I've never used the term "Christcuck" before, but this must what Manosphere guys who do use it have in mind. Friendly reminder that if you allow yourself to be shamed into making bad decisions then you're the one who is going to pay for it, not the people who shamed you.
The latest example comes from X, formerly known as Twitter, where social media personality H. Pearl Davis declared that “marriage is a terrible deal for men in 2023.” To the contrary, sociologist Brad Wilcox pointed out that married men are, on average, much happier than their unmarried peers
Is a guy claiming to be a conservative unironically using "experts say" as an argument? This is indistinguishable from feminist marriage shilling.
Though Davis overstates the prevalence of these ills, they are real. Men can have their hearts broken, their bank accounts drained, and their children taken from them.
He admits that it's all true, but he's still telling men to stick their dicks in the electrical outlet anyway. He doesn't have a word to say about family law reform or telling women not to be grifting whores. All he cares about is trying coerce men into making life destroying decisions. Tradcucks somehow manage to be even more odious than feminists.
Those whose goal in life is to avoid suffering should avoid marriage.
Yeah, that's what MGTOW advocates. This guy and his feminist butt buddies need to learn that they don't get to dictate men's life choices as part of some social engineering scheme. Men's life choices belong to men alone.
Indeed, they should avoid love of any sort.
Women are biologically incapable of loving beta males, so let's stop pretending that love is a choice for any man outside an extremely tiny high SMV minority. What this retard is advocating has nothing to do with love. It's just paying the bills for a whore who lost her game of musical dicks.
Rather, those telling men not to fulfill their vocations as husbands and fathers are basing this counsel on reasons that are weak and cowardly. For all of their supposed sympathy, it is they who seek to stunt men's nature and sacrifice our calling in exchange for the promise of a tame security. This is unmanly.
Drink bleach you fucking subhuman. The only thing that's unmanly is allowing yourself to be shamed by evil cretins like yourself into destroying the one life you have. Go back to letting your blue haired master pillage your prison wallet with her strap on.
it is they who seek to stunt men's nature and sacrifice our calling in exchange for the promise of a tame security.
If Party A tells me not to stick hand in fire and Party B insist I do, I will not stick my hand in fire. Not because I'm being manipulated by Party A or trying to spite Party B. Its because I have common fucking sense that said fire will burn my hands.
Jesus Christ, every fucking time, dude? It’s like you’re just waiting for an excuse to piss on “the right”. It’s pathological with you. Everyone who is remotely critical of feminism is considered right wing by the vast majority of people, but you never miss an opportunity to conflate grifters and liars with the entire political right. You’re so fucking European lol
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?
There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men that aren't the top of the top of the top.
Not the person you are responding to, but I appreciate the genuine and good faith response that doesn't resort to shit flinging.
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
I personally have no difficulty believing that statistic to be true. However "married men" artificially selects for men who have yet to be divorced raped, or cheated on, or have their kids taken from them. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of them are unknowingly hurtling towards that fate.
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not a hedonist that only seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. I despise hedonism actually. But I think it is disingenuous to compare going outside and exercising to dealing with modern women.
The probability of something very bad happening to you from going outside is astronomically low. I don't think I need to explain how the probability of ending up divorce raped and only able to see your kids a couple times a month is orders of magnitude higher.
And exercise can be boiled down to a science. You input a predictable amount of strain and discomfort for a whole host of health benefits that have next to zero downside so long as you utilize proper form to avoid injury.
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
This answer will vary by person. In my case, I have slightly above average looks, make well above average money for my age with good career prospects, and have good social skills. I am of average height though, so that alone makes me invisible to a huge chunk of women.
I dont consider myself a beta male, but I think when people complain about things like this, they are pointing at phenomena like the one I explained above. One superficial negative trait that shouldn't be a huge issue being blown out of proportion.
