Their expectations for men are unrealistic: Almost all of them want a guy who is at least 6 feet tall, has six pack abs and makes a six figure salary at minimum.
The number of men that fits their insane criteria is one percent.
They expect all of this and they bring absolutely nothing to the table. Most women today don't know how to cook or clean. They have whored around in their youth and have slept with dozens of men and have destroyed their ability to pair bond.
Why should a man who has his shit together risk it all to marry one of these entitled used up whores?
I am a proud misogynist at this point.
These whores should have never been allowed to work and they should have never been allowed to vote.
Society has gone to hell because of rampant feminism.
Any tradcon or feminist trying to guilt or shame men into getting married to one of these worthless whores needs to be fucking kicked in the teeth.
Hear hear. I'm convinced that the vast majority are simply evil, just like the troons. The real mind fuck is finding the rare one who isn't (unsurprisingly they're always taken) and not allowing your mind to trick you into trying to win the lottery.
I think I have only met two girls that were truly good and decent people worthy of marriage.
Both of them had extremely rare 10/10 personalities, they had no social media and they were also physically attractive(7/10). Of course both of them were already married to decent men.
I think marriage is a scam and I have no plans on ever getting married.
The only exceptions to this rule are if I was marrying one of these two girls I mentioned above.
Both of them had the full package: they had actual critical thinking skills, they knew how to cook and clean, were genuinely caring about other people, have a soft feminine nature, they actually listened more than they talked, were great with kids and also were physically attractive.
I have graduated from college, went to grad school and also worked in academia and worked in private industry for years and have met thousands of women and I can say only two were actually worthy of marrying.
The women who are truly good are usually the ones who formed relationships with a childhood sweetheart in high school or if they do break up, are back in a relationship quickly before they get anywhere near a dating site. The women I know anecdotally who are single either have mental health issues that they will openly admit or are proactively never going to date again, usually because they are fixated on the positive aspects of an ex who no other man could ever best, never mind emulate or are too old and can't be bothered with it.
The current state of the dating market is grim for the average man and if you're below average and have any single deficiency such as being unattractive, out of shape, poor, lack of relationship experience (pre-selection) when you are older, speech impediment, neuroatypical condition, are not independent, unstable career prospects and so forth, all it takes is one single characteristic to be rejected and you may as well not bother. The hit on self-esteem and your mental being is not worth it. A lot of these things are genetic - within your DNA - and can't be improved by "just lift bro", "just touch grass bro" and "just shoot your shot bro" as coaches, gurus and evolutionary psychologists like to spout ad nauseam.
When I met my wife she had no domestic skills at all. Like most boomers, her parents taught her that women doing household chores was a form of abuse.
Nevertheless, I have trained her into a good wife and mother, making three family meals a day and keeping a house. It was pretty much like potty training, but still doable. I did this because I wanted kids and a proper family, and I wasn't going to leave it up to chance.
But don't blame guys who refuse to bother. It sucks and it's hard work. Women are being squandered by society and filled with false premises of their aptitudes and values, and it's going to be generations to fix it.
Like most boomers, her parents taught her that women doing household chores was a form of abuse...Nevertheless, I have trained her into a good wife and mother
Almost all of them want a guy who is at least 6 feet tall, has six pack abs and makes a six figure salary at minimum.
The more infuriating part is, none of that even matters either. That's just women's weak attempts to put a quantifiable value on their attraction, because otherwise it looks really bad on them.
Because there are absolute bottom of the barrel manlets living in a trailer where they steal copper to eat, and they still get women. Shit my father was one of them.
And its all because all that really matters to them is that momentary spark that gets them soaked, and then everything is worked backwards to explain her attraction. Just like "the ick" that gets talked about on tiktok all the time now, where women don't have an acceptable reason to be turned off a guy that they can say outloud, so they make up these vague terms that sound kinda digestible to make people stop asking questions.
