Everyone knows that choosy mothers choose Jif. But when it comes to men rather than peanut butter, apparently choosy women are choosing THE END OF CIVILIZATION by not choosing to date the sorts of nice fellows who later become bitter misogynistic Men Going Their Own Way. In a post over on MGTOWforums.com, Todd1968 spells out the dire “societal cost of women’s pickiness.” (And, yes, we’ve heard this complaint before.)
“[N]one of us came out of the womb as MGTOWs,” he writes.
Most of us arrived here after a long process, during which we struggled to resist taking the red pill.
While some of us arrived here after a nasty divorce, many, I believe, came here as a result of the “nice guy” syndrome: After discovering the extreme superficiality of women’s preferences in the dating market, we decided that the game wasn’t worth the candle. (This often included an encounter with a cynical gold-digger single mom who wanted us to foot the bill for a “bad boy’s” offspring. For me, this was the final straw.)
I’ll have “shit that never happened” for $500, Alex.
And so we become “loners.” The media likes to portray us as “dangerous”, and the .00001% of loners who do turn violent animate the news and the fem-centric blogosphere. The fact is, though, that 99.999% of us simply drop out of social interaction and courtship, or “ghost.”
While this is a solution that works for us, it is not socially optimal. Society would have been better served if we had become husbands and fathers.
Having read a good number of these bitter MGTOW rants, I’m pretty sure most of you dudes would make terrible husbands and/or fathers. I’m thinking that “society” dodged a bullet here.
And I believe that this is what most of us wanted at one time. For example, I talk a lot about escorts and sugar babies; but this wasn’t what I envisioned for myself at 20 or 25.
Women choosing not to date Todd1968? Superficial. Dudes paying money to have sex with “hot” women half their age? Super smart!
Here is the point: By choosing to exclude so many men from consideration, alpha-hunting feminists have taken a large number of good fathers (and their children) out of the population.
Uh, dude, you hate feminists. Why would you even care who they’re dating? Or have you conflated “feminist” with “all women,” as is so often the case with you dudes?
How many intelligent men will never be fathers because they were “boring nice guys” in their teens and 20s?
On the other hand, many women are going out of their way to breed with “bad boys,” who will shirk fatherhood completely.
In the world of MGTOW, when a father abandons a mother and child it’s always 100% the fault of the mother.
When looked at in the aggregate, modern feminist behavior in the dating pool has some quite deleterious effects for the future of society, wouldn’t you say?
Again, I’m having trouble seeing “women not dating so-called ‘nice guys’ who are actually misogynistic dickheads” as a major social problem.
Just in case you thought Todd here might actually be casting aspersions on Alpha Males, he clarifies his intentions with a second comment:
My point is certainly not to imply that all alpha males are dicks, or irresponsible. (The “bad boys” are another story, of course.) The problem isn’t the existence of a male hierarchy; the problem is the unrealistic expectations of the average woman.
Never blame men for anything; the blame can always be traced back to some evil woman.
The problem arose when feminism and entitlement ideology caused women to lose their grasp of what psychologists call “reciprocity.” It used to be that the 10% of alpha males took the top 10% of women; and everyone else paired up with their opposite gender equivalents. This meant that almost everyone got paired up.
[citation needed]
But … today’s woman regards the majority of men as “below average” or unattractive. That is a recipe for 90% of the female attention directed at 10% of the men–with the rest being all but ignored.
[citation needed again]
This doesn’t serve either men or women. Many of us know first-hand how it doesn’t serve men. But it also results in a lot of women becoming “Sex-in-the-City” spinsters.
Sex AND the city. Sex AAANNNNDDDD the City.
Seriously, dudes of the manosphere, if you’re going to cite a TV show that ceased production 8 years ago as your go-to cultural reference, at least get the name right.
For example, my cousin is 40 years old and single. In her prime, she was just attractive enough to become the second-tier choice of some alpha male; but she never made the final cut. Throughout her twenties and into her thirties, she slept with guys who were a notch above her league.
Uh, if they were happily sleeping with her, wouldn’t that suggest that they were actually in the same league? How do these leagues work, anyway?
