Archive: https://archive.is/fqq1M
Men should know how to do both tasks and chores. And if he does not know, he learns or pays someone to do it. Living independently for so long made me self-sufficient in both.
There is a growing sentiment with society than men should be expected to do both in a household.
Plan A didn't work out so now she's seeking plan B.
Increasingly with women who can afford to, they're not seeking beta bux any more. It's not widespread yet but it's started to become an observable pattern, women in their mid 30s not settling with a beta bux but getting the same financial support from others and having children alone with her social circle and family raising the child.
Truth always wins out over ideology in the end, whether that is a religious text or "The Science™". I've never had respect for anyone who wishes to push their ideology onto other people, whether it's a belief, a vaccine or dogma. But that's my libertarian streak showing.
It is rather telling that religions, while they believe their faith is the one true faith, tolerate other religions but have a hated for atheism, whether by the promise of eternal damnation or the death penalty.
I read through the comments for that tweet (via Nitter obviously) and I can only see two types of reply. The sycophant who want her to notice them and believes that anything they disagree with is abuse. Or the critic who was asking for evidence and examples of this abuse to verify the claims she is making. I didn't see any abuse, the worst you could claim is the odd sharp rebuke after their main critique.
They vocally claim and condemn the eradication of women's identity in sports and spaces. So their solution in hush tones and now being enacted is to eradicate men's identity by abolishing the men's category and having two categories - women and open for everyone including women!
The public celebration of this solution by sporting bodies from the public was the conformation of what I already knew - the majority oppose gender equality despite what they say in public due to social confirmation bias and that ideology such as feminism is merely following the culture created by the public which is crafted by biology. Critics of feminism and conservatives will always be a minority. Most members of the public are on a spectrum between the two. A bitter pill to swallow.
People need to remember that the last two words of TERF are "radical feminist".
Not just the BBC. There are many people calling for the abolition of free-to-air broadcasting after controversies at ITV and Channel 4. Same with radio as people move to Spotify Premium. And there is a revolt against the advertising, sponsorship and membership models of funding at the same time these models are being hit by the cost of living crisis.
There is data from earlier in the week about numbers of people watching TV and listening to radio in the UK. They're collapsing even with the elderly. And not just for the BBC. Everyone is moving online but importantly, not to free services. They are embracing the paywall/pay for consumption model. It ties in with a downturn and consumer revolt against advertising, sponsorship and voluntary memberships and desire to pay directly for content people consume. To paraphrase Louis Rossman, payment for service and value.
The awful truth for us is that while everyone agrees about the BBC and even the likes of ITV and Channel 4, we may be critical of the politics and wokeness of Netflix (never forget the fact that Cuties was a thing) but the public just says "shut up and take my money". Same with Disney+, Amazon, Spotify et al. Even if people begrudge the price rises, people are still paying and the churn rates (the percentage of people who leave a service) is still low.
Radio is going the same way too. The BBC is making terrestrial broadcasting legacy platforms, even DAB, and putting everything into its Sounds app. Their commercial counterparts Global and Bauer are dipping their toes into pay radio not to compete with Spotify Free but with Spotify Premium and are now focusing more on apps where they can put their stations behind a paywall. It will be a problem for my Internet radio set as stations move exclusively behind apps and it offers less and less free streams to listen to. I have a shortwave radio but now it's predominately Chinese state broadcasters.
Terrestrial broadcasting is on borrowed time as the mobile phone networks eye up the remaining spectrum for future expansion of bandwidth which is better at penetrating rural areas and indoor spaces as opposed to higher gigahertz frequencies. Networks that can easily outbid the broadcasters by a massive amount. Satellite is going the same way too, Sky is moving toward an Internet streaming future and Virgin Media is following them.
While it is noble to work in a trade and not something I would discourage, bear in mind that the argument that trades won't be automated will be moot when (multi-)national companies take over the sole trader and the small business owner. Robots with advance mechanics and AI can easily out-perform a human and provide a service critical to trades - 24-hour emergency call outs that a sole trader can not do and costs more money for a small business owner.
The red pill and increasingly now the black pill community - by and large I refer to the self-help gurus - engage in survivorship bias. They only ever see the winners in anything. They don't tell you the many people who failed, whether that's a trade, higher education, bodybuilding, looksmaxxing and so forth. People are sold a dream - quick, easy solutions - and encouraged to join programmes to find solutions to their problems for a monthly fee on a course designed to fail but the provider will also engage in survivorship bias there too - by only showing the winners and not the many losers who "didn't try hard enough" and need to be upsold on a more expensive programme. Survivorship bias can be written as the phrase "history is written by the winners".
For every successful tradesperson, many failed as as more people chase a trade to specialise in, there are only so many customers and so much cash going around, many will fail. That's what you're not being told. It is not the easy, guaranteed money maker people claim it will be for everyone.
It used to be the case that a product would stand on its own merits. Now it seems the marketing tactic of Maron is to shame people who refuse to consume a product.
It won't work and Robbie isn't going to sleep with you.