Or basically, women are retarded. Don't listen to their words, just do what you want and you'd be surprised at how often literally nothing they said matters.
They pretend they don't understand the feeling because they are aware that that feeling reveals something revolting about how they actually evaluate men.
It also reveals a way men can improve. Women hate the idea of terrible or weaker men improving their status, because then they can't be certain if he has weak genes or not (because that's all it always is, instinctual).
The things they say they want are usually bars so high that no man who doesn't have them will ever really achieve them, so its not telling men to improve. Its just raw filter to get men to fuck off.
A MGTOW content creator worked out the percentage of men who meets all three of those criteria. It's less than one percent. It's 0.041%.
Worse still, there seems to be a push for women to earn more than men but still expect men to work long hours and do all the household chores and jobs.
And in terms of marriage, the Lotus Eaters released a compilation of the Labour conference. One of the current MPs, Emily Thornberry, spoke of their proposal to bring in common law marriage. Labour is expected to form the next Government as soon as next year. If that comes to pass, unmarried and cohabiting men are on the hook if she gets bored, doesn't find you attractive anymore or wishes to switch to a new partner and takes you to divorce court.
Worse still, there seems to be a push for women to earn more than men but still expect men to work long hours and do all the household chores and jobs.
They expect the betas who get into relationshits with them to be slaves while they reciprocate as little as they can get away with. If you're not some Chad who can obtain no strings attached sex you might as well not bother.
Shaming men isn't going to resolve anything. The root problems need to be addressed before healthy families can start forming in large numbers again, but no one wants to reign in the excesses of women.
Tradcons think its simply just a cultural problem, they think Japan's approach to just simply romanticizing marriage will fix the problem despite it proving to have no real results.
The system we live in now was never meant for pure democracy.
Democracy is shit. The vote was meant to only go to landowners, which while a flawed convention, is still superior. Because let's not pretend all men are worthy of a vote either.
But a better solution is earning the vote through personal sacrifice, in the vein of starship troopers. That is the best way of determining who has the necessary moral character to vote responsibly.
These whores should have never been allowed to work and they should have never been allowed to vote.
Society has gone to hell because of rampant feminism.
Any tradcon or feminist trying to guilt or shame men into getting married to one of these worthless whores needs to be fucking kicked in the teeth.
Until the issues get addressed the tradcon wailing will continue to fall on deaf ears.
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.
I posted in the MGTOW community that Labour is proposing common law marriage should they get power next year. Which means you don't have to get married anymore to face going through divorce court in the UK.
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.
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
Men take on the entirety of the financial and legal risk in marriage. in most situations, when the woman wants to break things off, at worst she leaves with what she came in with. if Amanda decides to break things off, he loses his house, his car, and half his life savings.
Hopefully Nathanael here won't end up in a murder-suicide attempt after an even manlier divorce court judge teaches him a lesson in who really has the power.
I read that about that one. A man who has nothing to lose is the most dangerous man of all. For once a corrupt family court judge experienced consequences for his actions.
This guy lost everything, so it's little wonder he snapped. The real question is why this doesn't happen more considering how common it is. I wonder how many lives this judge destroyed before someone finally put him in a hole.
Brad Wilcox pointed out that married men are, on average, much happier than their unmarried peers
And you know why that is?
Because married men, even those married to god awful soul sucking hellions, no longer have to engage in the fucking rat race. They don't have to compete, they don't have to keep up with every single man out there, they don't have to constantly be juggling 3 apps, 14 conversations, and a book full of preferences for dates. They can just come home and focus on anything that isn't figuring out how to get a girl to text back.
Now, most men should still be mindful of that, else his hellion will be cheating before long. But that's the bliss of ignorance.
That's not a slam dunk they think it is. It says nothing good about women. If we weren't instinctually wired to crave them, we'd have no practical use for them outside procreation.
I don't agree with Pearl about a huge amount, but she's not actually wrong on this, is she?