Meanwhile, I remember a responsible “nice guy” who patiently hung around in her “friend zone” for years. (She used him as a social spare tire.)
If a woman hooks up with a “bad boy” and gets abandoned with a kid, this is completely the woman’s fault. If a “nice guy” hangs around with a woman who’s not interested in him for years on end, this is completely the woman’s fault also?
Finally, Mr. Nice Guy went away–along with the alpha males.
My cousin is no longer hot at all. Now she laments at Thanksgiving dinners about how her biological clock is ticking. I have tried to set her up with a few of my male friends. But of course, none of them match her expectations–which are still calibrated to the days when she was a mid-tier hottie.
Women rejecting a “nice guy” in favor of guys they think are hot = social calamity, and the fault of evil women.
Men rejecting women because they’re no longer “mid-tier hotties” = sweet, sweet justice!
Oh, I’m not talking about how much it sucks, I’m more trying to sort out areas where my reasons for being celibate are different from those of MGTOWs. I will however stop that and immediately switch to relevant discussion.
Also, what exactly do these guys mean when they say “alpha male”, it always seems to be something different. I’ve seen guys who seemed to mean “anyone whose not me” to guys who seemed to mean something very specific. Is there some set definition for “alpha male” that these guys follow, or am I right in thinking it’s anyone who isn’t them.
“Alpha male” seems to mean “man who is getting laid, who I either dislike or am jealous of”. So it can mean almost anything providing that the dude in question is having sex.
What’s interesting is the assumption that women shouldn’t want to sleep with those men. Um, why not? Other than the fact that it’s inconvenient for the MGTOW in question, that is.
Somewhat ironic given that MRAs don’t generally think women should have any choices in anything whatever. Or maybe it just fits with their notion that we shouldn’t be making choices because we always make the wrong ones (ie not falling at the feet of MRAs).
Yes, you’re right. I mean, setting aside the moral aspects of that! Though I suppose the successful male is successful for reasons related to his ability to defend himself, so the other solution would to either try and emulate Johnny Carson, or try to control who women can sleep with.
I’m a little surprised at how neatly their theories dovetail with this book. I mean, I know a lot of their stuff is informed by the evol psych literature, but nowhere in passing have I seen Robert Wright quoted directly.
I think his logic is He/men should get to sleep with women they find attractive. Meanwhile, women are selfish sluts because they only want to sleep with men they find attractive.
Am I reading that right?
Bullshit alert. No one talks about their biological clock at Thanksgiving. Also, is Todd1968 Canadian? Because if he’s from the U.S., Thanksgiving was 11-1/2 months ago and no one remembers what they talked about.
Hear that, ladies? We need to marry a murderer or a rapist so society doesn’t crumble. Do your part, take one for the team.
You wish the answer was that simple! The Happy Face Killer was married, but his book makes a convincing and not-at-all whiney case that his wife totally should have put out more. In addition, she wasn’t good enough with their money to make up for the fact that he made very little and was also terrible at managing it. It’s not enough that all women be prepared to settle for a murderer and run her home as a psycho containment unit to protect the rest of us – she’d damn well better be good at it. Otherwise, her simmering resentment an unhappy home could force a man to make the leap from his pre-marital hobby of torturing animals to killing hitchhikers and prostitutes.
@princessbonbon, he’s on a thread about Rebecca Watson too. I alerted readers to the book of learnin’
I love how this guy (from the original post) can blame women for something that men decide to do – as if it’s some direct cause and effect relationship instead of a person choosing to react a certain way to an event.
Sorry. Please continue with whatever you’re doing on this thread.
PS: @ Aworldanon: sorry to hear about your social anxiety/celibacy (if that’s not your ideal). I feel ya.
OK I am a straight female and I have never, ever in my life had any desire for a “bad boy” especially in real life situations. The best guy I know, the one I would totally clone so I could marry him if I could (and he wanted to), is basically Clark Kent. I love Captain America way more than Tony Stark, I swoon over Nils Lofgren rather than Bruce Springsteen. I am so fucking sick of this whiny bullshit from these useless assholes about how all women go for “alpha males and bad boys.”
