TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

47

Full article can be read here. The article basically says what I been saying in that women have less of a dating pool to date and marry from and that women are NOT dating down despite what various users here think is going.

They found that employability and marriageability are deeply intertwined.

I would think this be a no shit reply but its really the truth here that so many overlooked. Its really at the heart of why women don't date down. As women don't want to date a guy that isn't employable and able to make breadwinner money. Its really is that simple.

Dorn and his colleagues find that when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate.

As the saying goes it's the economy stupid. More so this further disproves women dating down as men making less money aren't seen as being marriage material. Women don't want men who make less money than them. Nor do women really want men who take up female dominate jobs either as the article later on talks about. As a man being a caregiver or nurse isn't appealing least relationship material wise. Women may say "awww" but its the sort of "aww" you say when you see a cute puppy.

And remarkably, half of unemployed men in the U.S. are on some sort of painkiller.

Don't know how that is remarkable. Men are looking for an out/release to their lack of job. As they don't have any other place to turn to and its their escape from reality and how they cope.

"Traditional masculinity is standing in the way of working-class men's employment," Johns Hopkins sociologist Andrew Cherlin said in an interview.

And eventually, she adds, gender norms "will adjust to the new realities" that are already present in the economy

Traditional masculinity is standing in the way, but so is society itself and that more so women. Women don't want to give up or let go of having traditional masculinity around as they benefit from it too much. And really gender norms will not adjust to the new realities least when nothing is being done about it. The new reality is women are going to marry less and that date less because less men are able to full fill the breadwinner role and such be marriage material. Women don't want to be or want to take on the breadwinner role they want men for that. More so they still want traditional masculine men and will punish men who aren't traditionally masculine.


[–]vornash236 points37 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

And eventually, she adds, gender norms "will adjust to the new realities" that are already present in the economy

False, there is no evidence to suggest this will happen.

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I believe that they will "adjust" eventually, but there will be some other "adjusting" as well, such as a decline in the population and a corroding in the structure of the family unit.

[–]vornash212 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a shitty future

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah... I guess it's what we wanted, though.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is now and its called "japan", that our future.

[–]Raii-v2The Best Pill is Gold2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My wife and I play a game sometimes called "What if feminism wins?"

Populations drop Robot automation Smaller men in general, aggression/speech more heavily policed Relationship anarchy Mothering is commonly single parent Fatherhood is genetically selected based on attributes Sex no longer occurs without cash exchange Violence still prevalent in domestic arrangements Men as a whole become marginalized Rebellion ensues, actual violence against women occurs

Eventually we settle in the middle somewhere in the 3000's


(Alternate ending)

Robots comprehend human history. Sentient robots kill us all.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would put bets on the robots over all. I give humanity 100 years tops, regardless of what we do or gender relations, I say just sit back and enjoy your life, don't worry about the extinction of humanity, embarrass it, get a sexbot and have it suck you off until you die.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because cultures never adapt to changing realities. Gender norms are exactly the same as they were a century ago.

[–]vornash29 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Unnatural realities like birth control pills are not all good, we are not well adapted to a environment where we have total control over when reproduction happens. No animal has this except us since 1960. That's not too long ago.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't reality.

Just because it was created by humans doesn't make it unnatural.

Just because it is recent doesn't mean it is ever going away.

And humans have been controlling our own reproduction in one way or another for millennia, the only thing that has changed is that it has gotten more reliable and less dangerous as we have moved from pig intestine condoms and herbal abortificiants to latex and pills.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No animal has opposable thumbs capable of using tools except us

No animal can use fire except us

No animal can write things down except us

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't make us compatible with birth control in the long run. It appears to be quite a problem, economically, culturally, and demographically.

[–]crumblesnatch<>-<>-<>1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

... it's happened within recorded history.

[–]Guessimagirl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've got a degree in cultural anthropology. This very statement is the one thing that stood out to me most in the article, so I'm glad to see someone mentioned it.

While I suppose she is technically correct that gender norms will adjust, the idea that that's going to happen easily, quickly, or well is a pretty egregious assumption. When our technologies or our markets change, culture will always lag behind, but with such massive and rapid demographic shifts happening in the last few decades, there's no promise that our culture will settle on any good new terms for negotiating femininity and masculinity any time soon.

I think the study seems accurate in terms of depicting what is actually occurring now with the dating market, but the idea of "just a little necessary cultural adjustment" is frightening.

[–]analt223No Pill80 points81 points  (55 children) | Copy Link

This is the ultimate con job being pulled on men. Eventually we will have a tipping point where its official that women are the reason why we still have "the evil patriarchy!".

  • Childless women in their 20s and 30s are outearning men of the same age
  • Feminism claimed that they want to "free everyone from gender roles", "we want to take on more of the burden so you don't have to!", and "once women have the good jobs theyll marry the men with the bad ones!". LOL

When will society realize that gender roles primarily exist and are enforced by the opposite gender? Spare me the "other men enforce" argument, women silently judge men that are lesser than them physically, intellectually, financially, socially, etc all the time. Thats the real problem.

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun43 points44 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

It boils down to women seeing SAHM'ing as slavery and oppression. The problem is that when the guy takes over traditional female gender roles (which will be required if the goal is to actually push past them), her pussy dries up completely.

