dudes off with “maybe my future husband should take my name” type shit in the talking phase or it’s that dudes they dated that weren’t fully submitting to their doctorly authority could only possibly have done so in some fit of illogical resentment.
Anything to avoid looking inwards. It surely can't be because she's fat and entitled.
The first paragraph is literally the "men dying, women effected most" meme.
All of them are going to be cat horders, their eggs are NEVER getting used, at least by them.
Who makes cat litter and boxed wine? I smell an investment opportunity.
The word you're after is "husband" or "father".
Even though she's since married, my ex wouldn't dream of calling me "male co-parent", it shouts the utter contempt anyone using it holds for men in general.
These women need to look at the website https://igotstandardsbro.com/
According to statistical data, the probability a guy of the U.S. male population ages 20 to 27 meets your standards is 0.93% that is 1.7% of all white men in that age range.
Seems like there's something deeply wrong with American men.
Not so much.
6' tall you eliminate the bottom 85%, leaving you with 15% of the population.
Not obese, you eliminate about 30% of men, leaving you with 70%.
$40k or more per year, you eliminate about 50%.
White, you eliminate 40% of the population leaving you with 60%.
Not sure how many are married but if we assume 50%.
So 15% * 70% * 60% * 50% * 50% = 1.5% roughly speaking. The issue is when you want multiple qualities that are a "must", that's when you start eliminating huge parts of the population. For instance I could say "I want a woman who's a virgin" and bam, 95% of the female population is eliminated instantly. Add blue eyes and blonde hair, fit, etc, and you're looking at a minuscule amount.
I can see why women find it almost impossible to find someone decent. If you want a non-obese who is not married, you're left with 15%, and if you have minimal standards on the other points, in the single digits.
Yeah, I'm stopping right there. Anyone on the left, and a decent number of the center and right, don't care at all about any of that.
Men suffering, women most affected. Another trash article by woke feminist cancer.
I started reading the article and when that was essentially what the first paragraph or two boiled down to I closed the page.
The important take away is that these women will die poor, unloved and alone. They will be miserable their whole lives. Self inflicted punishment for their unrealistic expectations. I have no sympathy for lesser opinions, so I certainly have no forgiveness here.
LMAO.
Sure, but they're blaming modern men, not their ancestors who made this mess. Modern men are making the most rational choice they can under the circumstances: not playing the game at all.