And these guys are like a small child having an endless tantrum because Mommy didn’t let him have an extra pudding cup which proves she’s a terrible mother and doesn’t love him enough, standing at the door with all his Matchbox cars in a bandanna tied to a stick, screaming I’M LEAVING I’M REALLY GOING IF YOU DON’T STOP ME I’LL NEVER COME BACK AND YOU’LL ALL BE SORRY REALLY I MEAN IT NOW I’M ABOUT TO GO OUT THE DOOR AND LEAVE FOREVER etc. Except they won’t actually fucking go away.
Ugh. And it creeps me out that the first thing this made me think of was the MRA blogger Dalrock (“happily married Christian patriarch”) and his regular rants about how a married man has a reasonable expectation for good and frequent sex.
In Wright’s defence, he doesn’t claim that married men don’t murder, only that they’re three times less likely. Perhaps if Happy Face’s poor wife had put out more, he’d have only killed 5 people instead of 8? Ugh… even if every word of it was true, you’d have to be a complete arsehole to recommend it as a solution.
Completely.
The creepy thing is that it’s not even that they’re consciously recommending that women be sacrificed in order to protect society, it’s that they haven’t even considered the fact that using women to placate violent men does entail sacrifice on the part of the women, because we’re “resources” to them, rather than people. It’s like they’re talking about access to public housing or subsidized healthcare.
Why, what woman wouldn’t want to have sex with men whose ability to be compassionate non-assholes is completely determined by whether or not they are getting what they want? It sounds like a recipe for bliss.
Cassandra: Yes, I agree completely. I mean, it’s one thing for Wright to say that, from evolution’s perspective, a female’s reproductive capacity and male’s labour are resources to be exploited by our selfish genes. I mean, the Universe is a cold and heartless place, we know that already. But we ourselves are humans, we are feeling, sentient beings. Yet these MRA types, having apparently intuited the callous mechanism, didn’t violently recoil from it or try to put their heads together to figure out how we could all game the system for mutual fun and good times. They’re all like “Hey, so women-as-resources, I wonder how I could exploit this?” And then when some of them can’t win at it, they chuck a tanty and become MGTOW.
Pulling this out for dissection, because it’s such a lulzy attempt to avoid ever blaming men for anything. If the average woman actually did have unrealistic expectations, it wouldn’t be just this small group of guys who’re permanently unpartnered – it would be most guys. But as anyone can see by stepping outside their house and walking around, that is not the case. Most men who want to be partnered with women are.
It’s even funnier when you contrast that statement with the babble about “fertile young women” and the assumption that every man deserves one of those.
Most men who want to be partnered with women are.
Do you have any evidence for this? In point of fact, I believe you are wrong, and suffering from confirmation bias. I previously viewed the so-called “80/20 rule” with skepticism – a result of my own privilege as someone who has been in multiple relationships – but after reading various MRA forums I’ve become more receptive to the idea.
Not to mention the assumption that every man (even “every hetero man”) wants a fertile young woman. It would shock MRAs, if it ever penetrated their skulls, that plenty of men out there are partnered with women they like/love as individual people. Age and fertility might never enter it at all.
@Dumpster Jedi
I think this man thinks women should WANT to do this. .After all think about society: women need to be selfless. Men on the other are apparently driven by needs us poor women can’t possibly understand.
Steele ol’ chum, if you crawl out from under your rock and look around, you’ll see people who are partnered everywhere. Men and women who are not movie-star beautiful, who look like perfectly ordinary people, of all sorts of ages and different backgrounds. You’ll see couples where you think one is really good looking and the other not, and they’ll look like they’re happy together. Just because you’re determined to be miserable doesn’t mean the rest of the world fits your fantasy pattern.
At this point I’m going to have to assume that Steele lives on a different planet and is communicating with us via some sort of super-advanced technology. You’d think he’d use it for a better purpose than increasingly obvious trolling, but there you go.
Well, he wouldn’t be Steele if he used it for something worthwhile, would he?
Wait, we’re suffering from confirmation bias, says the guy who claims we’re taking the wrong side even in cases where he admits he hasn’t followed things closely? That’s pretty rich.