[–]storffish9 points10 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

SAHD's are rare. what actually happens is that work is outsourced to the lower classes. cleaning services are hired, kids are sent to daycare, etc.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

My buddy married a doctor and is a stay at home dad. He loves it. It's not that hard to keep a house

[–]storffish13 points14 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

nobody said it's hard (not in 2018 anyway) it's just mind-numbing

[–]the_calibre_cat8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Also truthfully I would utterly hate myself for that. I can help maintain a house, but shit, no man is ever going to be able to put shit like, "Full Time Domestic Engineer HARDEST JOB IN THE WORLD" on their social media profile and evade people giving them endless amounts of shit. Truth is, it's not hard, you're right. It's mind-numbing and, at least for me, would be such a purposeless existence I... am so glad that I'm not in that boat.

[–]Werewolf1810[🍰] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Taking care of your kids is purposeless?

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, but my own, personal sense of purpose (which, contrary to moralizing norms, still exists - even if one has children) would be empty, if all I was doing was cleaning the house, doing laundry, and picking up the kids and shuttling them around. It is, itself, purpose, but, at least for me, you bet your ass a not-insignificant part of my self-worth is comprised of other people's opinions of me. And other people just don't tend to respect people who JUST "stay at home and take care of the kids," and you can be damn sure that they'll be more vocal about it if it's a dude that's doing it. Women have a fortress of social shame to destroy any poor bastard that tries to talk shit about that, but yeah, men don't.

So hell yeah, I want to take care of my future children, but I'd want to be a dad that could bring something more than "I kept the house in order" to the table for them. And I'd want that something more for me. I don't look down on people who choose that path, but I know plenty of people who would, and I personally would just feel unfulfilled, pretty emasculated, and incredibly romantically vulnerable to my soul if that's all I was doing. I don't actually think my career wife would have much respect for me, t.b.h.

[–]AlanHalworthPurple Pill / BP++2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think there is a status and verifiability component to it. When I take care of my kids, no one but my wife and kids will ever know. Thus, there will be no awards, raises, promotions, job titles, or salary. If there were some way to verify whether a SAHD / SAHM was doing a good job (webcams to watch them take care of the kids 24/7?), it might be different. Women would try to steal the SAHDs to do their chores for them, which would raise their value. (Eventually, like there would be this slow cultural shift.) That's my opinion at any rate.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women would try to steal the SAHDs to do their chores for them, which would raise their value.

I think this is tremendously optimistic to the point of being disconnected from reality. I don't think women think, "Oh my, he does chores" and instantly moisten, in fact, we have good evidence to the contrary. Women want a masculine man - that doesn't mean he does NO chores, but it probably means that he does the more masculine chores and otherwise helps.

Part of me, though, is my ego. Yes, I am a male, and I have an ego, and I don't think that's just a bad thing. I do not want my mark on this world to be "cleaned the countertops with clorox cleaner!" I want it to be something else, even if it's "tried but failed to smash the state with cryptocurrency and other software solutions to social problems."

[–]concacanca0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its not really about Kinder, Kirche, Kuche these days. The SAHMs that I know spend a lot of time at coffee mornings, mother and baby yoga, stroller groups etc - all of which are either outright or implicitly exclusive to men.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It seems like the women in here assume no man here has ever cleaned a house.

I'll let you in on a little secret. It's not the 1950s anymore

[–]storffish4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

are you replying to the right comment?

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really, I mean the majority of 8-6's are hardly not mind-numbing. You get to sleep in, relax, put in extra hours at the gym, play videogames, and spend quality time with your children. All of those things are far more emotionally gratifying compared to slaving your life at a boring and underpaid desk job where you get 2 hours of freetime at best when you get home (not to mention most people are too mentally fried to do anything at that point in the day).

[–]concacanca7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's generally something Ive come across after the fact. The late 40s woman bemoaning her lack of career advancement and demanding change to accommodate her. These are usually the same people who won't shut up about their kids.

[–]speltspelt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

being good at non-income marriage skills is pretty well correlated with income for guys. the perceptual gap between what guys think of as the female gender role and what the female gender role actually is is often pretty large too.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Eventually we will have a tipping point where its official that women are the reason why we still have "the evil patriarchy!".

Not quite.

Women will never be to blame for the patriarchy, because women are never to blame for ANYTHING, ever.

Women wield the sympathy card to get what they want. They do this because it is their most powerful tool. It gets them results the fastest, and with no risk of blame, since they're recruiting someone else to do the actual work.

When will society realize that gender roles primarily exist and are enforced by the opposite gender?

Gender roles exist because of biological and psychological differences.

Gender roles are enforced because doing so allows an organized society to continue existing in relative peace even after it has overcome scarcity and achieved surplus. When gender roles are not enforced, women become complacent, self-entitled, and take men's efforts for granted, and men bend over backwards to indulge female whims because that's what men are evolved to do (in a time of scarcity).

Eventually, this over-indulgence of female whims leads to the collapse of the society, a return to scarcity, and a renewed respect for gender roles.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill8 points9 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

i agree that women want to have their cake and eat it to... but do you blame them? Men have since.... well forever. Sex is the only power women had for a LONG time. Now things have changed.

[–]analt223No Pill33 points34 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Men haven't had their cake and eat it to.....they worked. In fields, shit conditions, etc. Theyve (men) never had sex as power ever, with maybe the exception of a small few men.

The most oppressed people throughout history are the working class men, even more than working class women. They aren't remembered in the history books (socially relevant), and they didn't sire nearly as many children as women (biologically relevant)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you think women historically weren’t maids, working 72 hours a week in factories, working long hours as governesses, etc?

