Choosy Women Are a Threat to Civilization, Part 2: Electric Boo-hoo-aroo

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!