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!
PS: Also, Cat Bounce is awesome, I just emailed it to all my feline-loving friends.
Tea with MILK? I am going to flip this table, then I am GOING MY OWN WAY. There is only so much a person can take before they are pushed too far!
These quotes from Robert Wright are very similar to some of what I’m reading in Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature. I suspect I’ll find Daly, M. & Wilson, M, (1990) or Robert Wright in his sources too.
If I recall correctly, part of the “pacifying effect of marriage” is about young, single, disenfranchised men having less to lose so are more likely to resort to ‘honour’ based violence.
The first time I saw a coffee shop serving matcha with milk and sugar I nearly did the same. I would say that we could go our own way together, but given the difference in gender that would clearly be against the rules.
(Also, you know what happens when you mix matcha, which is a powder, with water and don’t use the little traditional whisk thingy? You get a drink that’s powdery. Watery, sweet, powdery, vaguely tea-flavored milkshake. Blech.)
They know this is just satire, right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-clifford/should-men-get-to-vote_b_2018840.html But some MRA commenters have found it….
LOL, even on other sites they can’t resist getting in a little dig at David. And they still don’t understand the whole herbivore thing.
I have to wonder though, for the average HuffPo reader who has no idea what Manboobz is or that it even exists, how are they going to interpret that comment?
It’s like when boredstick tries to bring his little vendetta against Atheism+ over here. Don’t do that, guys – it’s not only bad manners, it’s confusing for people who have no idea WTF you’re on about.
I’ve also seen Uncle Elmer make evangelizing forays on places like Forbes in the comments sections. One overarching impression I get is that the MRA-ers either haven’t heard of global labor arbitrage or aren’t factoring in its effects when they get to theorizing about the Way Things Are These Days. Everything gets blamed on women. We must be goddesses with superpowers. But I never got that memo.
I always felt that matcha was matcha and should not be anything else. It works in Japanese sweets, and you can actually make a reasonable matcha syrup to put on a matcha icee, but everything else is bleh. Matcha frappucinos are the worst.
kysokisaen has cracked the code! I think I finally understand the manosphere now – these fellas have based their entire theory of How Teh Wimmenz Werk on TV dating competitions.
@Nerdypants:
Do you know if they control for alcohol consumption? They don’t mention it in the abstract you link to, anyway. Spontaneously, my guess would be that single people drink more than married people on average, and we know that alcohol is usually involved in manslaughter. So that’s an alternative explanation to “evo-psych sexual selection” unless they’ve actually controlled for that.
If the MRA crowd is so interested in passing their genes on, why not find a surrogate? I mean, hell, they can even pick whose eggs they want to use.
Sure, this means they’d have the responsibilities of single-parenthood, but surely this is a small price to pay for the continuation of society itself?
I’d feel bad for the kid, though. God forbid they have a child that isn’t male…
@Dvarghundspossen the other thing to remember is that marriage has a lower bound threshold, and people are getting older (again) before they get married. So are people ageing out of a desire to drink larger quantities of alcohol, or is it marriage? The two factors are confounded.
With respect to observational studies, there is no control other than to take covariances into account. But you still can’t draw cause-and-effect relationships: that requires an experiment. Also, the base rate is ignored. Who cares if the murder rate goes from 1 in 3 million to 1 in 1 million, really? What we would like to see is the absolute rate, not the relative rate. If I said you had a current probability of 1 in 1 million of dying from X if you continued to eat carrots, and said that if you stopped eating carrots the probability would decrease to 1 in 3 million, and you liked carrots, would you change your behaviour? But what if I told you that not eating carrots would reduce your likelihood of dying from X threefold?
Nothing MRAs think about women’s dating patterns describes me. So do I just not exist, or what?
Cassandra: “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.
Unless that man is a feminist appeasing mangina, who is only getting all that sex from 1: “ugly feminists”, and 2: only getting it from them to pay him off for selling out his fellow men; therefore it doesn’t matter how much nookie he gets, it wasn’t based on his being “alpha” but was actually because women are fickle bitches.
Varpole: 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.
