From what I've seen here, the topic I'm about to open is not discussed that much (or not at all). My guesses are this is taboo (and personally hurtful to some), and one might even catch some hate for it.

In any case, here it goes...

The fire of an argument is usually started by a woman saying the likes of:

I have three kids. I cucked my husband twice (with some musclehead bad boy), and then, I gave him a pity child. Now, the pity child is the least attractive one, it is oftentimes sick, shunned by its peers, it does not have any engaging interests - it just glooms about, sulking in the darkness. While the other two...

You get the idea.

The counter-argument to this that I've seen to occur goes like this:

Well it is just upbringing, man! The evil woman pours all her affection, resources and parenting skills into the other two children - whilst the third one is left with scraps and/or nothing.

Riiight. Unfortunately, this can't be 100% the case. That mother (even if we do paint her as demonic as that) is just one influence on the child, in an ever-so-complex world. Meaning that there are other agents out there that influence the child; the older the child, the broader the amount of agents -- hell, the child itself can go about (to some extent), actively picking the agents it wants in its life.

This is all about the ongoing debate on nature vs. nurture. Now, of course, there may be some positively-aligned people arguing that:

Disregard nature. It is dark, depressive, and deterministic. It is beyond one's control; therefore, focus 100% on the nurture counterpart - as that is something one can change [... here goes the whole narrative of fairy-tale heroes that succeed against the odds - e.g. movies and shit].

Yeah, right. But then, you have people like this guy. Go ahead, tell the fairy tales to a guy a like that...

Regarding fairy tales, they are just that. Their function is to make us feel good. Oftentimes, the odds are so stacked in someones favor that the movie script feels ridiculous.

The nature vs. nurture argument is a complex one. E.g. how hereditary is intelligence? (Do we even know what intelligence is? Do you know how many intelligence theories are there? How many types/elements of intelligence have been described?) In any case, one could argue that the distribution of most factors that divide the effect of nature-vs-nurture usually goes like 70-30, 60-40, 50-50, 40-60, or 70-30 (with a rare 80-20 / 20-80 there, too), depending on the characteristic at hand. There's also an element of randomness to it...

Now, physical features are just there - they are inherited, and they manifest. As for psychological features, the heritability places them there, in a latent form - and due to environmental influences, they usually do manifest, too (I mean, one would have to be a really solid parent with deep understanding of psychology^1 to mold their child's personality in a way so that an undesired characteristic does not make its way to a child's personality, in a critical development phase).

So along comes some "evil" woman. The men who got rejected by her paint her like a personification of a devil^2 , because she decides/attempts to select for very specific phenotypes in a man, effectively leaving some 80-95% men in dust.

That makes her what? Shallow? Cruel? A retard? These are interpretation, inserts of meaning...

Mayhaps she is a personification of nature. Unforgiving, vying for the very best. You do see that, when their social mask falls off. The likes of:

Why don't short guys just die!

Eww. What a creep [What a horrible fate would it be to produce offspring with that genetic trash!]

I see some conflicting perspectives on morality. The men want to get some, get their fairy-tale princess, and/or get accepted by a woman. A woman wants to produce the best offspring with the greatest chances at life. So most often, this creates this win/lose scenario, irregardless how exactly it plays out. The men are either left in dust so that she can chase Mr. Perfect (just like a hundred other spinsters), or Joe Average here gets some, only to produce the next generation of hapless, frustrated fools.

Seems to me there's a lot of pain. As these actors of this mating game interact with each other, they exchange pain.

It is black pill stuff. Who you are, where you come from, what potential shortcoming you have to deal with, that goes along with you, all your life. It is there, right in the mirror, always. Might be some minor stuff, might be straight-out debilitating (e.g. take two men - one beaten-down by an ongoing depression and barely functioning, while the other, i.e. some dominant, high-testosterone fuck, goes about conquering the world, with a diametrically different psyche (shit, in their minds, these two aren't even the same species)).

Yeah - ask yourself: what traits in a man do them grrls select for? And if selected correctly, what kind of a man does that produce, in the next generation? What do such offspring go through, in their day-to-day lives?

The topic was brought by yours truly - a dude born from an union of two idiots. My mother's side has a long history of depressive, gloomy fucks, passive people, communists, and professional victims. My father's side is rich in dis-social, autistic faggots with fixated thinking and abrasive world-views. All of that, naturally, only led me on a trajectory of being rejected by women - all of them. Now, now, where I stand, I believe it would be inconsiderate to produce a child with this genetic preset (only more pain there); but when I merely want them women for companionship, they do not compute. Oh well... a personal perspective right there.

It is a discussion topic alright. So, in conclusion, what do we make out of this?

  • ... on an individual level (depending where we stand)
  • ... on the male / female side
  • ... on a societal level (society should this, or that...)
  • ... on a nature level
  • ... I don't know...

^1 Fuck, really, good luck with that /s. Since lots of these factors are hereditary, the parent probably ALSO has the undesirable psychological trait that is to manifest in the child. Now, how is said parent supposed to protect a child against an undesirable trait manifesting when they themselves are blind to that trait existing in themselves? There, you have a negative nature & nurture feedback loop combo.

^2 I know I might get some hate for this. But that is not the point. The point is trying to see all the perspectives that are at play here.