[–]analt223No Pill3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

1) The family's fate wasn't tied to that anywhere near the degree a man's job was

2) More women have reproduced than men, especially among lower classes.

The most fucked over individual is the "lesser" man.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not about who is the most fucked over. It's just that TRP has a delusion that women throughout history were lying around being ventilated while their husbands went to war. No, most women had shitty jobs too. Excluding war and manual labor, which yes, men had a crappier deal in, women were not lying around ventilating themselves either. Women had shitty, dangerous, exhausting, menial, depressing jobs with long hours too. And they still do. Look at factory workers in Shenzen, China.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, we know. Everyone had it bad back in the day.

But it's asking a lot of men, of anyone, to support a system that repeatedly treats them like second class citizens, blames them for the other side's unhappiness and puts responsibility on them for shit they don't support. Men would not mind women taking the lead on certain things but women are unwilling to do so despite the promises of feminism that freeing women and giving them economic opportunities would lead to better balance between the genders.

Now we are realising it's not gonna happen. Women use their new found freedom for power and status grabs, ignoring men in the process. Then when men say anything about it they are written off as whiners when they do the bulk of work that keeps society going. Men don't want to do all the hard work and be treated like dirt in the process. There is no gratitude for the good men have done, especially for the benefit of women, as women expect better treatment by default. When men treat women like men it's considered sexism by women. Women don't want equality, otherwise they would be willing to date down. They want superiority, which is what's slowly killing the SMP.

What RP is saying is that women were almost always more protected. Those male guardians weren't oppressing them at a time when a woman could be attacked and raped. Male family members had a heavy burden, and yes women did too, but women freed themselves of their roles while expecting men to maintain theirs. How else can this be interpreted as anything but privilege? The solution is not to justify the current state of affairs by saying women had it bad before but rather to realise that we need a better balance between individual autonomy and the benefits to the group.

Everyone loses when only men or only women benefit.

[–]analt223No Pill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They had shitty jobs that werent nearly as tied to the success of the family. Hell still today men losing their job is the number one sign of a divorce (aka a failed family). You think it was different in a even "more patriarchal" time?

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

You mean rich men.

The working class male had a shit life thoughout most of history

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Working class women have had it even worse... is the point.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to a coal miner who had black lung

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

My working-class great aunt died of textile lung. A lot of women who worked in the mills died of textile lung.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

hmm, sounds like being a stay at home housewife was a good deal.

[–]figthief 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

How many working class women do you think got to be housewives? My grandma worked as a hair dresser and a bank teller. There were certainly points where that money was pretty important, even if it wasn't the bulk of their money

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, both my grandma's, and my mom worked. Although not the same type of job.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

She was a SAHM after her kids were born. Didn't matter. Killed her anyway.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Eww, I'm kinda glad factories have cleaned up how they do things.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The past was shitty, news at 10. Clearly, the solution is to bitch about how horrible the world is presently, despite it having literally never been better for more people ever before.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most coal miners wives and children worked alongside them.

[–]analt223No Pill6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

no they havent

[–]methylotrophMGHOW4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"Working class women have had it even worse" I think that is subjective. More so we live in the now and here, not then and there. What are things like NOW and HERE?

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Things are pretty great if you are good looking lemme tell ya.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well sure, unless your a gridgirl, they had a bad day today. What an oppressive job: just stand there, hold up a sign, smile... god dam I rather mine coal or hoe a field by hand until I die from exhaustion.

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men have since.... well forever.

this is nonsense, men have shouldered the hardest and most dangerous jobs since time immemorial, to provide for their families. Women were wrongly deprived of the choice of doing that for themselves, but that's a far cry from "men are having their cake and eating it, too." The overwhelming majority of men throughout history were poor and overworked to provide for their wives and offspring.

Also, I should add, without male support, feminism wouldn't have resulted in political action that emancipated women. Women made their case, and men agreed with it. I think most men here, even those on the redder side of the spectrum, would agree that we're better off with women in the workforce, able to own property, and yes, even voting, than without. There is no secret conspiracy to put women back in the kitchen. There's just vocal frustration that every problem in the world is "oh it is bcuz men suck," as feminism prescribes.

And you can argue "feminism doesn't say that!" and, you know, maybe it doesn't! But it sure fucking does come across that way. You don't have to say "men suck" in order for someone to hear, "men suck." I guarantee you most men aren't consciously thinking "boy women sure are weak" when they're playing a game and call their foe "a pussy," yet the feminist language-police more or less imply that that's exactly what's going through their minds.

Sex is the only power women had for a LONG time.

Oh yeah, complete control over reproduction, how lame is that

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

And do you blame men for taking their share of the cake and either going home, or dangling like a carrot in front of women and yanking it away?

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I just don't understand this big push on here to try to fix things that aren't really problems.

[–]analt223No Pill6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

When the number one fear people have in society (at least in the west) is lonliness and the fear of dying alone (liberal and conservative sources are talking about this so its not some alt-right or feminist or whatever position), its a problem.

There is a loneliness EPIDEMIC in society right now. Partially caused by the internet imo (and especially since 2007 or so when the internet went into our pockets), but also because this lie that women actually want to get rid of gender roles they place onto men.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont think every woman does. I think lots dont care, lots want some stuff from men and dont care about others, and a small minority are the loudest.