As for "Risk-based aversion" - the point about taking a gamble is that there's supposed to be a reward for your risk-taking. That's what makes taking a risk worthwhile in the first place.
What, exactly, is the reward these days? I'm not seeing much of one, but I am seeing an awful lot of risk there.
Men in general can be pretty ruthless about stuff like this. If it's not worth it, why bother with it?
Women, have some self-control, keep your body count low, and you will have more negotiating power. Dudes don't want to share every facet of their finances with whores.
Devil's advocate: he argues that by living up to your own standards and values and marrying a woman, you will indeed become vulnerable, but your moral rectitude will remain untarnished, despite the vicissitudes that life - and perhaps your spouse - will put you through.
Your wife may turn out to be an evil shrew, but you don't have to reciprocate in kind. Also, you can forestall financial ruin by prenups and what have you. It's not much, but at least it's something.
Living up to one's own moral standard or this jackass's moral standard? It sounds like the latter to me, and his sense of morality is no less depraved than the feminists'. Someone who says "Be miserable because my fucked up sense of right and wrong tells you to" isn't someone that anyone should be listening to.
Also, you can forestall financial ruin by prenups and what have you.
Prenups are regularly thrown out by corrupt family courts. They apply an arbitrary "fairness" standard, which boils down to anything being less lucrative for the woman than the standard divorce rape being considered "unfair". Either that or she'll claim coercion, which can be as mild as the man refusing to marry without the prenup. Sorry if it feels like I'm ranting at you, but assuming that family courts follow the rule of law can be a life destroying mistake for a man.
He's arguing from a Christian perspective to other Christians. If you believe in the bible and run away from marriage out of fear, then yes, that very much defies the biblical conception of what a man is supposed to be.
I sincerely doubt, however, that he'd apply the same standard to non-believers. He might still argue you're doing the wrong thing, but only because you don't believe in god anyway, which is a bigger issue.
If you believe in the bible and run away from marriage out of fear, then yes, that very much defies the biblical conception of what a man is supposed to be.
This is a catholic belief not rooted in the Bible. One of their sacraments is marriage which basically says men are living in sin if theyre unmarried. The only times in the Bible where men are instructed to get married is God telling Adam and Eve and later Noah to repopulate, and then later on men should marry if they can't control their lustful desires.
Christians who think its their duty to get married are just following a man made tradition.
I never once said that a man is obligated to marry. I absolutely agree with you on what you said. What I was pointing out was the REASON. Intention matters, especially in christianity.
If you want a wife and family, there's nothing wrong with that; the bible says there's honor in fulfilling the roles of father and husband. If you have little to no interest, or your priority is God, the bible says that's okay too.
But if you DO want to have a family, and you DO want a wife, and you're just suppressing that out of fear whilst still burning with lust, it's hard for me to see how that's very godly.
Great point on the prenup, I was watching a video by a smarter MGTOW adjacent content creator named Martin Goldberg whos usually spot on with a lot of his takes, but he had a stupid take recently in a video where he was shaming men as "simps" for wanting to move to patriarchal countries to avoid western family courts, and his genius advice was to get an "ironclad prenup" to fight divorce rape. When I pointed out that prenups are thrown out in court, he just hit me with "just get a good lawyer bro".
Prenups don't seem worth much these days. Maybe they still matter in a handful of states, but outside of that you're just lighting money on fire paying a lawyer to draft it.
They are and they aren’t even trying to rectify the issue either. Truth is that Christian single women have even higher standards than their secular counterparts. They want Christian Chad and they expect him to fall into their lap.
It's maddening. And they don't even see there's a problem. You can point to demographics and the problems younger Christian men and women are having finding someone to marry but they just don't see it. It's just a "Man up and stop being lazy" to the men and "you're the pearl of great price so wait till the end of time" to the women, among many problems the Church has on this issue.
I'm married. 15 years and 3 kids. Nothing is ever perfect, but she probably saved my life, among all the other gifts that I consistently get. I'm not going to make the argument that the author made, but I will say that being blackpilled on marriage isn't a victory.
