Botond173
2d ago
I was referring to the social norms before the Sexual Revolution, not the era of the early Church.
Botond173
2d ago
s to why you can't discuss looks productively with women, it's because attractiveness is core to female self image and requires immense kayfabe to avoid the crushing reality.
I think it should be pointed out that this is a relatively new development. Back when early marriage and Christian monogamy were the norm, women's lives were basically similar, regardless of their looks.
Botond173
2d ago
Women are aware on some level that the costs will be borne by them on this time-scale. But the only remotely reliable way to ensure similar long-term male commitment is through intimacy, strong emotional ties and deep social affiliation.
You seem to be insinuating that men don't bear costs and have reliable ways of ensuring commitment.
Botond173
2d ago
where I live women care very little about men's looks
That's generally the case everywhere, so it's not surprising. (It's also true however that men's looks rise in priority if their provider ability loses priority due to rising female economic independence.) My point is that disparaging men's looks is largely considered socially acceptable but doing the same to women is not, except for extreme cases (like when an otherwise ugly woman is revealed to be a thought criminal or heretic, racist etc).
Botond173
2d ago
like I read about a female doctor that expected to be a hot commodity but was then surprised most men cared about looks, agreeableness, etc. over her career and that all her hard work didn't make her good prospect.
She’s not entirely wrong.
If she has a good career, savings and possessions while not being exceedingly ugly, unpleasant or old, all this makes her a good marriage prospect within her upper-middle-class social circle (we can assume), because her male peers do prioritize such attributes within the context of modern assortative mating.
But I stress: these attributes make her an attractive wife – not a great girlfriend, situationship partner, fling or sex partner, but wife.
Botond173
2d ago
(1) women LOVE discussing looks, like giving advice and disparaging people with suboptimal looks.
'Giving bad advice on purpose and disparaging men with suboptimal looks' is a more accurate overall description.
Botond173
2d ago
It is indeed the general rule in the normie sphere. Women being petty is par for the course. Men being petty is unbecoming. And to openly state about petty women as a man that they are petty is in itself extremely petty.
Botond173
2d ago
(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)
I’d argue you’ve just answered your own question. But it’s not only that. Not prioritizing mating/coupling, not being willing to make personal/lifestyle compromises for that purpose, or assuming – based on the experience of their mothers and grandmothers – that marriage and children is something that just happens anyway, will have the same consequence.
Botond173
4d ago
OK. I guess someone will have to go there. I’ll ask the question. Does this also have plausibly something to do with the presence of women and other DEI hires in the Secret Service?
Botond173
5d ago
You’re specifically and categorically claiming that blacks ruin civilization, including the commons. That’d mean that they’ve been ruining everything around themselves in North America ever since they started arriving there, that every urban environment where they have been present should have been unwalkable from the start. Which, I argue, is not the case, because the transformation of US urban cores to unwalkable wastelands was a complex and decades-long process that had multiple causes, many of them unrelated to the issue of race. I’d tie this to another suggestion of mine, namely that we can make the same argument about the causes of white flight.
Also, I doubt there were segregation laws banning blacks from walkable urban areas altogether.
Botond173
5d ago
I'd add that the culture war has reached a point a long time ago where Kirk’s arguments are outside the Overton window for most normies. In other words, even he was not a suitable rightist martyr.
Botond173
5d ago
Black people have been present in North America since the 17th century. The time when North American urban environments have become practically unwalkable was sometime around 1980 or 1990, as far as I can tell. Are you really sure that it’s the presence of blacks that is responsible for this development?
Alternatively, these also represent vibe, but for men.
More options
Context Copy link