~ archived since 2018 ~

Are we moving to a situation where many men don't feel as if they have a stake in society anymore?

August 21, 2020
293 upvotes

I read an interesting post in the thread entitled "All men are misogynists" (I don't agree with the thread title btw) and it spoke about how men feel as if they need a stake in society in order to be productive and useful and feel as if they a purpose:

This is an over complication of a fundamental fact that the male-female relationship. Men are attracted to women more than women are attracted them. A male's relationship with a woman is dependent on his ability to be considered useful.

For all history a small pool of men have been Uber successful and thus the most attractive. Society made harsh laws on women in high competition societies because if men don't feel they have any ability to make children they have no investment in the society moving forward.

You can't convince a man to work a field for you, you can't convince a man to die for you if he has nothing to do for other than himself. Ancient to even pretty early modern society was very powerful individuals making negotiations with less powerful men to assure them that they still had enough of a place to make sacrifice reasonable. Full stop.

What has changed in recent times is that the cap or the handicapping women has pretty much disappeared for the most part and now the carrot that societies used are gone for men on the lower ends of society.

In my opinion men aren't misogynists they're just bad negotiators. Some see the situation lay it out the exact same way I have and see woman's Place in society and their place in society and feel that is unfair.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/idvxtc/cmv_all_men_are_misogynists_read_the_full_text/g2bzu1y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Do you think society is now moving towards that situation? Now we have dating apps, social media, women who have more economic freedom than ever before + laws in their favour, 3rd wave feminism, it seems like there are a growing number of men who just feel like they have no purpose.

Men are constantly told that they must work on their hobbies/career/work out "for their own personal satisfaction" or "to do it for themselves" but this post seems to imply that men need more incentive than to just do things for themselves. They want to feel like they will be noticed by women and other men, the work they put in will make them more attractive to women and they are more likely to have kids.

Yet if the data is true, birth rates are dropping all across the West and sexual inequality is vastly increasing. Which implies that more and more men feel like they do not have a stake in society.

What do you think? All opinions welcome.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Are we moving to a situation where many men don't feel as if they have a stake in society anymore?
Author BumblingBeta
Upvotes 293
Comments 484
Date August 21, 2020 6:01 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/are-we-moving-to-a-situation-where-many-men-dont.168146
https://theredarchive.com/post/168146
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ie1ss6/are_we_moving_to_a_situation_where_many_men_dont/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Frothy-Water119 points120 points  (75 children) | Copy Link

I think people who talk about men in history always forget men were very outnumbered in a lot of places in the world. Men died in wars, the fields, everywhere. Men didn’t really have to compete for wives in the same way as today, where gender ratio is roughly equal. For example, Rome is estimated to have lost like 20% of it’s adult male population in one battle in history. Can you imagine trying to marry as a guy where upwards of 20% of the male population is just gone overnight?

[–]AHAPPYMERCHANTPurple Pill Man28 points29 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Men also are more likely to die in of natural causes in their youth and are also less likely to be born during times of hardship. As in, literally the proportion of women born will be higher (modestly).

[–]actipodePurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Any source on the proportion?

[–]PellucidlyNebulousRadfem1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are conflicting studies. No absolute cause identified as of yet, as far as I know.. One paper and a letter to the editor that discuss possible reasons why, but both say it's difficult to prove definitively what mechanims are triggering and why:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249733317_War_and_the_Secondary_Sex_Ratio_Are_They_Related

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/19/1/218/690115

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar23 points24 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

One of the big reasons Ceaser gained the authority to overthrow the Senate was he promised to restore Roman tradition and marriage, especially among the upper class. His incentives didn't work and so he instituted a Bachelor Tax on Roman citizens. All the bachelors then gave up their citizenship to enslave themselves to a friend to avoid taxes. Rome then taxed people giving up their citizenship. Eventually Rome gave up on it.

[–]Throwawayforshitt6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Constantine, Caesar, and Vespatian all tried to legislate sexual morality. All failed, miserably.

[–]parahacker47 points48 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this is that it ignores just how drastically medicine affected pregnancy and birth.

If it was common for men to die in wars, it was almost as common for women to die in childbirth. And fwiw, women sometimes died in wars too. Not nearly as often, but sometimes.

[–]SaBahRub15 points16 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

1 in 8 for childbirth vs 1 in 5 for wars is the common estimates. Let’s also assume that men die more of disease and starvation, but women would also die more from infanticide and rape

Hard to say, really

[–]parahacker5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it was all a mess.

But I'm starting to get annoyed with my comment. Why is this getting 5x more upvotes than average? Like, I give equally balanced facts on how men are currently facing institutionalized discrimination, and at best they're mildly approved, at worst they're downvoted to oblivion.

Meanwhile, people are complaining that this sub is overrun by red pill types. Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]sorebum4051 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree that blue pillers have no arguments all they can do is downvote.I actually got downvoted like crazy in the mensrights subreddit for saying that women don't get sexually aroused by naked men the same way men get sexually aroused by naked women.I linked a study and pointed out observal trends to support my claim and everyone else in the comment thread just made assertions with no evidence and gave weak personal annecdotes,but im the one who is wrong according to them.

It actually seems like the mensrights sub is dominated by blue pillers which is suprising to me.

[–]Cobra_x306 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

If it was common for men to die in wars, it was almost as common for women to die in childbirth.

This number differs by ethnicity. Caucasian babies have large heads... so this group a woman's lifetime chance of dying in childbirth was something like 14% or higher. Usually the first kid was the most risky.

The number is a bit lower for other ethnic groups.

[–][deleted]  (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Cobra_x302 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

South Asians are predominantly Caucasian... especially in the north. So the same rates generally apply but they had much better medicine and nutrition in ancient times compared to Europe so a lower death rate.

Historians guess that these conditions made such a huge improvement that lifetime risk was perhaps 5 to 6%. That would put them in line with East Asia at around 4%. Europe didn’t hit 4% until the 1600s.

Does that answer your question?

[–]GreenSatyr🟢1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you are such a bullshitter, source.

[–]SexySPACsMan1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

die in childbirth

Not before though.

[–]DangZagnut35 points36 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They wouldn't notice if 80% disappeared overnight because they're invisible in the first place.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Except for the billions in tax dollars that the 80% men happily inject into the gynocracy...

[–]SkytrackerURabbithole Vacation Getaway1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is evidence that men were outnumbered due to childbirth and female infanticide. Sociologist Rodney Stark proposed that one reason why Christianity spread was because it had an even ratio of genders. Pagan cultures tended to run out of women. Pagan men marrying a Christian woman became common. Christianity invested in children and women, and so had more of them.

[–]Master_Manufacturer71 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The criminal “justice” system is picking up the slack, in terms of taking more men “out of the game”, but it isn’t enough.

[–]AidsVictim[🍰] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wars where a large portion of the male population are killed off are the exception not the rule. America had basically one war (the civil war) that did that. Even WWII was a relatively small portion of the population that died yet it had a huge baby boom right after.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

America is not exactly an old country.

There like only like 10 generations.

[–]BudgetSeaworthiness15 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In world history, the us is barely a blip on the radar.

[–]tripleundone104 points105 points  (79 children) | Copy Link

I think men recognize that they have a stake in society, but feel that the minimum basic level of opportunity or support that society gives them is becoming so small as to be nearly meaningless.

I grew up in an emotionally abusive household under the poverty line most of my life. If I want to make my prospects better, I either have to work super hard and fight against the current of economic disadvantage, or find some way to numb myself to the fact that I will never have a better life. For a lot of men the latter is easier. There is nothing I can leverage about my body itself that people will value innately, barring selling organs or blood.

Objectification is a horrible thing and monetary exploitation and coercion is a horrible thing to experience. And I will never know what it’s like to feel like to see people only value me sexually in the way women say they do. But I would contend it is also a qualitatively different experience to feel that you couldn’t even pay someone to use you if you tried. That you have net negative value to each individual person you know as well as to the world.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

If I want to make my prospects better, I either have to work super hard and fight against the current of economic disadvantage, or find some way to numb myself to the fact that I will never have a better life.

I wonder if this is partially explains why a lot of men prep. You might be bottom of the totem pole in today's society, but if tomorrow goes to shit, a stockpile of resources suddenly puts you at the very top.

[–]HODL_monk35 points36 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I think almost everything in the 'Zombie Apocalypse' genre caters to this dark fantasy. A lot of people probably think that any radical reshuffling of society would possibly benefit them, or at least let them act out their aggression on dangerous fantastical creatures. Prepping in large amounts is just dumb, as if things go to shit for more than 5 days, the new Gang Land Warlords will just steal all their conveniently prepped food and water.

[–]abolish_the_divine12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Prepping in large amounts is just dumb, as if things go to shit for more than 5 days, the new Gang Land Warlords will just steal all their conveniently prepped food and water.

yeah, or the cops and the military. anyone currently alive that has the guns, training and organization to take over if the opportunity presented itself.

if you're a farmer, tough shit. big men with guns are coming for your crops and probably your daughters too. prepare for the new serfdom.

[–]immibis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It would be mighty stupid for the army to kill the farmers instead of taxing them.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Prepping in large amounts is just dumb, as if things go to shit for more than 5 days, the new Gang Land Warlords will just steal all their conveniently prepped food and water.

Can't speak for everyone, but the group I prep with is well prepared for some dumbfucks thinking they're Immortan Joe just because they owned a couple of guns before everything went to shit. I sort of agree, though, that past a point only stockpiling gets dumb, because you need to have some way to sustain yourself for years if things go bad.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Speaking as a fellow prepper I have one question for you

what is the most important resource a prepper needs?

[–]daniellederek1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Potable water, you are dead in days without it. If the air is poisoned your dead in minutes. Food really isnt the highest immediate concern.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my honest opinion? None of that is useful for long if you don't also have a community that you can rely on. A community of people with diverse essential skills who can work through differences and put the survival of the community first above all squabbles is what you need when the SHTF.

[–]2bitgun1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There is hoarding which isn't sensible, but basic prepping is common sense. See the beginning of the outbreak when toilet paper was hard to come by. Disaster can & does strike. I think a lot of people do overprep out of a sense of insecurity. I've noticed you get this type of pepper regardless of where on the ladder you are.

[–]HODL_monk0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The recent Toilet Paper thing is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. While it may be slightly ick to go without toilet paper, it actually isn't a true necessity item. Cut up old shirts and a bucket with a lid works just fine, and you can wash and reuse these make-shift wipes as well, as long as the water is still on. Honestly, even 9 TP rolls per person would have carried you though the whole 'TP shortage' thing, and its hardly even prepping to have one pack of TP in a closet. Containers of water and a few weeks worth of stable food are much better items to have extra of, as well as some just practical and handy things like Plywood, Duct Tape and tarp that have a lot of general uses, because it might be hard to get something normal like broken windows fixed in a law and order breakdown, or other disaster.

[–]2bitgun0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not about to get into a debate about what is and isn't prepping. There's clearly a point where someone is just hoarding shit for the sake of hoarding shit but at what point that is going to vary from person to person, and what their needs are. Preparing for disaster is not irrational.

Last winter when there was a fair amount of snow I worked about 40 mins from home in a fairly sketchy area, and had a fwd car. I packed my car with things I thought might come in handy should I get stuck someplace that wasn't home, I'd go so far as to say that I overpacked. What I didn't do was pack items that were entirely inapplicable to my scenario, no alcohol, no camera, no porno mags, no Remington 870 Wingmaster, no cold compresses, no sous vide bags.

It's also not irrational to stock up on comfort items if you think they might be in short supply although I definitely think people go overboard with this. I fuckin love this one brand of blueberry tea which can be hard to find locally, hell yeah I'll buy an extra box or two when I find it in stock. I don't buy it by the pallet though.

[–]JorTZD0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

With covid, a lot of big names are going bust, new types of businesses are surfacing. Would this be a good example ?

[–]HODL_monk1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both prepping businesses like My Patriot Supply and Zombie apocalypse equipment and weapons were already RL things before covid 19. I'm sure they won't be hurt by RL fears of a political or economic collapse. I know the gold and silver sellers are out there making hay while the (relative to them) sun is shining !

[–]calvchum4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. Why do you think the archetypical villain is the ostracised weirdo that holds a grudge against the world and hence wants to destroy / reform it in his own image?

and the archetypical hero is the good looking, charismatic and lovable protector of the status quo? these behavioural patterns are hard baked into all of our myths.

[–][deleted]  (35 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (30 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (29 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Cobra_x301 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree he's smart in a way, however I think there is simply a market for his personality in media

He definitely is like a circus ring leader.

But also remember he ran against one of the most openly corrupt people in the history of US Politics, and now he is going to run against a corrupt pedophile with dementia... So, can we really say the guy is a genius or is it more that his opponents are insane? Let's be honest, if we didn't have term limits Obama would have been president nearly for life.

[–]Tyler_GatsbyUpperWhiteTrash4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

FFS, the man ate cheesburgers, and spoke crudely, and ranted about walling out the Mexicans. It's not rocket surgery pandering to the rednecks.

[–][deleted]  (16 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Americans are stupid and he catered to their anger. I dispute him being intelligence I do think whoever came up with his strategy was very smart but he did not come up with it, the blueprint was already there and his people very cleverly tweaked it.

[–]LaChoffe1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think previous presidential candidates just didn't know you could stoop that low and still be considered a serious option.

[–]Tyler_GatsbyUpperWhiteTrash0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

I voted for him, but it was a protest vote. They took Bernie from me, so I helped give them Trump.

Not that there was/is a real difference between Trump and Hillary, or that ultimately anything different that really mattered would have been any different. At this point I feel like and think we're really voting for the same side regardless - the rich.

Point being he chose the lowest common denominator of the masses, and shamelessly wiped his mouth with it, and took an easy win.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Man I wish I did not know that about you.

[–]siempreloco310 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Is George W. Bush a genius?

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]siempreloco310 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm just curious because after the nomination, the GOP was all in on Trump. And W got the same types as Trump did.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]siempreloco310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Trump benefited from a larger field as there were many rank-and-file GOPers and only one of him. I don't think that takes genius to separate from the field. After he secured the nom, GOP went all in. You can see it in how many anti-trump conservative empty suits immediately went to fellating him.

This is the same as the evangelical republican sect holding their nose to vote R, because they've always voted R on abortion. With the GOP backing him, he had the GOP base regardless of what he said. Anything else is rationalisation.

[–]Cobra_x300 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've never met him, have you?

[–]siempreloco310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just a simple question.

[–]immibis0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some would, but they're wrong.

[–][deleted]  (12 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]tripleundone11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

My health, my time, and a worthy death.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp17 points18 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Remember while the smart guys are in school trying to get their MBA/PHD, the girls are busy fucking Chad and expect to get with them after.

The really smart guys are getting their MBA's/PhD's, saving the fuck out of their money, and not committing to any of these women.

[–]rhyth78 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True! They see women as distractions mostly.

[–]ThickyJamesRedpilled, evolutionary-psychological Tradcath Man1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The really smart guys go their own way, grind leetcode to get in to software engineering*, make $120k as a new grad, and $250-450k with 10 YoE.

Now, at 32-35 (coinciding with peak male SMV and well past the wall for females), they are to the dating market what the hot 19-year-old girl was, and in a position to dictate their terms in relationships and marriages, financially and otherwise. They have become visible, and have fuck-you money.

--a software engineer

*You can do this in investment banking, management consulting, or law too, but it's harder and most fail in to mediocrity. Something like 40% of lawyers make 60k and 40% make over 200k, with hardly anyone in the middle. Most investment bankers burn out as analysts working 80 hour weeks before making it to vice president. Same for MBB consultants, except they work 100 hour weeks.

[–]pre-dental231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dentistry too

Graduate at 26 (or 30 if you want to be an oral surgeon like me), buy a million dollar practice within a year or two after graduation and start raking it in.

The plus side is, you can work 4 days a week, 30-40 hours, unlike investment banking or similar where you're working 60+ hours. This leaves some free time to go out and smash.

[–]LaChoffe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can fuck girls casually while preparing for top tier jobs. These are not mutually exclusive.

[–]rubbooyuri1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Our lives are too cushy now, that’s all. That “minimum stake” your refer to — not starving/not being abused — used to be more than enough motivation for humanity to do shit. No longer

Frankly, I’d take it. I’d rather live alone in a tiny apartment with a cat than die horribly at age 13 of cholera, or have my head caved in by Og the Super Asshole for some minor slight.

Why do people need a purpose to motivate them to wipe their ass, chew their food, and not be shitty? Is being a normal, decent human who minds their own beeswax such a huge struggle for most of you?

[–]SurelyWoo1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yup, it's bad to be exploited for sex, but it at least means that you possess something worth exploiting. Those with nothing of value are treated with apathy or enmity.

[–]smartstarfish1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I think there’s a problem when “good enough to get by” is considered a failure in a man’s eyes. We can have a moderate income, home payment, wife and kids but feel like we’re “not good enough” and plateau. Start seeing the word cold etc.

The solution, i think, is to be okay with being “normal” and not think that excessively successful is a requirement to be happy with your life.

[–]The-Devilz-Advocate91 points92 points  (147 children) | Copy Link

Men are constantly told that they must work on their hobbies/career/work out "for their own personal satisfaction" or "to do it for themselves" but this post seems to imply that men need more incentive than to just do things for themselves. They want to feel like they will be noticed by women and other men, the work they put in will make them more attractive to women and they are more likely to have kids.

Yet if the data is true, birth rates are dropping all across the West and sexual inequality is vastly increasing. Which implies that more and more men feel like they do not have a stake in society.

Men nowadays are opting for having a nice apartment or a small house, have some good hobbies and a balanced social life.

But this goes against the female and largely capitalistic drive. Which is marriage. If men get married, they have to buy a big enough house for their wives and their kids, his spending goes through the roof compared to when he was single, and he still overall has a slightly higher chance of being happier than a single man while taking on a metric fuck ton of risks to get there.

So do some men feel like society doesn't care about them? Society has never did. But instead of necessarily burning down cities and doing full scale riots, their way of opting out is just living a happy life where they can retire at 40.