Personally, my issue is more on the opposite end though. Similar to what onetruephilosoraptor detailed above, you can meet thousands of women and find a handful that are true marriage material. And no, this isn't me being hypocritical and disqualifying huge swathes of the female population for superficial grievances. I'm talking huge personality flaws or similar things that might as well be the human equivalent of poison dart frogs loudly advertising their toxicity with bright colors.
I've never used the term "Christcuck" before, but this must what Manosphere guys who do use it have in mind. Friendly reminder that if you allow yourself to be shamed into making bad decisions then you're the one who is going to pay for it, not the people who shamed you.
Is a guy claiming to be a conservative unironically using "experts say" as an argument? This is indistinguishable from feminist marriage shilling.
He admits that it's all true, but he's still telling men to stick their dicks in the electrical outlet anyway. He doesn't have a word to say about family law reform or telling women not to be grifting whores. All he cares about is trying coerce men into making life destroying decisions. Tradcucks somehow manage to be even more odious than feminists.
Yeah, that's what MGTOW advocates. This guy and his feminist butt buddies need to learn that they don't get to dictate men's life choices as part of some social engineering scheme. Men's life choices belong to men alone.
Women are biologically incapable of loving beta males, so let's stop pretending that love is a choice for any man outside an extremely tiny high SMV minority. What this retard is advocating has nothing to do with love. It's just paying the bills for a whore who lost her game of musical dicks.
Drink bleach you fucking subhuman. The only thing that's unmanly is allowing yourself to be shamed by evil cretins like yourself into destroying the one life you have. Go back to letting your blue haired master pillage your prison wallet with her strap on.
If Party A tells me not to stick hand in fire and Party B insist I do, I will not stick my hand in fire. Not because I'm being manipulated by Party A or trying to spite Party B. Its because I have common fucking sense that said fire will burn my hands.
It's wider government policy coming from elsewhere. A quick search shows the law commission and the women and equalities committee pushing for it.
Jesus Christ, every fucking time, dude? It’s like you’re just waiting for an excuse to piss on “the right”. It’s pathological with you. Everyone who is remotely critical of feminism is considered right wing by the vast majority of people, but you never miss an opportunity to conflate grifters and liars with the entire political right. You’re so fucking European lol
nailed it
When a poisoned tree is only producing low hanging rotting fruit, the blame should not be directed towards the picker.
I have a few questions:
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
Thanks for the answers.
I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.
That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.
There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.
I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men that aren't the top of the top of the top.
Odds are that it hasn't been reproduced.
Not the person you are responding to, but I appreciate the genuine and good faith response that doesn't resort to shit flinging.
I personally have no difficulty believing that statistic to be true. However "married men" artificially selects for men who have yet to be divorced raped, or cheated on, or have their kids taken from them. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of them are unknowingly hurtling towards that fate.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not a hedonist that only seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. I despise hedonism actually. But I think it is disingenuous to compare going outside and exercising to dealing with modern women.
The probability of something very bad happening to you from going outside is astronomically low. I don't think I need to explain how the probability of ending up divorce raped and only able to see your kids a couple times a month is orders of magnitude higher.
And exercise can be boiled down to a science. You input a predictable amount of strain and discomfort for a whole host of health benefits that have next to zero downside so long as you utilize proper form to avoid injury.
This answer will vary by person. In my case, I have slightly above average looks, make well above average money for my age with good career prospects, and have good social skills. I am of average height though, so that alone makes me invisible to a huge chunk of women.
I dont consider myself a beta male, but I think when people complain about things like this, they are pointing at phenomena like the one I explained above. One superficial negative trait that shouldn't be a huge issue being blown out of proportion.
Personally, my issue is more on the opposite end though. Similar to what onetruephilosoraptor detailed above, you can meet thousands of women and find a handful that are true marriage material. And no, this isn't me being hypocritical and disqualifying huge swathes of the female population for superficial grievances. I'm talking huge personality flaws or similar things that might as well be the human equivalent of poison dart frogs loudly advertising their toxicity with bright colors.