I think the West has much worse problems than all have realized. There was a study done over a decade ago that showed that roughly a third of all American white women had mental problems. Along with this I have read books on Witches and Feminism and Spiteful Mutants and a thought has occurred from such knowledge (as well as what has been talked about in game and the manosphere).
I believe, due to the removal of natural selection in the West, that a good chunk of women in America are freaks and deviants. You even see this with how many white women have altered appearances either via genetics or self-mutilation. Not just tattoos and piercings and dyed hair, but several of them have that fish like face that has popped up on a recent meme. If this is the case then it's going to take more than just restoring patriarchal values because the capacity for virtually demonic behavior will always be lurking under the surface within the genetics of these deviant women.
Unfortunately, this means merely getting rid of the deviant men will not be enough to restore the West.
Statistics don't apply to individuals. Just because some bad thing happens at some percentage across the whole population it has nothing to do with your personal risk exposure.
Join a traditional religion and practice it, whether or not you believe. Avoid women who went to college, they are much more likely to have been ruined.
If you have to compromise and accept risk then you do, men's job is to accept risk. Honor your parents and ancestors by making the sacrifices necessary to continue your bloodline.
Thankfully for me, my brothers took care of the bloodline. One got cheated on and divorced. The other is still happily married.
It's a fucked situation no doubt about it. I'd prefer to be married with children but I don't have the stomach to sift through the garbage in hopes of finding that one gem. (who could be an illusion anyway)
You lost me on the last line, but I do wonder how we're supposed to prevent Idiocracy if only the thugs and men too stupid to figure it out are the ones pumping out kids. We need to shift the balance of power somehow. A minority of tradcons in their churches aren't going to hold up society.
A minority of tradcons in their churches aren't going to hold up society.
And that isn't their responsibility. What IS their responsibility, is having society when the rest of "society" collapses. They're not holding up the monolith when the rains push it down, just their own umbrella.
Join a traditional religion and practice it, whether or not you believe. Avoid women who went to college, they are much more likely to have been ruined.
Where do you think all these college whore go to when they are used up?
The churches.
If you have to compromise and accept risk then you do, men's job is to accept risk. Honor your parents and ancestors by making the sacrifices necessary to continue your bloodline.
I'm honoring my ancestors by marrying a whore so that my grandchildren can be trannies.
Literally everyone who openly agrees with your opinion of women is right wing. When are you going to stop being a retarded eurocuck and acknowledge that your former self was simply wrong? This enlightened centrist bullshit is Reddit-tier idiocy.
But also marriages falling apart is the fault of men. Either the man chose poorly, the man compromised and gambled that her flaws wouldn't manifest with him, or there was a failure of his leadership.
Either you believe women and men are equal and feminism is fundamentally correct, or you believe the man is superior and thus is responsible for everything.
They're lying because divorced men don't have the same happiness of never married men. They just lump the two groups together in that dishonest study to push their marriage grift.
I truly despise modern women.
Their expectations for men are unrealistic: Almost all of them want a guy who is at least 6 feet tall, has six pack abs and makes a six figure salary at minimum.
The number of men that fits their insane criteria is one percent.
They expect all of this and they bring absolutely nothing to the table. Most women today don't know how to cook or clean. They have whored around in their youth and have slept with dozens of men and have destroyed their ability to pair bond.
Why should a man who has his shit together risk it all to marry one of these entitled used up whores?
I am a proud misogynist at this point.
These whores should have never been allowed to work and they should have never been allowed to vote.
Society has gone to hell because of rampant feminism.
Any tradcon or feminist trying to guilt or shame men into getting married to one of these worthless whores needs to be fucking kicked in the teeth.
Hear hear. I'm convinced that the vast majority are simply evil, just like the troons. The real mind fuck is finding the rare one who isn't (unsurprisingly they're always taken) and not allowing your mind to trick you into trying to win the lottery.