[–]analt223No Pill7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

every woman does what? Have the fear of dying alone? or want to get rid of gender roles?

The point is, you can't have feminists asking for legislative changes (and getting them), and social demands, without expecting women to change their demands socially. It will collapse your society.

[–]whichbladeNA Paler Shade of Purple0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If people are lonely, then we should adopt a multi-generational living style, so that people feel more socialized and feel like they are contributing to their family.

I'd honestly love it if my grandparents and parents lived with me, assuming there was space, lol.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When my mother got sick I decided to move back in with her, from the city back out to the farm and commute to work ever day. The pro is the family farm I love, save some money, invest in the farm to hopefully inherit it. The cons are a 1 hour commute to work, one way, 2 hours a day both ways, oh and a sick mother who is both physically and mentally ill now. Honestly it is a wash.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice for you. My horrible grandmother lived with us and I couldn't wait to move out. I saw her twice in the next nine years. Neither my mother or MIL are welcome to live with us ever.

[–]MGTOWManofMystery0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Preach!

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

It sounds less like American Men are less marriageable and more that American Women are not adjusting themselves to true equality.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill4 points5 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

My girlfriend makes more than me and she worships me. Just need to find the good ones.

[–]xanacop15 points16 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I've heard of high earning women wanting men who makes equal or more than them. I think those women thank Feminism for their upward climb while simultaneously wanting to maintain traditional male gender roles, which is rather ironic.

Luckily I come a non-traditional community and a lot of women I know don't really give a shit. They don't care if guys make less money as long as they're stable and can connect on an emotional level.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe very high earning women. We are still young and both of us are increasing our salaries consistently.

And yes 100x about the emotional level part.

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

? Thats exactly what my comment meant. I think women making 100k would expect 100k+ but women making 50 or 60k aren't going to not date a guy making 40 or 45k in 2018.

[–]handklap 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

We are still young

This is the one and only exception where women will not completely punish a guy who earns less. If you meet as students or just starting out in your career, her resentment at your "lessor" status will still be there, but no where near what it would have been if you both met once your careers were established.

That same high earning girlfriend who worships you wouldn't respond to your dating profile if she were single today.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Except thats exactly what she did.

[–]storffish-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think as a general rule of thumb it's the opposite, at least according to statistics. high earning women mostly get married and stay married, and they're most likely to have lower-earning husbands.

poor to lower middle class women care the most. they don't have enough money to support a family, they need someone who earns more. they're also the least-married, most-divorced demographic.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

at least according to statistics

Uh what stats?

[–]Blaat19851 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What statistics? The high earning women tend to be overrepresented in being single statistics and they also moan 'where have all the good men gone?!?' the loudest.

[–]storffish0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pew research and the department of labor. education, income, and marrying older correspond strongly with marital frequency and success. what are your statistics? as far as I've ever heard the women writing "where have all the good men gone" articles are just that: writers. not an especially highly paid job.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've heard of high earning women wanting men who makes equal or more than them.

And I call bullshit.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How long have you been together? And how old are you guys?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That would be nice, but I'm not holding out hope for that one either ;)

[–]methylotrophMGHOW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Me neither.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ditto. Actually I make more now but most of our relationship I’ve spent unemployed with her paying for everything

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's funny because shes exactly what most RP guys want. Doesn't mind doing the cleaning/cooking and loves to please.

but im not even close to RP.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community44 points45 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It's really a shitty choice from a macroscopic view. Women want to be paid the same as men for the same work, fine. But women want men who earn more than they do. They also want traditionally masculine men without having to be feminine themselves if they don't want to be. Women are pricing themselves out of the market especially because they just don't want to take the lead on anything, not without complaining about how much it sucks to be responsible for shit.

My SO saw a post on her FB feed where a woman lamented how she has to work for a living when she would prefer to be at home not having to worry about money. Women use their degrees and careers as ill guided bargaining chips because they refuse to date down even when there are men available who would make good partners. If women replaced men in top positions, the species would die out. They'd wonder where all the men good enough for them have gone despite chasing power and money in a misguided attempt to raise their SMV and to 'have it all'. Worse yet is when they land a guy and have kids, that career takes a back seat. All that student debt and hard work becomes a point of resentment when she cannot find someone who measures up and will pay it off while she stays at home with the kids. Or, at least that's the fantasy.

How women cannot see the link between desiring more powerful men, their increasing standards and their shrinking dating pool as they seek more economic power is indeed a mystery.

[–]BewareTheOldMan17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women use their degrees and careers as ill guided bargaining chips because they refuse to date down even when there are men available who would make good partners.

That - and the information in your first paragraph nails it completely.

Could it be something as simple as the belief these "dynamics" and relationship principles don't apply to them...the individual woman?

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. They do what all humans do. They justify it as a competitive advantage. Look at what we do to the environment. An individual doesn't think that what they do is hurting the environment but as a group it is harmful.

People complain about sweat shops and pollution but keep buying shit from China because it is cheaper, not making the mental connection between buying the product and supporting the destruction of the environment, nor about enabling slavery.

Women want the best deal they can but the difference is people at least try to save the environment. We have multiple strategies (recycling, waste to energy technology, education etxc) and penalties for companies and countries who pollute too much. But women don't even try when it comes to men. Everything is linked to our resources and economy but for some reason they don't want to accept their role in screwing up the SMP. Men know Chad is a problem. They know assholes get the girl and hood rats are getting women pregnant. They know men cause shit all the damn time. We are reminded of it everyday by women and by other men. We even adjusted our behaviour and expectations to cater to women but it's still not enough. We have to be responsible for shit other men do that we don't support.

