alpha asshole cock carousel antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny oppressed men playing the victim shit that never happened

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

Damn these evil women and their diabolical preference for hunky dudes!

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, 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!

189 replies on “Choosy Women Are a Threat to Civilization, Part 2: Electric Boo-hoo-aroo”

The ongoing MRM insistence on the 80/20 thing is particularly lulzy in light of the fact that marriage statistics are a thing that most governments keep track of. Even looking just at those and excluding all non-marriage hetero relationships we can already see that more than 20% of men are partnered.

That must be where Steele lives, on Planet Anti-Reality. It’s located in the Bullshit system, close to the LOLSeriously? nebula.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Do you have any evidence that it’s not? I’d love a citation for the 80/20 rule, if it’s what I think it is.

Says – First of all, while I admit I do sometimes wind up Boobzland for my own admittedly puerile amusement, for the most part, I mean what I say. “Trolling” is often a tactic used to dismiss the messenger out-of-hand.

Secondly, the marriage statistics notwithstanding, I assume the 80/20 proponents are referring to premarital relationships. Most, I believe, will eventually find somebody – life is a long draught from alternating bitter and sweet water. But some will have no one until they are married – I would imagine that would be difficult. I certainly would not like it.

(Genuinely curious. It’d be interesting if men are more likely to go unpartnered than women.)

Apparently Planet Anti-Reality is big on arranged marriages, which is how so many people there end up married in spite of never having had any previous relationships or being able to get anyone to even consider dating them.

“Trolling” is often a tactic used to dismiss the messenger out-of-hand.

Well, you’ve been pulled up quite a few times for opining on stuff that you freely admit you don’t know the details about, but you’ve never had the class to acknowledge your error. I’d say that’s pretty dismissive and trollish.

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.

Oh, you’ve been proven wrong over and over, Steelepole — just because you do the internet equivalent of covering your ears and chanting “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you” over and over doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

in each of those instances I’ve been able to make reasoned inferences w/ inductive reasoning

Yeah? Tell me, how does one use inductive reasoning to compare Creepshots to TubeCrush and TapThatGuy when one has never even seen what’s on Creepshots? Are you magical or something?

Steele, only 26% of the US population lives in single-person households, which includes men and women and everyone from young adults at 18 through senior citizens, and more women live alone than men (17 million versus 13 million). Living in a single person household does not preclude being in a relationship, however, which suggests that 80% of American men are not languishing discarded by stupid bitches for being too beta to be with. In fact, 13 million of 308 is about 4%, I believe, of the male population that is currently living alone (excluding prison populations and men in the service who live in shared quarters).

You know that his next argument is going to be that most of those partnered men have wives who won’t sleep with them or who don’t worship them enough and so they are, in a sense; truly and fundamentally – alone.

(Trying to write like Steele makes my head hurt.)

::hands CassandraSays a nice cup of tea for that headache::

Hey, how cool is this – catnip tea is a thing!

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.

Steele, you fucking moron. Read what you just wrote. Read it.

Who is using confirmation bias? Posters here are providing both statistical and anecdotal evidence to show why the 80/20 rule is complete bullshit. You are telling us that you’re reading the anonymous posts of men who are not in relationships and this, some how, makes the 80/20 rule more valid?

Do you understand what confirmation bias means?

That’s probably confirmation bias because I’m mint tea privileged, though. We should double-check with some anonymous blogs from angry people who hate both mint and cats just to be sure.

One would hope so. I like peppermint tea as a stomach-soother, but I still have to dump sweetener in it to make it drinkable. My favourite tea is Orange Pekoe with milk and sweetener. Now that’s one thing that would take a bit of getting used to living in the US – creamer or whatever it’s called, instead of just ordinary milk, in tea and coffee.

Most, I believe, will eventually find somebody – life is a long draught from alternating bitter and sweet water. But some will have no one until they are married – I would imagine that would be difficult. I certainly would not like it.

God, you’re a terrible writer.

Steele, I just looked through my facebook friends. Of the 280 guys I am friends with, only 29 had never been in a relationship or had sex with a woman. 23 are gay, one is asexual, four are age 15 oryounger and one is a devout Catholic who is voluntarily celibate. Thats hardly 80%.

Now that’s one thing that would take a bit of getting used to living in the US – creamer or whatever it’s called, instead of just ordinary milk, in tea and coffee.

I’ve lived in the US all my life -excepting travel, of course- and I put milk in my tea. Most places that sell coffee and tea always have 2% and whole milk as options. I don’t think it’s that unusual.

😀 @ Cassandra. “While I freely grant that I am not familiar with the particular details of partnership statistics, with regards to the relative proportions of single men and women – and certainly both sides may have similar values – those statistics notwithstanding, one can infer that men have more difficulty obtaining a partner; the point is the sentiment behind those statistics.”

Nobinayamu – thank goodness for that! Presumably I lucked out, most of the places I went seemed to be all for the creamer.

Hmm, that must mean that everyone who actually lives in the US is suffering confirmation bias and there’s really no milk at all …

I refuse to put milk (or sugar) in any tea other than chai or Tibetan bocha*, but jt may make you feel better to know that Americans do generally use either milk or half-and-half rather than creamer for coffee. I haven’t seen creamer in years other than at the one office where the management was really cheap.