I think I have only met two girls that were truly good and decent people worthy of marriage.
Both of them had extremely rare 10/10 personalities, they had no social media and they were also physically attractive(7/10). Of course both of them were already married to decent men.
I think marriage is a scam and I have no plans on ever getting married.
The only exceptions to this rule are if I was marrying one of these two girls I mentioned above.
Both of them had the full package: they had actual critical thinking skills, they knew how to cook and clean, were genuinely caring about other people, have a soft feminine nature, they actually listened more than they talked, were great with kids and also were physically attractive.
I have graduated from college, went to grad school and also worked in academia and worked in private industry for years and have met thousands of women and I can say only two were actually worthy of marrying.
What a fucking nightmare we live in.
The women who are truly good are usually the ones who formed relationships with a childhood sweetheart in high school or if they do break up, are back in a relationship quickly before they get anywhere near a dating site. The women I know anecdotally who are single either have mental health issues that they will openly admit or are proactively never going to date again, usually because they are fixated on the positive aspects of an ex who no other man could ever best, never mind emulate or are too old and can't be bothered with it.
The current state of the dating market is grim for the average man and if you're below average and have any single deficiency such as being unattractive, out of shape, poor, lack of relationship experience (pre-selection) when you are older, speech impediment, neuroatypical condition, are not independent, unstable career prospects and so forth, all it takes is one single characteristic to be rejected and you may as well not bother. The hit on self-esteem and your mental being is not worth it. A lot of these things are genetic - within your DNA - and can't be improved by "just lift bro", "just touch grass bro" and "just shoot your shot bro" as coaches, gurus and evolutionary psychologists like to spout ad nauseam.
When I met my wife she had no domestic skills at all. Like most boomers, her parents taught her that women doing household chores was a form of abuse.
Nevertheless, I have trained her into a good wife and mother, making three family meals a day and keeping a house. It was pretty much like potty training, but still doable. I did this because I wanted kids and a proper family, and I wasn't going to leave it up to chance.
But don't blame guys who refuse to bother. It sucks and it's hard work. Women are being squandered by society and filled with false premises of their aptitudes and values, and it's going to be generations to fix it.
Your family gatherings must be a riot.
The more infuriating part is, none of that even matters either. That's just women's weak attempts to put a quantifiable value on their attraction, because otherwise it looks really bad on them.
Because there are absolute bottom of the barrel manlets living in a trailer where they steal copper to eat, and they still get women. Shit my father was one of them.
And its all because all that really matters to them is that momentary spark that gets them soaked, and then everything is worked backwards to explain her attraction. Just like "the ick" that gets talked about on tiktok all the time now, where women don't have an acceptable reason to be turned off a guy that they can say outloud, so they make up these vague terms that sound kinda digestible to make people stop asking questions.
Or basically, women are retarded. Don't listen to their words, just do what you want and you'd be surprised at how often literally nothing they said matters.
It also reveals a way men can improve. Women hate the idea of terrible or weaker men improving their status, because then they can't be certain if he has weak genes or not (because that's all it always is, instinctual).
The things they say they want are usually bars so high that no man who doesn't have them will ever really achieve them, so its not telling men to improve. Its just raw filter to get men to fuck off.
A MGTOW content creator worked out the percentage of men who meets all three of those criteria. It's less than one percent. It's 0.041%.
Worse still, there seems to be a push for women to earn more than men but still expect men to work long hours and do all the household chores and jobs.
And in terms of marriage, the Lotus Eaters released a compilation of the Labour conference. One of the current MPs, Emily Thornberry, spoke of their proposal to bring in common law marriage. Labour is expected to form the next Government as soon as next year. If that comes to pass, unmarried and cohabiting men are on the hook if she gets bored, doesn't find you attractive anymore or wishes to switch to a new partner and takes you to divorce court.
