Botond173
21m ago
Modern women - as a a group average, not literally everyone, to be clear - have standards above what the actually existing average men can offer.
Not to sound like a dick, but I guess you're aware that women usually make exactly the same complaint in reverse?
Botond173
22m ago
I salute you for quoting Devlin. At some point I probably 'd have done that here myself, but I wasn't sure of the probable reception.
If Chad has a soft harem of five girls, and you force him to settle down, then he can only settle down with one of them, leaving the other four in the lurch.
But one is still more than zero.
Botond173
24m ago
My impression is that women's main complaint men is unwanted sexual attention.
For another, women, generally speaking, object to sexual attention from men they deem unattractive no matter what the circumstances, no matter how polite or respectful the man is.
Good point, but I'd file this under "the men that are willing to commit are undesirable", as I assume the great majority of the men giving away all that unwanted sexual attention would be willing to commit.
How's this supposed to work given that men can't know in advance whether any given woman will find them desirable?
Well, you see, they're supposed to just get it i.e. magically know in advance.
Botond173
32m ago
If you have a 1% converting success on both groups, you'll influence more people on #1.
And eventually both paths will result in the same number of single women pairing up.
Botond173
32m ago
I’ve come across two witticisms on Manosphere blogs regarding this issue.
Plate-spinning / soft harems = promiscuity, as preferred by men; serial monogamy = promiscuity, as preferred by women.
And: the woman’s ideal is a strong man who’s a frightening menace to everyone except her; the man’s ideal is a virgin bride who turns into his personal slut. Neither is one bit more realistic than the other.
Botond173
1hr ago
Just to make a general observation about the gender war as a followup to my comment on the Promise Keepers organization:
I think we can generally observe is that women’s main complaint about men is that desirable hetero men are unwilling to exclusively commit. If we accept this, we can also see that this is actually two complaints rolled into one. 1. The men that are willing to commit are undesirable (icky, clingy, lame, “chopped”, entitled, toxic, porn-addled, skinny fat etc.). 2. The men that are desirable are unwilling to commit. (On a tangent I’d argue that most of the lipstick feminist complaints made in the mainstream media by middle-class women about men in general do usually boil down to the rather similar complaint that 34-37-year-old successful, well-paid, charismatic, tall, ambitious etc. urban men are in no rush to marry 31-34-year-old college-educated middle-class office worker women.)
If we look at this logically, to the extent that it even makes sense to try doing so (which is a valid question in itself), there are two potential remedies for this problem. 1. Focus on the undesirable men that are willing to commit and somehow transform them into desirable men i.e. alphaize the betas 2. Focus on the desirable men and incentivize them to commit i.e. betaize the alphas.
Now I don’t know about you but to me it seems self-evident that #2 has more potential for success no matter how you look at it and yet virtually everyone who makes any sort of recommendations regarding this entire issue (and that does not only include Red Pillers) is promoting #1. No, really – I’ve never seen anyone advocate for #2, not even the Promise Keepers or, for that matter, any other similar group that does not claim to be feminist and is at the same time pushing the nebulous concept of a new positive masculinity.
Am I seeing things that are not there or is this really not the case? Because as far as I can tell, it is. It seems like there is a general unspoken consensus in society that trying to compel sexually successful men to commit to women is a completely impossible, pie-in-the-sky idea that deserves no attention at all; that, in other words, expecting modern women to elicit commitment from the men they are attracted to is laughable lunacy.
Botond173
2d ago
Hold up. I'd argue the first four of those are formative events of English identity. British identity is something the English, Scots, Welsh and Ulster Scots can all share. And my argument is that whatever that is, it cannot be decoupled from the project that British imperialism. What else did those peoples ever do together after all?
Botond173
4d ago
To what extent is there a British non-imperial identity though? I doubt one can divorce Britishness from the project of colonialism.
Botond173
5d ago
An Indian Army general echoed the same thing nearly verbatim in 1988.
He even has a Wikipedia article and appears to be a fascinating character and a true warrior. It bears mentioning that he was acculturated in British India and was educated at Madras Christian College.
I think there are two main escalation triggers to watch out for. The first is the dying off of the baby boomers, which will have a similar effect to pulling out all the control rods from a nuclear reactor at once. Boomers are less radical and they are an underrated part of damping both sides more violent impulses.
Maybe they're less radical, but they certainly were more violent back when they were young compared to the youth of today.