Let me highlight two parts of that passage for you, which I think you failed to properly order; you may wish to consider using a copyeditor in future; I won’t always be willing to do this as a favor.
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. ought to precede, ‘>Do you have any evidence for this? In point of fact, I believe you are wrong, and suffering from confirmation bias.”
As to the actual question you pretend to be answering… have you looked around? Go to a social function (say a swing dance event), look at the people. Go to karaoke night at your local watering hole. Stroll past the neighborhood restaurants. Attend a convention.
Even in the, “geeks and nerds” communities, most people have partners/lovers.
You might want to talk to a tutor about research methodologies.
Secondly, the marriage statistics notwithstanding, I assume the 80/20 proponents are referring to premarital relationships.
WTF? So, that most peopl get married is immaterial to the truthiness of “20 percent of the men are tying up 80 percent of the women” because you want us to believe that it only applies to fucking that happens before marriage?
And, if you believe this… what are you (who admits to having a partner; while unmarried, and so a member of the “evil 20 percent keeping the rest of his fellow men in the vile condition of being, “incel”) doing to fix that? Are you giving up the monopoly you are holding on Ella’s physical affections?
No. You are being a greedy asshole, and engaging in a vile misandry against your less-fortunate brethren in The Movement.
NerdyPants, again, in each of those instances I’ve been able to make reasoned inferences w/ inductive reasoning; furthermore, I’ve yet to be proven wrong.</i
How would you know? You were ignorant of the facts, and seen to dismiss evidence. So when all was said and done you are still ignorant of the facts.
I see why that teacher said you were never going to make it as a writer.
But, as to your not being "proven wrong", let me point you to this direct disproof of one of your assertions
As a veteran of ancient wars, I can say that men have a long history of competing for arm candy to impress their peers, and a lady who wwas plain or merely inconspicuous was assumed to be both deficient in feminine worth and meanly envious of the fact. It looks like some of them don’t like the shoe being on the other foot.
‘Ere, AndersH, you been talking to Mr Kitteh? 😀
By the way, is that an ancient Smiling Jack cartoon? Also, tea with milk is for people with ulcers. Real people drink it with lemon.
@Kiwi:
Well, apparently they were comparing married and unmarried men of the same age. Otherwise it makes sense that people simply get less violent as they get older. However, my guess is that married 25-year-olds drink less on average than unmarried 25-year-olds. It seems to me that unmarried people tend to go out to bars and drink more than married people within the same age group. IF I’m right in this, it WOULD be a plausible explanation of the different violence rates, so I’d like to see a study where they control for this.
When it comes to cause and effect, well, you can sometimes do studies where the best explanation of a correlation is that it’s a case of cause and effect, even if you haven’t done an actual experiment. I’m just gonna give the researchers the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s some reason they think it’s probably not just a case of women choosing non-violent men for marriage, but also of men actually getting less violent after marriage. But even if that were the case, that there really is some kind of cause and effect here, it doesn’t have to be of the evo-psych kind they imagine. There could be simpler explanations, particularly if they haven’t controlled for factors such as alcohol consumption. Maybe married men are less violent because they drink less, maybe it’s because they tend to eat and sleep better than unmarried men, could be all kinds of stuff.
You’re also right about the carrot example of course. Lethal violence is rare in any group.
Hey, I just logged on to say that I hope any U.S. East Coast manboobzers and/or their loved ones are hunkered down safely on higher ground, with plenty of supplies to ride out the Hurricane Sandy. Take care!
Tea should be enjoyed without extras. Peppermint tea is sweet on its own.
Everyone drinks it differently, but obviously my way of doing things is the correct way.
😛
If you put sugar in peppermint tea you end up with something that tastes like a candy cane. Why would I want to drink Christmas candy?
Well, all the tea purists, prepare to be nauseated. I drink my tea with MILK AND SUGAR.
Bathroom is the first door to your left. Thank you. =p
Yes catnip belongs to the mint family. No you do not want to drink it unless using it as a remedy.
Have I mentioned how much really good Earth Final Conflict is out there?