Is it good for them? Yeah I do think so. Yet again I'm barely 22 so what do I know what's good.

But I do believe that if it becomes a big trend then it will be a detriment for society.

[–]MakeMoneyNotWar23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's basically where I'm at. I make more than enough money for my single self. I have an apartment, no debt, car, and everything I need. I'm on track to retire by 50 or so. Sure, I can make a lot more money going for upper management but what's the point? Just waste my younger years away at the office so I can either retire at 45, or die with a boatload of money?

Now if I had kids, I would probably go for more money so there's more for my kids.

[–]rhyth725 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Most people cannot buy a house. But they can buy weed, beer and video games and live with the buds.

[–]KazROFL1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

66% of Americans overall are homeowners.

40% of millenials are homeowners.

It's not that bad.

[–]rosephase4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

From Wikipedia:

The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate because many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home, and because single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home.

The term "homeownership rate" can also be misleading because it includes households that owe on a mortgage and do not fully own the equity in their own that they are said to "own". According to ATTOM Data Research, only "34 percent of all American homeowners have 100 percent equity in their properties — they’ve either paid off their entire mortgage debt or they never had a mortgage".[10]

[–]rhyth70 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely depends on if your city is up and coming though. Nobody in my city can afford a home because people from California are able to buy way over asking price.

[–]SkytrackerURabbithole Vacation Getaway1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most people cannot buy a house.

I think that's part of the lowered marriage rate. Why get married if you can't afford children? I'm a woman saying this. There are economic disincentives to marry in the new economy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/02/03/the-marriage-gap-the-impact-of-economic-and-technological-change-on-marriage-rates/

[–]Joey_Lopez33 points34 points  (53 children) | Copy Link

Also many industries are now going under because men have chosen 'Netflix and chill' instead of traditional dates.

[–]Aspanu2449 points50 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Leftwing politics has made women so low value while believing they’re super high value that men simply do not care to date anymore

[–]Joey_Lopez32 points33 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I see many older high body count females that think they are Alpha females. In reality the men can't stand them and don't want them. They will end up as spinsters if they don't get a clue.

[–]ThickyJamesRedpilled, evolutionary-psychological Tradcath Man13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They will end up spinsters either way. You can't escape the past.

[–]Purple50914 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Oh yes women should be scared of being spinsters as opposed to being a scrote's wife(aka sextoy,maid,chef and babymaking machine)...ohhhh we wimmenz r so scared :|

[–]Joey_Lopez5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Something is seriously wrong with you if you think being a wife is a bad thing. But do you

[–]InsertWittyJoke1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Being a wife to a bad man is. Honestly same goes for being a husband to a bad wife. It's incredibly difficult to find a good partner who respects you and who you can respect, who can handle mature conflict resolution, who has the same values and goals in life, who is motivated to work hard and be ambitious. That's not even getting into abusive spouses.

Better to be single than spend every day trying to make things work with someone who is entirely incompatible with you.

[–]DLifts7779 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

bad man = bottom 80% of men these days

Women don't respect their husbands because they genuinely believe they deserve better. Hence, being a stay-at-home mother or 'sex toy/maid/chef' as Purple5091 put it, is seen as beneath her.

[–]InsertWittyJoke3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Who wants to have a never-ending job you don't get paid for and where you have to rely on a single man to not be the type of asshole who will drop you like a hot potato the second someone new comes along, leaving you with no money and no marketable skills to be able to make your own way in life.

I watched my own mother get screwed this way by my deadbeat dad when he decided he found a better option. I and many other girls grew up knowing we couldn't rely on men, we had to forge our own path.

Now modern men are angry about it. Take it up the the last generation of men, not with us, I say.

[–]DLifts7772 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't necessarily disagree with you, if I was a woman in 2020 I would do the exact same. My point isn't that I'm blaming women.

My point is that now the power balance is completely out of whack. Women hold all the cards. In the past men had the financial power and women had the reproductive power. For sure, some people lost out, but as a whole it was relatively simple, stable and it worked for generation upon generations.

Also, and probably most importantly, female hypergamy was curtailed. It was shamed upon through social conditioning thanks to religion. So great, now women can fuck whoever they want/as much as they want and can do whatever job they want. From a woman's perspective it's fantastic.

But what about the bottom portion of men who feel they have no role in society anymore? They work hard for what? To take a used up 30 y.o after having gone sexless all their lives, and then only to be belittled and disrespected? And then once the woman is bored she takes half his $ and the kids too.

It's just not a very attractive prospect for men anymore. And that's worrying for more than one reason. Firstly, it means a lot of men are just choosing casual sex now and nothing more; hence why marriage/birth rates are falling. However, the most important reason is that if a large portion of men just give up then that has dramatic effects on society. Who will clean the roads? Build the hospitals? Maintain the sewers? In order for society to function it needs all contributors to feel valued.

[–]taapy234RED1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They will end up as spinsters if they don't get a clue.

lol there's no "will" here.

They already ARE spinsters. The amount of these very fine ladies on facebook is staggering really.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah maybe you're right.

[–]a14deadpool27 points28 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

And who cares Netflix and chill brings sex instead of traditional dating😂 the reason why nice guys can’t get laid is because they do traditional dating which is going on dates and paying while we just simply invite to watch Netflix and fuck her on our bed it’s that simple.

[–]Joey_Lopez34 points35 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I just wanted to add to his list of economic issues caused by the current SMP.

The last couple of girls I was talking to I just invited them over. If they don't want to come I know that I saved money that would have been wasted on a date.

[–]a14deadpool20 points21 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Exactly bro dating now is a lot better, you can get sex faster and at the same time you don’t waste your money so much on a woman that might bring you a lot of unnecessary drama in the future. All this traditional men types are boring and to me they’re huge simps. “Oh I want to pay on dates and get married and then wait for sex” like bro you don’t know how many gold diggers pretend to be tradwomen. That’s why traditional women are more likely to be gold diggers than feminist.

[–]Joey_Lopez24 points25 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I guess today those guys would be Simps. In the past girls were worth it. In the olded days of dates, you got a low body count girl that submitted. Not anymore. You would be an idiot to be paying for a girl's time today when she's probably fucking another guy for free.

Just remember that in today's SMP most people lose in the end. Even if you get sex upfront, most girls are not LTR material and They rack up too many Bodies. Then when you want to settle down you will look around and see that all the girls are damaged.

[–]a14deadpool7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Dude even if we lived in a society where women have low body counts I would still be doing Netflix and chill. I don’t really shame for n counts I don’t care I am just a naturally hedonistic person.

[–]Joey_Lopez7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol I guess you're lucky that you don't care and live in this time. Hope that doesn't change as you get older.

[–]asdf333aza15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If I was considering marrying a chick, I would care about her body count, but let's be real, none of these girls are worth marrying nowadays.

If you're able to hook up, than by all means go for it. I would fuck a Chick who has been with 100 dudes and not give a single fuck. Slip a condom on and don't give that bitch any head. Ez pz.

I used to try to take girls out on dates when I was in undergrad. It worked like maybe 1/5 of the time and I ended up getting laid. The other times were just a waste of money to get ghosted. Learned from my mistakes. Now I just invite bitches over. And if she ain't down to come, that mean I probably wasn't getting any anyways, so I saved money and time. I don't even consider taking a girl out until we've fucked. Gotta make sure the bitch acts right at home before I take her out in public.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't even consider taking a girl out until we've fucked.

True, dates are for after sex.

[–]a14deadpool0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is I don’t believe in marriage I always thought it was a waste of time, my dad always told me to never get married even if he was married. Most of people in the purple pill or red pill would be married if we where in the 1950s however I’m not like that even in the 1950s I would be banging girls left and right and I wouldn’t care about marriage, I am just not traditional at all. I have no problem having kids and settling down with a slut I really don’t care as long as we don’t get married because to me marriage was always about business before it was a woman selling her virgin body and now it’s for a woman to make money by acting like a housewife while her husband does everything for her.

Dude even if a girl was a virgin and hot and traditional why would you marry her? Just think about it, she’s going to be at home doing nothing watching Netflix while you are working your ass off in this crazy capitalist country with probably a shitty boss, and then you get home and you might get sex or not depends on how you both feel. Then the next day it repeats. First of all why the fuck should I work my ass off to provide for a woman?? Like seriously why? I don’t care if she’s a virgin or not it really doesn’t matter to me so why should I do it. Plus housewives are more likely to cheat, all that time alone and horny believe me they cheat more than independent women, some independent women don’t have sex at all cause they’re too busy working and being stressful.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re the one damaging them rofl

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that too. We need to start investing in businesses that cater to single people.

[–]Sir_manalot1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Just look at what is happening to jewelry stores and bridal stores.

Even some of the big ones filed for bankruptcy pre-COVID.

[–]SteveSan821 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Traditional dates are for virgins. Why should I take a woman who belongs to the streets out for a traditional date?

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So true.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa41 points42 points  (56 children) | Copy Link

So agree here.

Blue Pill: Married Men make 25% more than their single counterparts.

Red Pill: Because they need to, In fact, they should make closer to 100% more

Most married earn more and have little to spend on themselves.

And when they get divorced, their financial situation is complete devastation.

[–]MakeMoneyNotWar23 points24 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The other possibility is that marriage selects for more financially successful men. It could be just that these married men who are making 25% more would be making the same thing had they not gotten married and stayed single.

[–]AHAPPYMERCHANTPurple Pill Man5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Especially if it's married for 5 years or some other time qualifier. Financial issues are one of the leading causes of divorces, so naturally poorer men would be divorced more.

[–]ThickyJamesRedpilled, evolutionary-psychological Tradcath Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage has always selected for financial success.

Harems for men and dad/cad for women, the harems designed in a sexual arms race to defeat dad/cad.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes good sense, really. And with women getting more uni degrees, only higher-value and more degreed men are getting married.

But the math does suck: Make 25% more than the single guy who just got a new fishing boat so you can beg for a new golf club. Oh yeah, living the DREAM!

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Blue Pill: Married Men make 25% more than their single counterparts.

Red Pill: Because they need to, In fact, they should make 100% more the way she's going to spend it...

Truth, one of my married friends makes a shit ton more than me. But he is always too skint to do anything.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sad truth. I don't make this shit up. Wish I did some days...

[–]Joey_Lopez12 points13 points  (43 children) | Copy Link

Not disagreeing with you. Just want to add something I don't see acknowledged enough. Married guys make more and are more successful because they don't have to waste energy chasing girls around anymore.

Married guys can focus on their careers and education more because they don't have to worry about impressing the girls next to them. They don't have to be in the gym so much, they don't have to be the nicest dressed or have the best car. They also don't have to waste time out socializing.

They get to invest that energy into their business instead.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Married guys can focus on their careers and education more because they don't have to worry about impressing the girls next to them. They don't have to be in the gym so much, they don't have to be the nicest dressed or have the best car. They also don't have to waste time out socializing.

Why dead bedrooms happen 101.

[–]Joey_Lopez2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Then you kick her the fuck out. If you have your shit together there would be plenty of girls desperate to take her place.

P. S. I didn't mean legally married but I didn't want to write all that and deal with those trolls.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Being in shape, dressing well and socialising are things I do both in and out of a relationship.

The guys I have known who give up on those things, are normally the ones who get dumped/divorced, cheated on, etc. They also seem to have the hardest time attracting other women once this has happened.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I wasted a lot of time on on those things just to impress chicks that weren't even LTR worthy. After I settled down I seen how the guys that didn't spend as much time and energy as I did were ahead of me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ahh OK. I just do them anyway.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I remember when I used to wake up at 5am to swim or run before work. I would have been better off going to school earlier in life instead.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What does being healthy have to do with going to school?

[–]theoracleofosiris0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t do it for the girls. I do it for my health. Less the fancy clothes and fast cars, those are just dumb money sinks.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So if a wife gets out of shape and uglier and less interesting the guy should be fine with it as long as she's focusing on her career and education more? Because I haven't heard ANYONE say that, red pill or blue pill

[–]Oncefa2SJW28 points29 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The research suggests otherwise: getting married doesn't boost a man's income. Men who have higher incomes are simply more likely to be selected by women for marriage.

Ludwig, V., & Brüderl, J. (2018). Is there a male marital wage premium? New evidence from the United States. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 744-770. Abstract: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122418784909?journalCode=asra&

[–]SteveSan828 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Think of this. When you got dumped in your 20s. Who did she dump you for? Older guys with better jobs.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp12 points13 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

This is dumb.

There are good reasons why you should go to the gym BESIDES chasing girls and going to the gym isn't some huge time sink. Guess what happens when you are married AND have kids? Your free time goes out the window.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

It is when the bar is raised as much as it is now. Now just spending some time at the gym isn't enough. You need to at the very least be Sylvester Stallone in Rambo to even get noticed.

That's a lot of time and energy that you are not getting paid for just to get some pussy.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like i said, there are very good reasons to go to the gym besides getting sex. My energy levels were absolute shit before i started going to the gym.

Getting married is when you get fat and have 0 time.

[–][deleted]  (16 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You understand that he got paid for all the energy to look like that while we don't. We are losing money and time out of our lives for spending every day after work in the gym. Especially if we rather be investing some of that time somewhere else.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

He got paid cash, we get paid pussy. If that doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade for you, and you don't want any of the other benefits that come from being physically active, no one's making you work out. In fact, if you just want to be fat, lazy, and complacent, today is arguably the best time for you in all of human history.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

He got paid cash, we get paid pussy.

True

no one's making you work out. In fact, if you just want to be fat, lazy, and complacent, today is arguably the best time for you in all of human history.

Not saying that we should be fat and lazy. Just saying that it's a full time job to become Arnold. Hard when we have another full time job and a side hussle that's now demanded from us. There is only 24 hrs in a day.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't need to become Arnold, though. In fact, if your primary goal is attracting women, you don't want to become Arnold. A bit of extra muscle is all you really need, the rest is in how you eat, dress, and groom.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it's not remotely true. Lots of girls are into skinny guys. It's a whole type.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. IMO, one of the biggest giveaways that a dude rarely interacts (or at least listens) to women is when he thinks that women love bodybuilder/powerlifter-type bodies. While I don't doubt they exist, I've never met a woman whose type has been dudes like that. The three most common I've heard are either skinny, toned, or dadbod (but Chris Pratt style dad bod, not just fat 20-something trying to rebrand his laziness), and while all require some level of effort to maintain, they're all very achievable for the average guy with a few hours to workout every week.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

oh jesus fucking christ, no woman wants dadbod or skinny dudes. They obviously don't want roided out meatheads either. They want men with muscular athletic builds (emphasis on athletic, roided out meatheads are the opposite of athletic). There was a good youtube video where a dude went around showing pictures of a dad bod, a shirtless ronaldo, and a bodybuilder and almost every single woman chose the shirtless ronaldo pic with his ripped ass body.

[–]SteveSan823 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I live in Japan. Women hate skinny guys. They like guys who are in shape whether he be muscular or have a runners body. Skinny with no muscle guys are incels

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Did you know that there are other countries outside of Japan? The more you know

[–]SteveSan820 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok skinny boy

[–]SteveSan820 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women prefer the brad pitt Fight Club shape. After that the Charlie Bronson from Bronson film shape.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No Brad pulled it off with other things. Rambo could be "hot" without a bunch of game tricks.

[–]SteveSan820 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm talking about physically what women prefer. Not game

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What about a guy who doesn't A) Get married OR B) Waste money on chasing tail?

ERMAGERD! Can it be? Yes. Yes it can. It's called MGTOW.

[–]SteveSan821 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Before I got married I was taking trips to Vegas, bought what I wanted, if I left the apartment I didn't have someone texting asking where I am.

My last trip was 3 fucking days in Tokyo last year because my wife couldnt be bothered to take more days off work and she had a a meltdown the first night there. I couldn't buy shit I wanted because my wife would question me about why I bought it. All while age was buying shit we didn't need

Don't ever get married and only date younger women. The older a woman is the more entitled she is.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny how women's expectations and "lifestyle standards" just rise as their SMV plummets. It's comedic, really.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

female and largely capitalistic drive

Yup, feminism/the female imperative and capitalism tied together are hugely destructive to society.

We need to bring back middle class values.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or Middle Ages... ;-) lol

[–]Master_Manufacturer72 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Men nowadays are opting for having a nice apartment or a small house, have some good hobbies and a balanced social life.

Opting?! More like, they don’t have a choice, and have to eek out whatever pleasure they can get in life

[–]DangZagnut3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Worshipping pussy isn't more impressive than stamp collecting.

Hobbies are subjectively enjoyable.

[–]Master_Manufacturer71 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

“Worshipping pussy” has nothing to do with it. Whether men want sex or not, they don’t get to choose.

[–]DangZagnut0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure they do. I do. I could do pussy and choose not to. I could collect stamps and choose not to.

[–]Master_Manufacturer70 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

OK, so choose torture, let’s see how that goes.

[–]DangZagnut6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why would I choose something stupid?

If I wanted to be tortured I'd get married.

[–]rosephase8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to being a woman who doesn’t want marriage or kids or capitalism.

The thing you are criticizing isn’t gendered.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it's just perpetrated in part by the gender that will never, ever get shit for it in the contemporary media. We'll get a dozen Vice articles about how men are the evil drivers of capitalism, seeking high paying, high status jobs and nary a peep about the women in their lives selecting for that, wanting big houses and designer handbags etc (lol usually we get the "capitalism FORCES women to make those choices :(" agency-removing horseshit instead).

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree

[–]MikepGrey1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I am 40, own a few houses/cars, play with the ladies and ya, life is great with out an idiot wife, if I find a real woman - I can marry her and she can contribute to her half of the house hold.

I think the sexists fems call that "gender rolls?"

[–]SaBahRub0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If buying their own houses and living a quiet productive life is what these men are doing, I am all for it. Or having roommates.

Women used to to that too. It should be brought back

[–]Throwawayforshitt0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

he still overall has a slightly higher chance of being happier than a single man while taking on a metric fuck ton of risks to get there.

While yes it is risky to marry, the evidence shows that a successful marriage makes both participants more happy than being single.

Successful marriage> Single > unsuccessful marriage.

So... Vet well.

[–]pre-dental232 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's like stock picking.

Successful stock picks are going to be better than simply investing in VTSAX, but if you get burned you get burned bad. It all depends on how much risk you wanna take.

Same thing with marriage. Higher risk, higher reward, but also higher chance of completely ruining your life.

[–]Throwawayforshitt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats a good way to think about it, yeah. I'm buying value stocks and avoiding the FAANGs, and I'm vetting my gf. Lol.

[–]JohnDoe9564Red Pill Man28 points29 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We're called the "Lost Boys" generation for a reason.

[–]asdf333aza78 points79 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

Look up the Herbivore men in Japan. These guys are perfectly content playing video games, not making a lot of money and not chasing girls for sex or relationship. They spit in the face of the corporate lifestyle. They just live their lives and do what makes them happy. Yes, it's selfish, but that's how the game is now. They checked out of the dating scene and it became such an issue that the Japanese government realized their economy cant survive and had to take steps to get people to date and have children. Some ppl even believe the mgtow movement has it's origins from the herbivore men.

Are women working more? Not your problem? Are women reporting higher rates of depression than ever before? Not your problem. Are birth rates declining? Not your problem. Are women working so hard that it's stressing them out, while men sit back and take the easy route? Not your problem. Are there chads out there getting laid and pump and dumping girls? Not your problem. The kids of the next generation have to deal with an earth that is running out of resources and was destroyed by us? Not your problem. The kids of the next generation have to deal with a fucked up economy and rising prices and stagnant incomes? Not your problem. Are there bitter old folk telling you your generation is ruining everything? Not your problem. Are there women complaining about not having anyone to date? Are there more single moms than ever before? Are female led house holds worse off than two parent households? Not your problem. Are the children of next generation worse off? Are all those bad-boy Chad babies growing up to be criminals like their daddies? Not your problem. Is marriage dying out? Not your problem. Is the society going to hell? NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Fuck society. Let the people be their own demise, and you just do what you need to do to keep yourself happy.

The root of a lot of male problems comes from dealing with and chasing girls. You let women hold the possibility or happiness over your head, when in reality they can't give it to you. They might even keep you from it. You have to find happiness yourself And once you do that, you realize you don't need them. So long as you need a girl in your life to feel happy, you are on the plantation. You are a slave to them. And if you REALLY need it just find a prostitute. And get your fix like an addict and go on about your day. Stop trying to save women. Stop trying to save society. Stop trying to fix the culture. Stop trying to uphold morals and ethics. Let it all crumble. The point is, do what's best for you and fuck society and everyone else in it.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

See also: The misandry bubble

https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Not our problem

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp28 points29 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

It's weird only men are able to see the macro effects of the dumbass decisions of women but women are completely blind to it. Not my problem though ;)

[–]SaBahRub11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

No, women know. They don’t like it, but they know

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp24 points25 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Bull fucking shit. Maybe 40 year old spinsters do, but young women can't see past their nose. They're too busy fighting off thirsty dudes with a stick, focusing on education/careers, and NOT thinking about the future/marriage

[–]SaBahRub11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Sure they do. That’s why we’re all depressed, anxious, and riddled with eating disorders and escapist addictions to social media. Cognitive dissonance and denial is a bitch

I have to admit, I enjoy occasionally poking the bear to see what level of mental dysfunction these women are at

You’ll be happy to know that no matter how much it seems otherwise, women have convinced themselves that they need men

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No they don't. If they did, the marriage minded women would leverage their youth to lock down a good, hardworking man and be ahead of the game.

[–]SaBahRub9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

They are all chasing the dream of love, which doesn’t have a timetable or 5 step plan. No one would marry if they didn’t

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp12 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

They're chasing alpha dick during their youth, and beta simps when they're approaching the wall.

If i were a young girl, i'd find an above average looking beta dude studying to be a software engineer in college, wife him up, and be way ahead of the game instead of jumping on chad's dick and waiting 10+ years to find that same beta who's either wifed up or given up on women altogether (if he's smart, he'd do the latter).

[–]SaBahRub6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, amazingly, women can be just as dumb and shortsighted as men. Sadly, shaming and berating people to do the “good” or “right” thing never works. You do know that, right ?

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah i don't care anymore, society can burn to the ground. Like, i'm not going to go around and evangelize to all the sloots i know that they're screwing everything up.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You’ll be happy to know that no matter how much it seems otherwise, women have convinced themselves that they need men

what fucking world do you live in, dude? cuz from where I'm standing, I see a bunch of women who mostly bemoan the fact that men exist

[–]Sir_manalot2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are the only ones who want to because the other side is to arrogant, selfish and prideful too.

It is hard to admit that you fucked everything up and caused a large number of people to suffer (tons of men are DEAD and/or ruined because of the shit women pulled, yet they refuse to take responsibility for any of it).

[–]Maximedius11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are women working more? Not your problem? Are women reporting higher rates of depression than ever before? Not your problem. Are birth rates declining? Not your problem. Are women working so hard that it's stressing them out, while men sit back and take the easy route? Not your problem. Are there chads out there getting laid and pump and dumping girls? Not your problem. The kids of the next generation have to deal with an earth that is running out of resources and was destroyed by us? Not your problem. The kids of the next generation have to deal with a fucked up economy and rising prices and stagnant incomes? Not your problem. Are there bitter old folk telling you your generation is ruining everything? Not your problem. Are there women complaining about not having anyone to date? Are there more single moms than ever before? Are female led house holds worse off than two parent households? Not your problem. Are the children of next generation worse off? Are all those bad-boy Chad babies growing up to be criminals like their daddies? Not your problem. Is marriage dying out? Not your problem. Is the society going to hell? NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Fuck society. Let the people be their own demise, and you just do what you need to do to keep yourself happy.

Just wanted to frame this. This is nice.

[–]asdf333aza14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's quite simple. Stop caring about other people and just do what makes you happy. You will be happier when you stop trying to make other people happy. Especially, women. They're so crazy that they thought the key to happiness would be working. The fought us for the right to work. And they're literally more depressed, lonely, angry and bitter than ever before. Good one fems. You really taught us.

[–]Maximedius5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're so crazy that they thought the key to happiness would be working. The fought us for the right to work. And they're literally more depressed, lonely, angry and bitter than ever before. Good one fems. You really taught us.

Yup, massive self-own...

[–]retal1ator30 points31 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This is the MGTOW manifesto.

Flawless and logically based.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Q: Remember the corporate overlords they used to sacrifice themselves to, for "honor" on the altar of capitalism? Were not those overlord selfish for asking individual men to literally lay down their lives for the good of the corporation?

The Herbivore men are not selfish. Those who they deny, however, most certainly are.

[–]theoracleofosiris14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You have verbalised everything I wanted to type. Mgtow for life.

[–]Kookerpea4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a lot of prostitution in Japan

[–]Sir_manalot3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is what most women are going to be forced to become.

When men are pushed to the point that relationships are not worth it to them, women become nothing but sex toys.

[–]Majorian420The Revanite70 points71 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

As an immigrant in American society, it seems to me society has abandoned its young men and boys in favor of its daughters.

In an attempt to equalize opportunities for females, males have taken a backdrop. Its why we see more women going to college and earning more than men because there are more safety nets for them now.

The result is there is a financial and education imbalance between genders because from what Ive seen is successful college educated women want other men of similar or higher standing but theres not enough of those men to go around.

At my college the ratio is 40/60 male to female, which is good for me and others within this bracket but bad for women because the numbers just aren’t there.

So women will have to either lower their standards to go for men of lower standing and be okay with being the beardwinner, share men from the upperclass or check out of the game.

From my PoV, young American men have this sense of hopelessness because theres not enough opportunities to go around, the American Dream is dead and the Pax Americana is about to draw to a close.

Its why Donald Trump polled so well with white young men because he offered to restore a throwback to a golden age in American history that their grandfathers told them off and what they seen in movies and on tv where they mattered and there was a sense of hope and prosperity.

This is why during the rise of ISIS in the middle east, there were flooded with hundreds of thousands of recruits, who were mostly young Arab men because ISIS offered an alternative to the authoritarian or corrupt regimes of the middle east. What people aren’t aware of is that during the 2010s the middle east was hit with one of the worst droughts in history that hampered agriculture in the region which turn forced hundreds of thousands of people to look for work in urban areas which there wasn’t enough to go around which led to political unrest which coincided with the Arab Spring and the civil wars that came from it and lay the perfect conditions for ISIS to expand rapidly.

Because young men are the most at risk demographic to populist figures, because when hope fades and you have someone offering salvation, you just had to take it, it will galvanize the masses.

Birth rates are dropping yes, thats why the US improves labor from Latin America to cover down as the white and black demographic grows older. Which is why it’s estimated by the end of the century, hispanics will be the majority in the US.

Edit: thank you to the anonymous benefactor who popped my award cherry.

[–]ThetaOmega18 points19 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So women will have to either lower their standards to go for men of lower standing and be okay with being the beardwinner, share men from the upperclass or check out of the game.

I have a feeling that it is going to continue to be the second option, but with more "Men have failed us women" and "Men have become trash and most aren't worth women's time", and more heartbreak when she can't lock down that chad she wants, while settling for BB.

The only thing I could possibly see that would change this is if an authoritarian government came in and forced monogamy on everyone.

I do not want an authoritarian government to force monogamy on anyone. Fuck that noise.

How the current system is, women ignoring 80% of men, calling them trash, more and more becoming sexless or BB, I see as the high price for freedom.

The only prediction I have is that humiliation fetishes will become more and more common for men, because over time, the only type of interaction most men will have with women will be women calling them and all men trash, saying they ain't worth shit, and every other insult possible. At first, men will stand up and defend themselves, but will be shouted down as women haters and dangerous. More and more men will have been raised in a single mother household, so they will be more likely to comply. They still have a sex drive, so that hatred they have been subjected to will mix in with sexual desire. Thus, humiliation and FinDom will boom.

Its already slowly starting to happen. make a poll on Reddit, and ask them a few questions. When was the last time you received compliments from a woman who you had no connection with? What did you think about it?

Most likely, it has been a long ass time (if ever) that they were complimented by a strange woman, and if they were complimented, they were either taken by surprise because it is so novel to them, or they instantly turned suspicious (the last time I was complimented, I was instantly suspicious, as I was dressed well and wasn't sure what she wanted from me)

[–]Sir_manalot8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is that society doesn’t have much of a choice.

They fucked up and the only way to fix this situation is through extreme changes that will benefit men.

If they try a slower approach, it will be too slow as it will take a clean generation for it to even begin to help the situation.

[–]Maximedius7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As an immigrant in American society, it seems to me society has abandoned its young men and boys in favor of its daughters.

That is literally exactly it. Well put.

[–]DareyFathom28 points29 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep. Modern feminism is about marginalization of men, not the empowerment of women.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

(they're the same thing)

women have big strength/dick envy - probably not unlike how men have big pussy envy. They hate that we are as free as we are, and as strong as we are when their biology is something of a ball and chain to that little baby oven in their tummy.

...so modern feminism is mostly about taking men down, because that's the only way they know to build women up.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why during the rise of ISIS in the middle east, there were flooded with hundreds of thousands of recruits, who were mostly young Arab men because ISIS offered an alternative to the authoritarian or corrupt regimes of the middle east. What people aren’t aware of is that during the 2010s the middle east was hit with one of the worst droughts in history that hampered agriculture in the region which turn forced hundreds of thousands of people to look for work in urban areas which there wasn’t enough to go around which led to political unrest which coincided with the Arab Spring and the civil wars that came from it and lay the perfect conditions for ISIS to expand rapidly.

Water wars will eventually do that globally.

[–]Plopolok0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

At my college the ratio is 40/60 male to female, which is good for me and others within this bracket but bad for women because the numbers just aren’t there.

In terms of romantic opportunities, imo it evens out with the fact that educated men have lower SMV. I.e., if you had chosen to skip university you could have done worse, or better, or similar, but probably in average similar. (You could have gotten a blue collar job and started earning instead of being in debt. Or become a drug dealer, a musician, a hippie, a patreonized youtube hobbyist,...)

[–]Expensive-Guitar36099 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is stupidity.

I'll tell you what, I'll give you a short and summarized explanation of what's happening. I'm not a native english speaker though so I would try to make it simple.

Men don't have a place in the world where the only ones with oportunities are men at the top, that's the main issue. I would like to preface by saying I'm not a leftist, quite the contrary in fact, but the world about to come may be a leftist's wetest dream (though the old left is still in the loosers band, they just don't know yet).

Men at the top know damn well what's happening, and women know too, or at least "sense it". The men becouse they are running the show of course, and women becouse they are really sensible to societal changes, their survival depends on it after all.

Thing is, as the real privileged people of this system, they don't want to lose the control. Like it happened across history, in all cultures and civilizations, when a system gets corrupted, flabby and useless and start retaining progress and prosperity and draining resourges to mantain institutions that no longer benefit the masses, men get tired, start a revolt and fuck the shit out of the ruling class.

In the modern world, as always, the ruling class needs to keep masses of men in check and away from revolutionary ideas, so now they come up with this fucked up idea that men "refuse to adapt to the modern world". They want you to believe that the disconfort masses of men are feeling is becouse "male privilege is being challenged". That they have no place in the future, that they won't "fit" in this marvelous prosperous utopia of equality and freedom the ruling class is planning.

"Our privilege". Just pay attention. This is how powerfull classes write the script and shift the reality. It's called "cultural narrative", and powerful men use it all the time to hide the fucking obvious truth in front of your eyes.

Pure old semiothics, the art of changing the perception of reality through lenguage. It is well known in psychology that thoughts are an internalization of lenguage; if you don't have words to describe a thing or a process, you can't thinking it or place it in context, even less rationalize it, so neither you can think about a solution when a problematic scenario arises.

So now it doesn't matter how much men fail as cause of systematic inequalities, becouse if some men at the top (and even women now!) can do it then the only explanable reasson why most men are doing it so poorly is becouse...

Yes, they are jealous of women. Bum. Blame shifting.

Now they have you thinking if you vote for said candidate that defends your intrests instead of a "feminist" (code-word for neoliberal progressive anti-nationalist globalist) agenda, you are a covetted mysoginyst facist pig.

Sounds familiar?

On the other hand you have a women's issue.

You see, modern women's ideological core principles are intrinsically tied to the modern ruling class, becouse powerful men have been using women's movemments and pushing for women's rights as a form of wealth transfering system, from the national productive framework to the burocratic, political, financial global system.

Where does money for health care, social programs, women's state politics and extended safety nets, come from? Of course, from the productive framework.

Well, sometimes from men like Soros, Paul Singer or Rockefeller (btw, can someone explain to me what do men that dedicate their lives to sent poor countries to bankrupt and fuck their economies have to do with women's liberation?) but mostly from the productive framework.

Who compounds the whole framework? Men. Who benefit the most from the State? Women. Who administrate taxes, wages and State founds? The ruling class.

This is why men are not allowed to have "ideologies", men movemments, men ministries or ONG's. Just imagine if someone tomorrow started talking about this shit on TV. Damn.

Don't get me wrong, women are not to blame for this, they are just profiting from a system that uses them as a political and ideological shield. But then, women still suffer from some natural intricasies, for example, her lack of control of what sorrounds them.

Women are in shock becouse the world is collapsing and everything around them is showing the first signs of the (inevitable) entropic forces of a dying system, and men are refusing to partake in the structural recovery of the old social machinery where they are not the primary beneficiaries yet they are expected to do the hard and dirty work and being exploited and, now, mistreated and disrespected.

As a matter of fact, men want this old globalized world-wide system to get fucked, as they have made it by now, pretty much, crystal clear every year with the increasing rise of nationalist-fascist parties across the globe.

Even if men across the western world don't know yet, their driving force will converge in a bigger, wider and more complete view of their combined intrests, this is, national intrest.

What do you think this "Manosphere" is? A "sexual strategy"? Nah. This is only an issolated subset of ideas that belong, at a sociological level, to a metaphysically bigger scheme.

Men are saying "fuck it", and women don't like it, becouse they understand (or sense) their leverage in the modern cultural societies depend on men staying productive and working hard in order to create the resources that will be extracted later by men in power.

That's why wages have stagnated and taxes have skyrocketed while social-democrat political parties have been winning all over the western world and yet wealth keeps concentrating in fewer hands day by day.

The other day I was hearing some radical feministd say that men avoiding taxes are being "mysoginists" becouse they don't contribute to the safety net women benefit from at a national level.

Can you believe it?

Of course, I understand what she's saying. In a pure, materialistic sense, women's rights are only the aviability to attain resources and participate in the social distribution of productive means.

Too complicated? Go to basic mode:

Humans rights say all individuals have rights to a home, for example, but even if a culture allows women to buy houses... How many women do you know that build houses for a living?

So, in short, most women's freedoms and liberties are an inmanation and a byproduct of men's work and sacrifice.

You know, as far as now we have accepted this idea of "human rights" as a default setting of our societal core principles (though abortion rights, in direct contradiction with these same universal rights, may well bring their validity to discussion) but if men start to concive individualistic, materialistic and maniqueist political views along with a nihilist and darwinian aproaches to inter-gender interactions as a result or response to rough socio-cultural conditions, this humanitarian-equalitarian, idealistic and romantic utopia the western world is experiencing now may come to an abrupt end.

This is what women fear. That becouse of being left behind and treated like second class citizens, men will be forced to take more "individualistic" paths.

But this is not men hating women more than men acting on their own selfish intrests.

You see, men are having their own "gender revolution" right now. And they are going to change the system... Not becouse they hate women. But becouse they can.

Read this part from OP's post:

"In the modern era, we'd like to believe that we've risen above our primal instincts. But if the manospehre is to be believed, the extent to which men have actually accepted this paradigm and live their lives accordingly depends on 1) how successful they are in attracting women and 2) how much they are capable of seeing people over biology."

And now read between lines:

"In the modern era, we'd like to believe that we've risen above our primal instincts."

And the intresting part:

"2) how much they are capable of seeing people over biology."

Traduction:

"You don't want to work hard so I can be free to buy what I want and live the way I want, so you are a mysoginist pig. Also, by not voting for Hillary you are forcing me to give you pussy to survive. Hillary told me."

Yeah. They know damn well what's going on.

[–]BudgetSeaworthiness142 points43 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I am personally not affected because I have very strong personal ambitions and drive.

However I can completely see how, no offense, “weaker” men may struggle to see a purpose to anything. Being constantly bombarded with negativity and reward less responsibilities I fully sympathize with those who just say “fuck it”

[–]theoracleofosiris10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn’t call them weak. It’s a perfectly logical decision to make if the desired outcome is personal wellness and happiness. Of course if your desired outcome is material success for its own sake then ambition and drive is good all the time.

But in my opinion, ambition and drive in a time where the compensation is in dollars which the fed is massively inflating, in a time where taxes from your productivity are used to subsidise lazy single mothers, in a time where your wealth can be taken from you from family courts and where you are forced to maintain your productivity at gun point to support your wife regardless of her conduct in the marriage, in such times like these, being ambitious and productive for its own sake is not a very smart and well thought out strategy if your goal is personal wellness and happiness.

Unless of course you can break into the ranks of the truly alpha men who make the rules in society (the level of musk, bezos and zuck), anywhere in the hierarchy below them, you’re just making yourself out to be a target.

[–]Sir_manalot5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are “weaker” because he/she is a misandrist.

He believes it is men’s job to be utilities for others. When in reality it is the other side job to make it worth it for men to be a utility for them.

It is like calling someone who doesn’t want to fight in a stupid war to make others rich a coward. Just a shitty shame attack.

[–]zerofeetpersecond15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

In a similar boat, I’m super happy with my gf but I see others desperation. Having a girlfriend now is like being wealthy and living on a bad block.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

People keep asking me why I grouse about women of poor character on here. Aside from the fact that I have a son aging into this shithole dating world? You just explained it flawlessly. Picture yourself a married man with four kids in the middle of this. It's like living at the top of an ivory castle but when you step outside into the street it's like the streets of Mumbai.

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone in my family has a twin boy and girl.

I feel so, so sorry for the boy.

[–]Throwawayforshitt1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same. But you gotta keep that abundance mentality bro. I am very very pleased with my gf. I love her and respect her, would never cheat on her, and plan to possibly marry her (with caveats ofc, separate finances, prenup, etc).

But i still remember and never ever forget that i am able to find relationships or hookups with women based on my qualities as a man were our relationship ever to end. My past success with this buoys my relationship, because i don't pine after my gf, i can go days without seeing or talking to her, and i know if anything ever happens i can find another person. Of course i hope that doesn't happen, but some people think it's the end of the world if their relationship ends. After 50 years of marriage ok fine. But under 5-10yrs of being together? Idk.

[–]Frosty-Gate-80943 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The top 5% with ambition and aptitude will be rich and successful there is no doubt.

But the society is built on the labour of the average men.

You can be the best rocket scientist in the world, but you cannot build a rocket, without aluminum and carbon fibre. It can't run without fuel. The launch platform is built by construction workers.

Aluminium doesn't come without miners. Carbon fiber requires, graphite. Fuel is either petroleum (needs oil rig workers) or liquid oxygen, which needs electricity to produce. (Power turbines are run by working class men and require coal or fuel to run).

There is no point being a successful person, if there is no average and working class men to support you. It's not possible to gather all the resources yourself. Once working class men are scarce, top 5% men in power will fall on their face flat.

[–]BudgetSeaworthiness11 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

More and more automation, and more and more service based industry goes against your theory.

Sure, wealth comes from cumulative effort of many. But you’re missing that women still make up 50% of the workforce, and if 5% or 10% of men decide to check out will make little difference for an employer in the long run.

Besides, if they plan to live they still need to produce and consume something.

[–]ridgecoyote3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Some of us see those who bow to the gods of materialism and power as the weak ones. Thanks for sympathizing with us tho. And backatcha kiddo.

[–]BudgetSeaworthiness12 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That’s perfectly fine if you feel that way. I simply used “weak” because I couldn’t come up with a better word for people who let the above mentioned opinions and influence get to them

[–]ridgecoyote2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think I see what you mean, people that long for money and success but make excuses or blame outside forces for their lack. That is weak.

[–]BudgetSeaworthiness11 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that too, but I was thinking more of low-confidence, introverted, depressed etc.

[–]Mr-X16 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing wrong with being introverted. And you are not "stronger" for being extroverted (lol).

[–]ThickyJamesRedpilled, evolutionary-psychological Tradcath Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hippie simp found

[–]Sleepyhead_Lain8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it is very true. Just look at Maslow's pyramid, the recognition you get from society (including women) for who you are and what you do has an important place in it.

At a personnal level, I feel it. When I was with my previous girlfriends I had goals in my life, I was willing to move forward, because I wanted to build up a loving family with them. I had motivation because I was doing it for an hypotetic future family, and not just for me.

When I'm alone, I just go from an existential crisis to another, feeling like everything I do is just pointless. I try to fix some goals, I even reach them sometimes, but I'm just insatisfied with them, I don't feel like it was useful. I don't do things for myself.

I might be some kind of nihilist in Nietzsche's perspective, or some sort of "simp" (I'm not throwing money at girls of course) but this is how I feel. And I do believe that lots of men feel the same way.

[–]Sultmaker_900029 points30 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

2 Things to separate:

The male sexlessness issue is the same as Japan, which was the trend setter from the 80's, men essentially giving up having sex, which is an economics issue.

As for women rising further up society, won't bode well, I cant see how most women will accept men of lower status than them, and they aren't.

[–]parahacker5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to just how negatively the vegetarian movement in Japan has affected their economy. Are there any studies done on this that you know of?

[–]Sir_manalot11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Studies (or atleast honest ones) will not happen for Japan doesn’t want to admit that they fucked up out of pride.

They will keep dancing around the issue until it becomes so obvious that they do not have any other choice.

But even then, they might just let the country die out of stubbornness anyway. While playing ignorant to obvious truths.

It is also why all the Japanese thirty year old virgins seemed to appear out of nowhere. They hoped that if they were stubborn enough, Japanese men would just submit. But that never happens.

So they covered up the problem for 20+ years and pretended everything was fine.

Same thing here. Jewelry stores and bridal stores are closing down like crazy (even years ago and pre-COVID). But very few will admit what is going on with marriage.

But the truth is that it doesn’t matter what cultures do as they only have one choice. Fix the mating game or slowly die.

[–]parahacker6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fix the mating game or slowly die.

Word.

Many people are saying it will fix itself, that it's just a phase. Those people have no grasp of history, or of nations that engaged in bullshit for centuries and only stopped after a few wars. Not saying this is that, but assuming intervention is not necessary is just blind, foolish faith.

[–]Sir_manalot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, technically it will fix itself.

But that is because people will have to accept the truth at some point or die.

[–]Intp-A11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And how are they suppose to just fix it?

[–]theoracleofosiris9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They won’t do such a study because it’s distasteful to women who form the majority of the electoral base.

They’re blaming the herbivore men and low birth rates on the economy when it’s the lethargic males participation which causes low birth rates which leads to a shit economy.

You can see some of it happening in America but the effects are buffered by immigration who tend to hold more traditional values but are eroded away by the time they hit the 2nd or 3rd generation.

[–]milkyshitbag2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha so japanese men are like pandas 🤣 does anyone else find that ironic

[–]Frosty-Gate-80942 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Herbivore men is not movement, they just don't engage in relationships because it's too taxing. (Japanese men are expected to take care of family, in their culture.)

It doesn't directly affect economy. But it causes falling birth rates, which affect the economy due to ageing population. (Total fertility rates in Japan are 1.34)

It's low in many Scandinavian countries too(1.5-1.7) but the economy is still maintained by immigration, (this is true for USA too, ).... Once immigration stops they will suffer the same fate.

Immigration will eventually stop once birth rates in emigrating countries fall below replacement level too.

[–]Intp-A11 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't see the birth rate dropping below replacement anytime soon in Africa or the middle east.

[–]MentleGentlemen098Purple Pillar Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm actually laughing out loud right now

"Herbivore" doesn't mean vegetarian in this case. It's a derogatory term originated in women's magazine that is used to insult and blame men who are hikkikomori and aren't out there to get the 'meat'(dat pussy)

In society where women are transferred into the workforce and have to work 10hrs + a day, they still expect their ideal men to be richer than them because of the gender roles and they also expect men to be extremely attractive and charismatic that most Japanese men just can't reach. Basically hypergamy on crack. Of course, instead of taking an introspection to look that maybe they could lower their standards but that's just not female nature, so they blame men for not being worthy enough instead

Men are resigning more from life because of this.

[–]Joey_Lopez21 points22 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are not really rising up in society. They are only given a free pass by men. Women are not building companies and creating jobs. They are not creating anything that furthers society.

If anything all the accommodations they demand like HR and sexual harassment issues just create more handicaps for everyone.

[–]Sultmaker_900015 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not if you look at higher education, and I'm talking about STEM courses, not just your BS liberal arts degrees. No doubt they are also being pushed further up the tree in business to hit unofficial quotas, but that is also true of non whites where they can. Women serving as police officers and firefighters are also other cases- totally unfit and less capable for the core of their work, so we are even sacrificing people's lives to the politically correct gods. None of it benefits anyone, but its happening, there are no signs of it stopping, and that's all that matters.

[–]Joey_Lopez13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a STEM degree. Yes they are being passed along. In my science classes they used to put the girls into groups with the guys so we could do the work for them.

I also work part time as a Paramedic. We work with females and get paid the same as them, but they expect us to do the heavy lifting and protect them.

[–]SaBahRub38 points39 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I don’t want to have kids; does that make me useless to society? Some would say yes.

Guess what? I don’t care! I’m going to keep living, working, buying, voting, having sexual and non sexual relationships, paying taxes, volunteering, learning stuff, donating to charity, cleaning up beaches, babysitting, caretaking, following my interests, and meeting people.

And I will bet plenty of people like me exist

Suck on that, nihilists!

[–]DangZagnut20 points21 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

You’re describing nihilism.

[–]SaBahRub10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

My life has meaning; just not the one biological determinists want

[–]DangZagnut18 points19 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Ascribing you’re own meaning is fine, as nihilism states there isn’t an inherent one, and denounces ones set in place via religion or society. You are more than able to invent your own.

[–]AxeLond5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's Absurdism though, nihilism just says no meaning, no inherent meaning, no pursuit of mening, no point in mening.

Absurdism is you can find joy and meaning in one's own life, but the only "resolution" is in eventual annihilation by death. Finding mening in something completely pointless is the absurd part.

[–]goneaway2thewind2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Absurdism is you can find joy and meaning in one's own life, but the only "resolution" is in eventual annihilation by death. Finding mening in something completely pointless is the absurd part.

Who determines what is "pointless" and what is "meaningful" and on what metric?

[–]AxeLond0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I guess pointless was a bad word to use, since that implies there is no purpose.

It's more everything you could ever do will all ultimately be destroyed by the heat death of the universe, and it makes no difference, it will all just be nullified by death anyway. The absurd part is that you can choose to find meaning in the transient, even knowing it's all ultimately for nothing.

So it would be you who determines what is "pointless" and what is "meaningful", and it's you who determine what metric makes something meaningful. There is no inherent meaning in the universe, you can choose to find meaning in whatever the fuck you want.

You've probably heard or seen reference of Sisyphus, the dude forever stuck pushing a rock up a hill, a popular quote from The Myth of Sisyphus is this,

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

It's something to do right? Gives you a goal, a purpose, something to work at. Would you rather do nothing at all for eternity?

[–]DangZagnut1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I prefer to live at the intersection of the two ideas. No reason to be an absolutist about it for me.

For me, I find nihilism in more the classic sense of ignoring society, culture, and religious meaning to life, and that life has no inherent meaning, but that doesn't mean you can't find something else satisfying that you enjoy.

[–]KazROFL1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No they're not?

[–]SaBahRub4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess words don’t have meanings. It’s just random squiggles!

[–]CommanderOfTheDeathGoing The Way Of The Mandalore0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

They have meaning, but the meaning is not always clear to everyone.

[–]Joey_Lopez12 points13 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Yes we are. Which is why the establishment is importing illegal immigrants to replace people not reproducing or have given up because they don't have a stake.

One major thing that TRP needs to get behind is against illegal immigration. When the population (tax base) starts shrinking and they don't have immigrants to patch it, they will have to start addressing the social problems (SMP, feminism, unmarriageable high body count women, etc) we talk about.

[–]rhyth710 points11 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Remember when the farmers were complaining that white people didn't want to work on their farms for the pay they were offered? Nobody wanted to pick the apples or be in the hot sun all day.

[–]Joey_Lopez6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Without immigrants they will have to raise the pay to get people to work there. Working at a farm for a little over mimimum wage might be a better deal than retail at minimum wage for many.

[–]rhyth79 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

We have to convince people that they are not above farm work or factory work. Many people do think they are above that, or above janitors and plumbers. But when people are soft and used to being indoors they're gonna walk on physical jobs.

[–]beyond_relevant1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Im not above physical work, im above wearing a yoke.

Raise the cost of farmwork and raise the price of food. Also stop importing food from china and other african shitholes that never heard of a fair deal.

Jesus christ, my country which is literally 50% farmland is literally importing BEANS from china. that is on the other side of the world...

2 things need to change, china needs to stop using people as slaves and pay them reasonably, and we all need to stop importing food that can be produced locally.

Like this literally makes no sense from a physics perspective. Why move shit from the other side of the world generating entropy, when you can produce it locally without generating so much entropy... makes no sense.

[–]sigma19321 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Raise the cost of farmwork and raise the price of food. Also stop importing food from china and other african shitholes that never heard of a fair deal.

Get rid of the welfare state so the price of food can come down and the pay they're offering now will be enough.

[–]beyond_relevant0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The price of food needs to go up, because the wages of farmers need to go up, because food production is supposed to give you enough money to partake in the rest of economy.

If food price remains low, that means farmers wages remain low relative to the rest of economy, meaning they still couldnt be able to afford other things than food.

[–]sigma19321 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The Poverty level is relative to cost of living. Cost of living is directly related to what people are willing to spend, not what something is actually worth materially.

If you artificially increase people's income (like the welfare state or something like UBI would), the cost of living will rise to normalize at that artificially increased level of income, and bring the poverty level up right along with it, requiring you to find ways to supply the wasted money needed to support that artificially increased income, without actually improving people's financial stability.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of expecting the Avon lady's commission to be enough to be able to pay people to both buy her products so she can get that commission, AND be able to buy other shit on top of that... essentially a financial paradox... it's logically impossible.

FYI, a certain social phenomenon already happened within the last 50 years that not only increased the average household income, but for all practical purposes DOUBLED it... and the end result was NOT increased financial stability, but rather that the standard cost of living shifted from needing one working class income per household to needing two working class incomes to support the standard cost of living... and now people are trying to go back to a single-income/household standard, and they're finding that it doesn't work, so they're bitching that wages need to go up, which won't actually fix the problem... so even without the welfare state, throwing more money at a problem doesn't actually fix the problem... it just makes the problem more expensive to hold at bay.

[–]rhyth70 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with you. But they pay people less because they can, the system needs people at the bottom and it needs them to stay there. When other countries try to do something different we bomb them or start a coup.

[–]beyond_relevant1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Capitalism was a meme, we never left feudalism.

People living in rented homes, working in factories they do not own.

Serf and aristocracy.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True it is an obstacle.

[–]sigma19321 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody wanted to pick the apples or be in the hot sun all day.

Because our welfare state was feeding them. Take that away, and suddenly there won't be any more "jobs americans won't do".

Incidentally, this is also why arbtrarily raising the minimum wage or implementing UBI will cause more problems than they solve.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What a silly, racist notion. People in the third world are teching up, and as a result birth rates are falling globally. It's only a question of time before what's happening here happens "there".

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Guess you missed the immigration part.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, I didn't think you'd miss the point. Immigration will dry up naturally as the rest of the world catches up. Then when that happens the tax base will shrink and all your efforts to address the SMP, etc will fail. I mean, unless you also plan to create Gilead or something in which case a nuclear civil war will end it all.

[–]Plopolok0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's very hard to fight illegal immigration. Apart from putting illegal immigrants in prison for life, there's not much you can do. I believe it would be better to regulate and make it easier for men to emigrate away.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

We can send them back and have a strong broader to prevent them from coming here.

[–]Plopolok0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Send them back where? Mexico? What if Mexico doesn't want them? Assuming you manage to find a country to send them to (maybe you managed to prove that's where they're from), why wouldn't they just come back again? Because your border is strong? Do you think you can build a wall so high that nobody can climb it? What if they come by sea?

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Send them back to their country. It's there country they have to take them.

A wall may not stop everyone but it would stop a lot. Also there's more than just a wall to defend a country.

[–]Plopolok1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As I said, you need to prove what "their country" is, and sometimes you can't. And afaik the Trump wall doesn't stop a lot. Even if it did, then people would find another way in (by sea, by helicopter, in the trunk of a car, on the shaft of a truck, anything). Even Australia which is a remote island has to use prison for life to stop illegal immigration.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on what you mean by "society".

Society isn't a clearly definable thing. Society is simply the word we use to describe the outcome of millions of human beings interacting with one another with the goal of fulfilling their goals and self-interest.

To have a "stake in something" means to put a personal resource at risk in the hope of getting a better return on your initial investment.

So, to have a "stake in society" means to take a risk in interacting with other people with the hope of securing a better return on your initial investment.

What things do men wager as their stakes? The answer is their labour and ingenuity. What do they hope to receive as a return on their investment? Prestige, money, respect, and pussy.

In that sense, men have been checking out of institutions and arrangements that do not present a clear set of outcome states that are beneficial to them (such as marriage, for example). This is happening in increasing numbers, because there are a decreasing number of institutions which are beneficial to men. Men don't want to play games that are all-risk no-reward.

By contrast, women do not have stakes in society, because they do not take risks. Women are risk averse by nature. In order to get what they want from other people while still avoiding risk, they manipulate men's protective instincts, playing the victim card loudly and repeatedly until some man gives them what they want. They do this over and over again, their cravings and thirsts never sated.

So, men are slowly withdrawing their stakes. But they are also the only ones who have any stakes in the game at all.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If I was an incel, I would literally move into the woods, work at Walmart, collect welfare, and do whatever I want.

[–]zerofeetpersecond2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a cute GF and that doesn’t sound half bad

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

Do you think society is now moving towards that situation? Now we have dating apps, social media, women who have more economic freedom than ever before + laws in their favour, 3rd wave feminism, it seems like there are a growing number of men who just feel like they have no purpose.

I would agree. But it just means that women will need to pick up the slack more than they already are as far as society as a whole goes if they want society to progress. This is just one of the consequences that people need to accept.

As long as guys are paying their bills without the need of social support, I really don't see it as a problem. People are going to complain and whine about things they want which they do not have, thats just life.

Men are under no obligation to society. If people want men to contribute more, why should they?

Yet if the data is true, birth rates are dropping all across the West and sexual inequality is vastly increasing. Which implies that more and more men feel like they do not have a stake in society.

Yeah and a new society will takes its place. Thats how evolution works.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp3 points4 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

But it just means that women will need to pick up the slack more than they already are as far as society as a whole goes if they want society to progress.

I can't see women doing construction or risking getting thrown into the freezing waters of Alaska so she can catch some fish.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I can't see women doing construction or risking getting thrown into the freezing waters of Alaska so she can catch some fish.

Well they either do what is needed, men become more motivated or society eventually stalls.

We will see what happens.

[–]sigma19322 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well they either do what is needed, men become more motivated or society eventually stalls.

They'll admit they actually need men at the 11th hour when collapse is imminent and society is already too far gone to fix.

It's ironic... Feminism is essentially a self-correcting problem... unfortunately, because of innate female solipsism, it requires the collapse of society for it to be corrected.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's ironic... Feminism is essentially a self-correcting problem... unfortunately, because of innate female solipsism, it requires the collapse of society for it to be corrected.

Yep, feminism just signifies the beginning of the end.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

lol, women want air conditioned jobs for the most part. They will NEVER do truly back breaking hard work.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Well we are already on the way to a global recession. Changes are on the way.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

"Man, i'm totally looking forward to roofing in the middle of summer with the risk of falling to my death" said no woman ever.

They will do absolutely everything to avoid such jobs. Even sex work is preferable for them.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Men don't HAVE to do those jobs either. Some of them choose to because they want to. So fine. They should be allowed to. If they don't, there are other jobs they can do. I don't see what your point is.

Women are biologically weaker. You know this. Any job with heavy lifting is going to be WAY harder and more taxing on a woman than on a man.

Also construction is known for being super sexist when a woman does go in, and construction workers are known to be sexual harassers. They're the poster boys for catcalling. Even if sweating and having to work 3x (at least) as hard as my male coworkers was something I was willing to do for half the salary I'm making now sitting in an office on the computer, I wouldn't want to always have to watch my back for sexual assault/gross comments and listen to guys make sexist remarks all day every day.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Men don't HAVE to do those jobs either.

SOMEONE has to. The only reason why a man does those jobs is because the barrier to entry is lower and they pay relatively well (at the cost of your long term health and possibly your life).

The point is that feminist women are complete fucking hypocrites. You don't want equality, you want the NICE things of each gender (the nice cushy office job that a guy has, not a risky unpleasant job like roofing) and you still want us to pay for dates (yes, this includes feminists too) while you don't want the unpleasant parts of EITHER gender role.

Also construction is known for being super sexist when a woman does go in, and construction workers are known to be sexual harassers. They're the poster boys for catcalling. Even if sweating and having to work 3x (at least) as hard as my male coworkers was something I was willing to do for half the salary I'm making now sitting in an office on the computer, I wouldn't want to always have to watch my back for sexual assault/gross comments and listen to guys make sexist remarks all day every day.

Weird, feminists have been complaining about nerds being super sexist (see, gamergate), and that hasn't stopped women from trying to invade nerd spaces (both vocationally and recreationally). It's almost like women are liars and have an excuse for everything.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There are still way fewer women in nerd spaces than men. Unlike construction work, video games aren’t 3x more taxing on the female body than on the male body

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And? The point was that feminists have made it a point to push women into nerd spaces (jobs and hobbies) HARD, DESPITE the rampant 'sexism'/'sexual harassment'. But you're using that as an excuse as to why women aren't going into construction, but the real reason is because construction is dangerous and unpleasant

video games aren’t 3x more taxing on the female body than on the male body

So? Be a crane operator. Not exactly taxing on the body. WHat's that? It's not an air conditioned office? Oh ok then.

[–]PrestigiousRespond80 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

We will see what happens.

It's this one:

society eventually stalls

Fun tidbit from anthropology: there are no highly-developed matriarchal societies. Matriarchies are pretty much universally pre-Iron-age levels of development. So it's not a stretch to imagine that a developed society becoming a matriarchy will stall and then decline - possibly rapidly.

[–]rhyth72 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think working conditions will improve greatly if/when women move en masse into less traditional jobs (because they will protest). Also, I think that eventually it'll shift into either less days in a week or less hours per day. Work is unnecessarily grueling in most cases, and that's by design. If the populace isn't tired and demoralized, they'll be harder to control.

Most places aren't even designed with the thought of who'll be working in them. Like factories, they just put in the pipes and equipment and people have to work around it, no thought to the mechanics and machine operators and accessibility.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think working conditions will improve greatly if/when women move en masse into less traditional jobs (because they will protest).

Like women in mining. Soon as a few of them get in there they always push for safer workplaces. Which in turn save men's lives.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't change the fact that some jobs are naturally unpleasant/dangerous, but still need to be done.

[–]AxeLond2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean? You just have machines and robots do that? Why the hell do you need to catch fish in the freezing waters of Alaska, it's 2020 dude. Almost all fish today is farmed.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean? You just have machines and robots do that? Why the hell do you need to catch fish in the freezing waters of Alaska, it's 2020 dude. Almost all fish today is farmed.

LMAO, farmed fish is highly toxic, i ONLY buy fish that has been caught in the wild

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/farmed-salmon-toxic-flame-retardants

https://www.drperlmutter.com/5-reasons-avoid-farm-raised-fish/

[–]AxeLond2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Even if it's toxic, that doesn't really change the fact that most of fish IS farmed today.

https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/blog/what-is-aquaculture-why-do-we-need-it/

Even if it's toxic, buying fish today means most likely eating farmed fish. That is how fish is made today, like it or not.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, it says it's 50% today.

In any case, stupid derail and doesn't change the fact that women will never do those jobs (fresh water fishing OR farmed fishing).

[–]Expensive-Guitar36090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh you are so fucking wrong hahahaha.

[–]PrestigiousRespond82 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who makes the robots? Who maintains them? Who installs them? Do you know a single thing about industrial automation in the real world, or are you just watching Star Trek and forgetting that it's fiction?

[–]AidsVictim[🍰] 10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think both genders feel that way in general as a result of modern cultural and economic paradigms. The gender imbalance is that women can choose to have children or find a partner relatively easily if they choose to regardless of their circumstance, while a growing underclass of men can't. They don't want or need the underclass of men, many don't want children, they have no stake in society beyond being capitalist consumers. And society will suffer for it.

[–]jax006MGTowing my boat to the lake20 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I can't relate to the "muh stake in society as a provider" attitude. Im productive because it makes my life better, regardless of what hoes want. I like buying fancy ruffwear shit for my dog and want to buy a Tesla. To do those things, you gotta make money, which you make by being valuable and productive.

[–]kneesofthetrees2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice flair

[–]immibis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Income is loosely related to productivity, but not everyone who has a good income is productive, and vice versa.

[–]VariationBusiness34 points35 points  (56 children) | Copy Link

Apex fallacy for the millionth time. You're assuming the majority of men in the past were wealthy accomplished people with families because those are the only stories you hear about.

You think the laborers building the pyramids felt like they had a "stake" in society?

What's going on is that the more a population grows the more strained resources become for everyone. We are used to having much more frequent wars that cull a good portion of the male population. But now these guys are sticking around for longer. You couple that with automation which is reducing the need for manual labor. All of a sudden where we used to have wars that would wipe out 15% of disposable males, we now have no wars and 30% of males are disposable.

Society just needs less men period.

[–]pdrt329 points30 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

I think society will move towards a situation where most people never get in long term relationships. Alphas will pass around the women. Women will constantly go from alpha to alpha for sexual needs and go to other women for social needs. Betas will get nothing sexually and will interact with other betas for their social needs. Men and women will become mostly separate other than the interactions between alphas and women.

This was a problem in past civilizations because betas were needed to do the grunt work that upheld society. With automation and AI, this is no longer needed.

Interestingly, I think the natural solution to this would be to artificially change the birth ratio to something like 2 women for every 1 man.

[–]usa_foot_print20 points21 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

One creepy feminist wanted only 10% of the population to be males so that males couldn't form male bonds.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

In all honesty if you think about it, the 10% male population will be in true abundance and really will have the pick of females.

I actually think its a good idea. Its the implementation that I am unsure of.

[–]Oncefa2SJW6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The implementation involved taking those 10% of men who were allowed to live and putting them in labor camps to slave away for women.

[–]ThetaOmega2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

10% of those men won't be enough to do all the grunt work, dirty and unpleasant jobs that need to be done, and women sure as hell won't do them. And I don't blame women for not wanting to take all of these hard ass and dangerous jobs.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rhyth74 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What if the women were Amazonian and wanted snu snu?🤔💭

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

snu snu

I can think of worst ways to die.

How are you hoping to die? Car accident? Murder? Accidental Electrocution? Eaten by an animal? Bitten by a shark?

Like I say, I can think of worst ways to die

[–]immibis1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

worse*

[–]Scripting-is-a-crime1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I sentence you to death by snu-snu.

[–]jontron20001 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

YAYYY!

[–]SaBahRub0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men on this sub fantasize about male genocide all the time, so that they don’t have to compete with others and have all the pussy for themselves

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Once automation gets advanced enough. The AI computers that run everything can just replace us with robots.

Then all this shit bickering about which gender is the most oppressed will finally end.

[–]Scripting-is-a-crime7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking forward to our glorious AI overlords.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, a lot of higher-paying specialized jobs will get replaced, too. Programmers, lawyers, and surgeons aren't safe.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No jobs will. Humans will be the first species to make themselves extinct because they were too lazy to survive and couldn't be arsed with it.

Im sure there are some backwards tribes in various shitholes of the world that will survive and never know this happpened. The irony.

[–]Nyanu4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We could use the technology to benefit all of humanity but I guess that would be communism and you know what they say. Death is a preferable alternative to communism apparently.

[–]PrestigiousRespond80 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think society will find out that that also simply doesn't work, at least not if you want a society that's beyond the "mud hut" level. Because there are societies that are exactly what you spell out here, and all of them are primitive tribes that, without outsiders giving it to them, have no technology more advanced than "tie stuff found on the ground together". So all those "absolutely necessary" luxuries of the modern age? Yeah, those go buh-bye.

And if you think automation and AI are going to fix it, you're failing to separate sci-fi from reality. In reality automation and AI require tremendous amount of highly skilled human involvement to continue working, and as the supply of people who are motivated to gain those skills declines so, too, does the impact of that stuff.

[–]pdrt30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I already agreed that it doesnt work out in primitive societies (I stated that in the comment that you responded to). I said that the only situation in which these beta males are no longer needed is when that "grunt work" can be done by AI.

Automation and AI are already doing their work. I'm not talking about replacing doctors, lawyers, or even truck drivers. I'm talking about retail workers, fast food workers, cashiers, etc. How many workers do you think Walmart employs for their retail stores? How many workers do you think Amazon employs for its website? This fundamental difference will only accelerate as all physical grocery stores, movie theaters, bookstores, etc get replaced by online equivalents.

[–]PrestigiousRespond80 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is that automation and AI working that way is a fantasy because it needs maintenance and development, and those are the jobs that'll go unfilled.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You think the laborers building the pyramids felt like they had a "stake" in society?

No, but the men who were building the skyscrapers and roads during the post WW2 boom had a huge stake in society.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

As my dark-triad sociopathic friend once said back in 1990:

"There are too many men. We need a war."

[–]rhyth74 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Everybody who plays fps games gets the draft.

[–]Uesugi19891 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I must warn you that I wouldn't waste a single bullet back in battlefield 4. Beware!!

[–]RinoaRita0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You joke but now a days with more tech real wars are like video games depending on where you are.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Saw a documentary once about the danger of video games. A high ranking FBI agent, involved in high-tech training, said that FPS games gave users higher target acquisition and reflex action skills than the best programs they had available, with MILLIONS involved in test programs. He said that with some basic field training (how to run, jump, handle and load a real firearm) he would have an army of pre-programmed assasins.

So yeah, don't be drilling gamers about that cheetoh dust yo. Those bitches be DANGEROUS!

Your best bet if encountering a FPS gamer with a real gun is to try and outrun that out of shape little bitch!

[–]Sultmaker_90003 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your apex fallacy, but the rest is just wrong. Since resources are only valued as the technology to utilise them becomes known. The earth weighed x trillion in weight at its conception, and it still weights x trillion in weight today. 1st we used coal, now we move to others. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. People just do other stuff instead; only a luddite believes in limited things to do so to speak.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

LOL we'll run out of oil because we're using it faster than it's being replenished. Just like we're using up a lot of other resources faster than they're replenishing. You obviously haven't heard of the water wars that are brewing.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Society just needs less men period.

Proof that nature needs to be done away with.

[–]asdf333aza6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Good thing we have women picking up the bill since they wanna be men so badly. cough

In terms of war, the us has been at war constantly for like the past 2 decades. If you want to talk about strains on society and resources? Let's talk about all these single mothers and bastard children who leech off the system. The top 1% of earners who are 85% male pay more than 40% of all income taxes collected. The top 10% (majority men) payed over 60% of all taxes. And that money is distributed to these welfare queens and food stamp abusing kids. Women hold over 2/3rds of student loan debt. Women use the bulk of food stamps. Women are the bulk of hospital expenses. Women are the primary users of government aid programs. Women using up their husbands medicare or social security when they didn't pay into those programs as individuals. Women are the primary spending expense of our country's tax system. The burden on society comes from women not holding up their own weight, not the quantity of men, which is less than the female population. We even gave you girls birth control and you still pop out kids after kid with deadbeat after deadbeat versus only having kids with stable guys who can support them or only having kids when you can support them yourselves. But nah, that would require some kind of logical thinking. These chicks will be 18 years olds still in high school, working at McDonalds flipping burgers and working on their 1st or 2nd kid. And you're only allowed to be so reckless due to the numerous safety net provided by the redistribution of male wealth to females.

[–]Wallstreet33 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are not allowed to have emotions. Nor principles. Nor any moral sense. Society has deemed us less than human. Man is the new N word.

Faced with such toxicity and disposability, how should a man respond?

Society is disposable.

[–]retal1ator4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In essence, yes.

Most men don't have a significant stake in society and the consequences of this are apparent to anyone who isn't completely sold on post modernism. Men today are significantly less involved, driven, and ambitious than in the past decades.

If a man knows he won't get any real benefit or authority along with the enormous responsibilities he is called upon as a citizen, as a husband, and as a good workbee, then he will not take on these responsibilities. He'll just do the bare minimum and only care about himself.

Relationship wise, there's no point in marrying anymore for a man and even long term relationships look like a lost game to those who, like me, had plenty of experience and is ultimately realizing it is better to just do the selfish thing and live your life as a bachelor. Today's women quality is extremely low there's no point in sacrificing your life for someone who will probably cheat on you when you're no longer exciting, divorce rape you, or both. The law will be on her side, no doubt.

Society doesn't hold being a good honest man as something honourable and to be preserved, the consequences of that aren't hard to predict. Being a honest responsible man has become a caricature and a degrading miserable condition. It's much better to pump and dump, or go your own way.

[–]akihonj3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do we need to introduce mgtow, tldr yes I'm mgtow myself.

We have effectively given up on your society, if it fails then it fails, we accept we will die alone, accepting it because we know that most men will die alone anyway, we reject the traditional model placed on us both by your society and in particular by women who are overly cushioned by this society that has on numerous occasions shown us that we are neither needed nor wanted but happily expected to make a sacrifice of our lives to support your society, to do the unthinkable because you cannot nor will not, to do the unspeakable because you are to afraid to do it, to die if needs be because you are to scared of what you will lose, we have said enough, we will be here but will not make ourselves the cannon fodder for your lives.

Now before the lockdown I used to travel into schools to discuss stem subjects with students as part of my companies outreach and community program, at certain points we would break and I'd talk mainly to the boys because it was always them who were interested in stem, in the entire time only 1 girl approached me to talk about the subject.

What I noticed myself was the number of boys asking if they had to go to university as they didn't see any point, the universities are overwhelmingly female focussed, schools are pushing girls to do stem subjects and boys to go into care or child studies, things they had no interest in. Many, I actually lost count after about two months, of the number of young boys who stated that relationships, bearing in mind these were 16-18 year old boys, were just not worth the hassle, they are too dangerous to get involved with, there are too many risks involved.

They often stated to me directly that they have felt for a long time as though being male is somehow wrong, that they don't have a future or they don't have a place in society anymore.

Many asked about university because as far as they saw it they wouldn't get offered a place due to the number of girls going to study arts subjects.

What could I say to them then, that they were wrong, that they should go mgtow, neither, there was nothing I could say other than to try to bring it back on topic.

Now as an aside it must also be noted that numbers for mgtow itself is growing, the numbers of men who are outright rejecting relationships I'd growing, the numbers who are rejecting families, cohabitation and marriage is growing.

Throughout the west, males are moving and leaving home countries faster than they ever have.

If the trend keeps going that way, up, it only needs 10% of the population and then becomes a default behaviour for the whole population.

So I ask you then, what do you think.

[–]AramisNight12 points13 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

Men left in this uninvested position in society will also be quick to burn that society down and actively work towards its destruction as long as the feel the society does not benefit them personally.

[–]Joey_Lopez9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Exactly imagine how many of the Antifa you see trying to burn down Portland are just frustrated incels that are focused on the wrong things.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I saw a documentary about the Proud Boys. They for sure are not getting laid and seemed less manly than emo hippies. They are more likely to be incels.

[–]Joey_Lopez3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Doubtful. Women don't want male feminist allies. They just put them on the bench in case things with Chad doesn't work out and they can't compete with the younger girls anymore.

I know because I hung out with Antifa types in the past. It was really sad to see. They talked about poly relationships when they weren't even getting any. They were just giving the girls a free pass to fuck someone else while they just waited for their turn after she hits the wall and was used.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well i am sure nobody is banging the Proud Boys.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Most of them are married or in relationship where they don't share their women like Antifa.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Doubt it.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I hung out with both groups. Antifa is just a bunch of sad weirdos by comparison that don't get no pussy. Proud Boys were doing much better.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

They can't district their beergut much less society.

I never get the logic that men not competing for status should be a bad thing for woman. We fought for the rights to the high paying jobs and prestigious Careers.

I'm sure the more cutthroat woman are delighted that men waste away without bothering or completing with them

[–]AramisNight2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I think it would be a fatal mistake to believe that men will universally accept the fate of wasting away. Some will. But the day that men decide en mass to actually compete with women, will not be a great day for women. Particularly when they choose to not abide by the rules or standards of our modern civilization in doing so. And what incentive would they have to hold those standards that do not benefit them in pursuit of their goals? And who would be able to enforce those standards on them? It's hubris to believe that something as fragile as modern society couldn't fall apart when a large enough percentage decide it no longer serves them.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

Men aren't evil, they.arent going to distroy anything. More so I don't think the "haves" will let the have nots just fuck up the great time their having.

More interestingly, what exactly do you think this "revolt" looks like? Men refusing to pay taxes? Men protesting? What is so scary exactly?

[–]AramisNight2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Mass slaughter and genocide most likely. Probably carried out by the few haves that will be left in response to attempting to quell the have not's. Men created evil. It's naive to think they wont revert back to it as soon as what they want is threatened. Most of human history is an illustration of this. We just like to pretend otherwise since we were lucky enough to inhabit this small slice of time, where we set about attempting to demonstrate it less.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Genocide whom exactly? Who is to blaim for their unhappiness Besides themselves?

[–]AramisNight1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

That depends on which side gets the upper hand as to who gets genocided. But the reordering of any kind of society afterwards is what will see the ambitious women lose out in the end no matter who wins. If the larger number of men that society does not benefit win out, then life is going to get pretty desperate as the winners fight to fill the power vacuum and decades of brutality will follow. Another dark age where everyone scrapes a meager existence from the leftovers of our current society while trying to stave each other off from taking what little they have.

If on the other hand the elites manage to successfully stave off the majority, then they will wipe out much of the surplus population and women will in this scenario be relegated to harems if they are lucky.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Why would they lose out? Top tier men are not threatened by woman, and bottom tier ones don't have much value to woman, why would they care who wins? They'll be happy enough to work their middle income bracket jobs and gets cats like they are now?

Woman don't really need men, what do they care if they fight each-other about it?

[–]PrestigiousRespond80 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You speak of certainties that have already been disproved before in history. Hell, they've been disproved by contemporary events - just look at the men who make up the bulk of ISIS/ISIL. You think it can't happen here, but so did everyone in the places where it has.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Those places suffered from civil unrest not sexlessness.

[–]PrestigiousRespond81 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

*psst* They're related

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No? Like that had literly nothing to do with the fact they where actually failing to have their real needs met like safety and food. lmao.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men won't burn things down, for the most part. They'll do more damage by sitting things out the way the Herbivore Men of Japan are.

[–]LoveScoutCEO2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is hard to be a man today, there is no doubt about it. The traditional male roles have broken down. But the truth is those roles were not as clearly defined or easily obtained as most people like to believe.

For most of American history - particularly after the Crash of 1837 - there has been a large number of rootless men who couldn't afford to get married. In fact, there are tens of thousands of books and movies about these poor, desperate men. We call them Westerns.

Do you really think those cowboys wanted to live like that? No, not after they were about twenty-four anyhow. They wanted to settle down, but they couldn't afford to. So, they went to prostitutes, drank to much, and probably died young from being kicked by a mule, bit by a snake, eaten by a bear, or.... Well, you get the picture.

After the Civil War many of these men, particularly among Union veterans, became hobos. They would often work for a few months laying track for the spider web of tracks across the country and then move on.

Hobos were a regular part of American life everywhere until 1945 when a combination of the GI Bill, large number of high paying unionized blue collar jobs, the booming post-war economy, and a slew of government programs started by the New Deal allowed most of these men to settle down.

But that glorious period only lasted until about 1974 when the Arab Oil Embargo hit. And culturally it had already taken a beating from feminism and the pill. So, it had never been easy to be a man, but it is probably more confusing today were men's roles are just not defined.

There are women fighter pilots today. Other than the highest level of sports and the Catholic priesthood nothing else is still a male zone. Women always have the exclusive zone of motherhood to fall back on and the trump card of generally being able to get male attention anytime they want it. Men don't have those options and they are always at risk of social stigmatization and even legal liability when they are working or socializing with women.

I believe it is nuts that more American men don't leave the country. There are much better options overseas for men and at least right now it is still financially viable for most men. There are much better places to be a man than the United States, Canada, Australia, or Western Europe.

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But that glorious period only lasted until about 1974 when the Arab Oil Embargo hit.

And after that, we saw the rapid expansion in disability benefits, as men who lost their high-paying factory jobs opted to retire early with 'bad backs' rather than go to work at Wendy's.

[–]TheBookOfSeilMe: 1; You: 0 and gay3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it's actually possible that we're moving to that state of affairs. I believe that a lot of stress is being artificially placed on people at various class and social levels, and though my thoughts of this being deliberately done doesn't matter, it matters in the way that people are having to deal with it.

Men feel like they're being closed out of their avenues for success which is being a successful and productive member among our species. It's hard to say whether any single thing is the cause of this, whether it be feminism, overpopulation, immigration, outsourcing of jobs contributing to a strained economy, etc., but I think all of these things do play a factor in the waning success of individual people.

Everyone, not just men, feels like they have to belong in some way. It's an integral part of our existence. The main reason that people commit suicide is that they have no sense of belonging. They feel like they've been ostracized from their peer group in some way, whether it's because they're different and have trouble making friends, or because people just don't accept them and/or bully them.

I think I've heard that men are more likely to commit suicide when pressures are weighing in on them, such as they have a family to provide for and they just lost their jobs, or they were divorced.

A desire to belong is what drives all of us to participate, and if we feel like we have no place, we're less inclined to act and don't want to compete just to be able to live.

[–]ontherailstoday4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is not a woman's purpose in life to be issued to a man by the social system as reward for him going along with the game. Just like for men, her purpose is to become herself... to self actualize.

If a man wishes for company, companionship, support, co-operation of a woman then it is his job to make sure he is such that his presence in the life of the sort of women he is willing to accept offers more than his absence does... and then actively seek out a range of such women to find one with whom it works in such a way that he too is advantaged and and she is willing to form a household with him.

If he's looking for a woman who is of similar quality to him that's not actually a hard ask, even with women having the ability to earn their own income. Two people working together can do significantly better than two people working apart. There are economies of scale that are on the side of couples. A lot of women want children, that generally takes two to do well.

The game is still statistically in favor of men. Women still want kids more and have to make a leap of faith in a man to have them, women still don't have access to certain jobs requiring strength.

If you're a man and failing now, it might be because you're a failure not because the system is not user-friendly enough to men.

There's just four components to this. What you want. What you offer. What you will cost. And how well you search. They are all things you can work on. There are tens of thousands of things you can do to alter all of these components of the dynamic. You could be doing some of those things right now instead of posting here.

I believe that thousands of years of patriarchy has led to certain weaknesses becoming common in lower value men, the most notable of which is a deep reliance upon the forced participation of a woman in providing a vast array of supports to him. That's over now. A lot of dudes are going to have their line die out. But that's just how things are, these prunings of the tree of humanity happen.

[–]Plopolok3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The game is still statistically in favor of men. Women still want kids more and have to make a leap of faith in a man to have them

Their choice of man being a leap of faith rather than a solid arrangement crafted by parents doesn't particularly favors or disfavors men. But, more importantly, women don't need any man to have children, apart from the conception, which they can do with anyone they choose.

women still don't have access to certain jobs requiring strength.

There isn't a lot of jobs like this. I believe that for people with no skills or degree, it's better to be a woman as there are more jobs form them in services. It's debatable, but basically I disagree with "the game is still statistically in favor of men".

I believe that thousands of years of patriarchy has led to certain weaknesses becoming common in lower value men, the most notable of which is a deep reliance upon the forced participation of a woman in providing a vast array of supports to him.

I don't think stable patriarchal monogamy has been the norm for thousands of year, more like hundreds. And the presence of "forced" in your sentence shows some superfluous misandry. But anyway, my main problem with your interpretation is that many nice guys today have a reasonably functional life alone. They can cook and do their laundry themselves well enough. Women find them boring and fuck dysfunctional bad boys more than them. What exactly are we pruning from the tree of humanity right now?

[–]BROWN-TOILET-PAPEROverdosed on every pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

women still don't have access to certain jobs requiring strength.

Men are losing access to these jobs because these jobs are dying. This isn't the 1800s, we have technology now that continues to replace men's (and women's) strength. This is actually the biggest issue of this entire discussion. People point their fingers at each other when it's all about technology.

[–]Pastelitomaracucho4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We have been there for years.

The book "Men on Strike" explains it.

[–]Suck-Less3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

A vast majority of men simply don’t want to climb the ladder. They are happiest sitting around the camp fire, drinking alcohol, watching venison burn and talking shit about the great hunt. From the great hunt to video games, the mediums may be different but the actions are the same.

Most men don’t strive to be at the top of their hierarchy of dominance (to steal a term from JP). There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

For a vast majority of men, climbing the ladder is something they do so that they can provide for their families. Plain and simple. It’s not an inherent dominance aspect, it’s an inherent protection instinct. Where I personally break from RP is around the notion that men are born to spread their seed; I think most men are born to protect that seed.

When you tell men a massive list of shit they have to do in order to “make her happy” many men will say fuck it. I’m going back to drink beer with the guys. Other men will kill them selves trying to complete that list. It’s only a tiny fraction of men that will strive to be the absolute best at what they do, just because they want to - and they will do it completely outside of the context of women.

Now, tell men they are born broken, shit, the root cause of all the worlds problems, keep changing the goal post or put it outside of their abilities, mock them, tell them they have no value, and what you are going to get is men pressing the “fuck it” button. That switch in the back of every man’s head that says, I’m done, go fuck your self, I’m going back to the camp fire and grab a beer. Dr Hellen Smith wrote a whole book on this called “Men On Strike.”

More and more men are simply refusing to participate in society, from climbing the corporate ladder to being a skilled tradesman. There’s been a constant drop in male attendance in college (in relationship to the number of women) along with a lack of men going into the trades.

The fun part is that men are absolutely critical to society. It’s men that keep the water flowing, electricity on, handle the majority of goods transportation, security, firefighting, septic, etc. If it’s critical for a society to function, men do it and are mostly responsible for it. Men do those hard, dirty jobs to take care of their families. When there is no family, when men start getting the message that they are not wanted or valued or the root cause of all the problems, it’s those men in particular that will say fuck it.

We are already at the situation where many men don’t feel as if they have a voice or a stake in society; it’s mostly affecting bachelors right now. When it starts to really affect those with families (one more generation raised under feminism), that’s when you will have to scheduled your home repairs a year in advance. The sons of that generation will see either a mass campaign to hear men’s grievances and support men, or they will watch men drinking their beer as they watch it all burn.

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe women will step up and do those jobs. Hell, we already are!

I was taking down a real estate sign last week when an old lady rode by on her bicycle. She said, "That's a hell of a job for a woman!" then paused and added, "But we can do it, right?" To which I replied, "Hell yeah!"

[–]Suck-Less2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Like septic repair, carpentry, welding, pole line work? Sure there are a couple of women doing those jobs but you don’t see changed in the 99.997% male rates do you?

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You know I have always wanted to learn to weld? In high school I was already taking autoshop and I could take either electronics or welding in addition to it so I went with the former but have always wished I could have taken both.

My username comes from the time when I had a side business building rustic furniture.

It's true I haven't had to climb any power poles or pump out a septic tank ... yet.

[–]Suck-Less1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Welding makes between $60-100k depending on location and skill sets. Go for it.

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I am kinda old now, lol, but it's always possible I'll get in one more career under the wire!

[–]Grave_Heresy4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Im not sure if the issue is that they don't feel as though they have a stake in society so much as not caring about having a stake.

In ancient times, men engaged in many collective actions to increase their individual rank in social dominance hierarchies and to support their lifestyle of subsistence living.

They did this for a number of reasons, the greatest of which was to ensure reproductive success (Mind you this is subconscious).

The mechanism through which this was achieved is victory over male conspecifics in competition (Combat included).

As our society pathologizes male aggression and intrasexual competition, the natural ways in which males can display their reproductive fitness decreases.

Concepts such as "toxic masculinity" communicate that male stereotypic behavioral response to provocation is incongruent with societal expectations of men.

This puts men in a catch-22. On the one hand, they have natural inclinations to exhibit displays of reproductive fitness via aggressive competition with other males. On the other hand, they have a natural inclination to avoid social condemnation.

As a result, males chose socially acceptable avenues to engage in intrasexual competition. These include sports (For those physically inclined) or non-physical activities such as gaming.

Since the majority of males are not genetic elites, they often focus on interactive media (Games).

Young men are able to exercise violent intersexual competition and move up digital social dominance hierarchies via online gaming where they can collaborate with other men and have their success affirmed by peers.

They are also able to have sexual gratification through things such as porn. So they don't really need to engage in society to have any of their animal needs met.

This means that society isn't offering anything that would entice males to engage with it any more. Granted the digital world is an extension of society.

But I think that more and more males are going to disengage. Not because they don't see themselves as having a stake in society but because they don't give a damn about it lol

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

TL;DR: Men increasingly occupy a fantasy world made up of video games and porn, and don't GAF about the real world.

[–]Grave_Heresy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I should clarify that it isn't because of porn or VG that young men don't care about society. Rather, this is a result of them not caring about society that further incentivizes withdrawing.

I suppose it can be argued that this is still social engagement albeit in a different arena.

I think that the Hikikomori and herbivore men of Japan are a good example of where the West is headed.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]taapy234RED9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I have literally spoken ZERO times about redpill in my workplace where I used to work.

Believe it or not, people won't bring up controversial topics we talk about here in their fucking day job.

Don't get lulled by the false sense of security. The new trends that are observed among men or women won't be suddenly obvious until it hit you in the place in an obvious manner.

In January, most internet users knew about coronavirus pandemic that was running wild in China. Can you remember how exactly you used to live your life in January? Were you REALLY expecting this current quarantine lifestyle we are living now?

When changes happen, it happens extremely swiftly just like how we got hit with the pandemic out of blue. Don't chalk people out on this forum as "weirdos."

Be glad that you are one of the few women who can get to see the first-handed preview about problems men face because you regularly engage with men who are at the receiving end of these bad societal trends.

[–]Sir_manalot4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It happens exponentially really, but humans only really process things linearly.

1 to 8?doesn’t seem big, neither does 8 to 64

But 1000 to 8000 to 64000?

[–]InsertWittyJoke2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to work in video games as a woman, it's not hard to spot the redpillers. It's not exactly a subtle mindset and guys like that act particularly weird towards women than regular men do even when they think they don't.

I'm sure they think they've perfected their mask and nobody sees the thoughts going in behind their eyes. That's a lie. Half the guys on here I have zero doubt are in this spiral where they don't realize they're broadcasting their views and people are picking up on them so they find themselves getting hit with roadblock after roadblock in life and not understanding why so it further fuels their decent into the redpill mindset to explain why it's happening which only further fuels their difficulties.

I've seen it play out over and over.

[–]LeftHookTKD4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes because working with people means you automatically know everything going on in their lives and their minds. Reddit really is a cringe place

[–]Anthony-waltzs8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

That’s not the case at all it’s actually the opposite. Men aren’t one dimensional to where they lose all sense of purpose if they can’t be a father or a provider for a family idk why women think that? Men do not need to be with a woman to be happy, you can only make yourself happy. And women were not handicapped in history? There were female leaders and female queens throughout history, if she is implying recently like the feminists movements if you actually do your research a lot women did NOT even want those rights like to vote and etc. It was the feminists that wanted them, men never handicapped women.

[–]Joey_Lopez7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Some say The real reason behind feminism was to turn women also into wage slaves and increase the tax base.

[–]Anthony-waltzs7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Your not wrong. Women had life on easy mode back in the day, like tutorial mode with HACKS. It was the bitter feminists that nobody wanted that ruined it for them and now women are more angry than ever.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

“Life on easy mode” lol. What fantasy history are you imagining?

[–]ThickyJamesRedpilled, evolutionary-psychological Tradcath Man7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The White one. It's okay.

[–]Joey_Lopez7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah after a while they hate working. Especially after they are not young and hot and can't flirt their way through anymore.

[–]Maximedius2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah after a while they hate working. Especially after they are not young and hot and can't flirt their way through anymore.

This phenomenon exactly haha.

[–]Expensive-Guitar36091 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No, it was to create a resource transfer economic scheme where ruling class exploit the (mostly male) working class of resources using female vulnerability as an excuse and a political shield.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

A transfer scheme to take money from men and give it to females?

[–]Expensive-Guitar36091 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, a transfer scheme where the ruling class exploit the productive framework mostly composed by men to it's own benefit, and doing some charity to women here and there in exchange for their political servitude.

The men runing the show don't need women. They just hide behind them. Hey just check my post history.

[–]Joey_Lopez3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men have always been exploited. Women just started to be exploited.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]legospartan5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Legalize prostitution in the United States and watch the western dating/married culture drastically change

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker12 points13 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

We're moving to a society where attracting a woman will be like getting an education, except even more difficult because there aren't things like scholarships and student loan programs. Some people have an advantage in genetics, economics, or upbringing when it comes to getting that education, just as some people have a prior advantage when it comes to attracting women. However, with work a man can attract a woman just like a person can attain an education. Those who don't put in that work are not going to see a reward, just as it is with an education. It's up to the individual man whether he decides to live a life of "uselessness" or whether he makes the choice to attempt to improve himself.

[–]Joey_Lopez18 points19 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

It's not that simple. Girls while they are still worth it demand too much. Many young guys are not going to school or building because girls demand too much.

A lot of young guys have to spend all their time in the gym and socializing just to get chicks. They also have to work overtime to lease a nice car because girls wouldn't like them otherwise. After all that they don't have any time to invest in business or education.

I used to feel so stupid studying and working hard when I know that I could get more and better chicks if I was investing that time in the gym instead.

[–]rhyth76 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not hard to get nice used cars. You just have to shop around and have a little cash. It's the saving up and waiting for a good deal that's hard.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker11 points12 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. I've attracted women by just being educated and somewhat fit. I think that the whole gym thing is overrated. If a man wants to attract the most women that he possibly can, then, yeah, lifting is probably a good idea. I don't think that every woman requires a muscular man, though.

[–]Joey_Lopez6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Not every woman. Just the young pretty ones.

I traveled to other countries and I seen how other girls don't require everything that girls here do. If you go to Panama you will see regular looking guys with pretty girls.

To get those kind of girls here you need to be in the gym, have a nice car, and fancy clothes. All of which cost money and energy that you could have invested.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Just the young pretty ones

The apex fallacy and male hypergamy, ladies and gents

[–]Joey_Lopez2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You should make a post about male hypergamy. I should be interesting.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Most girls could not care less about cars. That's like saying girls have to get their nails done to attract guys when guys don't even notice nails.

[–]Joey_Lopez3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm from the hood where the guys with the nicest cars get all the pretty girls. Guys with regular cars get 6-7's. Guys with no car gets nothing.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Get out of the hood

[–]Joey_Lopez2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would I want to go to the burbs where there are guys with more money and status than me that I'll have to compete with? That's like going back to being a regular guy again. I'll Just stay here where I'm the top 20%.

[–]basura_timePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because the hood is a miserable violent pathetic place? But ok if you’re happy you’re happy. But don’t act like just because your trashy neighbors care about cars that real people with lives do.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So they aren't real people with lives?

Besides why would I go somewhere else where I will and have 6 and 7's treat me like I'm just a regular guy? I didn't work this hard just to be average. For that just stay in the hood where I have 8 and 9's chasing me.

Besides the girls here are much prettier. All that hormone laden foods goes straight to their ass and tits.

[–]DangZagnut1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Girls while they are still worth it demand too much.

I keep trying to get that list of what they're "worth".

[–]Joey_Lopez4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Girls that are single talking about "I KnOw My WoRtH" don't realize that if they were really worth that much a man would step up and pay it. Since men are not, they are obviously not worth that.

[–]gigababejflPink Pill5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a lot of energy coming from a man in a long term relationship. I suppose you decide whats worth it for each man while you discourage them from having relationships and finding people that enrich their lives.

Misogyny is so lazy and frankly, this doesn't look like support for men. Everyone benefits from quality relationships and instead of teaching each other what it is to discern good people from bad, all there is trying to devalue women on the internet. Worst of all is no matter how badly you speak on women, it doesn't change the fact that men want them.

TRP is always hustling backwards. So sad.

[–]Joey_Lopez4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a lot of energy coming from a man in a long term relationship.

Well it's become like a hobby after so many years in game and TRP.

Also why does everyone bash men for pointing out bad behaviors? Not valuing trashy hoe behavior isn't devaluing women. The women engaging in that are the ones that need to stop. Because that's how they are valued and no amount of censoring is going to change that.

Remember that most guys won't say anything but will just place those girls in the hoe not LTR material category. And just move accordingly. Like I wouldn't say anything like this IRL. I would pretend to be non judgemental to get her to tell on herself.

Men only want those girls for one or two nights, not to stay with.

[–]ResponsibleCharacter0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Aka you're fat.

[–]Joey_Lopez1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Or maybe I spent too much time in the gym

[–]ResponsibleCharacter0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is only the fats who whine about human beings having basic requirements for physical attraction. Male and females. They don't want someone fat themselves though, oh NO. That would be gross!

To be attractive to most people you have to not stuff yourself with shit food and move around for a couple hours a week. Aka not be fat. It's not difficult nor is it particularly time or energy consuming for a lot of people.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Hard work and being attractive is a wonderful Blue Pill idea. Except it's a TERRIBLE IDEA. No matter how "attractive" a BetaBux Brad provider male is, he's still her second choice, from the perspective of her actual sexual desires.

The Blue Pill "be a winner" formula to insulate men from divorce and divorce rape is a total myth.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A lot of Blue Pill self-improvement isn't all that different from Red Pill. It's probably Red Pill lite without the stereotypes (some truer than others) about all women, but even Blue Pillers admit that a man has to find some way to impress a woman.

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Blue Pill improvement makes promises it can't keep. Red Pill improvement comes with limits and caveats. "Lift bruh" and "maintain frame" does not divorce-proof a man. The only surefire cure for divorce is never to marry. (THe #1 Cause of divorce is marriage). Just. Say. No. To. Commitment.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The solution is pretty simple: Withold marriage.

[–]beyond_relevant3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh my god... can you ask them to whip you anymore than they already did.

I am useful, their understanding of usefulness is what is wrong.

You do know men already figured this shit out.

It is pointless for men to compete with each other.

It is pointless because the resulting victory for 1 of the 2 guys is just a carrot on a stick that turns the winner into a donkey with a carrot dangling above his head. Women are true winners in male competition.

THAT IS WHY womens rights were limited, because women have more power than men by evolutionary design. THAT IS WHY religions used to shit on women, it was just men protecting themselves from womens hypergamy.

Women arent right, they are just stronger... for now!

The thing is, this script has already played out once in history.

From my other comment:

Women hypergamously exploit men. Men being exploited hurts them. Over time exploitable men simply get weeded out and only unexploitable men remain.

Unexploitable men want to remain unexploitable and as such will prevent women having political power over them.

A big source of womens power over men is their sexual leverage. Since it is biologically built into us, and it cannot be removed, womens rights were taken away.

Women didnt have rights not because men were "evil tyrants" but because, with rights, men and women arent equal, women are superior (and then they act like tyrants).

It is pointless for men to compete with each other because resulting victory is just a carrot on a stick that women use to turn men into donkeys.

Unlike all those other mammals, humans realised how imbalanced the distribution of power really is, and corrected it with all sorts of religious laws.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great response.

"Double your effort, double your pleasure"

[–]sigma19321 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

We're moving to a society where attracting a woman will be like getting an education,

I'd say that having a woman in your life is like having a second job that not only do you not get paid for, but you're expected to pay into it for them to let you do it.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How are having both love from another person and consistent sex not adequate enough rewards for being in a relationship?

[–]sigma19322 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So I'm supposed to go out, work a ridiculous number of hours to be able to put away and/or spend less money on myself than if I was single because it'll all end up going to her and any kids we'd have (nevermind if she's dragging some fuckboy's kids along with her), for things they want to do (which often means I end up never doing what I want to do because there's never time) so she can feel like she's "dating up" because she has a fucking bullshit career that only benefits her, while also having to "game" this fucking overgrown spoiled teenager for the rest of my life so she doesn't go fuck some burnout with a neck tattoo and a prison record or some D-bag she's been flirting with at work behind my back while I'm working all those hours, do what amounts to 75% of the work around the house when you actually include the traditionally male tasks that no fucking woman does, spend 10+ hours/week in the gym while eating a high-calorie diet with strict high-protein, low sugar/fat distribution (that I have to prepare myself because god forbid a woman be competent enough in the kitchen to actually prepare a decent meal), while still somehow finding time to be a decent, involved father to any kids (especially daughters so they don't turn into their mother), and all the other Disneyfied, Sex-in-the-City, Hallmark channel, 50-shades of fucking Twilight bullshit fantasy crap women expect in exchange for what amounts to the same thing I can get from my own hand in the bedroom (i.e. ZERO emotional fulfillment and at best a basic physical release-- AFTER I do 90% of the work there too) from an average-at-best looking woman, plus a glorified friendship that amounts to her causing a huge amount of emotional stress that instantly goes away if she's not there?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the manoshere makes men think the situation is worse than it is.

As ozy on here said 'the outside is the best medicine to counteract the black pill'.

[–]learn2earn892 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

In the past, many men and women had no stake in society. I think because we are in a time where more men and women are educated and have wealth relative to our ancestors, we are falling into the just-World fallacy. A lot of men (especially here on PPD) don’t understand that the world isn’t fair and you don’t get what you want just because you think you should.

[–]Willow-girlLoves pumpkin pie and some hot Dickens cider1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Time to take away the participation trophies ...

[–]MwahMwahKitteh7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No. I think the whole thing is bull shit and as long as you keep subscribing to these idiotic chauvinism ideals, you’re going to feel that way.

[–]cunningcaring5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, we have a huge stake in society at every level. Not sure where you are coming from.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme8 points9 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

I’m personally glad women aren’t handed out like fleshy participation trophies to the undeserving male masses anymore. Human beings should not be used as resources or negotiation pieces.

[–]mensahi418 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hmm. But society is still based in key areas on humans being ressources. I mean why do companies even hire people?

[–]BROWN-TOILET-PAPEROverdosed on every pill9 points10 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

undeserving male masses anymore.

Those 'undeserving' males were women's survival. They didn't sit around and do nothing.

[–]Mimoxs3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

They were their survival bc they perpetuated a system where women were forced to depend on them. It wasn't some noble sacrifice.

Lords in serf eras prevented serfs from learning to read and basic math bc they wanted to make sure serfs could never survive on their own in the world. Keep them dependent. They fed them and clothed and sheltered them yes, but they made sure they'd never be able to do that on their own.

[–]BROWN-TOILET-PAPEROverdosed on every pill2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How does that refute that women depended on men for survival? (for the vast majority of history at that) It doesn't.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women depended on SOME men, and then other less attractive, less capable men felt entitled to their “share” of sex

[–]BROWN-TOILET-PAPEROverdosed on every pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We are talking abut history here. The men incapable of their own survival died out. Which would have more commonly been those with debilitating defects.

[–]beyond_relevant1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And women, even you, feel entitled to not just be taken and rely on protection of men.

I really never understood this. Men were so shitty for being men, but women are so marvelous for being hypergamous bitches?

Also, i may be wrong, but do you actually enjoy the suffering men undergo due to being at the mercy of the woman for emotional and sexual validation?

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh yeah if I didn’t enjoy it I wouldn’t be on reddit lol that’s most of what this site provides other than memes

[–]beyond_relevant1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean that question was serious. If you are responding unironically you really need help. And i dont even mean this to spite you. Get well please.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Societies run by women only progress to mud huts. See the Musuo.

Think about that.

[–]Mimoxs1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And? That doesn't really correlate to anything I said

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If women want something better than mud huts and the pathetic life expectancy that comes with it (as in poor survival rate), women and men need each other. We don't need Patriarchy, and we certainly don't need feminist-driven male disposability as we have it today.

[–]parahacker3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Sure, frame the problem as women being better off not being helpless choosing a partner than men being treated as largely disposable and invisible.

Because that makes it ok not to care about men who are facing this.

Nobody sane is suggesting a return to society determining who a woman marries. But men have a problem, one that is not as easy to fix as "just do better", one that is systematic and overfuckingwhelming, and your lack of empathy will end up making your own life worse simply through karma. The original meaning of karma, which describes how being queen of a shithole is not as good of a life as being average in a society that has a healthy and functioning social contract.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Something I think a lot of women don't understand is that men's problems get taken way less seriously than women's. Men commit suicide and die on the job at significantly higher rates than women, and not only are these problems rarely talked about, they're almost never acknowledged to be male problems. Compare that to the coverage the gender pay gap or the lack of female CEOs get, and it's pretty clear that people just don't give a shit when men face problems.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody sane is suggesting a return to society determining who a woman marries. But men have a problem, one that is not as easy to fix as "just do better", one that is systematic and overfuckingwhelming

The only way to solve your “problem” is through forcing women to have sex with men they’re not attracted to. Therefor it’s not a problem, it’s women having freedom and sexual autonomy. The “system” is biological and doesn’t need to be fixed

[–]parahacker0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

No. That's NOT the only solution.

Hell, it isn't even a solution. Except for the minority of men who are that into hate sex.

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t see any other solution that doesn’t involve financially or physically coercing women or taking away their rights.

[–]parahacker0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then you're not looking hard enough at the problem, and the factors contributing to it. There are solutions that don't involve any of those things.

[–]Zealousideal-Might960 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

financially or physically coercing

You mean like we already do to men.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Human beings should not be used as resources or negotiation pieces.

Women will always use men as resources - providers, meat shields, status symbols...

[–]beyond_relevant0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Human beings should not be used as resources or negotiation pieces.

Oh come on xdd, you have admitted many times that you want women to have leverage over men during these "negotiations". Aint that natural... and natural=/=good...

What needs to happen is for men to take the power back from women. Nature screwed over the male gender. We fixed it once, we can do it again.

We never were 100% equal. We used to be more equal than we are today though...

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nature screwed over the male gender. We fixed it once, we can do it again

You sure “fixed” it by polluting your own gene pool and oceans and atmosphere. Good job men 👏

[–]beyond_relevant0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, about the oceans and atmosphere, nobody had the foresight. Also get of your high horse, you just reap the benefits while doing nothing.

About the gene pool though, men did good. If it were up to women, we would still be clubbing each other with sticks.

Now you have internet to shitpost with your misandry. Your welcome.

[–]Mimoxs4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

men aren't misogynists they're just bad negotiators

You can't say a group of people actively hating in violent and resentful ways and mistreating people bc those people don't give them what they want isn't hatred against that group

"Yeah they're not racist they're just bad negotiators. Slave owners are dropping out of society bc no one cares about them and gives them labor anymore. Labor is a NEED for slave owners smh it's in the Maslow hierarchy"

The sad thing is that yes this is literally the mentality. Like "me no get what I want so I'm not gonna perform basic human contributions to keep society functioning like everyone else does even though they don't get what they want either >:("

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The sad thing is that yes this is literally the mentality. Like "me no get what I want so I'm not gonna perform basic human contributions to keep society functioning like everyone else does even though they don't get what they want either >:("

Well why should they?

No one is telling the other people to do it, part of them must want to.

As long as they are paying taxes and not on benefits/welfare, who gives a fuck.

[–]Mimoxs1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Social function. You just contribute to society to extract the benefits of it.

Yes, they need to be paying taxes (meaning they need to have a job or be on pension) and not on welfare. That's all I'm requiring, too. We are in agreement.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

We are in agreement.

Ah OK. I thought you meant recycling sneakers to save the rainforest or some crazy shit like that.

[–]Plopolok0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever paused to consider if taking welfare and recycling to save the rainforest might be morally better than the opposite?

[–]MentleGentlemen098Purple Pillar Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ugh I was gonna comment on something but you seem to far gone

[–]Doctor992681 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So you want people to contribute to something that doesn't contribute to them. Sounds like entitlement coming from you

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]DeepCrimsonPill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the biggest dichotomy between Alphas and betas is that an Alpha wants, and a beta needs.

Women and society view the highest man as one who acts on his own volition. Successful, self-motivated, and genuine. That's why you'll get strange advice like "Lift to attract girls...but lift for yourself, even if you don't attract them." We don't want to think the Hero is acting for validation, but enforcing his own will, which just so happens to be good for society. Selfishly selfless. Women love the Bad Boy archetype because he's selfish. And there is beauty to this, but it makes it very hard to get help for men when we're expected to man up and need nothing.

Betas, really the voice in the back of all men, view love in terms of need. That we are important and useful to lovers and society. There's only so far you can go with "Do it for yourself!", when part of our self-interest is to be altruistic. A life completely devoid of duty is often not liberating, but hollow.

Women's constant denial and society's complete abandonment of our needs will hopefully create a vacuum for a great leader to fill in the void.

[–]CMOAN_MAYNEPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]cast-away-ramadi061 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

To a large degree, I think it's correct that the male position in society is changing. I don't think that's a bad thing, but there is some uncertainty in it.

As with many other things, there were pros and cons to how things were done in the past. I think what your seeing is that, during this transition to whatever is next, the pros and cons of the social contract are out of balance, which should be expected during a period of substantial change. Thankfully, most of the imbalances are being dealt with naturally in due course - e.g., women are starting to realize they may have to marry/have kids with men who are less economically successful that they are; divorce proceedings are slowly becoming more equitable (although I suspect laws around communal property and equitable distribution will change as more women find themselves on the short end of these concepts). Unfortinately, not all are and these become more acute during this transition period - frankly, I am surprised that more young men haven't started checking out because of this inbalance.

We need to rebalance education so it suits the innate characteristics of boys as well as girls, we need to rebalance job quotas so they effect undesirable jobs and not limit them to only the most desirable jobs, we need to expand selective service so it includes women because they should have an equal responsibility in defending the country, and we need to rebalance social spending so that it's more equal as well. In general, there are still many areas in which we hold men to stricter standards (e.g. domestic assault, criminal sentencing, etc.) or provided materially less support (e.g., shelter, safety, food, etc.). I don't beleive standards should be based on gender and I don't think most people do either. We have made strides to address areas where standards or laws are unfair to women, and there's still more work to be done. But I don't think we've made anywhere near the same progress in addressing the situations where standards or laws are disadvantageous to men. Until those things come into a better balance, I'm not surprised when/if young or unsuccessful men check out.

[–]parahacker4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this idea - an idea I largely share, by the way, so don't think of this as a blanket disagreement - is that in the U.S., Australia, and a few other western nations men are subject to prejudice.

Take boys in schools. It is not merely that the characteristics of boys in schools are unsuited for the current school environment, although that is a factor. Boys are being directly discriminated against. There was a study done recently I ran across a few months back, wish I could still find it, that showed that if you used a boy's name, sight unseen, on the same exact test result they would be graded lower by educators.

That is not merely institutional bias, that's a cultural prejudice at work.

And as we have seen and continue to see, such prejudice is invasive and almost impossible to shake off once it starts setting in.

[–]cast-away-ramadi065 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What I'm trying to say, perhaps unsuccessfully, is that the broader issue is that the issues negatively effecting women are being addressed (maybe not as fast as they should be, but they are being addressed) while the issues negatively impacting men are not being addressed as readily.

[–]LeJacquelopeMale thirst is as much our enemy as female hypergamy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not being addressed? No, they're actively being silenced.

[–]ThetaOmega4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here is a dangerous black pill for you.

Everything you said is correct. But which gender dominates teaching roles?

That gender also has a higher in-group bias than the other gender.

Society loves to point out even a hint if a man is being misogynistic, but when you point out these facts, well that just proves that you are misogynist for pointing this out.

There are legit misogynist out there, many of which are in positions of power over women. No argument here. But there seems like there might be some projection sometimes when women are so quick to pull the "you hate women" card out with no evidence.

[–]Joey_Lopez2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

the male position in society is changing. I don't think that's a bad thing

It is a bad thing because the betas are being pushed out. Society needs betas. We can't have all our young men spending all their time in the gym. We need guys to become scientists and accountants. But now guys would be stupid to do that when the guys in the gym are getting all the pussy.

Society was created to give betas a shot at finding a good woman for themselves. Now that's taken away we will lose everything that betas provide for society. We are going to lose a lot of progress if it isn't reversed because face it women are just not capable.

[–]cast-away-ramadi064 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We can't have all our young men spending all their time in the gym

Being smart/educated and being in great shape are not mutually exclusive. I knew plent of other smart people in the Corps when I was active and I knew plenty of other people in great shape when I was doing my MBA.

I could go on and on with examplea, but the idea that smart people are in terrible shape and people in great shape are uneducated or stupid is a bit of a tired trope.

[–]Joey_Lopez0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I was a STEM major. All the guys towards the end looked like shit, eat cheap shit, and didn't even get any sleep just to make it through.

[–]cast-away-ramadi065 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I majored in math and joined the USMC. My best friend in college majored in mechanical engineering and then flew F-22s. We were both on the wrestling team. Met my ex wife at the gym on base when we were both in the Corps, she's now got a PhD in chemistry.

Getting or staying in great shape is a lifestyle choice, nothing more.

[–]jakethegreatwhiteRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't feel like i have any real power in society other then my own life and who i surround my self with. So i just "go my own way" and simply do what makes me happy. I pay taxes and my bills so after that i do whatever I want. I don't know how this makes me a misogynist but they throw that word around so much that its meaningless

[–]joesmithasdfPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both this and the mentioned thread have a point but imo it’s still two movements which “don’t get it”.

Social media and the internet in general as they’re in 2020 can generate such echo chambers. One is a bunch of women and allies who blame men, as if there’s something inherently wrong down to the genetic level. The other is mostly men who blame women, and dream of a past when males ruled and were all heads of households (Spoiler: there has never been such past).

[–]nkw10041 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that everyone needs to feel like they have a purpose in society. I would say it’s similar to when women wanted to be able to do more than just stay at home and watch the kids. Yes men still have the ability to do just as much but it’s in our human nature and instinct to look for someone to help populate the earth with and thousands of years ago the biggest manly man got the girl. It’s still wired in our brains even today

[–]Woodan111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

SUCH A GOOD POST! Yes!

[–]MGTOWManofMystery3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OP wrote: Men are constantly told that they must work on their hobbies/career/work out "for their own personal satisfaction" or "to do it for themselves"

I disagree. I feel men are never told to do things for their own satisfaction or self-actualization. Rather, men are always lectured to do things for others. Which, nowadays, means extensive responsibility with no authority. Why bother? just focus on oneself.

[–]theweirdreplyguy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Simple, gynocentrism

[–]daniellederek3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The tipping point will be when enough men become fed up and opt out. When men decide being a net taxpayer to fund the welfare state and single moms is a fools errand. Evert month I meet a half dozen guys why fully realize making payments on a 85k truck 450k house for 30 years is a bad plan.

Van life, setting up a barrack in an industrial workshop space, working just enough for expenses and lifestyle, escaping suburbia, fuck the HOA. all those are chipping away at the foundation of western society while 3rd wave feminism topples the altar of woman they once worshiped at.

[–]Maximedius1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Are we moving to a situation where many men don't feel as if they have a stake in society anymore?

Yes. Yes we are, and it's fucking fantastic.

[–]Suck-Less2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Upvote.

Why? Because when men don’t have a stake in it, men don’t participate. I can’t wait to see corporate women crying about their taxes going to men kicking back, drinking beer and telling her to lift with her legs.

[–]Maximedius2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This exactly.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have somewhere in my post history that whenever a tragedy occurs I always break out smiling. No I don't identify as a part of a society that clearly doesn't want me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you think of the current state of affairs and the upcoming global recession.

Interesting times if you ask me.

Next year will be great.

[–]Aeolus___2 points3 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Well, frankly the whole premise of that post is idiotic (I think this whole subject goes into idiotic directions in general).

Our society leads men to believe that their stake in society is based on that recognition from other men and women alike, but it doesn’t have to be like that at all.

This sentiment among men is growing, but for the most part things are fine. The growing status of women in our society has nothing to do with the purpose that men serve. Any man who feels they have no purpose due to our current conditions is being lied to.

The internet has become a place in which people make mountains out of molehills.

[–]Joey_Lopez6 points7 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

You are small minded. Society is built by MALE sexual frustration like Freud said. The problem is that now their isn't much of a prize for them to do it. Would men shoulder that burden to get a post wall single mom?

Women are only growing in status because men are giving it to them. They aren't creating and innovating. Most women are getting paid just for showing up and going through the motions, while men are doing the hard work for them.

[–]Aeolus___8 points9 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

You Black/Red Pill folks are twisted.

I’m guessing you haven’t recognized that most women aren’t single mothers, and that there are plenty of women under the age range of whatever “wall” you speak of.

I implore you to get help and make friends with men and women alike. I’ve read other comments you’ve made on here, and I can tell you’re frustrated. Your view of reality is warped.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp4 points5 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Society is going backwards, more and more children are being raised in single mother households than before. Nothing is affordable, and women want a world where they can shed their gender roles but expect men to adhere to their own gender roles AND they want to take every single economic opportunity away from men as much as possible to give to women.

YOUR view of reality is warped. Starting from childhood, young boys are treated as defective little girls and don't have an educational system that favors them, it favors girls.

[–]rhyth73 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Inflation makes things unaffordable. It's just been accelerated. Even if women didn't work, inflation would still happen. Even if women didn't work, globalisation would have still happened. The jobs would have still moved overseas and immigration would still happen.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

If women didn't work, the supply of labor would go down and wages would go up. Not everything can be outsourced.

[–]rhyth71 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No we'd still be hiring Indian engineers for sure.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The supply of software engineering jobs is so large that the private sector can't hire enough. It's the ONE engineering discipline where the worker actually has leverage (i feel sorry for anyone who went into electrical engineering/mechanical engineering, etc.)

[–]Aeolus___6 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Most, if not all of these issues that you raise have to do with socioeconomic factors.

A shrinking middle class, an increasingly competitive and automated job market, and societal standards that hurt both men and women.

Women are just as much of a product of problematic gender roles as we are, and they’re just as inclined to hold others to that standard. And who is “they?”

I am well aware of the disparity between men and women when it comes to educational success. However, these disparities are again a product of socioeconomic factors, and is a complicated issue. I don’t agree that the education system favors girls, but I damn sure agree that it doesn’t favor boys.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

A shrinking middle class, an increasingly competitive and automated job market, and societal standards that hurt both men and women.

Hurts men more than woman. There's a reason why 'mancession' became a word. Jobs that favored men are the ones that were hit hardest by automation/outsourcing (i.e. manufacturing) while women's jobs (teaching, nursing, office jobs, etc.) were left untouched.

Women are just as much of a product of problematic gender roles as we are, and they’re just as inclined to hold others to that standard. And who is “they?”

Women are the 'they' who are enforcing gender roles on men. Like Bill Burr said, women are at a buffet and just picking and choosing the parts of each gender that they like while throwing away the ones they don't. Women want men's jobs AND they still expect men to pay on dates. Let me amend that, women want men's CUSHY jobs (i.e. they sure as fuck aren't going to do construction, roofing, Alaska fishermen, etc.).

And women want to add additional burden on men - we have to be super careful about talking to women when trying to hit on them, while y'all get mad that a lot of men are refusing to interact with women at work. Talk about a kafkaesque nightmare.

I am well aware of the disparity between men and women when it comes to educational success. However, these disparities are again a product of socioeconomic factors, and is a complicated issue. I don’t agree that the education system favors girls, but I damn sure agree that it doesn’t favor boys.

Uh, no you can't just throw around 'socioeconomic factors' around like that, like it means anything in this context. Men aren't going into teaching because men are presumed to be child rapists, so boys have no role models at school. It is a fact that female teachers are harsher on grading boys vs. girls. Plus the fact that men are better learning visually/with our hands vs. just listening to someone drone on and on - like, we should have a LOT more vocational training rather than just going to high school and reading books all day.

Society is gynocentric, that is a fact.

[–]Aeolus___4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I really shouldn’t have been so charitable with you.

Do you honestly believe that automation/outsourcing affected male dominated fields BECAUSE they’re male dominated? No, it’s because these jobs require efficient physical labor.

It’s in the best interests of companies to make these jobs even more efficient and less costly, so they become automated/outsourced. But I’m not here to justify the dark side of capitalism.

Men could be teachers, nurses, and office workers too. It’s because of these same gendered standards that I mentioned before that causes the stigma against men entering those fields.

You don’t have to “be super careful” with dating women, you just have pay attention to whether your advances are welcomed or not. I don’t even care if I can convince you of this or not, because you’re the only one hurt in the end by thinking the way you do. If you can’t take no for an answer and move on, no job or woman needs you.

And I can “throw around” socioeconomic factors as the cause of these problems because that’s exactly what they are. I’m sorry that you’re incapable of acknowledging these issues in our society outside of this victim complex you have going on. Good luck with that.

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly believe that automation/outsourcing affected male dominated fields BECAUSE they’re male dominated? No, it’s because these jobs require efficient physical labor.

I never said it was some conspiracy to fuck over men, it is what it is, it just happened to fuck over men.

Men could be teachers, nurses, and office workers too. It’s because of these same gendered standards that I mentioned before that causes the stigma against men entering those fields.

Men don't want to be teachers because they're assumed to be rapists. There USED to be a lot more men in teaching but then the stigma about male teachers really began to rev up. There are tons of men in office jobs, wtf are you talking about. As for male nurses, why be a nurse when you could work a little harder and be a doctor?

You don’t have to “be super careful” with dating women, you just have pay attention to whether your advances are welcomed or not. I don’t even care if I can convince you of this or not, because you’re the only one hurt in the end by thinking the way you do. If you can’t take no for an answer and move on, no job or woman needs you.

You really don't have your finger on the pulse of society. Women (specifically feminists) have created more and more barriers to meeting women. You CANNOT cold approach anymore without the risk of really pissing off a woman. Night game (i.e. bars and clubs) because there are almost always chads in those scenes. Also, the quality of women are kinda trashy in those scenes as well.

And I can “throw around” socioeconomic factors as the cause of these problems because that’s exactly what they are. I’m sorry that you’re incapable of acknowledging these issues in our society outside of this victim complex you have going on. Good luck with that.

Saying 'socioeconomic' factors is a fucking lazy ass copout. You need to be more specific: It's fucking misandry:

https://mitili.mit.edu/sites/default/files/project-documents/SEII-Discussion-Paper-2016.07-Terrier.pdf

https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672

You don't know what you're talking about, at all

[–]Aeolus___2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so our society is “gynocentric,” but there’s no conspiracy to fuck over men? What are you even saying then? Has it always been gynocentric?

“Men don’t want to be teachers because they’re assumed to be rapists.” Why? Could it be because the attitudes and standards we have towards manhood are problematic? I think so. Plus, what data do you have that this attitude has worsened in recent years?

Plus, you were the one who said that office jobs were women’s work. That whole thing about men being doctors as opposed to nurses through hard work is irrelevant, because both men and women could be doctors if they wanted to. Not that it’s exactly easy either way.

Cold approach (and especially night game) is not a good way of finding a committed relationship anyway. Join a social group that is unified off of a common goal or interest for a change, why don’t you? Stop feeling entitled to having a conversation with whomever you see out and about.

And those links don’t disprove my point at all. The factors laid out in them are all by definition socioeconomic. Do you know what “socioeconomic” even means?

[–]Sigma1979I love feminism AND trp1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so our society is “gynocentric,” but there’s no conspiracy to fuck over men? What are you even saying then? Has it always been gynocentric?

OH my god, do you even know how to read contextually? There was no conspiracy to fuck over men in MANUFACTURING. Society is STILL gynocentric though.

“Men don’t want to be teachers because they’re assumed to be rapists.” Why? Could it be because the attitudes and standards we have towards manhood are problematic? I think so. Plus, what data do you have that this attitude has worsened in recent years?

Men are much less masculine than in the past, and we had many more teachers. Male teachers are absolutely shamed and distrusted by society (even though there are a TON of female teachers who are sex predators).

Plus, you were the one who said that office jobs were women’s work.

I didn't say that office jobs were 'women's work'. Women PREFER office jobs.

That whole thing about men being doctors as opposed to nurses through hard work is irrelevant, because both men and women could be doctors if they wanted to. Not that it’s exactly easy either way.

Here's the thing you don't understand. Because of higher male variability (see the bell curve: men and women have roughly the same iq's, but men are more represented at the extreme ends of the tails than women are), men are going to be more represented in the 'hard' things (STEM) and more represented at the 'less hard' things (i.e. criminals, or dudes living in their basement). If you're a smart dude, why on earth would you want to go into nursing when you can make more money and get more prestige as a doctor? Being a nurse still takes some amount of smarts and hard work (though not nearly enough), but it makes no sense to not work a bit harder for a better payoff for a man.

Cold approach (and especially night game) is not a good way of finding a committed relationship anyway. Join a social group that is unified off of a common goal or interest for a change, why don’t you? Stop feeling entitled to having a conversation with whomever you see out and about.

Cold approach USED to be socially acceptable, until feminists whined about that shit, that was my point (along with my point about how women are whining about how men don't want to interact with them at work too, again, it's fucking kafkaesque and points to the gynocentrism of society that these complaints aren't laughed out of the room and shamed).

And those links don’t disprove my point at all. The factors laid out in them are all by definition socioeconomic. Do you know what “socioeconomic” even means?

Yes, i know what socioeconomic means, that's why i say it's a lazy copout (oh, it COULD be because of poverty or being in the wrong social class, hmmm no). Because it's a way too fucking general term that masks the more SPECIFIC cause: gynocentrism and misandry. Just admit you didn't know the actual SPECIFIC cause so we can move on.

Edit: you'll note that i said "You need to be more specific: It's fucking misandry" which clearly indicates that i knew it's related to 'socioeconomic' reasons, but it's a fucking bullshit generalized copout.

[–]sparklingscott1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No. Beta simps are a legion of men. They will never die off. Their very purpose ensures that they will always exist. Fighting and dying for pussy crumbs is how they have evolved to survive. These men will always have the value of being used by women, so they will never disappear, because women will always select for them in the end, in order to make life more convenient for themselves.

The only thing that is going to change in modern society is that high value women will find themselves more alone than ever. These people will never settle for a pathetic simp, and high value men are rapidly declining. These women are still a minority, so what happens to them is largely irrelevant to society. Garbage tier women will always exist, and they will always select for simps in the end.

The benefit to women at large is that they will have an even greater selection of simps to choose from! Which means there's even less of a reason to not be garbage women! How amazing! And that's exactly what you see today.

It's actually pretty amusing. High value feminists destroyed their dating market with gender quotas and made it easier for trash can Tammy to secure a decent human male. Tammy just has to fake being a Christian and hide her former meth addiction.

[–]LotBuilder1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, men may give up on marriage but that’s not the only thing we have to live for.

[–]superlurkage1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah, "go your own way', already

go!

plenty of people are just fine

[–]rubbooyuri3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh, look, a tantrum! Take your ball and go home then, ok?

You guys have so much — prosperity, religious and political freedom, socioeconomic mobility, technology, endless entertainment, modern medicine, leisure time, freedom of movement around the world, readily available sex workers/porn —- but you can’t make women do what you want, so waaaaaaah, burn it all down!

Sounds pretty spoiled to me

[–]beyond_relevant2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Lol, everything but the one of the most important things that is coincidentally at the bottom of the maslows hierarchy of needs...

Imagine a woman calling a man spoilt XDDDD

[–]Logn3r0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]bonobo-noBlue Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

YES

[–]tommydagun0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are constantly told that they must work on their hobbies/career/work out "for their own personal satisfaction" or "to do it for themselves" but this post seems to imply that men need more incentive than to just do things for themselves.

When men work for themselves and their own personal satisfaction, most will be happy working just enough to live in a crappy apartment and fund their hobbies and leisure pursuits. Which is fine as far as it goes. But you can't run a modern economy on that level of productivity. The now-moribund blog Dalrock used to call the extra production men engaged in to provide for their families the "patriarchal dividend."

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link