Botond173
7d ago
This seems to echo in a series of comments left by another regular visitor on a social conservative blog in 2012 (emphasis mine):
...In the United States, the highest educated social class is mating fairly effectively based on assortative mating. But, and I emphasize this, a main part of this is that women in this group are generally selecting mates based more on beta success/responsibility factors than on alpha sexiness factors, across the board. There is a mercenary character to some of the marriages, and a dull one to others, and in some ways many of these marriages resemble those of the 50s (this has been remarked in commentary about them as well), although the women in them are much more educated and many of them have careers which rival or even exceed those of their husbands. Affairs are rife in this group, but divorce is not common. Costs too much in terms of lifestyle for most of them and is bad for the kids. Again probably not so different from 50s sytle.
Below this, you see things basically falling apart, and to a greater degree the further down you go. The main reason for this is twofold. The first is that the further down the pole you go, the less likely a woman is to choose her mates with an emphasis on the beta side rather than the alpha side. There's poorer decisionmaking and judgment in general, and more thugspawn as a result. The second reason, which is closely related to the first, is that, again, the further down you go, the fewer guys there are who have significantly successful beta aspects, so that even if women wanted to choose on this basis, the pickins are slim, so to speak. Marriage in these social classes seems pretty much doomed to a slow death, it seems to me, for these two reasons, both of which are quite change resistant....
...In the shrinking middle, you have a fast deteriorating situation when it comes to mate finding. Again, this is to some degree based on what is happening economically and socially in this group. In general, it is in this group that the women tend to want a balanced mix of alpha and beta (whereas in the higher group it's leaning beta, while in the lower it's leaning alpha) -- sexiness and success, in other words. And this is hard to come by, because it's a mix that isn't very common in men. So what we see is that marriage is quickly eroding in this group as the women are becoming as advanced if not more so in terms of success as the men are, but want an alpha/beta mix for a mate, and simply can't find the guys -- because very few of them, in fact, exist. They tend to be either more sexy than successful, or more successful than sexy, bit not "Goldilocks" men, as it were.
Yes, hypergamy feeds into this as well, but the odd thing is that the most educated women, who are in the smallest hypergamy pool, are not having issues finding mates. It's the women in the next tier or two below them who are...
Botond173
7d ago
It's just one example I listed and is thus largely irrelevant to my overall point. It's not the important part. As far as I know, it's true, and getting more boosters is certainly a bad idea. Otherwise I don't care. If you have an ideological motivation for asking this question, then please state it plainly.
Botond173
7d ago
Seriously though, what would a defeat of the enemy look like, to you?
I can name some examples now that you asked. For one, violent criminal “refugees” from the MENA region getting arrested and deported. Not being “ordered to be deported”, which is very obviously a BS measure intended to deceive NPCs, but getting deported i.e. physically removed. Or cutting aid to Ukraine. Or not suppressing the fact that COVID “vaccines” have caused a massive number of early deaths. Should any of those actually happen, I’d be saying that roughly 30% of the work is done.
Good thing the enemy is easily identifiable and irredeemable monsters who are completely separate from us.
Most of them have in fact made themselves easily visually identifiable already, through public statements and also forms of body modification typical of leftist 'spiteful mutants' (h/t to the Jolly Heretic).
Botond173
8d ago
You can always destroy those institutions instead of trying to control them. Those can be rebuilt later according to different designs.
Botond173
8d ago
I'd agree that OP is indeed incorrect. The corrected statement should be this: they can just advocate for murdering you, your children, and your representatives and suffer virtually no political consequences.
Botond173
8d ago
Saving, protecting or building should only come after the enemy is defeated though, through vitriol and aggression. Otherwise they might destroy what you were building and protecting.
Botond173
8d ago
Your original claim is that women who have less kids than they claim to want say the thing stopping them reproducing is a lack of male investment. I assume the 'lack of male investment' equals an accusation that men are generally unwilling to commit; this is a widespread and usual female complaint. I'm not going to comment on that in general here but I'd argue that the main reason why women delay marriage is that they are unserious about it, don't see early marriage as necessary or preferable, decide that they have other priorities and aren't aware or just don't care what effect their biological clock actually has. So yes, I think it's factually true that 'she was unable or unwilling to secure the necessary male investment at a time when it would have made more difference'. I'd also add that a woman unable to secure male investment is in most cases someone unwilling to prepare and present herself as a potential wife, the exceptions being unfortunate women who are hideously ugly or having some genetic defect.
Botond173
8d ago
I am including "started too late because I married late" as lack of male investment
On what basis, may I ask?
Botond173
8d ago
I've long concluded that it's largely impossible to have a clear-headed, rational conversation about these issues with women.
Men ran away as fast as they could from marriage and child-rearing during the Sexual Revolution.
Where's the evidence for this? For your argument to be true, stats would have to prove that men were filing the majority of divorces and were the ones driving the overall delay of marriage and parenthood. As far as I can tell, the opposite of this is actually true.
True. As far as society is generally concerned, serial monogamy is not promiscuity.
More options
Context Copy link