But women refuse to admit they need to take responsibility. She got pregnant? He has to pay because she is a victim. He made a bad approach? He has to lose his job. Some assholes commit a crime on the other side of the country? Time for consent classes, some without anyone's consent, ironically. Women can't get a man good enough for their ever increasing and ever shallower standards? It's men's fault for not measuring up. It's never their fault so they feel absolutely entitled to only the best because they can do no wrong. Maybe we need to reach a tipping point before women realise they cannot have everything they want just as men don't get to have it all. Common sense isn't as common anymore.

If women want a man who earns enough to take care of them, maybe they should leave some room for them, be realistic about their choices and actually learn what men desire. Men have to make sacrifices for women and women have to realise it goes both ways, otherwise you get what we have today: emasculated men checking out and women chasing careers or raising kids on their own because they believe the lie that prince charming is on his way.

No one is happy about this state of affairs.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

chasing power and money in a misguided attempt to raise their SMV and to 'have it all'.

Hmmm.

Most of the women I know chase money and power for the respect and.. money and power it garners.

I don't think that many women thinks it raises their "SMV" that much.

They just want "respect and power" AND to be sexually desired by the man of their choice.

They believe because men can chase "respect and power and money" and still be sexually desired, that they can too.

Problem is women want men "on her level or higher."

So the more respect and power and money she earns. The less likely she is to find someone as respected, and powerful, and moneyed as herself.

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

If women replaced men in top positions, the species would die out.

It seems this would be the point to this political circus show. "What goes up, must come down" (i.e., the American population).

[–]methylotrophMGHOW2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Depopulation is happening in most developed countries, only immigration is keeping the number postive and in the long run... well have you seen the mouse utopia, that is us! We human's evolved to live in strife (like all other animals), modern living may be our dream but we simply did not evolved to breed in these modern condition, Women still instinctively want the bread winner man that will fight off predators and invaders, Men instinctively want a fertile receptical. These instincts do not make sense in modern society and as th result people don't breed well. And things are only going to get worse as Automation and AI transform our economy and most people are rendered obsolete.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

We can refocus our energy on different things. I believe sport and competition will help men while women pursuing nurturing roles will help them too. There are various degrees of it, and no one should stop a man or woman from wanting to do something the other side enjoys. But if, theoretically, we were able to get technology to do all the work, we could put our time into things like competition, entertainment, education, therapy, health and lifestyle improvement.

We rely too much on what the economy dictates we do, as well as the leadership of people who don't have our interests at heart. There would still be work even if automation took over. I think the Universal Basic Income is really to keep money in the system so we don't all go bankrupt while machines take the jobs. But it will relieve a lot of the shit we experience. A UBI could take care of things like child support, for example. We can balance our biological needs with our technology.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie67 points68 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha, men's fault again. Oh boy.

No wonder many men aren't seeing this as an attractive deal. Must mean their not good enough for marriage!

Just like Jordan Peterson said. If a man competes against a woman, he's got two option - win and be the bully or lose and be pathetic. Pay gap - bully, less pay than a woman - pill popping jobless loser!

What a shit stance this article takes.

[–]vornash235 points36 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Jordan Peterson is rising to become a legend faster than I've ever seen. He may actually save western civilization by himself. That's how powerful he is or potentially could be.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas27 points28 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

😂

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

That's overstating it . Peterson is a "legend" only amongst the tiny Red Pill aficionados like RP subreddit, the sphere, and Cernovich/Molyneux and other commentators. Outside of that, no one knows or cares about who he is. He's also a classical liberal, an egalitarian equalist who sees men and women as "equals".

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We need to make that comment a copypasta, it’s so good . I thought he was trolling

[–]vornash29 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Trp doesn't even like peterson, he is who can save their dumb asses.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Many young men that you wouldn't expect have talked to me about him. He's becoming increasingly relevant.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah especially after that Channel 4 interview a lot of people are now talking about him in the UK.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not gonna lie. It was impressive how he dealt with that "interview".

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He handled it masterfully. 100% came out on top. Cathy Newman made herself look completely out of her depth.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He's also a classical liberal, an egalitarian equalist who sees men and women as "equals".

Ah, so he's a filthy bigot then.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Eceleb shills are so pathetic jfc

[–]vornash216 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

He's not just a celebrity, he's a deep thinking intellectual that is trying to help young men who are lost. The red pillers would be wise to listen for a change.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Peters on offers salvation for those that need or want it. TRP offers hedonistic decline for those that don't care. Man or woman, some fuckers just can't be reached.

[–]vornash22 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup fuck em, we'll leave them behind.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The red pillers would be wise to listen for a change.

i dont need to listen to someone rehashing a watered down version of something that was new and interesting 3-4 years ago

[–]vornash24 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not new at all, it's very old but relevant.

[–]kasper13815 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know one thing for sure: it's never the woman's fault. amirite

[–]storffish26 points27 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

the elephant in the room here thats just barely hinted at is that a ridiculous percentage of men and women (funny how women are always let off the hook in these think piece articles) in smaller cities towns where manufacturing has dried up are either junkies or drinking themselves to death. it's not just employment it's a lack of direction and purpose. that's why broke single chicks especially outside major cities push out babies so often... a kid is something to live for.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That's a good point. I live in a rural area with a fair amount of poverty. Young women here don't seem to stop making babies just because there are no men around to support them.