*Starbucks makes this weird milkshake-like drink with what I think is cheap matcha and lots of sugar, and it’s one of the nastiest things I’ve ever drank. Matcha is supposed to be bitter – that’s kind of the point.

And actually now that I think of it bocha shouldn’t have milk either, since that much butter + milk is kind of dairy overkill.

Yeah, creamer is available for crappy office coffee, or that dreadful free stuff they serve while you wait to get your oil changed. Milk or half-and-half is standard for real coffee, and is increasingly common in tea here in the US as well.

Mr Kitteh would approve – he’s a black coffee/black tea bloke and the “this milk has gone off/that wouldn’t happen if you’d drink it black” thing is a running joke between us. 😀

Do Starbucks make any drinks that aren’t weird?

My favorite local coffee chain only serves full-fat organic Clover milk. Even if you wanted creamer they wouldn’t have any. This makes me happy.

(They do have soy milk – they’re coffee snobs, not assholes.)

Starbucks make horrible over-roasted coffee, coffee and tea milkshakes, and unfortunate seasonal concoctions like Pumpkin Lattes (I tried a sample – it was sweeter than most candy). They do serve some acceptable iced teas, but that’s because those are made by Tazo rather than Starbucks.

That was a pretty good Steele impersonation, but the grammar needs some work (to make it worse).

You had me wondering if you were quoting him or channelling him for a minute there, Nerdypants!

This entire rant boils down to “Waah women won’t fuck me!”

And yet if I point out that this is largely why MRAs hate women I’ll be told I’m using a strawman.

And it’s so circular, isn’t it – they make it so flaming obvious they hate women, which makes it even less likely a woman’s going to want to have sex with them.

But women can’t tell when men hate us! Or when they’re burning up with barely contained anger and resentment towards us! Many trolls have informed us of this fact.

Oh dear, yes, my bad … so I suppose it’s just perversity that makes us not have sex with the seething with hatred and resentment and barely-contained wish to hurt us lovely, worthy, humble beta men.

I just want to know who these “friends” are that he sets up oversharing 40 year old cousin with that she should just drop her panties for, because she wants to breed so badly. My mind is reeling…

If 80/20 was really a thing, we’d all be living in a terrible reality show. Those of us too sensible or too beta to participate would still have our lives affected by the non-stop high-stakes mating game being played by all these beautiful people. Unless the theory states that 80% of women are shallow and greedy enough to compete exclusively for the attention of the 20% of men who are certified alphas, yet women so shallow and goal-fixated immediately become calm and rational actors once they’re committed to the highly competitive game. Yet, there are many well-partnered women walking around with impunity, their cars un-keyed by bitter rivals, their bedroom walls unmarred by threats written in their own lipstick. Men date without the help of time-management consultants; many women who are dating, even casually, can expect to see their boyfriends once a week or more, and are free to call him whenever they like.

It would be like Mad Max, but the Thunderdome would be some kind of really cheesy club with overpriced bottle service.

I just popped in to say that the 80/20 doesn’t work either as an incidence rate or as any type of prevalence rate either (e.g. 5-year prevalence, life-time prevalence). Just more evidence that MRAs lack maths ability. Are they sure they’re betas?

The evidence from here, selective as it is, suggests also a lack of reading comprehension, lack of verbal ability (from the writing skills), and a lack of basic general knowledge. If we, just for supposition, used the IQ range as a means of sectioning men into alphas, betas, etc, these MRAs would appear to score at least one standard deviation below the mean. As 50% score above the mean, and the range -1 to +1 standard deviations is 68%, that means that they score in the bottom 16% (100 – [50+34]). Where do they get the idea they are betas, this type of scores puts them well below betas. Tauists anyone? 🙂

Slightly late to the party but could Robert Wright be mistaking correlation for cause/effect in his book. It may be that married men are less likely to be violent not because marriage makes them less violent but because women are more likely to marry less violent men?

Certainly works that way for health – married people are healthier as a population than unmarried people not because marriage makes you healthier but because healthier people are more likely to get married in the first place.

*creeps back under actuarial rock*

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.

I don’t think I’m ever going to get over the fact that this shit is, in fact, what MRAs and MGTOWs actually believe. It’s like thinking that the Illuminati rule the Earth from their lizard people city beneath the Denver airport, except they think that the lizard people are going about their business all around them—but they don’t have to ask the lizard people a damn thing about their lives to check any of this, because they have taken The Red Pill so they already know everything!

@titianblue: as it happens, October 28, 2012, at 4:54 am was exactly the correct time to post that.

married men are less likely to be violent not because marriage makes them less violent but because women are more likely to marry less violent men?

Yes definitely. It’s my fault, I was snipping bits out to shorten his argument. His full paragraph is:

Fortunately, male violence can be dampened by circumstance. And one circumstance is a mate. We would expect womanless men to compete with special ferocity, and they do. An unmarried man between twenty-four and thirty-five years of age is about three times as likely to murder another male as is a married man the same age. Some of this difference no doubt reflects the kinds of men that do and don’t get married to begin with, but Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have argued cogently that a good part of the difference may lie in the “pacifying effect of marriage.”

The reference he cites is Daly, M. & Wilson, M, (1990). Killing the competition: female/female and male/male homicide, Human Nature 1:81-107.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.