They expect the betas who get into relationshits with them to be slaves while they reciprocate as little as they can get away with. If you're not some Chad who can obtain no strings attached sex you might as well not bother.
https://igotstandardsbro.com/ - no six pack but there is a "not obese" check box
Cat enthusiast. LOL
Anti-natalism is a big problem today. Still, I can't blame any men who refuse to take a horrible deal. Calling them cowards is, in fact, cowardly.
Shaming men isn't going to resolve anything. The root problems need to be addressed before healthy families can start forming in large numbers again, but no one wants to reign in the excesses of women.
Tradcons think its simply just a cultural problem, they think Japan's approach to just simply romanticizing marriage will fix the problem despite it proving to have no real results.
The real solution is to make women property again but no one wants to say that out loud.
I will.
The nineteenth amendment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
The system we live in now was never meant for pure democracy.
Democracy is shit. The vote was meant to only go to landowners, which while a flawed convention, is still superior. Because let's not pretend all men are worthy of a vote either.
But a better solution is earning the vote through personal sacrifice, in the vein of starship troopers. That is the best way of determining who has the necessary moral character to vote responsibly.
Until the issues get addressed the tradcon wailing will continue to fall on deaf ears.
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.
I posted in the MGTOW community that Labour is proposing common law marriage should they get power next year. Which means you don't have to get married anymore to face going through divorce court in the UK.
It's wider government policy coming from elsewhere. A quick search shows the law commission and the women and equalities committee pushing for it.
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.
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.
Men take on the entirety of the financial and legal risk in marriage. in most situations, when the woman wants to break things off, at worst she leaves with what she came in with. if Amanda decides to break things off, he loses his house, his car, and half his life savings.
Hopefully Nathanael here won't end up in a murder-suicide attempt after an even manlier divorce court judge teaches him a lesson in who really has the power.
I read that about that one. A man who has nothing to lose is the most dangerous man of all. For once a corrupt family court judge experienced consequences for his actions.
Link? I haven't had my daily dose of schadenfreude yet.
Here you go:
https://archive.ph/RHRNn
This guy lost everything, so it's little wonder he snapped. The real question is why this doesn't happen more considering how common it is. I wonder how many lives this judge destroyed before someone finally put him in a hole.
The sad part is, normies will read that and think "well sounds like that judge was right to destroy him financially and give the wife sole custody."
I've already seen retards make that exact argument. They're so fucking predictable.
The "man bad, woman good" programming is too deep. I blame tradcons just as much as feminists
And you know why that is?
Because married men, even those married to god awful soul sucking hellions, no longer have to engage in the fucking rat race. They don't have to compete, they don't have to keep up with every single man out there, they don't have to constantly be juggling 3 apps, 14 conversations, and a book full of preferences for dates. They can just come home and focus on anything that isn't figuring out how to get a girl to text back.
Now, most men should still be mindful of that, else his hellion will be cheating before long. But that's the bliss of ignorance.
That's not a slam dunk they think it is. It says nothing good about women. If we weren't instinctually wired to crave them, we'd have no practical use for them outside procreation.
Brad Wilcox also said that married men earn more money, but didn't explain that its only because they have to earn more.
A bachelor guy can just live a minimalist life off of a retail store job.
That's a solid trick of language right there. A married man earns more, but keeps less. So in reality he ends up living poorer despite higher income.
same kind of logic feminists use for the wage gap lol
I don't agree with Pearl about a huge amount, but she's not actually wrong on this, is she?
As for "Risk-based aversion" - the point about taking a gamble is that there's supposed to be a reward for your risk-taking. That's what makes taking a risk worthwhile in the first place.
What, exactly, is the reward these days? I'm not seeing much of one, but I am seeing an awful lot of risk there.
Men in general can be pretty ruthless about stuff like this. If it's not worth it, why bother with it?
Physiognomy check is more or less what you'd expect. Pudgy middle age fop who's never taken a punch and looks incapable of delivering one.
I feel sorry for the cats, they'll have to live with these bitches after they hit the wall.