[–]BewareTheOldMan4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

...so who is picking up the tab or assuming responsibility - the woman as an individual...or the taxpayer?

If it's the taxpayer, that's highly problematic. A woman can have as many out of wedlock babies as she wants, but no one else except her and the Baby Daddy should be covering expenses.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually agree with you, but that's not the way it works, unfortunately.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman can have as many out of wedlock babies as she wants, but no one else except her and the Baby Daddy should be covering expenses.

And, according to the left, this is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. Your dreams should be put on hold as long as a single person is homeless.

[–]storffish2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the parents are (father via child support) and the mothers' families most of the time

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you took away their welfare they would still pop out those kids and most of them would grow up malnourished , and most likely be unable to do the traditional hard labor jobs like military and construction that are used to escape poverty .

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here32 points33 points  (82 children) | Copy Link

Traditional masculinity is an interesting way to spell hypergamy.

Men must out-compete women to find a marriage partner.

[–]vornash222 points23 points  (80 children) | Copy Link

Which is why it's insane that 58% of college students are women.

[–]storffish15 points16 points  (61 children) | Copy Link

yeah but how many of those women are studying shit that will earn them lower middle class wages at best?

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC24 points25 points  (59 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter. In her world, her women's studies major entitles her to nothing less than a neurosurgeon.

[–]InternationalArm7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm convinced that women's studies majors have the best PR in the world. They've got the entire manosphere thinking that most women go to college to major in it, and that they are everywhere and control everything.

When in actuality hardly anyone is majoring in that.

Also, here: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/359419934/who-studies-what-men-women-and-college-majors

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing11 points12 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

English, journalism, film, psychology, and art are all basically interchangeable with gender studies

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

My undergrad degree is journalism, it got me to law school, they aren’t all worthless. Many who get psych degrees similarly get higher degrees and practice in that profession. Undergrad degrees can be used as stepping stones for higher ed. If higher ed was reformed where we didn’t need them, we wouldn’t have to get them.

[–]jim234234red 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I've heard that law school is now pretty much worthless if you didn't do a t14.

Though I imagine it depends - meaning some do well with it and make good money, while others end up with the debt, but wash out of the industry.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn’t say worthless, but where you go and your grades matter more than way back when (so I’ve heard). I started law right during the recession and I was able to get a job although making shit money at the time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Your school and grades mattered back then too, but I was at a top 25 then. I never had any designs on going to a major metro, but most of my classmates did and for them it mattered a lot. If you weren't going to a major metro, all that mattered was a degree and a license.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Law school doesn't even have prereqs like med school or even pharm school. Literally any bachelor's will do. The journalism major didn't get you there more than any other major would have. It is best to pick the easiest major to have the highest GPA.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, we have the LSAT but all you need is an undergrad degree. I believe journalism helped with my writing skills, however, and I do a lot of that. I actually didn’t get it because I thought it would help for law school, I wanted to go into journalism. Then when it realized what a shit show that job market is, I decided to go to law school after.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And here we have a perfect example of someone talking out their ass.

[–]storffish3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

...and who's problem is that? am I supposed to care about women who can't find husbands because their standards are unreasonable? picky bitches aren't some new invention.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer2 points3 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

Most women are not taking "women's studies" in college.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I need to meet these millions of women taking women's studies because I have no come accross one.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve known one. One. Who then went to law school and is now in law.

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC12 points13 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Liberal arts degree then

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point  (37 children) | Copy Link

What is wrong with having a liberal arts degree?

[–]Dubslav_von_Chekem 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Most people have to work for a living.

I have a job, but my liberal arts degree is not the reason why.

A liberal arts degree does not help you get a job.

My dad is proud of it not for its economic value, but because it has instilled in me proper gentlemanly values and makes me more cultured.

There is something wrong with getting one and expecting it to whisk you up into a higher class and good jobs. This is a common prole delusion.

[–]storffish4 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

yeah but a lot of middling jobs require degrees nowadays. they shouldn't, because there's nothing academic about the work involved, but they do.

tons of people with sociology and international relations degrees get into shit like project management. their day to day work has fuckall to do with what they studied, but they probably wouldn't have even got an interview with just a high school diploma.

[–]vornash25 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, it's actually disgusting, but if women were not allowed to work, these jobs would all be filled by men without a college degree, and income would go up because of the drop in labor supply.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A lot of jobs that aren't super specialized just require "a degree". They don't care what it is in or what your GPA was, they just require a degree in something. This includes a lot of tech jobs, middle-management, HR. The degree is just shorthand for "I can follow directions and work hard".

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

It's a nice to have but is generally a waste of money. Getting into debt for something that cannot pay itself back is not the smartest financial decision.

[–]concacanca1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I've got a history degree and am in the top 10% of earners in the UK. Granted I would have gotten here sooner if I'd done maths but meh.

[–]vornash26 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your individual case means nothing! History majors make shit for money usually.

[–]BewareTheOldMan3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

...history degree and am in the top 10% of earners in the UK.

That makes you the exception, not the rule.

No offense, but most folks with a History Degree (on any level) can make your statement.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I got a mate with a history degree who works in a bookies haha.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Exceptions exist but would you recommend someone try to be a top earner by getting a history degree?