There is one thing that will come out of this incident that has been growing as of late both in the US and abroad - the concept that you are responsible for the rhetoric and behaviour of others even if you disavow or dissuade that speech or behaviour. While no-one will give any sympathy for Kai, this concept has been applied (Alex Belfield in the UK, Andrew Tate and Donald Trump and January 6th) and will be applied in future to politicians and influencers.
I also note Sky News has been nosy in his content and in their last line of the article, are painting him as a misogynist.
One thing I would disagree with the article on is the concept that the incel is the threat. Incels still desire attention and relationships with women. It's men going their own way (MGTOW) who are the threat and what feminism deem to be their final boss. Of course, most men who would be considered to be MGTOW just refer to themselves as bachelors or don't label themselves at all. This is why every well known MGTOW forum (outside of this site) online has been closed down while the main incel forum is still online, has been for a while and there is no push to shut it down. I get the impression that the article writer is mixing up the core incel community with the wider manosphere community. Incels who follow black pill philosophy (no offence intended here) are NOT going to be 8/10 men in looks and status!
They’re delaying big milestones such as getting their driver’s licenses and going to college. And they’re living at home with their parents a lot longer.
Yes, because running a car, going in to higher education and buying your own home are far more expensive than what they used to be compared to decades ago. Meanwhile employers are finding ways to reduce labour costs by reducing hours of vacancies, implementing automation/self-service and bringing in cheaper labour from abroad to undercut wages.
You also have affirmative action and an education system geared towards girls and women that is giving them an advantage and with hypergamy at play, where women date across and up in terms of status, increasing numbers of women find the pool of single men unappealing.
You also have the issue that women are rejecting finding a partner and starting a family in favour of education and career while getting help from the state whilst family and community provide a safety net and she provides help for other women when she is not working, abolishing the notion of needing a man to protect and provide - one of the key factors of a partner. And also rejecting the notion of "settling" when she gets older. Which is why you see all the "where have all the good men gone" articles while also stating how much she refuses to settle and refuses to be in a dead bedroom relationship.
In general, people coming of age in an era of dating apps say the notion of starting a relationship with someone they meet in person... seems like a piece of nostalgia.
A lot of people have the false notion that when meeting people online, it is through dating apps and nothing else. From data I have seen, only a tenth of people who find a partner online do so via dating apps, most do via closed social groups on apps like WhatsApp and Discord or via social media, again predominately via social groups where they know the other people. Someone told me that the most successful dating app is not Tinder. It's Instagram.
If people are failing to find people, it's likely because they are socially isolated and don't have a closed social group where they meet other people who introduce them to say, a friend of a friend and then form a relationship that way. In the chart on that article, the majority of people still have at least one sexual partner in the last year. The concept of women riding the err... "carousel" and the high status men who facilitate it tends to be around the 10% figure from data I have seen.
Bottom 95% men are being left out in the cold until their 30s, and by that point they're asking why they should have to jump through hoops to get what Chad and Tyrone got for free.
Increasingly, I'm starting to see women reject the "beta bux" strategy or what they would call "settling". We know that women outearn men until women have children thanks to educational advantages and affirmative action programmes while the state takes the place of father in terms of money while the novel concept for civilisation (but not novel for humanity) of other women, the parents and the community raise the children while she works - strength by numbers. The provision and protection aspect of men that is one of the main key factors for attraction is now replaced. In essence, it's not just feminists who say they don't need no man. It's why single motherhood has risen until recently but is now back on the rise.
In terms of men being told to wait until your thirties because then their sexual marketplace value will peak, that is the case for high status men. Not for your average or low status man who now find themselves increasingly being frozen out of being someone's last resort or father to another man's child. No surprise you're starting to see forty-something men on video sharing sites say how they are lonely despite following all the advice to lift, get a good paid career in a trade, be independent and try to get out and be social (very difficult in your middle age if you don't have an established social circle as everyone by then finds partners, gets married and start families) while their female equivalents write articles asking where have all the good men gone whilst simultaneously celebrating their liberation from having to settle and end up in a dead bedroom relationship with a man who doesn't give them the tingles like Chad or Tyrone did in their twenties.
Reading through the relevant subreddits (yes, it was as painful as you think), I'd also suggest they make up 99% of the traffic to the most well known incel forum. For all the cries of "be better", they sure obsess over them.
The "be kind" types don't see involuntary celibates as human beings, rather nothing more than cash machines for OnlyFans thots who wish to befriend them for profit while privately expressing their utter disgust for their clients and therapists who see them as a gold seam for profit while subsequently deeming them beyond help and only useful for exploiting them for profit. In a similar manner as to how self-help gurus in the manosphere exploit loneliness for profit by selling programs that are designed to fail, are expensive (even charged by the minute or the hour via phone calls) and regurgitate to men advice their clients could easily find online for free.
These things are easier to do when not having a partner and succeeding in dating carries a social stigma.
They have been for a while. There are employers who do the same thing now as well. If anything, not having a social media account will likely get you flagged as suspicious as they subscribe to the concept of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". We're also looking down the barrel of new laws which will abolish anonymity and require all websites to verify the identity of the user as well as Google's new web DRM implementation coming down the line. In effect, we now have the beginning of a privatised social credit system.
What makes this awkward is that someone already beat the OP to archiving it.
https://archive.li/h4WNP