That is a valid economic take, another economic take that should be investigated is the change in student debt of available women. Risk has gone up , ability to deal with that economic risk has gone down.
BMI of available women should be looked at if we really want to look at all factors.
Lmfao. I love how they flip the switch. Woman cant find someone to marry. No. Woman can find a man that wants to marry them.
A top 10% man has all the power to choose who he gives his commitment to and guess what. It’s not a liberated 30+ gi joe bitch with a degree, several abortions. 20 cocks on speed dial and several cured stds.
If they wanted marriage they would have lived there prime with that in mind. But no. all the cocks have as feminists say. liberated you. from...... they left the dots out. Marriage maybe.
I mean, I truly feel like most guys I know are beta bucks... and I hang with good looking guys who get hot girls. I love that I’m red pilled, because I have an advantage over pretty much every guy I encounter.
I get what you’re saying... but I firmly believe that dudes are getting more and more blue pilled by the generation, at least up until now... guys are pussys and I’m ok with that lol.
Womankind has not been guilted into accepting docile men as the correct choice in life. The point here would be that its a balancing act. All of human history has been a civilizing of the animal that we are. Some of that has obviously been for good. Mars rovers, Particle accelerators, and quantum computers. But some has been pushed too far. I bite hard on the gynocentrism stuff and the push for female supremacy is a manipulation of the fact that men ARE more civilized currently. Men are more docile but they don't need to be ignorant and blue pilled. But women have not been forced to accept the NuMale as a prosperous choice. They still want aggression, dominance, and recklessness for it cheap thrills.
​
Trust me, I believe you that men are mostly too soft. But it should have been socially affirmed by female acceptance well before now.
I don't know of any objective causal studies being done, but depending on who you ask it's anything from antibiotics in our meat, to education issues, to fluoride in the water.
Lots of theories but nothing definitive. Many think it’s due to plastics or other unknown compounds that come from the modern environment. Some think it’s due to the sedentary nature of modernity. Others think it’s just part of evolution.
It doesn't help betas are furiously destroying the entire institution of marriage by virtue signalling their "LGBT inclusivity".
Basically, by turning marriage into a gay thing it no longer holds any special meaning for heterosexual couples, so why marry? The whole "gay marriage" thing also devalued married as a stable institution for child rearing - arguing that if gays can't procreate then marriage isn't advantageous for raising children, either.
Women, being blue-pilled, are still buying the whole "equality" bullshit arguments for gay marriage. No, you dumb things! Marriage was NEVER about equality. In fact it was engineered to provide protections for the differences between the genders.
Forcing equality where it doesn't belong is like trying to push square shapes through round holes - it's utterly stupid but for some reason the blue-pilled just refuse to see it.
Religion died a long time ago, shortly after God "died." And that death was not the cause of, nor centrally promulgated from the LGBT; It was a generally secular/atheist movement.
You're using a conclusion to retcon a non-existent premise, into existence.
I meant, what is happening is a positive feedback loop of ever less people being born. The response of a positive feedback loop is exponential, there will be exponentially less people as time passes, where the feminist delusion persists. Most whores never heard of a positive feedback loop. This shit can kill entire nations.
People are saying homosexual marriages didn’t break marriages. I agree.
But I do think you have a point in that gay marriage demonstrates a weakening of the institution and divorces it from its original intention, which was to socially enforce a reduction in women’s hypergamous nature (force them to stick with one person and shame them to oblivion if they upgrade) and men’s promiscuous and non-committal nature (force men to stick around after they create a baby and not just pump and dump every women they run into) to increase social cohesion and incentivize stable environments for raising children.
The dynamics between lesbians and male homosexuals are different than those between men and women, and neither can have kids unless they adopt or get a donor/surrogate. The main reason they marry is not to create a stable environment for kids, but to feel equal to straight couples. Which is dumb, because they aren’t equal; gay couples don’t make babies together. Straight couples do. That doesn’t mean you should spit on all gay people or something, but extending marriage to them shows that we don’t really view it as essentially related to having kids or tempering promiscuous sexual behavior anymore. It’s almost purely a status thing now (divorce and adultery are still socially frowned upon, but not like they used to be)
Psychologically speaking, feminine gay men would be "the woman" and masculine gay men would be "the man."
While they cannot procreate, the same psychological precepts (such as hypergamy) do still exist in LGBT communities. The real tricky part is when there is a mix of both masculinity and femininity... the weaknesses of both, but with a significantly reduced chance of finding someone who curtails both. Typically, you'd have to find someone equivalent. But "dispositionally abiguous" people are supremely rare within a pre-existing minority.
Source: Am a guy who likes guys, and occasionally sometimes women... who usually turn out to be lesbian. I have observed the LGBT community as someone who never fit within it, and was not welcomed by it, but technically "should" be included.
Fuck that tho, and all it stands for. It's rotted to the core from the festering wound caused by the "death of God," and the foundations of whom and from upon which the world was built. [oof, that was a unwieldy; but I lack for a better way to say that]
That doesn’t mean you should spit on all gay people or something
There's this idea that failure to support "gay marriage" is homophobic. Nothing could be further than the truth.
but extending marriage to them shows that we don’t really view it as essentially related to having kids or tempering promiscuous sexual behavior anymore. It’s almost purely a status thing now
Agree, and it is also a direct attack on religion.
Your comment is a heap of crap. Marriage was ruined before the gays got in on the action. It was ruined ever since divorce laws were introduced and women could drop their “lifelong commitment” to suit their hypergamous nature.
Correct that marriage was fucked before, but gay marriage definitely didn’t help and it’s one more milestone on the long and sad road by which marriage transformed from the bedrock of civilization to something you maybe do if you feel like it.
I mostly view it as a signal. It’s a signal that the actual purpose of marriage, to create a perpetual legal bond between a man and a woman for the formation of families, barely even factors into the equation anymore.
Basically, by turning marriage into a gay thing it no longer holds any special meaning for heterosexual couples, so why marry? The whole "gay marriage" thing also devalued married as a stable institution for child rearing - arguing that if gays can't procreate then marriage isn't advantageous for raising children, either.
This sounds like the conservative Christian argument I was very familiar with before I got divorced. I heard it everywhere from the Christian leaders I listened to at the time. It made total sense logically. I'd argue with anyone who wanted to discuss the topic.
Then I divorced my cheating ex-wife, who took more than half of everything. In the time since, I've swallowed the redpill and had my eyes opened. Now, I don't think gay marriage means anything or hurts marriage. Instead, it was the sexual revolution (women's hypergamy, birth control and abortion) that broke marriage. The (divorce) courts dealt the final blow to the institution. Feminists have created marriage v2.0 from the ashes of marriage v1.0. Now, homosexual men get to participate in the same shitty legal contact as heterosexual men.
The truth is gays didn't break marriage, because it was already broken.
After I discovered the adultery, there was a period of time where I was not well (thinking clearly). I felt like I was losing everything and so I wanted to prevent that from happening. I reached out to a couple friends from the church for guidance and wisdom, who counseled me on how to accept and forgive my adulterous wife, because that's what they did with their wives (seriously).
The moment I pulled my head out of my ass and decided to divorce, my "friends" stopped talking to me entirely. Everyone I knew from the church that I attended, turned away from me, so I stopped going there.
That's an interesting question I never considered before, but no, I don't think that's it. I think the reason was because both men were completely beta/BP and had their wives on a pedestal. The church we attended didn't believe in the "wives submit to your husbands" verse in the Bible.
Moreover, they didn't believe in divorce, despite the Bible giving clear examples when it was warranted. The men broke ties with me because I divorced and believed I was wrong for doing so.
If they accepted my choice, that would have meant divorce was acceptable in my circumstance and therefore theirs as well. I don't think they wanted to come to terms with the fact that they cucked themselves and made the wrong decision.
I think they were able to live with their decision to stay with their adulterous wives, because they believed it was God's will for them.
The church we attended didn't believe in the "wives submit to your husbands" verse in the Bible.
This is the subversion of Christianity, actually happens to all religions. What was the excuse given in your church as to why this verse should be ignored?
I think they were able to live with their decision to stay with their adulterous wives, because they believed it was God's will for them.
Aye, I think this spells doom for any church that has such spineless men. What sort of church do u go to now?
You are right, but can you at least fucking tell him why you are right instead of this sack of slot covered bullshit? I could think of two off the top of my head. He's blaming gay marrige on something the straights had already fucked up. He's using incindiary language FOR virtue signalling instead of how we normally use it to drive away virtue signallying. Perhaps you can find another?
If you just reported him, I would have just smacked his peter and left it at that.
I am concerned. This sub is turning into alt right cry babies who don't do any work and just complain about a culture that is passing them by and the mods seem to be perfectly happy going right along with it.
This is my whole point. The post I originally commented on was steeped in ideology which was my point in needing to do do better.
There are obviously a lot of people in this sub who are here just to complain about a shifting culture. They probably haven't read the side bar, any of the recommended books, or been in a gym.
The solution to these problems are in the sidebar. To just focus on problems and whine about them is weak. Mother fuckers need to do better.
One, I think his point is less steeped in ideology than you’re asserting and is a genuine if clumsily worded observation about how much marriage has changed/the fact that it is no longer about tempering sexual differences/promiscuity/hypergamy in both men and women, and two, any ideological position made explicit and worded with all it’s assumptions laid bare is much more honest and valuable than a shaming others to adhere to vague standards supposedly supported by the majority.
Why are we “better than this”, exactly? What is the reason marriage should be extended to homosexual couples? If the assumption is that to NOT do so is to reject homosexuals out of bigotry, why do you have that assumption? Is it not perfectly possible to love and accept homosexuals while maintaining the original purpose of marriage as essentially related to creating babies and heterosexual sexual dynamics, neither of which apply to homosexual couples?
I would argue that you are the one with a more ideologically based position, although you do not seem to be a bad actor nor “possesed”, radical, or any of the things traditionally associated with that term. Rather, I think you have adopted the mainstream belief that all opposition to gay marriage is based on bigotry, hate, and fear of change. There is a caricature of a fat, hateful white southern preacher with an army of angry young lonely white incels that pops up into my head by default when I think of opposition to gay marriage that I suspect pops onto yours as well. It has been conditioned into most young people. But it’s just that: an implanted caricature.
This is what pisses me off most now as a young professional.
I have a BS in Engineering and a MBA and yet it's extremely difficult for me to get interviews/move up in my career.
But every female I know with a degree in "Underwater basket weaving" all get the good jobs at the F500 companies despite not knowing jack about that industry etc etc due to "Equality" BUT all those females want a guy who makes more than them.
If it's a job you would do for free (let's pretend you had an unlimited inheritance).
Tell them you'd do it for free. Obviously you want some ability to manage your affairs, because they might actually take you up on the offer. But offer to work for free/min wage/reduced wage for a fixed amount of time, with a negotiation/re-negotiation of your salary at the end o the "probation period".
Nobody in their right mind would do that. But most peoples' minds aren't right. So you should do it. (Or something equally as impactful and different.) Stand out somehow. Make yourself different. Just be sure you never do it indirectly. Always do shit like that in-person. You want them to remember your face, not just your application number and your [LastName Last4]. Also you can pull psychology tricks a lot easier in-person if you're versed in the arts of not being a beta cuck.
If you are failing with an MBA and a BS in engineering something is very wrong.
Are you entry level? If so this is normal.