At least the dogs lucked out and they get the guys, even the homeless guys they're having a great time, though if they're adopted by white women....
The dog pill is real.
Women, have some self-control, keep your body count low, and you will have more negotiating power. Dudes don't want to share every facet of their finances with whores.
Devil's advocate: he argues that by living up to your own standards and values and marrying a woman, you will indeed become vulnerable, but your moral rectitude will remain untarnished, despite the vicissitudes that life - and perhaps your spouse - will put you through.
Your wife may turn out to be an evil shrew, but you don't have to reciprocate in kind. Also, you can forestall financial ruin by prenups and what have you. It's not much, but at least it's something.
Living up to one's own moral standard or this jackass's moral standard? It sounds like the latter to me, and his sense of morality is no less depraved than the feminists'. Someone who says "Be miserable because my fucked up sense of right and wrong tells you to" isn't someone that anyone should be listening to.
Prenups are regularly thrown out by corrupt family courts. They apply an arbitrary "fairness" standard, which boils down to anything being less lucrative for the woman than the standard divorce rape being considered "unfair". Either that or she'll claim coercion, which can be as mild as the man refusing to marry without the prenup. Sorry if it feels like I'm ranting at you, but assuming that family courts follow the rule of law can be a life destroying mistake for a man.
He's arguing from a Christian perspective to other Christians. If you believe in the bible and run away from marriage out of fear, then yes, that very much defies the biblical conception of what a man is supposed to be.
I sincerely doubt, however, that he'd apply the same standard to non-believers. He might still argue you're doing the wrong thing, but only because you don't believe in god anyway, which is a bigger issue.
The bible also defines what a marriage should be: Ephesians 5:22–33
This is a catholic belief not rooted in the Bible. One of their sacraments is marriage which basically says men are living in sin if theyre unmarried. The only times in the Bible where men are instructed to get married is God telling Adam and Eve and later Noah to repopulate, and then later on men should marry if they can't control their lustful desires.
Christians who think its their duty to get married are just following a man made tradition.
I never once said that a man is obligated to marry. I absolutely agree with you on what you said. What I was pointing out was the REASON. Intention matters, especially in christianity.
If you want a wife and family, there's nothing wrong with that; the bible says there's honor in fulfilling the roles of father and husband. If you have little to no interest, or your priority is God, the bible says that's okay too.
But if you DO want to have a family, and you DO want a wife, and you're just suppressing that out of fear whilst still burning with lust, it's hard for me to see how that's very godly.
Great point on the prenup, I was watching a video by a smarter MGTOW adjacent content creator named Martin Goldberg whos usually spot on with a lot of his takes, but he had a stupid take recently in a video where he was shaming men as "simps" for wanting to move to patriarchal countries to avoid western family courts, and his genius advice was to get an "ironclad prenup" to fight divorce rape. When I pointed out that prenups are thrown out in court, he just hit me with "just get a good lawyer bro".
Prenups don't seem worth much these days. Maybe they still matter in a handful of states, but outside of that you're just lighting money on fire paying a lawyer to draft it.
Aaron Renn had a good take on this article. Evangelicals are absolutely braindead when it comes to the state of relationships today.
Evangelicals only exist to grift money for themselves and Israel
A month ago I would have argued with you tooth & nail. Not anymore.
They are and they aren’t even trying to rectify the issue either. Truth is that Christian single women have even higher standards than their secular counterparts. They want Christian Chad and they expect him to fall into their lap.
It's maddening. And they don't even see there's a problem. You can point to demographics and the problems younger Christian men and women are having finding someone to marry but they just don't see it. It's just a "Man up and stop being lazy" to the men and "you're the pearl of great price so wait till the end of time" to the women, among many problems the Church has on this issue.
100% on the nose and that’s exactly what is said to each party.
Evangelicals are braindead in general.
Isn't it traditional for Antonio to ban Imp in these threads? What do we do instead?
