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!
I refuse to put milk (or sugar) in any tea other than chai or Tibetan bocha*, but jt may make you feel better to know that Americans do generally use either milk or half-and-half rather than creamer for coffee. I haven’t seen creamer in years other than at the one office where the management was really cheap.
*Starbucks makes this weird milkshake-like drink with what I think is cheap matcha and lots of sugar, and it’s one of the nastiest things I’ve ever drank. Matcha is supposed to be bitter – that’s kind of the point.
And actually now that I think of it bocha shouldn’t have milk either, since that much butter + milk is kind of dairy overkill.
@nerdypants, You’ve got him exactly. Actually, it’s a little bit scary… 😉
Yeah, creamer is available for crappy office coffee, or that dreadful free stuff they serve while you wait to get your oil changed. Milk or half-and-half is standard for real coffee, and is increasingly common in tea here in the US as well.
Mr Kitteh would approve – he’s a black coffee/black tea bloke and the “this milk has gone off/that wouldn’t happen if you’d drink it black” thing is a running joke between us. 😀
Do Starbucks make any drinks that aren’t weird?
My favorite local coffee chain only serves full-fat organic Clover milk. Even if you wanted creamer they wouldn’t have any. This makes me happy.
(They do have soy milk – they’re coffee snobs, not assholes.)
CS, Clover is awesome. Beats Safeway milk by a mile.
Starbucks make horrible over-roasted coffee, coffee and tea milkshakes, and unfortunate seasonal concoctions like Pumpkin Lattes (I tried a sample – it was sweeter than most candy). They do serve some acceptable iced teas, but that’s because those are made by Tazo rather than Starbucks.
Thank you Cloudiah. I like to nurture my inner pompous git.
That was a pretty good Steele impersonation, but the grammar needs some work (to make it worse).
You had me wondering if you were quoting him or channelling him for a minute there, Nerdypants!
This entire rant boils down to “Waah women won’t fuck me!”
And yet if I point out that this is largely why MRAs hate women I’ll be told I’m using a strawman.
And it’s so circular, isn’t it – they make it so flaming obvious they hate women, which makes it even less likely a woman’s going to want to have sex with them.
But women can’t tell when men hate us! Or when they’re burning up with barely contained anger and resentment towards us! Many trolls have informed us of this fact.
Oh dear, yes, my bad … so I suppose it’s just perversity that makes us not have sex with the
seething with hatred and resentment and barely-contained wish to hurt uslovely, worthy, humble beta men.I just want to know who these “friends” are that he sets up oversharing 40 year old cousin with that she should just drop her panties for, because she wants to breed so badly. My mind is reeling…
If 80/20 was really a thing, we’d all be living in a terrible reality show. Those of us too sensible or too beta to participate would still have our lives affected by the non-stop high-stakes mating game being played by all these beautiful people. Unless the theory states that 80% of women are shallow and greedy enough to compete exclusively for the attention of the 20% of men who are certified alphas, yet women so shallow and goal-fixated immediately become calm and rational actors once they’re committed to the highly competitive game. Yet, there are many well-partnered women walking around with impunity, their cars un-keyed by bitter rivals, their bedroom walls unmarred by threats written in their own lipstick. Men date without the help of time-management consultants; many women who are dating, even casually, can expect to see their boyfriends once a week or more, and are free to call him whenever they like.
It would be like Mad Max, but the Thunderdome would be some kind of really cheesy club with overpriced bottle service.
…Actually I think that’s PUAs think dating works in general.
I just popped in to say that the 80/20 doesn’t work either as an incidence rate or as any type of prevalence rate either (e.g. 5-year prevalence, life-time prevalence). Just more evidence that MRAs lack maths ability. Are they sure they’re betas?
The evidence from here, selective as it is, suggests also a lack of reading comprehension, lack of verbal ability (from the writing skills), and a lack of basic general knowledge. If we, just for supposition, used the IQ range as a means of sectioning men into alphas, betas, etc, these MRAs would appear to score at least one standard deviation below the mean. As 50% score above the mean, and the range -1 to +1 standard deviations is 68%, that means that they score in the bottom 16% (100 – [50+34]). Where do they get the idea they are betas, this type of scores puts them well below betas. Tauists anyone? 🙂
Slightly late to the party but could Robert Wright be mistaking correlation for cause/effect in his book. It may be that married men are less likely to be violent not because marriage makes them less violent but because women are more likely to marry less violent men?
Certainly works that way for health – married people are healthier as a population than unmarried people not because marriage makes you healthier but because healthier people are more likely to get married in the first place.
*creeps back under actuarial rock*
And because how can it never be the wrong time to post this … http://cat-bounce.com/
I don’t think I’m ever going to get over the fact that this shit is, in fact, what MRAs and MGTOWs actually believe. It’s like thinking that the Illuminati rule the Earth from their lizard people city beneath the Denver airport, except they think that the lizard people are going about their business all around them—but they don’t have to ask the lizard people a damn thing about their lives to check any of this, because they have taken The Red Pill so they already know everything!
@titianblue: as it happens, October 28, 2012, at 4:54 am was exactly the correct time to post that.
Yes definitely. It’s my fault, I was snipping bits out to shorten his argument. His full paragraph is:
The reference he cites is Daly, M. & Wilson, M, (1990). Killing the competition: female/female and male/male homicide, Human Nature 1:81-107.