Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
Created by kevin32
Visit the WAATGM forum to view and post content.
We're just a bunch of clueless NiceGuys™ with kindness coins that don't seem to work in women's holes so that the sex we're "entitled to" falls out. Because apparently we weren't demonstrating good relationship material through the attention, respect and stability that women demand. We were only "pretending" to be nice just to get laid.
In response to r/niceguys, this tribe is dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man" after dating jerks and riding the cock carousel in the prime of their youth, and think they're deserving of commitment and financial stability when all they have left to offer is their depreciating looks, narcissistic mentality, used-up vaginas, and another man's kids.
Women in their 20s have numerous opportunities to date the decent men they claim to want, but many reject or friendzone these men for jerks and promiscuity. She takes advantage of a good dude's kindness for attention and favors, then accuses him of being a bad person who thinks he's entitled to sex.
But when she's in her 30s with depreciating looks, jerks who won't commit, the likelihood of being a single mom, and the social pressure from her married friends, she asks "Where have all the good men gone?"[1][2] Funny how back when she was chasing the bad boys "Being nice is the bare minimum", but now that she's past her prime and needs a bailout, she wants a man with nice guy traits.
Furthermore, dating jerks and riding the carousel before settling down with a good man is planned by many women, and encouraged by feminists. They then come to the dating market with unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves. Such women are totally unaware that the mature, stable men they now need are the same decent men they rejected, except these men remember the rejection and are responding in kind to avoid unstable, unappreciative women who view them more as ATMs than romantic partners.
The reason women end up here is because their behavior is not exposed as the lucid, self-destructive, feminist ideology that it is. And we're here to help Good Men guard their commitment and resources by exposing women who would make poor life partners and mothers of their children. Providing observations and opinions on the posts here allows us to better understand women's psyche and later depressive/miserable state when they are not held to a moral standard required for healthy, functioning relationships.
Rules of conduct:
-
1. No shaming men for any reason.
- 2. No white-knighting or NAWALT. This is not a debate tribe.
Recommended reading:
-
Dating profiles showing women's Dual-Mating strategy and unreasonable standards
-
OkCupid study shows women reject 80% of men based on looks alone
-
Milo - The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society
-
Women Want to Know Why Men Don't Want to Marry Anymore...Allow Me
-
WAATGM mod explains why promiscuous women can't get good men to commit.
-
Okay, I get it. You're sick of hearing men complain about girls only dating assholes.
-
Dear Girls Who Are (Finally) Ready To Date Nice Guys: We Don’t Want You Anymore
-
Dear Single Moms: I wasn't your type then, why am I all of a sudden your type now?
-
The Truth About Single Moms Who Bring Young Children To The Dating Market
-
Carol asks WAATGM for the harsh truth after riding the carousel
- Complete list of resources here.
Content Archive:
Related forums:
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Public service message: If you enjoy the content, please consider posting this link to the Reddit version of WAATGM since I cannot. It drives more traffic to this site, such as myself, and that's how the content creation happens. Please do your part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlC5DEp2EOQ
@Typo-MAGAshiv Posting as weekend content, dual-mating flair.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1w ago
Changed to "Shitpost Saturday". We don't know enough about the rugrat's dad to know this is "dual mating strategy". Yes, it most likely is, but that's speculation.
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Coz while you were enjoying being a PAWG getting railed by Tyronne, they were getting snapped up by smart girls.
The ones that remain will want women who have their shit together or at least are young, smart and mistake free.
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Being a single mom is the very definition of someone who doesn't have their shit together.
GeorgeIII Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
I often wonder if I have my shit together.
Then I see a profile like this, with the grammar mistake included.
I wonder what on earth anybody actually thinks “having your shit together” means. I guess for this woman, that’s code for having a high paying job and willing to be a step dad. Having a high paying job alone is not “having your shit together”.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Consider the other post I made recently with a followup video below. The matchmaker had rejected a man's profile for her service because he was "below average looking" but wealthy but he wanted an "attractive" woman who "contributed" and the matchmaker found that overdemanding.
https://www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/325538/the_reason_you_are_in_this_position_currently_is_quite_major/7874988
Note: She didn't describe him as V, Phantom-of-the-Opera, or Deadpool looking, just "below average" in looks. She found the concept of a wealthy man wanting an attractive woman repugnant unless he accepted paying all the bills unconditionally.