Uhh... Ban Antonio instead? Just for a few minutes, for tradition.
I'm married. 15 years and 3 kids. Nothing is ever perfect, but she probably saved my life, among all the other gifts that I consistently get. I'm not going to make the argument that the author made, but I will say that being blackpilled on marriage isn't a victory.
Same situation. What saved our marriage is putting God first and it took us years to do this. This author is coming from this backwards.
It's not about victory, it's about survival.
I think the West has much worse problems than all have realized. There was a study done over a decade ago that showed that roughly a third of all American white women had mental problems. Along with this I have read books on Witches and Feminism and Spiteful Mutants and a thought has occurred from such knowledge (as well as what has been talked about in game and the manosphere).
I believe, due to the removal of natural selection in the West, that a good chunk of women in America are freaks and deviants. You even see this with how many white women have altered appearances either via genetics or self-mutilation. Not just tattoos and piercings and dyed hair, but several of them have that fish like face that has popped up on a recent meme. If this is the case then it's going to take more than just restoring patriarchal values because the capacity for virtually demonic behavior will always be lurking under the surface within the genetics of these deviant women.
Unfortunately, this means merely getting rid of the deviant men will not be enough to restore the West.
Yep. The got that Innsmouth look about them...
IDK why but archive unblocked me. IDk why they blocked me.
If women value being women, they need to stay away from social media and the always-online whores. Treat them like a plague and never look back.
The article can’t even help itself but admit the critics are 100% right, just the “benefits/negatives” is wrong.
UNGRATEFUL MEN!!! DON’T YOU KNOW MARRIAGE IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD?! - Women over 30.
Statistics don't apply to individuals. Just because some bad thing happens at some percentage across the whole population it has nothing to do with your personal risk exposure.
Join a traditional religion and practice it, whether or not you believe. Avoid women who went to college, they are much more likely to have been ruined.
If you have to compromise and accept risk then you do, men's job is to accept risk. Honor your parents and ancestors by making the sacrifices necessary to continue your bloodline.
Thankfully for me, my brothers took care of the bloodline. One got cheated on and divorced. The other is still happily married.
It's a fucked situation no doubt about it. I'd prefer to be married with children but I don't have the stomach to sift through the garbage in hopes of finding that one gem. (who could be an illusion anyway)
You lost me on the last line, but I do wonder how we're supposed to prevent Idiocracy if only the thugs and men too stupid to figure it out are the ones pumping out kids. We need to shift the balance of power somehow. A minority of tradcons in their churches aren't going to hold up society.
And that isn't their responsibility. What IS their responsibility, is having society when the rest of "society" collapses. They're not holding up the monolith when the rains push it down, just their own umbrella.
if the risk is having my life destroyed by the state, then I'd rather just embrace the bachelor life of solitude
Where do you think all these college whore go to when they are used up? The churches.
I'm honoring my ancestors by marrying a whore so that my grandchildren can be trannies.
Literally everyone who openly agrees with your opinion of women is right wing. When are you going to stop being a retarded eurocuck and acknowledge that your former self was simply wrong? This enlightened centrist bullshit is Reddit-tier idiocy.
Men go through horrible shit in a divorce.
But also marriages falling apart is the fault of men. Either the man chose poorly, the man compromised and gambled that her flaws wouldn't manifest with him, or there was a failure of his leadership.
Either you believe women and men are equal and feminism is fundamentally correct, or you believe the man is superior and thus is responsible for everything.
All you’re doing is absolving women of any and all accountability. Blame the person actually doing wrong instead of burdening men further.
Do you hold raccoons accountable for digging through your trash? That is just their nature.
It is your fault for giving them the opportunity.
Women are children; not animals.
When children misbehave it is a failure of their parents. When women misbehave is a failure of her father or husband.
Birth control and welfare.
And social media.
They're lying because divorced men don't have the same happiness of never married men. They just lump the two groups together in that dishonest study to push their marriage grift.