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

My history degree holding friend would be enraged at you as he lives in an expensive city making less than I did when I was a part time engineering tech during freshman year

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How do the words "right" and "wrong" in any fit into this?

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're less useful than shitter paper because they're not as soft on the ass

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've met a man minoring in "women's studies". He was pretty much what you'd expect.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

But most of those are probably making less then construction workers

[–]vornash24 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ya well if they were all men hopefully they would be studying something more realistic than gender studies.

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most woman who go to college become teachers , nurses , and social workers , the gender study meme is true of only rich or umc millennials who will probably still land a decent job after college because of nepotism .

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fine but the shut the fuck up about pay gap ok?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I studied business and it's served me well.

[–]truedemocracy3Such An Asshole!0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But still feel they deserve better than that. An administrative women who works in the office making less than blue collar work very often wants white collared men

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, i almost feel like this should be it's own tread.

Personal experience. When i near a prissy city? Maybe. At least in the downtown area. However, I'm what's considered educated but still blue collar. And office girls in medium to large towns seem to love it. Or maybe they love that i dress nice out of work, who knows

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The best part is these morons with their 100k debt and 30k salary think they're umc

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Average blooper- "most of these problems don't affect the UMC"

Also average blooper- "the job market sucks. It's hard to get by!"

I went to state school, then the trades. No debt and plenty of money

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Exclude health professions, psychology and education and that number dips below 50%. It's not hard to out-compete women. Find a niche and laser focus on it.

[–]vornash22 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware of that, there are still too many women competing with men for the jobs that can support a family.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

And if they have one of those jobs, they can be equally supporting a family.

[–]SocialistEphebophile1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

!redditpenis

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Ooh, thanks! I'll be in front of a mirror helicoptering for the next day or so....

[–]speltspelt0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

should men who have no intention of supporting a family have better access to those jobs than women who want to support a family?

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Such men should be shamed first and foremost, then they should be taxed like 50% of their income after the age of 35 if they remain childless and unmarried. I would heavily discourage such things in as many ways as needed to achieve my goals.

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say "to find a marriage partner." More like "to attract the interest of women in general."

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Women also have a disdain for men in tech jobs, one of the few growth industries, and one that is making people redundant in other sectors

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing28 points29 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

That's what's funny about these articles claiming it's about men's earning potential. There's plenty of 6 figure income men out there nobody wants to touch

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Google misogyny bro!!!

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Those icky icky tradesmen!

I can't brag about him to my friends at brunch☹️

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about those gross icky iOS app devs, etc (omg check out my new tinder match he's so hot) but yeah they'll shit on a mechanic making 100k too

[–]Namelessfear96 points7 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Im 33, fit, 5'10", making 150k per year in the oilfield, white. This comment hit home. I should be cleaning up. Maybe I'm not Chad, but I should be cleaning up. Most of my ~50 sexual partners came before I hit 30, but I've been in the oilfield since age 27. Most women seem taken aback by it.

[–]Freethetreees-1 points0 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Working in an oilfield is EXTREMELY low status. Money has nothing to do with social status.

[–]Namelessfear91 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I have an incredibly dangerous job that few people can do. No pussies allowed. My life and safety are in constant danger. My income is high, my body is good, and no one dares fuck with me. Beard, tattoos, 205lbs and no gut.

I suppose this is what postmodernism has wrought. Even an intellectual type like myself (IQ 160, some college, 95/99 ASVAB score) with these kinds of traditional masculine credentials has a hard time because I didn't pursue the racket that is higher education.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The funny thing is, the high IQ tradesmen working highly specialized trades like oilfield work are the guys who

--get really really good at it

--figure out better, safer, faster, cheaper and more efficient ways to do shit

--get paid better

--get promoted more and to better jobs

Cream always rises to the top. I know too many overeducated guys with 2 or more degrees who can't think their way out of wet paper sacks.

[–]Namelessfear90 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You just described the last 7 years of my life.

[–]Freethetreees3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And the indentured serfs working in the fields hundreds of years ago were probably strong and masculine, too. Doesn't change the fact that their job was very low status, and thereby unattractive to women.

Low status manual labor being unattractive is nothing new.

Go date a greeter at Walmart or get more social status. Your choice.

[–]Namelessfear94 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's far higher paying and far more mentally challenging that being a serf in the fields. By any metric you choose to use. Still, perception is reality, and most folks have no concept what the job entails. Yourself included.

It's much easier to say "Entrepreneur" or "Attorney". People know what those are.

[–]Freethetreees3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter how "impressive" you personally believe your job is, the majority of westerners view working in an oilfield the same way they view working at a garbage dump.

It takes a lot of hard work and athleticism to be a stripper, and some strippers make a lot of money, but that doesn't make the job any less of a low status job.

[–]Namelessfear90 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, perception is reality.

Also, I defy you to speak like this to a roughneck in person LMFAO. You'll get a good hard dose of reality, that might alter your perception.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

That's because of ignorance. So many women have no idea how much some of these jobs pay. Their first thought is it's a $14 an hour job

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Money is irrelevant to social status. A woman would rather date a broke famous musician than a millionaire garbage man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Only a small group of women think that way. In America money talks

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It talks to gold diggers. The rest of women are attracted to good genes and social status.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The majority are gold diggers

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Until they find out how much you make. I know the feeling (fellow high paid prole, with college degree)

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.9 points10 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I’ve honestly not seen any women having “disdain” for men just because he’s in tech. My H is in tech. I know lots of women in my industry with men in tech. Is this really a thing?