If not, you're honestly probably just applying for jobs wrong. And there's only two ways to do that:
Having a shitty resume or not applying to enough jobs.
Just look at the numbers. Kids with an MBA have like a 3% unemployment rate out of college. If they can do it so can you. Just have to figure out what you're doing fucking wrong.
How many jobs are you applying to? How many applications convert to phone interviews (this will tell me if your resume is the issue)? How many phone interviews/interviews convert to offers?
Just stick with it; it will be painful and take a long time, but all of the large companies doing diversity hires will eventually fail or stop doing it (assuming we don't get trapped in a monopolistic hell hole without alternatives, but even then, everything will fail/there will be a reset at some point, even if that reset point is literal societal collapse). Competent people are always in demand. Lots of morons can't identify competence well, but the ones who can are the ones who survive long term. All of the status monkeys constantly playing political games without actually getting shit done have a shelf life, and when you can repeatedly get shit done, their whole lifecycle starts to revolve around you. They tend to view people who can do things as a resource, so watch out they don't fuck you over, but I'm telling you, if you have half a brain and can actually get results (if you're an engineer, for example, if you can actually build shit that doesn't break in an affordable way), you basically have all the cards. The incompetence and stupidity of large organizations can be a blessing in disguise, as it creates an opening for up and comers to hire people like you (or for you to start your own thing) and take their lunch.
I'm not naive enough to think what I'm saying is easy, or that there aren't massive regulatory roadblocks in basically every industry now designed to keep new blood out. The pessimist in me thinks we're moving into a new Dark Age controlled by some sort of retarded progressive corporate papacy. But a healthy dose of "fuck you" attitude paired with the ability to make real value for other people goes a very long way. And the optimist in me thinks people are starting to realize that the purported scientific basis of this new form of religious bullshit is bullshit and will start rejecting it more and more.
If you didn't get an MBA at a top 15 school, the problem isn't you not being a woman, the problem is you. I get recruiters hitting me up all the time on linkedin.
Those equality hires are generally for entry level stuff, most women who I've seen higher up are sharp and ruthless.
That's this guy's real problem. A friend of mine got his MBA from Cornell and is how now a VP at a Fortune 200 company. We're both 39. Whether it should or shouldn't, it does make a huge difference where you went to school.
Just looked thru your post history. I work in finance & run the FLDP program at a F100. Your story is all over the place, and if you took a finance role you'd be moving backwards. (Only a year or two it seems tho)
Early career MBA hires for just finance(w/o exp) are a hard thing, and selling your rebranding story is gonna be hard.
Look for any entry level FP&a job as those gigs tend to be the more fun / access to advancement as the corporate finance side.
Just gotta sell them on the fact that you fell in love with the biz side of it and went back to get an MBA to replace not studying finance in UG.
These "equality" hires are probably right out of school and have been sold on business for years as a job. You having an MBA actually puts you at a disadvantage right now.
Oof (rip my GE stock). Nope! However, their version of it (FMP) is over 100 years old, and the audit program it feeds into is pretty sweet. If you can get into it, I'd still go for it.
Cool dude, you went through my post history.
Doesn't change the fact from my first post that men are getting the short end of the stick and now we get told to our faces that we suck (once again) because we aren't making enough money.
Yeah, the problem is definitely you. If you're easily displaced by a "diversity only hire" in this market, you're just bad.
I run a program that you would be lucky to even get into, and instead of going with it and trying to learn, you just reverted back to how "womenz get all the good jobs" "life isn't fair"
Women aren't the problem, women are great. It's how men have failed each other and ultimately have failed women too.
Besides the article just talked about having a decent job, it didn't say having a ton of money was required, just don't be a fuckin loser
Diversity hire != diversity retention. AFAIK they don't have to keep them forever or even after a certain point. Depending on how those numbers are polled, they either have to hire them (and can immediately fire them tbqh) or they have to have a certain % on staff at any given time... and this could be department or organization wide (again, depends on policy).
Diversity only hires, who don't actually have the chops? Sell yourself on the ability to train people up and bring improvements to less-than-stellar employees. Bring up stories about how you helped a lazy spoon-fed trust fund kid become a top performer/earner. Lie through your teeth if you have to... Just read some books if you tout a skill you don't have... you might be tested, or they'll take you on and expect you to perform. At the end of the day, getting a job is about MIMS. If they have to hire diversity employees, and the general consensus is that they're probably not up to par... solve the problem. Be the one who can bring them up to par, sell them on that and sell them on not having to burn through as many employees because you can take the shitty ones and make them at least somewhat adequate if not great. Saving thousands/millions in HR costs. Then when you leave, slap that shit on your resume "helped reduced overhead/HR expenditures by %" even if you're not a numbers/sales/finance/hr guy. Shows you have a mind for the greater business as a whole.
I don’t think it’s that. People are genuinely making less money in general these days. Unless you’re in certain industries, a lot of the jobs just don’t pay the bread. If a guy makes good money, it shouldn’t really matter how much she makes.
Gold diggers are RP in that sense, they know the marketplace, aren't lying to themselves about what they really want and know they need to be as hyper feminine and attractive as possible to win. No bra burning feminists anywhere to be seen.
There is a difference between a gold digger and a woman's desire to be provided.
This will not go down well with men in the anger phase but it is true. All women want to be provided, all women see men as a resource opportunity, that is part of their biology. But a gold digger only sees that and cares about nothing else.
Fuck no. I want independence in every aspect of my life, obligation to provide is not on my book. I have been in long term relationships but I never provided for them, each of us were on his/her own on that matter
Ask yourself also, why is this happening? In the past- most mediocre boomers who could muster up the grit to graduate highschool had the ability to provide for a family given they’re willing to work.
Today we have kids coming out of university with 4.0 gpas who are discriminated from some jobs because they’re “fucking white males”.
Look, stuff isn't well thought out. It's just a load of people making individual stupid decisions.
Women want to be paid more, AND they want their husbands to be paid more than them. Two bites of the cherry. It doesn't make sense together as a society, but individually as two separate desires it makes sense.
Men are protective of women and are more fair minded, hence fall for the equality myth. Women are hypergamous and have never-ending demands.
Put this all together and you have women being paid more than men, and complaining that men don't get paid more than them.
Foreigners pretending to be Americans, women, and university/media communists that brainwashed two generations. The latter will HAVE to be punished one day.
All true except the bit about 'communists'. You really got to let that go, it has nothing to do with current reality, it's just a holdover scare tactic from the Cold War. Russia isn't even communist anymore. China is, but we're in no danger of emulating China. If we were, you'd be protesting Walmart, our number one importer of communist made goods from China. You shop at Walmart? Your money goes directly to supporting the largest communist regime the world has ever seen. Funny how you never hear this on Fox News, right?
China isn't communist any more than scientology is a religion. They just just pretend to be because the rulers know that gives them advantages.
And it isn't actual communists who are causing the problem but a destabilization strategy for the purposes of weakening western society initiated by Soviet psyops at the start of the cold war. We are reaping the fruit of the poisoned seeds planted by KGB operatives in the 50s and 60s.
In my country, at least from what I see men are disadvantaged in the job market in almost every way. Its harder for them to get a job and to keep it
Then there is good ole hypergamy. A woman can be stuck at lower-middle income. No problem. Her man is expected to be middle to high-middle income at BARE MINIMUM.
So not only are there fewer men then women per exonomic bracket, the women expect men to be better off than them (even the top end beta bucks get ignored some times), and the bottom 80% of men are left to fight over the bottom 20% of women and that bottom 20% is really scraping the bottom of the barrel
In my country, at least from what I see men are disadvantaged in the job market in almost every way.
Australia?
Companies, from airlines to tech, are telling their male staff they are over-privileged and got their jobs by default. Meanwhile the few women that have any interest at all in those industries are being given first priority for every job. Every management position now is all women.
Women making a ton of money without any expertise or experience. Men finding themselves actively discriminated against by recruiters who see the wrong gender on the CV because companies want to virtue signal to investors and teenage consumers.
If i had guranteed lawsuit money (like in the US) for everytime I applied to a job (supply chain planning) and got told during the interview that "our department is 100% female. Hope you are ok with that" which is slang for "buddy, you got a penis, you aint getting the job" I'll just file discriminatory lawsuits for a living
I have interviewed for many many jobs and I can count on 1 hand how many times the hiring manager was male.
Maybe I'll identify as female. Ha that might actually work
For centuries, men have been providing for women. Now that women are succeeding at the expense of men, they are nowhere to be found. Looks like we've been duped, boys. Leave them to their cats and box wine.
Marriage is about providing support, security and a retirement plan for women. The children are their bargaining chip: "provide for me and I will bear your children".
This is why you have splitting up the family home, woman gets payouts, woman gets alimony, etc.
If it was about children, then child support would have it covered.
Marriage is about providing support, security and a retirement plan for women. The children are their bargaining chip: "provide for me and I will bear your children".
Traditionally, children were the retirement plan, for both parents.
Also, women have always been capable of providing for themselves, unless prohibited by social norms. My great aunt had no problem handling the farm after her husband emigrated to the US and drank all the money.
Now when we come to the modern urbanized "nuclear family", where the woman was expected to stay at home and take care of the household, that's when everything changes.
That's where the idea of "love" as the reason for marriage becomes essential, as marriage is no longer a question of necessity. Due to invention of contraceptives you can have unlimited sex with no reproduction.
Which brings me back to my original point. Marriage was always about kids. If all you want is unlimited sex with no kids, don't get married. If you want emotional bonding, no reason to get married.
For children, marriage still remains the best option, as it provides the most stable and supportive environment for growth. Children need stability, focus, time and energy from their parents. That's why kids in single parent households generally have more problems.
If all you want is unlimited sex with no kids, don't get married
Except women traditionally leverage the male sex drive to secure marriage. Clearly marriage was a huge benefit to them, enough to be bothered with maintaining the illusion of virginity.
For children, marriage still remains the best option, as it provides the most stable and supportive environment for growth.
Not anymore. Marriage is now providing a financial benefit for the mother to leave, something many many women have taken advantage of over the last few decades.
That's why kids in single parent households generally have more problems.
And that's why I would never provide a financial incentive for a woman to leave me.
Except women traditionally leverage the male sex drive to secure
marriage. Clearly marriage was a huge benefit to them, enough to be
bothered with maintaining the illusion of virginity.
Of course it is always a huge benefit. The benefit of raising children with a partner instead of doing it all by yourself. All life is geared towards procreation, and partnership increases your rate of success.
Not anymore. Marriage is now providing a financial benefit for the
mother to leave, something many many women have taken advantage
of over the last few decades.
Statistically unmarried couples with common children are much more likely to separate than married couples (with common children).
Statistically unmarried couples with common children are much more likely to separate than married couples (with common children).
Ahh..... but this is conflating cause with effect. For example these people who are unmarried may know they are unsuitable for each other, in which case they won't marry. This says nothing about the causative impact of marriage itself.
The statistic you want is "if I marry this woman who wants to marry me is she more or less likely to leave me", which is of course unavailable and unknown.
I didn't say anything about the reasons for this effect. All I said is marriage provides more stability for children. As for whatever the reason, married couples are more likely to stay together.
If you know you are unsuitable for each other, why the hell would you make kids?
All I said is marriage provides more stability for children.
Marriage is the result of couples who want to stay together. Couples who want to stay together are better for children. Marriage is hardly necessary nor (I would argue) causative for stability.
I agree that marriage is mainly to raise kids. But what about DINK (duel income no kids)? Often ends in dead bedrooms and divorce I imagine (since it's a lot easier to divorce without kids). Husband and wife barely interact after a while since they have no kid to come together to support.
Marriage was never about love. It has always been about children
WAS.
Now "marriage" has been hijacked by LGBT activists who want you to believe marriage has nothing to do with children; it's about "love" - of course you have to believe gay people cannot love outside of marriage to swallow that bullshit.
That's why marriage is ubiquitous in human societies, with some variety an exceptions.
WAS.
Watch Western society decline at the most exponentially advanced rate ever now we have "gay marriage" which is a complete abomination.
I’m late to this party, but this is an interesting claim that my viewpoint flip flopped when introduced to the pill.
I started reading the Bible at a young age, cover to cover, and found women “put in their place” in extreme ways. In my BP conditioning I thought this was extreme and fucked up. When said here I thought it was misogynist, but kept at the side bar.
Now, I’m more aware of how this benefited both parties. It something that in our lifetime will not change and fighting that process would be social suicide for as long as I can see it. Best bet is build yourself, ride the decline, and watch the chaos.
I was on the south side of the metro. Was no reason to try to battle my way back home during the depths of rush hour, so I drove around, stopping in on different southern-metro friends, even got myself a cigar at one of my favorite cigar lounges.
The GF wasn't getting back till later as she was working for a side client that evening, so I decided to stop by and visit my buddy Craig. It wasn't much past 8 PM, but you would have thought it was 3 AM when he answered the door. He was in his plaid pajamas, wearing his old man slippers, and a fleece sweatshirt, I think he even had a cup of tea in his hand.
Regardless, he was awake and not about to go to bed so we stayed up and chatted a bit. Talked about his various business ventures, any new ideas he had or was pursuing, and what his financial game plan was for the next 10 years. We spent nearly an hour discussing nearly every other social, political, career, and entrepreneurial aspect of his life, until I almost forgot that he recently became a bachelor and I never inquired about his dating life.
"So, any word from the girly girl front?"
And all he said was, "No, I have absolutely no energy for that. I just want to pay the mortgage and go hunting."
And that was it. That was the summation of his past year of dating life. "No, I don't have the energy."
It wasn't an editorial comment. It wasn't one of "I tried, but dem womenz be crazies." It had no passion or emotion in it. It was merely a statement of fact:
"No, I don't have the energy for it."
And though I had intuitively known this for a while, it was once again one of those things that had yet to make its way to the frontal lobes, turning itself into a concrete observation.
Men do burn out.
I had speculated about this before. A theory about whether men have "unlimited energy" when it comes to the pursuit of women, or if there's a finite amount of energy and men will inevitably stop their pursuit. And though speculate I did a few short years ago, in that time I've gained the experience, observation, and wisdom to realize the later is true. Men only have a limited amount of energy. And my friend Craig was proof of it.
Of course, while the fact men do burn out had consequences for my friend Craig, they also have consequences for women in his market. For while Craig was sitting at home in his PJ's, sipping away at tea, preparing for a speech he had to give the next day at 8PM, it also, by necessary default, meant he wasn't at the bar or the club or online trying to pine for the affections of women. He wasn't asking women out. There was one less man on the market. And one of those proverbial "good men" women are always looking for.
This made for an interesting juxtaposition, for while Craig was sitting there, comfy in his plaid PJ's and old man slippers, he conveyed to me the story of when he last went out socially. He met up with some old high school buddies of his, mostly of the female persuasion. They were all in their mid 40's, but while he was focused on work, his career, and various professional associations he joined, the women were all divorced, all had their children at the baby sitters and were living it up like they were 24 again. Boozing, drinking "woooing." He said, "I just don't get it. I did that shit when I was 24. It's the last thing I'd want to do now! And here they are thinking it's fun or something." He didn't leave in disgust, but because of boredom and having "been there done that."
However, the utter lack of anything genuine or intellectually stimulating ultimately led him to the observation and an explanation why he stayed in and had no incentive to even try to go out to date:
The amount of investment required to be successful in dating was not worth what he'd get in return. And that is why this "Good Man" (TM) was at home with his tea, instead of out there looking in the dating market. It is also why many 40+ women "can't find a good man."
In the eternal quest for women to "find a good man" and then immediately complaint of "why can't I find a good man" the answer, as always, can be found in economics.
Today, millions of 40 something men like Craig have to face a decision. Do they spend the time, money, and resources pursuing women or do they invest those resources in something else. And while at the age of 18 with hormones raging and economic opportunity costs near $0, the decision was a simple one - chase girls, at the age of 43 things are different.
At 43 men have garnered more and more economic success and more and more economic opportunities. They have also likely develop hobbies, skills, and intellectual endeavors that also provide a positive rate of return on their lives. And let's not forget they're no longer 19 year old horn-balls raging around the prairie.
So when they look at what it precisely takes to get a woman on a date, let alone in bed, the costs are daunting:
10 hours a week hitting the clubs/dating sites/"hunting" in general
4,000 calories of energy being witty/funny/engaging to convince a girl to go out on a date
1/4 dates will flake, bail, cancel at the last minute
What dates you do have only stand a 30% chance of leading to a second
The second dates of which only have a 30% chance of leading to a third
And then the "lovely" last-minute-resistance of having sex
All in all you're looking at 2 weeks of labor, time, and money to "maybe" get laid, and that says nothing about whether the girl would qualify as long-term quality girlfriend material.
And while at the age of 18 when you literally had NOTHING else going on in life, no real man of any significance is going to have that much time to piss away on an investment with such a low expected rate of return in his 40's.
In other words, ladies, the men are just plain burnt out. They're spent. When presented with the required investment to "maybe" be successful pursuing a girl, most men post 35 will scoff at it and do something else, hoping something lands in their lap. And while you may not like that, or may find it "insulting," none of that changes the fact it's true. The "good men" you are looking for are at home or at the office, and just plain don't have the energy any more to pursue you.
This means, as all major economic upheavals in markets do, that its participants change their actions. "Wooing" it up at the bar, getting hammered at 43 while your dad subsidizes your child and mortgage is not a product that's going to get an industrious middle aged man to pursue you. Going to the same old bar and club where the same old guys and men from 1994 using the same old "can I buy you a drink" tactic is going to result in the same results you had the past 20 years. And wearing the same old clothes, whoring it up, will result in that one night fling you'll fakely claim you regret, but certainly not the "good man" you're looking for.
Ultimately, you're going to realize that you get to live up to the feminist dream of being truly equal to men now. You get to hunt, you get to strategize, you get to trial and error your way into finding a "good man." And while you'll rapidly point out that men are thirsty at the bar for you, and your POF profile is full of e-mails (and that is all certainly true), we all know those aren't the "Good Men" you're looking for because you would have snagged one of them by now and would CERTAINLY not be complaining about the "lack of good men" today.
So sorry girls. Once more unto the breach....well, for you it will be the very first time.
Simply, too many people of both genders are underpaid tbh. But since girls are broke too, now they are really only looking for guys with $$ but jokes on them
Okay wait this actually makes a lot of sense, lets break it down. Group A, married men. These are mostly guys that have good incomes and are prime beta bux. They get married to the hottest leech that spreads her legs for him. Then once ue gets tied down and signs away his balls she can dead bedroom him or slip back to duty sex with a few fling on the side. Group B, married men that have their shit together. They probably have hotter wives and decent jobs as well but same thing unless they really have their unicorn whipped. Heck they might be fucking girls on the side and life is good. Group C. Unmarried men with poor incomes. These are probably younger guys that are still in education or wasting their lives away. Obviously theyre no good for beta bux so lets assume theyre toiling away at world of warcraft or whatever the hip thing is nowadays. Group D. Unmarried men that know basic rp. They wouldnt let a woman tie them down unless it was an extreme case. Theyre the guys pumping and dumping girls while also running through the restless wives. But what it boils down to is the poor guys with no game obviously cant get married cuz they offer nothing. The rich guys can be tied down pretty easily with poor game or bp understanding. The rp guys arent gonna be married unless they got married before rp or they want to settle down with a particular girl and take their chances. The rest are pumping and dumping regardless of their financial situation. And then you have some form of mgtow finishing it all off. Just my brief thoughts though
Yeah I kind of quickly wrote it as I was on my break lol. Meant redpilled guys or guys that were a bit more aware of male/female dynamics. Think the natural "alpha" or those lads on married redpill. Pretty much theres the atm husbands and the ones that are used for more than their wallets
You can build bodily strength, but it's almost impossible to change your character. If you're by nature a more sensitive person, you can't change it. And you really don't want to, demolish yourself for what, a pussy, no.
You could have a mental disorder. You could have a bodily defect.
More generally, people are born a certain way and place, so partly it's just luck.
You can not become rock solid if you're born sensitive. You can build bodily strength and derive some confidence from that. But, still everything is going to get to you emotionally.
And if you already are rock solid but lack looks and strength then it still doesn't matter.
Dude lifting is more of a mental training regimen than it is a physical one. You can improve everything about yourself, minus getting a new face. And how tall you are.
so people cant develop emotionally, only physically? False.
Why do you think stoicism, meditation, even lifting weights are core to rp philosophy? They harden your mind and make you more resilient to emotional ups and downs. You can turn a pussy boy to a hard motherfucker- it’s nurture, not nature
Growing emotionally and character are different things. You learn in time to manage your emotions and express them in a socially acceptable way. But this is not simply your whole character. People are born with different characters, some are more agreeable, some less, some more neurotic, some less, some more sensitive etc. This is not something you can change at will, even with a lot of work. And it would be violence against yourself. The point is to get reasonably well adjusted to society, not destroy yourself, chasing women's approval (RP is still about getting women).
Getting strong gives confidence, yes, but doesn't change character. Actually, power only reveals it.
Regarding being a bad ass, you can be a bad ass your whole life, but as soon as you meet someone stronger that you, then you're not a bad ass anymore. Being strong or weak is relative. Life is about balance and meaning, it's not about being a spartan.
In the year of 2019 it's more evident than ever (to me) that either you're a top tier man or you belong to the scumbag category. There's no middle ground. Considering I'm not tall, fit, or high-status life is harder for me, at least I have time by my side (I'm 24yo). We younger folks should unite in real life instead of choosing to be lone wolves. At least for me belonging to a strong tribe of decent men is something important that I'm lacking.
I remember the first time I was placed in the Alpha category instead of beta.
Short story; during high school I was chubby, with acne, but I had good character, worked hard, had a little money, and I was popular amongst men for having a good sense of humor. But, all the women categorized me as beta. I was a friend at the very most, never got any action then. Go figure- I'm not bitter, I didn't want much of anything to do with them either at that stage.
Fast forward a couple of years working labor jobs while getting a degree- I'm thinner, on the verge of being jacked, no more acne, done a little travel, etc. Went and visited my old town. Met a girl, followed the red pill principals for the first time- and badabing, badaboom, this woman put me in the Alpha category. She worshipped the ground I walked on. She was submissive, treated me like a king, cooked for me, all the jazz that women love to do for alphas and would NEVER do for betas. I saw the other side of women's coins- and honestly it was pretty disgusting. She probably had some genuinely loyal beta orbiter who would've killed to be in my shoes, but I just went ahead and treated her like shit to see how far it could go- the answer is, as far as I wanted it to, because she saw me as an alpha. I nexted her shortly after
Be patient and don't succumb to extreme black-and-white thinking. Things got better for me in my late 20s, and the Red Pill wasn't even a thing back then. I didn't know what I was doing. You get older, wiser, and better at the same time as the pool of eligible women increases. Work on yourself. You say you're not fit? That's on you, so fix it. There is no better time to take care of things like that than right now.
The bottom 80% of men aren’t scumbags. Wrong idea.
“Should unite in real life”. Good in theory, won’t work in practice.
That would be like telling everyone we are Nazis with swastikas tattooed on our foreheads. We would be shunned/ attacked by 80-90% of the population.
And anyway, there’s greater power in working from the shadows, from anonymity.
“Belong to a strong tribe of decent men”. You do, it’s just an online tribe. You can learn a trillion more things from this online tribe than you ever could by anyone forming a tribe in real life- that’s just the power of the internet.
Due to dating apps/hookup culture, young recently graduated from college men are at the bottom of the totem pole.
I do well enough for myself as a recent grad but because I live in an insanely expensive area I have to split a modest 2-bedroom apartment.
I can pull well enough because I'm decent looking and fit but it's just fighting an uphill battle when you're competing with 28+ year old guys with well-established careers that live in 3k/month high rise apartments.
On some “Workers of the world, unite!” shit. Fuck that. Eliminate your sense of “belonging to a strong tribe of men,” it’s only as important as you perceive it. Having a group won’t fix your issues. What you’re personally lacking is Frame.
You become high value at that age because 25 is the age where women start looking for a beta-provider, so if you have a good income, you will be desired as being a beta-bux for those women who are slowly approaching the wall.
It was just inevitable as women became more career driven.
Women naturally will want a man who makes more than them. But they've flooded the labor force so naturally have greatly reduced the amount of men who make more.
When women went to college not to get a job but to find a husband the amount of men who made more than them was every single man in the workforce.
" Of course women can definitely accuse men of being shallow as well. It is often said that men are overly concerned with youth and looks, and one very revealing scientific study appears to support that hypothesis. The study found that on average 20-year-old women were most attracted to 23-year-old men and 50-year-old women were most attracted to 46-year-old men. But with men the results were dramatically different. On average, 20-year-old men were most attracted to 20-year-old women and 50-year-old men were most attracted to 22-year-old women. "
- from the same article
​
Anyone that finds RP fictional and the current feminism bullshit normal here you go :) Women hate aging up and man do not like aged women overall.
TBH I think it has to a lot more to do with personality than most people think. 20 year old women are fun, they are that worried about commitment and they arent jaded from being pumped and dumped for 30 years if they stayed single and if they where married they are usually bitter about that as well. They are much more demanding and offer less in return, its simple economics
This is the biggest joke of the year. They are trying to cover the fact that women, because of feminism and broken homes are more promiscuous now. They are going through life dick-sampling like a fat man sampling food at Costco. Nice try though. Anyone believing this is absolutely oblivious.
Earned in the top 2% last year (fourth year in a row), not writing a check on a used up vag or risking my shit for poonani when I can get sex any time I want with no drama.
I'm also a top few percent earner (in my country), but women certainly don't throw themselves at me. Even if they did, I wouldn't want such a woman. But I'm curious. I want to know the secret, I want to be attractive :)
Uhmm girls throw themselves at me on Instagram and when I hit the bar. I was regular
Looking through out my life, 3 years a go I went all in on my body, and now I look like those fitness model from IG.
This is only semi-related, but what would you guys think of this political platform:
1.) Overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion
2.) Abolish no-fault divorce, and make federal laws requiring that divorces have at least one party at fault
3.) Abolish all state benefits to marriage and replace them with civil unions
4.) Cut back on welfare, food stamps, and social support systems however much is necessary to fund step 5
5.) Give every couple in a civil union that has had or adopted 4 or more children a monthly stipend. They lose this income if they divorce, but not if one parent dies. In addition, children from past relationships cannot fill this quota.
This is how I believe we can save marriages and families, not by restricting women's rights (except abortion which doesn't really count), but by incentivizing women to go back to their traditional roles.
#1 would be a fucking disaster with gangs of starving children on the streets, massively increased crime, and women dying from back-alley abortions. If there was an exception for rape, then every thot who wants an abortion is going to make a false rape accusation. Tradcon bullshit is bullshit.
#2 is good in theory but I can just see the cucked blue pill judges always finding the man at fault no matter what.
#3 is fine but you are already contradicting yourself with #5
#4 and #5 are related and will just lead to more crime and more unnecessary people.
1 would be a fucking disaster with gangs of starving children on the streets,
Not if we began subsidizing people to form better families to adopt them. Adopted children count towards the quota.
If there was an exception for rape, then every thot who wants an abortion is going to make a false rape accusation.
There will be no exception.
2 is good in theory but I can just see the cucked blue pill judges always finding the man at fault no matter what.
Then we'll ban asset division, alimony, and child-support.
3 is fine but you are already contradicting yourself with 5
No, because now we're subsidizing people having children, not tying themselves down to pointless contracts.
4 and 5 are related and will just lead to more crime and more unnecessary people.
Single motherhood is one of the biggest causes of crime in America. If we take away all the incentives for women to be thots, and start incentivizing the opposite, we will reduce the crime rate.
If 2 were the law, judges would simply find men were "emotionally abusive" or something and place fault on them and impose more severe financial and custodial penalties than under current law. It wouldn't help given current conditions. You can't unring a bell.
trele_morele 6y ago
"Economically attractive men." Bend over boys
RyanFire 6y ago
men have the burden of shouldering the world while women just prance around
MaterialVirus 6y ago
Yet I hook up with tons of married women every year. They all want BB security while they go search out the AF dick.
MCFiletMignon 6y ago
Population control.
Pay people less: have them have less kids, or have the system collapse.
TheAC997 6y ago
So they want more of a 'wage gap?'
bearlythere18 6y ago
That is a valid economic take, another economic take that should be investigated is the change in student debt of available women. Risk has gone up , ability to deal with that economic risk has gone down.
BMI of available women should be looked at if we really want to look at all factors.
SKRedPill 6y ago
But feminists said that marriage needed to be destroyed for the liberation of women!
Blame the man, blame the man, all the time
Lateralanouncer 6y ago
Lmfao. I love how they flip the switch. Woman cant find someone to marry. No. Woman can find a man that wants to marry them.
A top 10% man has all the power to choose who he gives his commitment to and guess what. It’s not a liberated 30+ gi joe bitch with a degree, several abortions. 20 cocks on speed dial and several cured stds.
If they wanted marriage they would have lived there prime with that in mind. But no. all the cocks have as feminists say. liberated you. from...... they left the dots out. Marriage maybe.
Protocol_Apollo 6y ago
“Many young men have very little to bring to the marriage bargain”.
wildtimes3 6y ago
Both. When reality is undesirable they are forced to acknowledge it. But they try not to look.
do_it_or_leave 6y ago
Not necessarily beta bucks, more like briffault.
ikarianarsi 6y ago
Also let's face it, no sane man is going to want to be tied down to someone in a contract that has too many losses if it fails
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Fortunately for women (and society) men are both not-sane and very, very gullible.
Imperator_Red 6y ago
Oh damn it’s a bargain? So what am I getting out of it?
SouloftheVoid 6y ago
For the majority of today's men it's a chance to raise Chad's kids and once-a-month starfish sex.
Protocol_Apollo 6y ago
A very pertinent question-once again another trickle truth.
I reckon you could redpill/red pill lite people by asking that question.
MisterSlippyFinger 6y ago
It’s supposed to be children, traditionally speaking.
[deleted]
Marcozy14 6y ago
I mean, I truly feel like most guys I know are beta bucks... and I hang with good looking guys who get hot girls. I love that I’m red pilled, because I have an advantage over pretty much every guy I encounter.
I get what you’re saying... but I firmly believe that dudes are getting more and more blue pilled by the generation, at least up until now... guys are pussys and I’m ok with that lol.
Boobsbuttsandbats 6y ago
Womankind has not been guilted into accepting docile men as the correct choice in life. The point here would be that its a balancing act. All of human history has been a civilizing of the animal that we are. Some of that has obviously been for good. Mars rovers, Particle accelerators, and quantum computers. But some has been pushed too far. I bite hard on the gynocentrism stuff and the push for female supremacy is a manipulation of the fact that men ARE more civilized currently. Men are more docile but they don't need to be ignorant and blue pilled. But women have not been forced to accept the NuMale as a prosperous choice. They still want aggression, dominance, and recklessness for it cheap thrills.
​
Trust me, I believe you that men are mostly too soft. But it should have been socially affirmed by female acceptance well before now.
General-Rommel 6y ago
Testosterone levels are holistically down from previous generations.
AceMav21 6y ago
Maybe is we a did some trenbologna we’d all be able to get married
SouloftheVoid 6y ago
Putting tren in the bologna might help fix the problem.
excelwithexcel 6y ago
It's great. Minus these forehead veins tho
Marcozy14 6y ago
Wow, is there a know cause to this?
wildtimes3 6y ago
Estrogen mimickers being more prevalent in our environment is the most common reason I see mentioned.
General-Rommel 6y ago
I don't know of any objective causal studies being done, but depending on who you ask it's anything from antibiotics in our meat, to education issues, to fluoride in the water.
red_matrix 6y ago
Lots of theories but nothing definitive. Many think it’s due to plastics or other unknown compounds that come from the modern environment. Some think it’s due to the sedentary nature of modernity. Others think it’s just part of evolution.
rorrr 6y ago
Women: we want equal pay
Women: we want a guy who makes more than us
trueliberal1 6y ago
Women: we want lots of money and not having to work hard for it.
Fixed that for ya.
idontmiind 6y ago
women will be checkmated so hard in the coming years
ugluk1 6y ago
The rest of us also, along with them. New generations are not being born, killed by the empowered sluts.
[deleted] 6y ago
It doesn't help betas are furiously destroying the entire institution of marriage by virtue signalling their "LGBT inclusivity".
Basically, by turning marriage into a gay thing it no longer holds any special meaning for heterosexual couples, so why marry? The whole "gay marriage" thing also devalued married as a stable institution for child rearing - arguing that if gays can't procreate then marriage isn't advantageous for raising children, either.
Women, being blue-pilled, are still buying the whole "equality" bullshit arguments for gay marriage. No, you dumb things! Marriage was NEVER about equality. In fact it was engineered to provide protections for the differences between the genders.
Forcing equality where it doesn't belong is like trying to push square shapes through round holes - it's utterly stupid but for some reason the blue-pilled just refuse to see it.
Stutercel 6y ago
Marriage was destroyed a long time ago.
[deleted] 6y ago
That makes it okay to turn it into a homosexual thing in a direct attack on religion.
Stop being so blue-pilled you beta fuck.
BunnyGunz 6y ago
It's not an attack on religion.
Religion died a long time ago, shortly after God "died." And that death was not the cause of, nor centrally promulgated from the LGBT; It was a generally secular/atheist movement.
You're using a conclusion to retcon a non-existent premise, into existence.
Stutercel 6y ago
It makes the debate irrelevant. I don't care about it anymore. They can do whatever the fuck they want with it I am not touching it.
This is like debating what to buy your grandma for her birthday when she has been dead for 2 decades
ugluk1 6y ago
I meant, what is happening is a positive feedback loop of ever less people being born. The response of a positive feedback loop is exponential, there will be exponentially less people as time passes, where the feminist delusion persists. Most whores never heard of a positive feedback loop. This shit can kill entire nations.
Didiathon 6y ago
People are saying homosexual marriages didn’t break marriages. I agree.
But I do think you have a point in that gay marriage demonstrates a weakening of the institution and divorces it from its original intention, which was to socially enforce a reduction in women’s hypergamous nature (force them to stick with one person and shame them to oblivion if they upgrade) and men’s promiscuous and non-committal nature (force men to stick around after they create a baby and not just pump and dump every women they run into) to increase social cohesion and incentivize stable environments for raising children.
The dynamics between lesbians and male homosexuals are different than those between men and women, and neither can have kids unless they adopt or get a donor/surrogate. The main reason they marry is not to create a stable environment for kids, but to feel equal to straight couples. Which is dumb, because they aren’t equal; gay couples don’t make babies together. Straight couples do. That doesn’t mean you should spit on all gay people or something, but extending marriage to them shows that we don’t really view it as essentially related to having kids or tempering promiscuous sexual behavior anymore. It’s almost purely a status thing now (divorce and adultery are still socially frowned upon, but not like they used to be)
BunnyGunz 6y ago
Psychologically speaking, feminine gay men would be "the woman" and masculine gay men would be "the man."
While they cannot procreate, the same psychological precepts (such as hypergamy) do still exist in LGBT communities. The real tricky part is when there is a mix of both masculinity and femininity... the weaknesses of both, but with a significantly reduced chance of finding someone who curtails both. Typically, you'd have to find someone equivalent. But "dispositionally abiguous" people are supremely rare within a pre-existing minority.
Source: Am a guy who likes guys, and occasionally sometimes women... who usually turn out to be lesbian. I have observed the LGBT community as someone who never fit within it, and was not welcomed by it, but technically "should" be included.
Fuck that tho, and all it stands for. It's rotted to the core from the festering wound caused by the "death of God," and the foundations of whom and from upon which the world was built. [oof, that was a unwieldy; but I lack for a better way to say that]
[deleted] 6y ago
There's this idea that failure to support "gay marriage" is homophobic. Nothing could be further than the truth.
Agree, and it is also a direct attack on religion.
I_Dont_Type 6y ago
Your comment is a heap of crap. Marriage was ruined before the gays got in on the action. It was ruined ever since divorce laws were introduced and women could drop their “lifelong commitment” to suit their hypergamous nature.
deterlaettis 6y ago
It's not a heap of crap, the crap is the part about gay marriage. Why should we give a fuck how they run their marriages.
Imperator_Red 6y ago
Correct that marriage was fucked before, but gay marriage definitely didn’t help and it’s one more milestone on the long and sad road by which marriage transformed from the bedrock of civilization to something you maybe do if you feel like it.
I mostly view it as a signal. It’s a signal that the actual purpose of marriage, to create a perpetual legal bond between a man and a woman for the formation of families, barely even factors into the equation anymore.
NormalAndy 6y ago
Divorce is the weapon of choice used against beta providers.
Red pill says: “sure thing- close the door on your way out.” and the threat evaporates.
Marriage- or more to the point, divorce threats, are just another shit test.
mountainbiker178 6y ago
This sounds like the conservative Christian argument I was very familiar with before I got divorced. I heard it everywhere from the Christian leaders I listened to at the time. It made total sense logically. I'd argue with anyone who wanted to discuss the topic.
Then I divorced my cheating ex-wife, who took more than half of everything. In the time since, I've swallowed the redpill and had my eyes opened. Now, I don't think gay marriage means anything or hurts marriage. Instead, it was the sexual revolution (women's hypergamy, birth control and abortion) that broke marriage. The (divorce) courts dealt the final blow to the institution. Feminists have created marriage v2.0 from the ashes of marriage v1.0. Now, homosexual men get to participate in the same shitty legal contact as heterosexual men.
The truth is gays didn't break marriage, because it was already broken.
VowOfPoverty 6y ago
'There are three musts that hold us back: I must do well. You must treat me well. And the world must be easy.' - Albert Elis
FightGuard 6y ago
How did the church treat u during and after the divorce?
mountainbiker178 6y ago
After I discovered the adultery, there was a period of time where I was not well (thinking clearly). I felt like I was losing everything and so I wanted to prevent that from happening. I reached out to a couple friends from the church for guidance and wisdom, who counseled me on how to accept and forgive my adulterous wife, because that's what they did with their wives (seriously).
The moment I pulled my head out of my ass and decided to divorce, my "friends" stopped talking to me entirely. Everyone I knew from the church that I attended, turned away from me, so I stopped going there.
I go to other churches now.
FightGuard 6y ago
Do u think their wives made them stop seeing u as u were a threat?
mountainbiker178 6y ago
That's an interesting question I never considered before, but no, I don't think that's it. I think the reason was because both men were completely beta/BP and had their wives on a pedestal. The church we attended didn't believe in the "wives submit to your husbands" verse in the Bible.
Moreover, they didn't believe in divorce, despite the Bible giving clear examples when it was warranted. The men broke ties with me because I divorced and believed I was wrong for doing so.
If they accepted my choice, that would have meant divorce was acceptable in my circumstance and therefore theirs as well. I don't think they wanted to come to terms with the fact that they cucked themselves and made the wrong decision.
I think they were able to live with their decision to stay with their adulterous wives, because they believed it was God's will for them.
FightGuard 6y ago
This is the subversion of Christianity, actually happens to all religions. What was the excuse given in your church as to why this verse should be ignored?
Aye, I think this spells doom for any church that has such spineless men. What sort of church do u go to now?
U_Lika_Da_Tomato 6y ago
C'mon man. We need you to be better than this ignorant shit. Seriously.
TheRedPike Senior Endorsed 6y ago
You are right, but can you at least fucking tell him why you are right instead of this sack of slot covered bullshit? I could think of two off the top of my head. He's blaming gay marrige on something the straights had already fucked up. He's using incindiary language FOR virtue signalling instead of how we normally use it to drive away virtue signallying. Perhaps you can find another?
If you just reported him, I would have just smacked his peter and left it at that.
Imperator_Red 6y ago
This is the most textbook example of concern trolling that I’ve ever seen.
Reported and gtfo.
TheRedPike Senior Endorsed 6y ago
I'm not removing it because they need to see what I was talking about, but thanks for the report. Keep it up.
U_Lika_Da_Tomato 6y ago
I am concerned. This sub is turning into alt right cry babies who don't do any work and just complain about a culture that is passing them by and the mods seem to be perfectly happy going right along with it.
So you can gtfo. Cry baby
red_matrix 6y ago
TRP is amoral. Biology doesn’t care about your feelings. Take your politics and GTFO.
U_Lika_Da_Tomato 6y ago
This is my whole point. The post I originally commented on was steeped in ideology which was my point in needing to do do better.
There are obviously a lot of people in this sub who are here just to complain about a shifting culture. They probably haven't read the side bar, any of the recommended books, or been in a gym.
The solution to these problems are in the sidebar. To just focus on problems and whine about them is weak. Mother fuckers need to do better.
red_matrix 6y ago
Society is declining, anyone can see that, and we are here to “enjoy the decline”.
Didiathon 6y ago
One, I think his point is less steeped in ideology than you’re asserting and is a genuine if clumsily worded observation about how much marriage has changed/the fact that it is no longer about tempering sexual differences/promiscuity/hypergamy in both men and women, and two, any ideological position made explicit and worded with all it’s assumptions laid bare is much more honest and valuable than a shaming others to adhere to vague standards supposedly supported by the majority.
Why are we “better than this”, exactly? What is the reason marriage should be extended to homosexual couples? If the assumption is that to NOT do so is to reject homosexuals out of bigotry, why do you have that assumption? Is it not perfectly possible to love and accept homosexuals while maintaining the original purpose of marriage as essentially related to creating babies and heterosexual sexual dynamics, neither of which apply to homosexual couples?
I would argue that you are the one with a more ideologically based position, although you do not seem to be a bad actor nor “possesed”, radical, or any of the things traditionally associated with that term. Rather, I think you have adopted the mainstream belief that all opposition to gay marriage is based on bigotry, hate, and fear of change. There is a caricature of a fat, hateful white southern preacher with an army of angry young lonely white incels that pops up into my head by default when I think of opposition to gay marriage that I suspect pops onto yours as well. It has been conditioned into most young people. But it’s just that: an implanted caricature.
claykiller2010 6y ago
This is what pisses me off most now as a young professional.
I have a BS in Engineering and a MBA and yet it's extremely difficult for me to get interviews/move up in my career.
But every female I know with a degree in "Underwater basket weaving" all get the good jobs at the F500 companies despite not knowing jack about that industry etc etc due to "Equality" BUT all those females want a guy who makes more than them.
BunnyGunz 6y ago
If it's a job you would do for free (let's pretend you had an unlimited inheritance).
Tell them you'd do it for free. Obviously you want some ability to manage your affairs, because they might actually take you up on the offer. But offer to work for free/min wage/reduced wage for a fixed amount of time, with a negotiation/re-negotiation of your salary at the end o the "probation period".
Nobody in their right mind would do that. But most peoples' minds aren't right. So you should do it. (Or something equally as impactful and different.) Stand out somehow. Make yourself different. Just be sure you never do it indirectly. Always do shit like that in-person. You want them to remember your face, not just your application number and your [LastName Last4]. Also you can pull psychology tricks a lot easier in-person if you're versed in the arts of not being a beta cuck.
halfback910 6y ago
If you are failing with an MBA and a BS in engineering something is very wrong.
Are you entry level? If so this is normal.
If not, you're honestly probably just applying for jobs wrong. And there's only two ways to do that:
Having a shitty resume or not applying to enough jobs.
Just look at the numbers. Kids with an MBA have like a 3% unemployment rate out of college. If they can do it so can you. Just have to figure out what you're doing fucking wrong.
How many jobs are you applying to? How many applications convert to phone interviews (this will tell me if your resume is the issue)? How many phone interviews/interviews convert to offers?
[deleted]
Didiathon 6y ago
Just stick with it; it will be painful and take a long time, but all of the large companies doing diversity hires will eventually fail or stop doing it (assuming we don't get trapped in a monopolistic hell hole without alternatives, but even then, everything will fail/there will be a reset at some point, even if that reset point is literal societal collapse). Competent people are always in demand. Lots of morons can't identify competence well, but the ones who can are the ones who survive long term. All of the status monkeys constantly playing political games without actually getting shit done have a shelf life, and when you can repeatedly get shit done, their whole lifecycle starts to revolve around you. They tend to view people who can do things as a resource, so watch out they don't fuck you over, but I'm telling you, if you have half a brain and can actually get results (if you're an engineer, for example, if you can actually build shit that doesn't break in an affordable way), you basically have all the cards. The incompetence and stupidity of large organizations can be a blessing in disguise, as it creates an opening for up and comers to hire people like you (or for you to start your own thing) and take their lunch.
I'm not naive enough to think what I'm saying is easy, or that there aren't massive regulatory roadblocks in basically every industry now designed to keep new blood out. The pessimist in me thinks we're moving into a new Dark Age controlled by some sort of retarded progressive corporate papacy. But a healthy dose of "fuck you" attitude paired with the ability to make real value for other people goes a very long way. And the optimist in me thinks people are starting to realize that the purported scientific basis of this new form of religious bullshit is bullshit and will start rejecting it more and more.
[deleted]
Imperator_Red 6y ago
It’s absurd. Women are a joke.
[deleted]
excelwithexcel 6y ago
If you didn't get an MBA at a top 15 school, the problem isn't you not being a woman, the problem is you. I get recruiters hitting me up all the time on linkedin.
Those equality hires are generally for entry level stuff, most women who I've seen higher up are sharp and ruthless.
Rathadin 6y ago
That's this guy's real problem. A friend of mine got his MBA from Cornell and is how now a VP at a Fortune 200 company. We're both 39. Whether it should or shouldn't, it does make a huge difference where you went to school.
claykiller2010 6y ago
Even if I don't have MBA from a top school, that doesn't change the fact that I'm more capable than the females getting hired.
However, I do admit it was my fault for falling into the trap that's know as higher education. I should've just gone into IT or a Trade.
excelwithexcel 6y ago
Just looked thru your post history. I work in finance & run the FLDP program at a F100. Your story is all over the place, and if you took a finance role you'd be moving backwards. (Only a year or two it seems tho)
Early career MBA hires for just finance(w/o exp) are a hard thing, and selling your rebranding story is gonna be hard.
Look for any entry level FP&a job as those gigs tend to be the more fun / access to advancement as the corporate finance side.
Just gotta sell them on the fact that you fell in love with the biz side of it and went back to get an MBA to replace not studying finance in UG.
These "equality" hires are probably right out of school and have been sold on business for years as a job. You having an MBA actually puts you at a disadvantage right now.
Truedemocracy5 6y ago
Hope that FLDP program isn’t GE lmao
excelwithexcel 6y ago
Oof (rip my GE stock). Nope! However, their version of it (FMP) is over 100 years old, and the audit program it feeds into is pretty sweet. If you can get into it, I'd still go for it.
I'm at another F100
claykiller2010 6y ago
Cool dude, you went through my post history. Doesn't change the fact from my first post that men are getting the short end of the stick and now we get told to our faces that we suck (once again) because we aren't making enough money.
excelwithexcel 6y ago
Yeah, the problem is definitely you. If you're easily displaced by a "diversity only hire" in this market, you're just bad.
I run a program that you would be lucky to even get into, and instead of going with it and trying to learn, you just reverted back to how "womenz get all the good jobs" "life isn't fair"
Women aren't the problem, women are great. It's how men have failed each other and ultimately have failed women too.
Besides the article just talked about having a decent job, it didn't say having a ton of money was required, just don't be a fuckin loser
BunnyGunz 6y ago
Diversity hire != diversity retention. AFAIK they don't have to keep them forever or even after a certain point. Depending on how those numbers are polled, they either have to hire them (and can immediately fire them tbqh) or they have to have a certain % on staff at any given time... and this could be department or organization wide (again, depends on policy).
Diversity only hires, who don't actually have the chops? Sell yourself on the ability to train people up and bring improvements to less-than-stellar employees. Bring up stories about how you helped a lazy spoon-fed trust fund kid become a top performer/earner. Lie through your teeth if you have to... Just read some books if you tout a skill you don't have... you might be tested, or they'll take you on and expect you to perform. At the end of the day, getting a job is about MIMS. If they have to hire diversity employees, and the general consensus is that they're probably not up to par... solve the problem. Be the one who can bring them up to par, sell them on that and sell them on not having to burn through as many employees because you can take the shitty ones and make them at least somewhat adequate if not great. Saving thousands/millions in HR costs. Then when you leave, slap that shit on your resume "helped reduced overhead/HR expenditures by %" even if you're not a numbers/sales/finance/hr guy. Shows you have a mind for the greater business as a whole.
[deleted] 6y ago
[deleted]
excelwithexcel 6y ago
I spent some time there, I'm elsewhere currently (don't wanna get too detailed tbh)
I didn't like NYC. I'm more of an outdoor kinda guy.
I can relate, spent my earlier years all fucked on drugs, didn't get clean until I got my shit together and took personal responsibility.
Super important for my development for sure. Glad you had a (smiliar) outcome
claykiller2010 6y ago
Get the fuck out of here with your white knight BS.
Vikingcel 6y ago
That's not white knighting at all
claykiller2010 6y ago
You're right, bad choice of words. But I don't need a paragraph telling me how I'm the problem.
MisterSlippyFinger 6y ago
I don’t think it’s that. People are genuinely making less money in general these days. Unless you’re in certain industries, a lot of the jobs just don’t pay the bread. If a guy makes good money, it shouldn’t really matter how much she makes.
buttgoogler 6y ago
Some straight up disgusting shit.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
FrontlineVanguard 6y ago
Okay this is just hilarious now
nfaccount4321 6y ago
ITT: Economically-Unattractive and physically-unattractive men. I can taste the salt from here.
idontmiind 6y ago
Hypergamy is covered by a paper-thin veil now. Look at this bullshit hahaha
[deleted]
javascript_dev 6y ago
Alternative explanation: Handing over your sex life to one woman's discretion is incredibly stupid
anonymous_troll 6y ago
Every fucking bullshit thing is men's fault to these people.
pebblefromwell 6y ago
They have legally destroyed marriage.
fuckGuilt 6y ago
Surprised it took this long for this to be posted.
It's good to be king.
[deleted] 6y ago
Saw the same article posted in a mainstream newspaper elsewhere; seems to be making the rounds world-wide.
The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago
Which is basically admitting that all women are 'gold diggers'
*There's a reason it's in single quotes
BeneathTheSassafras 6y ago
Yeah, gold diggers actually have a veneer of competence and competition to them that I can respect and admire, albeit from a distance
sehns 6y ago
Gold diggers are RP in that sense, they know the marketplace, aren't lying to themselves about what they really want and know they need to be as hyper feminine and attractive as possible to win. No bra burning feminists anywhere to be seen.
lala_xyyz 6y ago
prostitutes are the most honest women
gold diggers are just a few notches below
lastdumra 6y ago
There is a difference between a gold digger and a woman's desire to be provided.
This will not go down well with men in the anger phase but it is true. All women want to be provided, all women see men as a resource opportunity, that is part of their biology. But a gold digger only sees that and cares about nothing else.
[deleted]
[deleted] 6y ago
Let's face it, men are happy to be providers. They can take care of their own and then some.
What men want is love, softness, and care; attributes a woman can provide.
Uesugi1989 6y ago
Fuck no. I want independence in every aspect of my life, obligation to provide is not on my book. I have been in long term relationships but I never provided for them, each of us were on his/her own on that matter
largepaycheckaddict 6y ago
Ask yourself also, why is this happening? In the past- most mediocre boomers who could muster up the grit to graduate highschool had the ability to provide for a family given they’re willing to work.
Today we have kids coming out of university with 4.0 gpas who are discriminated from some jobs because they’re “fucking white males”.
Who’s behind all this nonsense?
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Weak white males
largepaycheckaddict 6y ago
Weak white males are just the idiots who get steamrolled over. Who is doing the steamrolling?
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Err..... other white males.
Look, stuff isn't well thought out. It's just a load of people making individual stupid decisions.
Women want to be paid more, AND they want their husbands to be paid more than them. Two bites of the cherry. It doesn't make sense together as a society, but individually as two separate desires it makes sense.
Men are protective of women and are more fair minded, hence fall for the equality myth. Women are hypergamous and have never-ending demands.
Put this all together and you have women being paid more than men, and complaining that men don't get paid more than them.
Sultan_Swat 6y ago
I don't know, certainly not the Jews!!!
Imperator_Red 6y ago
Foreigners pretending to be Americans, women, and university/media communists that brainwashed two generations. The latter will HAVE to be punished one day.
Dls95405 6y ago
All true except the bit about 'communists'. You really got to let that go, it has nothing to do with current reality, it's just a holdover scare tactic from the Cold War. Russia isn't even communist anymore. China is, but we're in no danger of emulating China. If we were, you'd be protesting Walmart, our number one importer of communist made goods from China. You shop at Walmart? Your money goes directly to supporting the largest communist regime the world has ever seen. Funny how you never hear this on Fox News, right?
acp_rdit 6y ago
China isn't communist any more than scientology is a religion. They just just pretend to be because the rulers know that gives them advantages.
And it isn't actual communists who are causing the problem but a destabilization strategy for the purposes of weakening western society initiated by Soviet psyops at the start of the cold war. We are reaping the fruit of the poisoned seeds planted by KGB operatives in the 50s and 60s.
Yuri explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
But pointing to commies as the cause of the problem is a great shortcut to get normies looking in the right direction.
[deleted]
meaklax 6y ago
As everyone else has said, literally one of the core pillars of RP
LordFa9 6y ago
In my country, at least from what I see men are disadvantaged in the job market in almost every way. Its harder for them to get a job and to keep it
Then there is good ole hypergamy. A woman can be stuck at lower-middle income. No problem. Her man is expected to be middle to high-middle income at BARE MINIMUM.
So not only are there fewer men then women per exonomic bracket, the women expect men to be better off than them (even the top end beta bucks get ignored some times), and the bottom 80% of men are left to fight over the bottom 20% of women and that bottom 20% is really scraping the bottom of the barrel
[deleted] 6y ago
Australia?
Companies, from airlines to tech, are telling their male staff they are over-privileged and got their jobs by default. Meanwhile the few women that have any interest at all in those industries are being given first priority for every job. Every management position now is all women.
Women making a ton of money without any expertise or experience. Men finding themselves actively discriminated against by recruiters who see the wrong gender on the CV because companies want to virtue signal to investors and teenage consumers.
russian_nigger 6y ago
Australia has been cucked for quite some time now unfortunately
LordFa9 6y ago
Singapore
If i had guranteed lawsuit money (like in the US) for everytime I applied to a job (supply chain planning) and got told during the interview that "our department is 100% female. Hope you are ok with that" which is slang for "buddy, you got a penis, you aint getting the job" I'll just file discriminatory lawsuits for a living
I have interviewed for many many jobs and I can count on 1 hand how many times the hiring manager was male.
Maybe I'll identify as female. Ha that might actually work
[deleted]
lachiemx 6y ago
I'm from Australia and every single one of my friends has a story about being passed over or rejected because they were a male. Every one.
shaggyctes88 6y ago
Great, and I was foolishing myself into trying to get a working visa for the good old Upside down nation
lachiemx 6y ago
Your mileage may vary... don't let this stop you man
red_matrix 6y ago
For centuries, men have been providing for women. Now that women are succeeding at the expense of men, they are nowhere to be found. Looks like we've been duped, boys. Leave them to their cats and box wine.
dr_warlock 6y ago
-
FtFY
russian_nigger 6y ago
nothing new. it always was about financial stability. wtf is the author even bitching about.
Fiendorfoes 6y ago
Wow fuck them, they wanna blame anyone they can or any thing they can... sjw scum
NaturalMonopoly 6y ago
Marriage was never about love. It has always been about children: who pays for their upbringing, and who inherits whom.
That's why marriage is ubiquitous in human societies, with some variety an exceptions.
The "love" thing is just a honey scented trap.
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Marriage is about providing support, security and a retirement plan for women. The children are their bargaining chip: "provide for me and I will bear your children".
This is why you have splitting up the family home, woman gets payouts, woman gets alimony, etc.
If it was about children, then child support would have it covered.
NaturalMonopoly 6y ago
Traditionally, children were the retirement plan, for both parents. Also, women have always been capable of providing for themselves, unless prohibited by social norms. My great aunt had no problem handling the farm after her husband emigrated to the US and drank all the money.
Now when we come to the modern urbanized "nuclear family", where the woman was expected to stay at home and take care of the household, that's when everything changes.
That's where the idea of "love" as the reason for marriage becomes essential, as marriage is no longer a question of necessity. Due to invention of contraceptives you can have unlimited sex with no reproduction.
Which brings me back to my original point. Marriage was always about kids. If all you want is unlimited sex with no kids, don't get married. If you want emotional bonding, no reason to get married.
For children, marriage still remains the best option, as it provides the most stable and supportive environment for growth. Children need stability, focus, time and energy from their parents. That's why kids in single parent households generally have more problems.
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Right.
Except women traditionally leverage the male sex drive to secure marriage. Clearly marriage was a huge benefit to them, enough to be bothered with maintaining the illusion of virginity.
Not anymore. Marriage is now providing a financial benefit for the mother to leave, something many many women have taken advantage of over the last few decades.
And that's why I would never provide a financial incentive for a woman to leave me.
NaturalMonopoly 6y ago
Of course it is always a huge benefit. The benefit of raising children with a partner instead of doing it all by yourself. All life is geared towards procreation, and partnership increases your rate of success.
Statistically unmarried couples with common children are much more likely to separate than married couples (with common children).
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Ahh..... but this is conflating cause with effect. For example these people who are unmarried may know they are unsuitable for each other, in which case they won't marry. This says nothing about the causative impact of marriage itself.
The statistic you want is "if I marry this woman who wants to marry me is she more or less likely to leave me", which is of course unavailable and unknown.
NaturalMonopoly 6y ago
I didn't say anything about the reasons for this effect. All I said is marriage provides more stability for children. As for whatever the reason, married couples are more likely to stay together.
If you know you are unsuitable for each other, why the hell would you make kids?
MattyAnon Admin 6y ago
Marriage is the result of couples who want to stay together. Couples who want to stay together are better for children. Marriage is hardly necessary nor (I would argue) causative for stability.
ProductivityMonster 6y ago
I agree that marriage is mainly to raise kids. But what about DINK (duel income no kids)? Often ends in dead bedrooms and divorce I imagine (since it's a lot easier to divorce without kids). Husband and wife barely interact after a while since they have no kid to come together to support.
[deleted] 6y ago
WAS.
Now "marriage" has been hijacked by LGBT activists who want you to believe marriage has nothing to do with children; it's about "love" - of course you have to believe gay people cannot love outside of marriage to swallow that bullshit.
WAS.
Watch Western society decline at the most exponentially advanced rate ever now we have "gay marriage" which is a complete abomination.
beachbbqlover 6y ago
I got mine, and figure the apocalypse is coming, so good luck boys.
jihocech 6y ago
The burden of performance again.
NormalAndy 6y ago
Can’t blame it on women having unrealistic expectations.
Hypergamy is real.
Imperator_Red 6y ago
That’s why you subjugate them and take their choices away. It’s for everyone’s benefit.
pootaboo 6y ago
I’m late to this party, but this is an interesting claim that my viewpoint flip flopped when introduced to the pill.
I started reading the Bible at a young age, cover to cover, and found women “put in their place” in extreme ways. In my BP conditioning I thought this was extreme and fucked up. When said here I thought it was misogynist, but kept at the side bar.
Now, I’m more aware of how this benefited both parties. It something that in our lifetime will not change and fighting that process would be social suicide for as long as I can see it. Best bet is build yourself, ride the decline, and watch the chaos.
THOT_Analytica 6y ago
This was predicted in 2015: https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/04/when-good-men-retire-from-game.html
I was on the south side of the metro. Was no reason to try to battle my way back home during the depths of rush hour, so I drove around, stopping in on different southern-metro friends, even got myself a cigar at one of my favorite cigar lounges.
The GF wasn't getting back till later as she was working for a side client that evening, so I decided to stop by and visit my buddy Craig. It wasn't much past 8 PM, but you would have thought it was 3 AM when he answered the door. He was in his plaid pajamas, wearing his old man slippers, and a fleece sweatshirt, I think he even had a cup of tea in his hand.
Regardless, he was awake and not about to go to bed so we stayed up and chatted a bit. Talked about his various business ventures, any new ideas he had or was pursuing, and what his financial game plan was for the next 10 years. We spent nearly an hour discussing nearly every other social, political, career, and entrepreneurial aspect of his life, until I almost forgot that he recently became a bachelor and I never inquired about his dating life.
"So, any word from the girly girl front?"
And all he said was, "No, I have absolutely no energy for that. I just want to pay the mortgage and go hunting."
And that was it. That was the summation of his past year of dating life. "No, I don't have the energy."
It wasn't an editorial comment. It wasn't one of "I tried, but dem womenz be crazies." It had no passion or emotion in it. It was merely a statement of fact:
"No, I don't have the energy for it."
And though I had intuitively known this for a while, it was once again one of those things that had yet to make its way to the frontal lobes, turning itself into a concrete observation.
Men do burn out.
I had speculated about this before. A theory about whether men have "unlimited energy" when it comes to the pursuit of women, or if there's a finite amount of energy and men will inevitably stop their pursuit. And though speculate I did a few short years ago, in that time I've gained the experience, observation, and wisdom to realize the later is true. Men only have a limited amount of energy. And my friend Craig was proof of it.
Of course, while the fact men do burn out had consequences for my friend Craig, they also have consequences for women in his market. For while Craig was sitting at home in his PJ's, sipping away at tea, preparing for a speech he had to give the next day at 8PM, it also, by necessary default, meant he wasn't at the bar or the club or online trying to pine for the affections of women. He wasn't asking women out. There was one less man on the market. And one of those proverbial "good men" women are always looking for.
This made for an interesting juxtaposition, for while Craig was sitting there, comfy in his plaid PJ's and old man slippers, he conveyed to me the story of when he last went out socially. He met up with some old high school buddies of his, mostly of the female persuasion. They were all in their mid 40's, but while he was focused on work, his career, and various professional associations he joined, the women were all divorced, all had their children at the baby sitters and were living it up like they were 24 again. Boozing, drinking "woooing." He said, "I just don't get it. I did that shit when I was 24. It's the last thing I'd want to do now! And here they are thinking it's fun or something." He didn't leave in disgust, but because of boredom and having "been there done that."
However, the utter lack of anything genuine or intellectually stimulating ultimately led him to the observation and an explanation why he stayed in and had no incentive to even try to go out to date:
The amount of investment required to be successful in dating was not worth what he'd get in return. And that is why this "Good Man" (TM) was at home with his tea, instead of out there looking in the dating market. It is also why many 40+ women "can't find a good man."
In the eternal quest for women to "find a good man" and then immediately complaint of "why can't I find a good man" the answer, as always, can be found in economics.
Today, millions of 40 something men like Craig have to face a decision. Do they spend the time, money, and resources pursuing women or do they invest those resources in something else. And while at the age of 18 with hormones raging and economic opportunity costs near $0, the decision was a simple one - chase girls, at the age of 43 things are different.
At 43 men have garnered more and more economic success and more and more economic opportunities. They have also likely develop hobbies, skills, and intellectual endeavors that also provide a positive rate of return on their lives. And let's not forget they're no longer 19 year old horn-balls raging around the prairie.
So when they look at what it precisely takes to get a woman on a date, let alone in bed, the costs are daunting:
10 hours a week hitting the clubs/dating sites/"hunting" in general 4,000 calories of energy being witty/funny/engaging to convince a girl to go out on a date 1/4 dates will flake, bail, cancel at the last minute What dates you do have only stand a 30% chance of leading to a second The second dates of which only have a 30% chance of leading to a third And then the "lovely" last-minute-resistance of having sex
All in all you're looking at 2 weeks of labor, time, and money to "maybe" get laid, and that says nothing about whether the girl would qualify as long-term quality girlfriend material.
And while at the age of 18 when you literally had NOTHING else going on in life, no real man of any significance is going to have that much time to piss away on an investment with such a low expected rate of return in his 40's.
In other words, ladies, the men are just plain burnt out. They're spent. When presented with the required investment to "maybe" be successful pursuing a girl, most men post 35 will scoff at it and do something else, hoping something lands in their lap. And while you may not like that, or may find it "insulting," none of that changes the fact it's true. The "good men" you are looking for are at home or at the office, and just plain don't have the energy any more to pursue you.
This means, as all major economic upheavals in markets do, that its participants change their actions. "Wooing" it up at the bar, getting hammered at 43 while your dad subsidizes your child and mortgage is not a product that's going to get an industrious middle aged man to pursue you. Going to the same old bar and club where the same old guys and men from 1994 using the same old "can I buy you a drink" tactic is going to result in the same results you had the past 20 years. And wearing the same old clothes, whoring it up, will result in that one night fling you'll fakely claim you regret, but certainly not the "good man" you're looking for.
Ultimately, you're going to realize that you get to live up to the feminist dream of being truly equal to men now. You get to hunt, you get to strategize, you get to trial and error your way into finding a "good man." And while you'll rapidly point out that men are thirsty at the bar for you, and your POF profile is full of e-mails (and that is all certainly true), we all know those aren't the "Good Men" you're looking for because you would have snagged one of them by now and would CERTAINLY not be complaining about the "lack of good men" today.
So sorry girls. Once more unto the breach....well, for you it will be the very first time.
GratificationDelayed 6y ago
Simply, too many people of both genders are underpaid tbh. But since girls are broke too, now they are really only looking for guys with $$ but jokes on them
kjlh9 6y ago
Okay wait this actually makes a lot of sense, lets break it down. Group A, married men. These are mostly guys that have good incomes and are prime beta bux. They get married to the hottest leech that spreads her legs for him. Then once ue gets tied down and signs away his balls she can dead bedroom him or slip back to duty sex with a few fling on the side. Group B, married men that have their shit together. They probably have hotter wives and decent jobs as well but same thing unless they really have their unicorn whipped. Heck they might be fucking girls on the side and life is good. Group C. Unmarried men with poor incomes. These are probably younger guys that are still in education or wasting their lives away. Obviously theyre no good for beta bux so lets assume theyre toiling away at world of warcraft or whatever the hip thing is nowadays. Group D. Unmarried men that know basic rp. They wouldnt let a woman tie them down unless it was an extreme case. Theyre the guys pumping and dumping girls while also running through the restless wives. But what it boils down to is the poor guys with no game obviously cant get married cuz they offer nothing. The rich guys can be tied down pretty easily with poor game or bp understanding. The rp guys arent gonna be married unless they got married before rp or they want to settle down with a particular girl and take their chances. The rest are pumping and dumping regardless of their financial situation. And then you have some form of mgtow finishing it all off. Just my brief thoughts though
PandaLitter 6y ago
The fuck?
This was a fucking mess to read
What's the difference between group a and b
kjlh9 6y ago
Yeah I kind of quickly wrote it as I was on my break lol. Meant redpilled guys or guys that were a bit more aware of male/female dynamics. Think the natural "alpha" or those lads on married redpill. Pretty much theres the atm husbands and the ones that are used for more than their wallets
Vypered 6y ago
Nah, the men themselves are to blame for being unattractive. No one or no thing else.
red_matrix 6y ago
Alpha fucks, Beta bucks. It’s that simple
xKalista 6y ago
Feminism destroyed high value men.
MilkMoney111 6y ago
Consequently the few remaining high value men are all the more attractive. Even better time to focus on yourself now
klavijaturista 6y ago
You can build bodily strength, but it's almost impossible to change your character. If you're by nature a more sensitive person, you can't change it. And you really don't want to, demolish yourself for what, a pussy, no. You could have a mental disorder. You could have a bodily defect.
More generally, people are born a certain way and place, so partly it's just luck.
imtheoneimmortal 6y ago
Some people don’t change for a pussy
They wants to change to become rock, strong and independent Sometimes pussy changes these guys that came here at rp
klavijaturista 6y ago
You can not become rock solid if you're born sensitive. You can build bodily strength and derive some confidence from that. But, still everything is going to get to you emotionally. And if you already are rock solid but lack looks and strength then it still doesn't matter.
andyman30 6y ago
Dude lifting is more of a mental training regimen than it is a physical one. You can improve everything about yourself, minus getting a new face. And how tall you are.
Pragmaticpandas 6y ago
so people cant develop emotionally, only physically? False.
Why do you think stoicism, meditation, even lifting weights are core to rp philosophy? They harden your mind and make you more resilient to emotional ups and downs. You can turn a pussy boy to a hard motherfucker- it’s nurture, not nature
klavijaturista 6y ago
Growing emotionally and character are different things. You learn in time to manage your emotions and express them in a socially acceptable way. But this is not simply your whole character. People are born with different characters, some are more agreeable, some less, some more neurotic, some less, some more sensitive etc. This is not something you can change at will, even with a lot of work. And it would be violence against yourself. The point is to get reasonably well adjusted to society, not destroy yourself, chasing women's approval (RP is still about getting women).
Getting strong gives confidence, yes, but doesn't change character. Actually, power only reveals it.
Regarding being a bad ass, you can be a bad ass your whole life, but as soon as you meet someone stronger that you, then you're not a bad ass anymore. Being strong or weak is relative. Life is about balance and meaning, it's not about being a spartan.
truest22 6y ago
You cant make this shit up
SaberSpyder 6y ago
I though girls should love me because of my personality not money.
strayaura 6y ago
More like men don't want to take the associated, monetary risks with modern women. Most modern women aren't worth marrying.
trp_nofap_rewire2018 6y ago
In the year of 2019 it's more evident than ever (to me) that either you're a top tier man or you belong to the scumbag category. There's no middle ground. Considering I'm not tall, fit, or high-status life is harder for me, at least I have time by my side (I'm 24yo). We younger folks should unite in real life instead of choosing to be lone wolves. At least for me belonging to a strong tribe of decent men is something important that I'm lacking.
AscensionExperiments 6y ago
I remember the first time I was placed in the Alpha category instead of beta.
Short story; during high school I was chubby, with acne, but I had good character, worked hard, had a little money, and I was popular amongst men for having a good sense of humor. But, all the women categorized me as beta. I was a friend at the very most, never got any action then. Go figure- I'm not bitter, I didn't want much of anything to do with them either at that stage.
Fast forward a couple of years working labor jobs while getting a degree- I'm thinner, on the verge of being jacked, no more acne, done a little travel, etc. Went and visited my old town. Met a girl, followed the red pill principals for the first time- and badabing, badaboom, this woman put me in the Alpha category. She worshipped the ground I walked on. She was submissive, treated me like a king, cooked for me, all the jazz that women love to do for alphas and would NEVER do for betas. I saw the other side of women's coins- and honestly it was pretty disgusting. She probably had some genuinely loyal beta orbiter who would've killed to be in my shoes, but I just went ahead and treated her like shit to see how far it could go- the answer is, as far as I wanted it to, because she saw me as an alpha. I nexted her shortly after
population_you 6y ago
Be patient and don't succumb to extreme black-and-white thinking. Things got better for me in my late 20s, and the Red Pill wasn't even a thing back then. I didn't know what I was doing. You get older, wiser, and better at the same time as the pool of eligible women increases. Work on yourself. You say you're not fit? That's on you, so fix it. There is no better time to take care of things like that than right now.
Protocol_Apollo 6y ago
The bottom 80% of men aren’t scumbags. Wrong idea.
“Should unite in real life”. Good in theory, won’t work in practice.
That would be like telling everyone we are Nazis with swastikas tattooed on our foreheads. We would be shunned/ attacked by 80-90% of the population.
And anyway, there’s greater power in working from the shadows, from anonymity.
“Belong to a strong tribe of decent men”. You do, it’s just an online tribe. You can learn a trillion more things from this online tribe than you ever could by anyone forming a tribe in real life- that’s just the power of the internet.
SalporinRP 6y ago
Due to dating apps/hookup culture, young recently graduated from college men are at the bottom of the totem pole.
I do well enough for myself as a recent grad but because I live in an insanely expensive area I have to split a modest 2-bedroom apartment.
I can pull well enough because I'm decent looking and fit but it's just fighting an uphill battle when you're competing with 28+ year old guys with well-established careers that live in 3k/month high rise apartments.
CaptainBW 6y ago
On some “Workers of the world, unite!” shit. Fuck that. Eliminate your sense of “belonging to a strong tribe of men,” it’s only as important as you perceive it. Having a group won’t fix your issues. What you’re personally lacking is Frame.
jackandjill22 6y ago
Interesting. This is probably very true.
ImHereAtLast 6y ago
Join a mixed martial arts gym. Tons of roughneck men in a place like that.
red_matrix 6y ago
Women are repulsed by low value, beta men.
trp_nofap_rewire2018 6y ago
Learned that the hard way. I was invisible a few years ago. It sucks but it's an eye opening experience.
[deleted] 6y ago
The good news is when you turn 29/30 you will magically become high value to 25yo women. Unless you fuck something up.
So at this stage keep building your career. It'll pay off.
Appex1 6y ago
You become high value at that age because 25 is the age where women start looking for a beta-provider, so if you have a good income, you will be desired as being a beta-bux for those women who are slowly approaching the wall.
[deleted]
[deleted]
SalporinRP 6y ago
It was just inevitable as women became more career driven.
Women naturally will want a man who makes more than them. But they've flooded the labor force so naturally have greatly reduced the amount of men who make more.
When women went to college not to get a job but to find a husband the amount of men who made more than them was every single man in the workforce.
huggyblossom 6y ago
" Of course women can definitely accuse men of being shallow as well. It is often said that men are overly concerned with youth and looks, and one very revealing scientific study appears to support that hypothesis. The study found that on average 20-year-old women were most attracted to 23-year-old men and 50-year-old women were most attracted to 46-year-old men. But with men the results were dramatically different. On average, 20-year-old men were most attracted to 20-year-old women and 50-year-old men were most attracted to 22-year-old women. "
- from the same article
​
Anyone that finds RP fictional and the current feminism bullshit normal here you go :) Women hate aging up and man do not like aged women overall.
spitfire7rp 6y ago
TBH I think it has to a lot more to do with personality than most people think. 20 year old women are fun, they are that worried about commitment and they arent jaded from being pumped and dumped for 30 years if they stayed single and if they where married they are usually bitter about that as well. They are much more demanding and offer less in return, its simple economics
itwasntme19 6y ago
This is the biggest joke of the year. They are trying to cover the fact that women, because of feminism and broken homes are more promiscuous now. They are going through life dick-sampling like a fat man sampling food at Costco. Nice try though. Anyone believing this is absolutely oblivious.
Dls95405 6y ago
"Researchers Blame Marriage Rate Decline On A Lack Of Economically-Attractive Men"
Then I suggest women get a good job if they want a retirement plan, their age-old gravy train is drying up.
andreas-mgtow 6y ago
Earned in the top 2% last year (fourth year in a row), not writing a check on a used up vag or risking my shit for poonani when I can get sex any time I want with no drama.
Double down on blaming men, it's working.
klavijaturista 6y ago
I'm curious how it works in the rich world, do they throw themselves on you, or what happens, how do you get sex that easily?
[deleted]
[deleted]
imtheoneimmortal 6y ago
He throws money on dick and girls follows him
klavijaturista 6y ago
I'm also a top few percent earner (in my country), but women certainly don't throw themselves at me. Even if they did, I wouldn't want such a woman. But I'm curious. I want to know the secret, I want to be attractive :)
ManicMuffin2 6y ago
Money can buy you good looks, as far as a personal trainer, haircut and a suit will take it.
The rich can also essentially make time. No reason to get up early after a night out if you can just pay someone to do chores/pick up your shit.
marplaneit 6y ago
Uhmm girls throw themselves at me on Instagram and when I hit the bar. I was regular Looking through out my life, 3 years a go I went all in on my body, and now I look like those fitness model from IG.
I also just graduated medical school.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
SheriffBart42 6y ago
It begs the question...
Why would you bust your hump to make tons of cash for a fat Americunt who can divorce you and destroy all your hard work?
Theguygotgame777 6y ago
This is only semi-related, but what would you guys think of this political platform:
1.) Overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion
2.) Abolish no-fault divorce, and make federal laws requiring that divorces have at least one party at fault
3.) Abolish all state benefits to marriage and replace them with civil unions
4.) Cut back on welfare, food stamps, and social support systems however much is necessary to fund step 5
5.) Give every couple in a civil union that has had or adopted 4 or more children a monthly stipend. They lose this income if they divorce, but not if one parent dies. In addition, children from past relationships cannot fill this quota.
This is how I believe we can save marriages and families, not by restricting women's rights (except abortion which doesn't really count), but by incentivizing women to go back to their traditional roles.
SouloftheVoid 6y ago
#1 would be a fucking disaster with gangs of starving children on the streets, massively increased crime, and women dying from back-alley abortions. If there was an exception for rape, then every thot who wants an abortion is going to make a false rape accusation. Tradcon bullshit is bullshit.
#2 is good in theory but I can just see the cucked blue pill judges always finding the man at fault no matter what.
#3 is fine but you are already contradicting yourself with #5
#4 and #5 are related and will just lead to more crime and more unnecessary people.
Theguygotgame777 6y ago
Not if we began subsidizing people to form better families to adopt them. Adopted children count towards the quota.
There will be no exception.
Then we'll ban asset division, alimony, and child-support.
No, because now we're subsidizing people having children, not tying themselves down to pointless contracts.
Single motherhood is one of the biggest causes of crime in America. If we take away all the incentives for women to be thots, and start incentivizing the opposite, we will reduce the crime rate.
SeasonedRP 2 6y ago
If 2 were the law, judges would simply find men were "emotionally abusive" or something and place fault on them and impose more severe financial and custodial penalties than under current law. It wouldn't help given current conditions. You can't unring a bell.
Theguygotgame777 6y ago
At the very least, men might be more careful about who they marry once divorce becomes harder.
What if we dropped the requirement that one party must be at fault?
ballinbro69 6y ago
“Could it be possible that all of the romantic ideals that we fill our heads with as young people are not actually based in reality?”
“I don’t know about you, but I prefer to believe in love and romance.”
Can’t argue with that logic
Imperator_Red 6y ago
Reality is whatever they feel at a given moment. That’s how they can make two completely contradictory statements in one article.
AlleyFrog96 6y ago
Reality is often disappointing
AutoModerator 6y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.