Botond173
5hr 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
5hr 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
5hr 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
5hr 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
5hr 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
7hr 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.
True. As far as society is generally concerned, serial monogamy is not promiscuity.
More options
Context Copy link