Something women don't get that men do, is the purpose of money. It's the power to get things to make you happier. "things" sounds bad, but it merely means what money can buy and, yes, it usually CAN buy happiness.
Hmm, that just gave me an interesting epiphany: What if money CAN buy happiness but you refuse to make the transaction?
There it is! What The Declaration of Independence told us to pursue: Happiness! Just fork over the cash and get it.
https://youtu.be/e9dZQelULDk?t=2
But yet... women who achieve The Feminist Ideal, to have the money like a Patriarchal Oppressor and be able to afford what men do with money, to buy a proper trophy spouse not only impressing, but also satisfying and...
She can't have him. He's tall, handsome, kind and perfect but...
He earns a WHOLE dollar less than her!
Oh well.
Everpax Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
The way I see it, the guy didn't have much going for him: below average looking and overweight if we believe the matchmaker. If we were to assume there are no outstanding positive traits about him, a fair non-transactional match would be a below average looking overweight woman... the kind of woman he's filtering out with his requirements.
However, he does have a positive trait: he's financially successful. This can be leveraged to get a more attractive woman than he'd be able to get based on looks, at the expense of making the relationship transactional. Yet, he also doesn't want to transact... he makes a big point about her match having to pay her half of the bills, so he ends up being no different than any man who earns the same as her. And let's be honest, she can probably find a guy in her income bracket who is at least not overweight.
If I was the matchmaker I'd have told the guy to hit the gym and lose the extra weight if he wants a decent chance at what he's looking for. Women might often have outrageous demands nowadays and it's good that men are pushing back, but we shouldn't go to the other extreme, relationships have to make sense for both sides.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
I don't recall her saying he said she had to pay half. She said he said the match had to "contribute."
Please tell me if I'm mistaken.
Everpax Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
I take it you're extrapolating that from his requirements, he could have meant that he's willing to split expenses proportionally based on income difference, which would make the relationship worth it for a minimum-wage hottie.
This is proven false by the fact that he's also asking for someone career-oriented and ambitious: he wants someone who can pull their own weight financially. It might not be 50/50 exactly, but it's clear he's not looking to pay 90% of the expenses just because he makes $360k and she makes $40k.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Question: Yes or No:
Did the matchmaker indicate, quote "he makes a big point about her match having to pay her half of the bills"?
I didn't see that. I saw that she said he said the match had to "contribute".
I do agree that he said she had to be career oriented and ambitious but that doesn't mean high earning. Just that she has a job she's committed to and won't hit him for alimony in case of a divorce and also he wants to protect his assets from a golddigger which makes sense in these modern times.
As I replied to @HitTheRoadJill who had a similar point as yours, we should also consider market dynamics. Plenty of below average women make, and get, outrageous demands when they're young in a high male:female ratio environment. There's a glut of "attractive, aging, ambitious" women and a shortage of successful men without age preferences in a time when Skynet Terminator clankers are coming for all of us.
Everpax Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Being direct, no. That's something I'm inferring from his requirements. Could I potentially be wrong about the guy? Of course. But I think my interpretation of what he's looking for is the most likely one, so I fully understand the matchmaker's decision to pass on him.
Again, it's possible that you're right, but it's a very optimistic interpretation considering how he worded himself. I doubt someone would say "ambitious and career-driven" when what they actually mean is "has a stable job and isn't planning on being a SAHM".
Fully agree on this one. Regardless of anyone's expectations, market dynamics ultimately dictate what one can or can't get. If there comes a time where aging attractive women have no choice except unattractive overweight men with mostly inaccessible wealth, then of course the matchmaker would would be a fool to reject this guy. But I don't think we're quite there yet: the struggles of modern women still revolve around setting their sights too high, not having to set them too low.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Let's review what you said, precisely:
That's not an "inference". It's a pretty big leap from "contribute" to "pay half".
I'm not pulling Rule 1 out but consider that you're going hard on the guy "inferring" what he says in the worst possible way.
I appreciate that distinction. Consider; I'm ambitious and career-driven but I don't own two tech companies. This is still not, quote:
Fair enough?
A pre-nup doesn't mean the wealth is "inaccessible". By default, It merely means protected from her taking him to the cleaners in a divorce. It COULD be worse than that, but that is entirely your "inference".
According to the matchmaker, quote "Below average looking" "overweight".
Something to consider, as.I have observed here and on WATGMA, is that modern women regard 80% of men by default as "unattractive" and "below average". I don't know what metric the matchmaker is using, but this means that the pool of average looking wealthy men for aging women who are attractive is pretty shallow.