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

This was based entirely on judgements expressed in PPD

IRL I've never experienced any judgement on tech workers except by one gregarious but unattractive woman, most people probably know tech pays well and is booming

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

you won't develop a physique that is pleasing to women through your tech job

I can eat at my desk, so I'm pounding away 150g protein worth of chicken. Speak for yourself lol

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

My husband is in tech, he runs marathons and does iron man’s lol. It’s not like every guy in tech is some fat slob.

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That has nothing to do with your job

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If I had a retail job I wouldn't be able to pound down food all day

[–]EsauTheRed0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes you could

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Some of these are area specific. I moved 30 miles a couple years ago and there is a big difference in what women consider"good job"

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean engineers, programmers, IT type people idk all the job titles. I know several female lawyers married to men with such jobs. Anecdotal I know.

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What? I've worked in tech for almost a decade and practically every developer I work with is married unless they're 22/23 and fresh out of college.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Are they attracted to these men or are they just beta bux?

The job itself is not attractive, other than the money earned, the job itself does not rely on qualities that turn women on

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. I just know that they're married and many of them have children unless they're super young. The nerdier looking ones have wives that are just as meek and nerdy as them most of the time.

[–]belletaco4 points5 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

Women also have a disdain for men in tech jobs

Where do you get that from?

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing9 points10 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

having a tech job and talking to women

[–]belletaco11 points12 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Congratulations on your anecdotal evidence. maybe you are just not personally attractive and it has nothing to do with your job? (I mean that in the least harsh way possible)

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing10 points11 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

yeah no, my body gets me girls approaching me at this point, you can see the change in their face when I tell them what I do though. So now my answer to that question is always some obvious joke "im an astronaut" or something

[–]belletaco7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

That's genuinely so weird to me. I'm in a tech-adjacent field though so maybe I just see it through a different lens.

[–]crackrocksteady7 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm in a tech-adjacent field thoug

yeah. please keep in mind, weird redditor girls like you are not normal. youre like 2 standard deviations out from normal

[–]belletaco8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Rude, I am not a weird reddit girl.

[–]crackrocksteady7 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

why are you arguing with some weirdo on an obscure debate board instead of figuring out which house party youre going to after the 3 bars you hit up after work?

[–]belletaco7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I work in entertainment, January's are slow so I have time to argue on obscure forums before I head to my friends apartment for drinks and real housewives. I can be pretty, normal AND debate MRAs when I'm bored. jeez.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

be civil

[–]polyconfused387 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you project insecurity or unhappiness in the way you talk about it. When I assume people will find my job boring they tend to do so. But when I talk about what I like about it they are interested.

[–]MyPasswordisPutin 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You’re in IT? It’s because lots of IT guys act weird and condescending.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What is I noticed is that at my hospital, the IT guys are usually weird but the BME (biomedical engineering) guys are awesome, they even call themselves the "nerd herd" but they have actual social skills and are pleasant and professional.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see it all the time, I hook up with women and as soon as they find out I'm educated and have a good job it's like a sexual turnoff. Suddenly I'm no longer the bad boy they intended to sleep with that night. Naturally women will deny this happens and act all shocked that women act like this in the real world but it's the plain truth and I experience it first hand all the time whether actually having sex or during the flirting/conversing phase.

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I concur with crackrocksteady.

When occupation conversation comes up on dates I always say "I work on airplanes" and avoid the word "engineer" because you can literally see girls get bored when that word comes out

[–]Monkey_Jerk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is strange to me. One of my friends is a civil engineer and he'll proudly tell anyone that he is one, especially when talking to women and he does extremely well in that department. He is somewhat of a Chad though so I guess it isn't surprising that it doesn't negatively impact him.

[–]belletaco0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Where do girls meet guys who work on airplanes?! I've actually been wanting to possibly change careers and enter the aviation field.

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Idk, I suppose at or around the airport. If you live in a sizable city there is probably a flying club you can join. If you have any kind of tech degree you could apply to one of the big Aero companies (Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, ect).

[–]belletaco0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do not have a tech degree, but not really willing to get another four year degree so I know I have to start at the bottom. I live near three major airports, but no airline hubs or companies around here. Thanks for the advice!

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My H used to be an air traffic controller and his dad an ex pilot and his brother is an airplane mechanic. I met H in college. Not sure how his brother meets his Gfs but he’s always got one!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I grew up near an air force base and a lot of girls I knew ended up marrying guys who work in aviation. So... move near an air force base I guess? Haha.

[–]belletaco1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha I'm actually not in the market for a guy, I was mostly joking because I have a huge interest in aviation and never meet anyone who works in the field or is interested in it. I will take air force base into consideration if I ever find myself single though hahah

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a tech job. Or used to. Never experience that.

[–]reluctantly_red12 points13 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

A lot of American guys have drifted away from "traditional masculinity" and have accepted jobs in areas that were traditionally female preserves. Don't think this has made them any more marriageable.

A job at the local call center or strip mall is not going have the ladies swooning.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I worked as a scientist for a major pharma company and women didn't care. You really can't impress modern women unless you are in the top 5% of appearance or SES. And even then, it just means women who are 5s and 6s on the 1-10 scale talk to you like an equal. