As the community of WhereAreAllTheGoodMen grows over time, we often get members fairly new to the forum who post content that seems to fit our theme, but really doesn't. Some are posting women simply because they're fat or unattractive. Others are posting women just wanting to hookup or cheat. And some are even posting men having relationship issues. While all these relate to our theme in a way, it's not what we're about. What I'm about to say is going to be redundant, but this is so that our contributors and the community can have a greater understanding as to why we only allow specific content within a focused theme, rather than posts of women who are merely unattractive or behaving badly. The reading essentials or tl;dr is the "short version" that follows.


The theme of WhereAreAllTheGoodMen (short version)

Our central theme is exposing women who seek Good Men for commitment and financial stability after dating jerks, riding the cock carousel, and who likely have children they want provided for.

This is called a dual-mating strategy, aka Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks. This strategy of dating jerks and riding the carousel before settling down with a good man is not only planned by women,^[1][2][3] but it's encouraged by feminists.

The decent, chivalrous men often rejected for not being "tall enough", "thug enough", or "just friends" usually end up being the same men that women seek commitment from because the bad boys she chose were too selfish, abusive, and irresponsible to care about her needs when she wants to settle down and needs stability. Unfortunately by the time she finally seeks the good guys for commitment, her value is tremendously lowered due to some combination of depreciating looks, a promiscuous past, alpha widowhood, and kids needing provision. And our purpose is to help decent men guard their commitment and resources to avoid ending up in dead bedrooms while providing financial stability to women who picked them last.

Posting women who are merely fat, unattractive, or behaving badly devalues the forum because it diverts attention away from women complaining about being single, their poor dating choices, and their sense of entitlement to Good Men's commitment and resources, all of which we are here to expose. We would also lose our uniqueness as a community because women behaving badly can be found in abundance on subs like r-MGTOW, r-MensRights, and r-PussyPass. We have a far greater impact on both men and skeptics by showing actual women complaining about being single, rather than women whoring themselves without consequences. The bold, bulleted items listed below shows the impact we have when posts fit the central theme.

So we're not here to show women we think will be asking WAATGM in the future. We're here to show women asking WAATGM now. Examples of content that fits our theme can be found here.


The purpose of WhereAreAllTheGoodMen (long version)

There are several reasons why this forum was founded and why it's important that we post content that fits the theme:


· To show Good Men the outcome of the women who rejected them for jerks and promiscuity.

We have a community of men who have been rejected by women because they weren't tall enough or hot enough or "thug enough". Our sidebar speaks volumes to their experience as they saw first hand the kinds of jerks women were dating and sleeping with. And we want to show them that the women who rejected them didn't exactly go on to live their happily ever after; that the jerks she chose eventually pumped and dumped her, or they knocked her up and abandoned her, or that her looks continue to decline into spinsterhood as she holds out for a Mr. Perfect who still hasn't shown up.

Posting content that fits the theme ultimately helps men blow off steam over rejection and maybe even get a few laughs along the way.


· To expose the dual-mating nature of women so that Good Men can guard their commitment and raise their standards in the women they wish to date.

Our mods and Endorsed members are of one mind that we want to use the forum to teach men about the nature of women. We have experience dating and observing the kinds of women posted on our sub. We can read between the lines of what they say, and we understand their nature enough to make better decisions about how we choose to associate with them. And we're helping decent men recognize the patterns so they don't make the same mistakes we made.

And the main pattern we're here to expose is women's dual-mating strategy of Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks - which is women's propensity to seek the most handsome and jerkish men for sex, while expecting resources and financial stability from responsible men. This strategy of dating jerks and riding the carousel before settling down with a Good Man is not only planned by women,^[1][2][3] but it's encouraged by feminists, which only results in carousel riders bringing their self-serving, unappreciative, unstable behavior into long-term relationships.

Perhaps the white knights are more forgiving of women who now want a "real man" after they consistently rejected decent men in their prime, but some of us would like to be something other than a wallet to the women we date.


· To help Good Men recognize women who would make poor companions, life partners, and mothers of their children.

To summarize u/where_muh_good_mens original post: "The reason why women's profiles, articles, or discussions make it here, is because their behavior is not exposed as the lucid, self destructive, feminist ideology that it is.

"Putting up public posts of women's behavior as showing evidence of poor behavior leading to the cause of their unhappiness is the morally sound thing to do. When poor behavior is hidden, it becomes normalized, and from there, susceptible to being masked as even good natured or positive.

"We want to make sure Good Men are able to recognize a woman that would make a poor companion, life partner, and mother of their children, and they cannot do that if they are only being taught that it is acceptable to act that way or they would be ashamed for having spoken out against it.

"Providing observations and opinions on the posts here allows us to better understand womens' psyche and later depressive/miserable state when they are not held to a standard of moral standard required for healthy, functioning relationships. This is also the reason why we do not post women leading other women to asking The Big Question because it does not provide crucial evidence of their failures in that mating strategy and reduces the effect that those observations would have had otherwise.

"But, first and foremost, this is a humor sub. Light-hearted comments that would be socially unacceptable to say in most public places are welcome here. This is our place to heal from previous wounds, learn from past mistakes, and discover the root of women's dating failures in an entertaining way. After all, laughter is the best medicine and useful tool to maintaining strong mental health.

"So let us enjoy each others company, enjoy the fact that most of these women are not going to end up in the fairy tale, disneyesque life they think they are entitled to, and to also contemplate the evidence we present here as the root of the issues having plagued modern relationships and growing 'cat-lady' social media groups."


· To expose women's total unreasonableness in dating, sex, and marital expectations.

To quote u/LewisCross's original post: "Here at WAATGM, we do laugh at women's unreasonableness. We do have a chortle and chuckle now and then because of the silly profiles we see.

"We want women to be explicit about their preferences. We welcome women's saying exactly what they're sexually attracted to. By all means, we want women to be transparent and clear about what they want from men, and in men, and the kinds of men they are sexually attracted to. We think men can learn a great deal by seeing what women really are sexually attracted to. We also are not at all unrealistic in thinking that women are ever going to actually be clear in SAYING what they want. It's better to watch women and see what they want.

"That being said, the point is that women's transparency and clarity gives rise to their total unreasonableness in dating, mating, sex, and marital expectations. There's a wide, wide chasm between what most women want, and what they can actually get. Just look at some of the profiles we poke fun at.^[1][2][3] The unreasonableness is completely off the charts, bordering on complete insanity. Most of these women will be lucky to get some low delta or gamma to wife them up, if they can get any man to wife them up at all.

"And by rights those women should be on their knees thanking God every day that anyone was willing to have anything at all do with them, much less pledge their lives and their fortunes to. And then they should stay on their knees and fellate their men as thanks for those men being with them. Women have no idea the sacrifices men make to be with them and support them, and it's time men started expecting women to acknowledge it.

"This is why we call them shallow, superficial bitches for it. This is why we laugh at them for their shallow, superficial bitchiness. This is why we laugh at them for being so unreasonable."


· To show visitors - and any opposition - that these women exist and that we're not making stuff up.

WAATGM is making an impact on Reddit and generating both intrigue and disgust from other communities. We occasionally get spikes in visitors and membership when our content gets crossposted in other subs, but our forum is also getting mentioned all over Reddit, which creates greater awareness of our presence on the site as Redditors click through to see what we're about. So it's not just our men who are viewing the content, but visitors and our opposition. And we want to show them that the Nice Guys who are often criticized were right: that women often reject or friendzone decent men for jerks, that women reward jerk behavior with sex, and that women often don't care about the respect, courtesy and stability that decent men provide until they're past their prime and need a bailout.^[1][2][3] But while there are some who are interested in seeing a perspective opposite r/niceguys, most visitors are partial to women, and so they will look for ways to marginalize or discredit us. But they can't do that if we post theme-fitting content in women's own words. They can walk away and call us all sorts of names, but they can't call us wrong.


· To maintain a unique, focused theme that can't be found anywhere else on the internet.

No where else on the internet is there such a high concentration of content focused on women complaining about wanting a "Good Man" after dating jerks, riding the carousel, and needing their children provided for, than on WAATGM. And we want our contributors to understand that our forum is gaining attention and keeping members interested because we have a focused theme that is unique from other subs. We're not here to expose every conceivable problem with women, or to point out women we think will be asking The Big Question in the future. If we allow posts that don't reflect the theme (or even come close to it), then our forum would lose its originality and focus; it would be flooded with posts of women saying and doing bad things at the discretion of the person who posts. Such content can be found on other subs.

That said, while not our focus, I do see the importance in pointing out certain bad behaviors in women that would eventually lead them to asking The Big Question, and showing others why men are avoiding commitment and going their own way. I would also like to keep the community informed of current events related to our theme that is making headlines elsewhere on Reddit and the internet. Therefore as mods we will occasionally explore such cases with the community. Basically, only mods may post content just outside the sub's theme. But posting such content by mods will only be an occasional thing as we want to stay true to the theme most of the time.


· To show women the consequences of rejecting Good Men for jerks and promiscuity.

The feminine imperative wants men and society to be okay with women's dual-mating nature. It wants men to be okay with women having a little fun before settling down. The problem with this is women largely reject the bottom 80% of men from even a date, let alone "fun", and they continue to reject these men when they're hitting the Wall and chasing the top 20% for commitment. Women then go on to think that their sexual history and poor choices in partners should have no consequences on their future behavior or relationships;^[1][2] that they can ride the carousel throughout their prime, then somehow easily play the role of faithful, loving wife, and shouldn't be judged for her slutty behavior because "The past is the past, plus we weren't together at the time I enjoyed getting gangbanged by the college frat."

But it's not until those women's looks begin depreciating, the desirable men won't commit, and they have kids to provide for do they tend to settle for Mr. Good Enough - men who don't necessarily have the hottest bods or swag of the jerks she dated, but who make up for it with a dependable income, maturity, and family man qualities that the jerks aren't providing.

But what women pushing 30 and over don't realize is that the kind, mature, financially stable men they meet and now want commitment from are often the same decent men they rejected in their prime. While women were partying with the bad boys, these decent men were quietly improving their SMV over the years in ways appealing to women who want to settle down, except they remember the rejection and are responding in kind to avoid unstable, unappreciative women who view them more as ATMs than romantic partners.

Our rejection of single moms and carousel riders posted on this forum is a reflection that the decent men of society - men who possess the commitment, maturity and financial stability these women now want - have no interest in finishing last after the joyride is over.

And herein lies the biggest reason why WAATGM is so offensive: because we make women who are past their prime uncomfortable about their prospects of marrying the top 20% they think they deserve. After all, if we so-called "NiceGuys™", "misogynists", and "incels" don't want women with depreciating looks, kids, and a slutty past, then what does that say about the tall, handsome, successful men who certainly have better options?


· To act as a direct counter to r/niceguys and the demonization of Good Men by society.

It would seem on the surface that r/niceguys is a "lighthearted" community that merely pokes fun at men who call women "bitches" for rejecting them while claiming to be nice, and some of their most upvoted posts would suggest this. But there's more to the story than meets the eye. The underlying narrative of r/niceguys is to accuse decent men who complain about rejection of thinking they should be entitled to sex just for being nice. It's rarely about men who specifically demand sex for nice behavior. Any man who claims to be "good" or "nice" while admitting to dating difficulties is accused of being a NiceGuy™ who just wants sex.

And this narrative isn't exclusive to r/niceguys. It's ubiquitous across the internet, with numerous articles condemning decent, respectable men of being NiceGuys™.^[1][2][3] The white knights and even some Red Pillers have bought into this narrative because it's more comfortable to accept that the guys at r/Friendzone are only pretending to be nice to get laid, than that women are choosing the low-lifes first and the white knights last.

But why would women push such a narrative? Why harp on men's supposed self-entitlement to women's bodies? For the same reason the #MeToo witchhunt exists and is one of the agendas of feminism: To perpetuate the idea that a man wanting sex from women in exchange for his time and resources is a bad thing, and that women should get attention, favors and resources from men without having to give sex in exchange. The feminine imperative wants to redefine what a Good Man is in ways that allows women to gain ever greater benefits and advantages over men while offering little to nothing of value in exchange. Any man who exposes this one-sided relationship or otherwise complains about not getting a fair exchange from women for what they siphon from him is accused of being a NiceGuy™, and therefore "not a Good Man". Of course this relationship doesn't necessarily apply to men who are tall, handsome and ripped. It's primarily for men who women perceive as unattractive, of whom all self-proclaimed Nice Guys are included.