Do these "aging, attractive women" seeking marriage have other "choices" than him? Certainly. Plenty of broke guys out there who don't require prenups! Oh, and also plenty of guys who THINK they want to get married and then get fickle and waste her time. It's a positive smorgasbord of options out there!
I don't think he's the Catch of the Day, but I do think he's a Catch for one of the hundreds of aging spinsters in her pool even if they can't take him to the cleaners in a divorce.
Everpax Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
That's fair. I'll concede I jumped the gun about what the guy's looking for, and you bring up a good point about the bottom 80% of men generally being perceived as unattractive by women even though a significant chunk would technically be above average.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
In closing, what I think makes this matchmaker videos amusing isn't that she's ultra reasonable but rather she's clearly biased towards the women such as shaming men who don't shower women with begging gifts on dates as "losers" but even SHE has to concede the women are unreasonable and unmatchable.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Addendum: This is only, like, my opinion man, but the one concept of extreme success is the ability to have some power over the normies. Boss Babe women love this idea. They are:
Strong and Independent!
Well, isn't this guy also strong and independent? Yes, he wants arm candy who also will "contribute" and can't just walk away with his stuff but "strong and independent" people are like that. They even, get this, can demand people work at starvation wages just to BE AROUND THEM: https://youtu.be/b2f2Kqt_KcE
The feminists wanted to create MILLIONS of ultra successful, aging, hypergamous women who crave highly successful men. Well, he's one of them.
https://youtu.be/C41o5a6NeNE
Listen, I could tell him that he can buy airline tickets to Amsterdam and get laid more times a year than being married to one of these women and enjoy visiting the best museums while he's at it. They need him a hell of a lot more than he needs them.
So yes, I think he's a King. All Hail The King!
JudgeSmales Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Why is it so hard to find a female who paid enough attention at school to know the difference between "there," "their" and "they're?"
mustangfrank1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Look who she fucked and you wonder why she is stupid.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1w ago
Eye dew naught no.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Beat me to it!
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1w ago
That fucker!
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
In a sane world this woman would be publicly shamed, run out of town, or worse. Women did not used to act like this because there were severe social consequences.
If elected Dictator-in-Chief-for-Life, I will deport them all to Darkest Peru.
mustangfrank1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago Stickied
Women in the USA live in one of the best hypergamic utopias on the planet. They can extract resources i.e. food stamps, government housing, medical treatments and Rx all on government’s tab (mostly men paying the majority of taxes) without any requirement to pay for it. No matter how stupid or foolish their actions, they are shielded from the consequences and thus have no accountability for their poor choices and ;therefore, never learn from their mistakes because they don’t have to.
GeorgeIII Jr. Hamster Analyst 1w ago
Please, the folks in Peru do not need this nonsense.
The gall of someone to show up as a single mom with no money, and ask for someone who is put together well life-wise. It almost strikes me as a parody.
WanderOverYonder 1w ago
Women used to be shamed hard in the past because an unmarried woman was considered useless to the society. In terms of men a total bum would just suffer consequences on his own, chances are he would die in a war or gang fight anyway. Less one worker, so what? Less one father, so what? He can be replaced at low cost, the world keeps spinning.
A woman who ends up a single hag is a total loss to the community. She extracts resources, she produces nothing apart from shareholder money.
The modern world does everything even at the cost of economy to not only make sure any woman always lands on her paws but also promotes hedonistic behaviour, any possible consequences are minimized (birth control, abortion, white knights, the court). The only thing that could keep a woman away from destroying herself are her own morals -- and we all know how it goes... A lot of women were murdered or trafficked in pursuit of dick.
But most women don't suffer that cruel fate, in fact they exist in that decaying-corpse state. Body ruined and unhealthy, mind full of propaganda and bitterness, random tattoos all over the place, nose rings and multiple baby daddies. And I think that image accurately represents the world as we know, there probably won't be a big extinction event or WW3 or whatever, we will simply decay as humanity in slow exponential style, not quite dead, but on the infinite decline.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1w ago
Because men with their shit together don't want to be found by someone like you, miss. Or should we say, miss all of us with that shit?
These kind of women would do well to understand that their current state is effectively a punishment, not a reward, for a man with his shit together. And that they need to offer something far beyond what a childless single woman in her 20's would offer in order to compete.