And it's important that women accuse the Nice Guy of self-entitlement to women's bodies because it would make him appear worse than what he is, which then allows women to feel justified in dating the bad boys when the Nice Guy's kindness suggests they should be dating him instead. Many women who demonize Nice Guys are actually dating jerks that they're projecting "Good Man" qualities unto. And women harshly criticize Nice Guys who complain about rejection not because he thinks he should be owed sex just for being nice, but because he's resisting his place as the emotional tampon and provider-male women need that the jerks aren't providing. If they were actually dating a man who was attentive and chivalrous towards them, they couldn't mock Nice Guys so easily because they would see the similarities in their significant other.

Furthermore, women who demonize Nice Guys often take advantage of the kindness of these men for attention and favors in ways that make them think sex might happen, then absolving themselves of responsibility by accusing Nice Guys of being the real manipulators instead, when these men were really demonstrating good relationship material by being attentive and courteous in ways women and society told them was ideal for a relationship. But after spending many years trying to be the man that women told him he should be, the frustrated Nice Guy eventually swallows a bitter red pill:

Men who are raised to be respectful and chivalrous towards women are doomed to be excluded from romance with them. They are led to believe that what makes them nice is also what makes them attractive. They are not taught that kindness only builds comfort with women, but it doesn't arouse romantic feelings. That one of the keys to dating women successfully is to balance being nice and being a jerk. If a man is "too nice", she'll get bored and go after the bad boys. Women say they want a man who is kind, respectful, and "treats me right", but their vaginas respond to good looks and jerkish behavior. Decent men - believing what women say - follow women's advice all the way to the friendzone, manipulation and rejection.

The article titled "To The Guy I Left In The Friend Zone For Too Long", reveals in great accuracy what really goes on in friendzone relationships from a woman's perspective, and confirms what the Nice Guys have been saying all along: That women take advantage of their kindness and string them along, that she recognizes he's someone worth dating but chooses the jerks and badboys instead, and that he's indeed a good person who is genuinely kind and respectful towards her and not just pretending to be nice to get into her pants. But whenever Nice Guys reach a breaking point by calling women "bitches" for all of the manipulation and rejection, they're made to appear as if they were never really nice at all. Very few want to consider how women play a role in turning decent men into NiceGuys™.

WAATGM exists to show what happens when decent men are consistently manipulated, rejected, mocked and falsely accused for being the respectful, chivalrous men that women claim to want: the dating market becomes filled with women past their prime seeking the same decent men they rejected, except now those men are rejecting them instead, and in some cases, pumping and dumping them.



For far too long r/niceguys has perpetuated their "NiceGuys™ are pathetic" narrative without direct opposition. But now our presence answers an important question: If the Nice Guys complain about being rejected for jerks, then what happens to the women who reject them? By posting content that fits the theme, our forum reveals the uncomfortable truth.

However the creation of our forum wasn't just in response to r/niceguys. They are only part of a larger problem. WAATGM is our little contribution to a gynocentric society to show it the consequences of removing all constraints on women's sexual behavior, undermining the nuclear family, and demonizing Good Men: those men begin checking out of society and going their own way, allowing the jerks who women apparently love to dominate the dating market, and leaving women to ultimately ask "Where have all the good men gone?", "Why can't I find a decent guy?", "Whatever happened to chivalry and respect?". And our purpose is to be there when that happens for all the reasons stated above.

So let other subs focus on women who will be asking WAATGM in the future. We focus on the ones asking WAATGM now.


I recommend reading The Life Story of Carol as it is the essay that gave birth to WhereAreAllTheGoodMen, as well as our Recommended Reading material for a greater understanding as to why our forum exists. We also created a new forum called WhereAllTheGoodMenAre for men to share their stories and perspectives on the "Where are all the good men?" phenomenon.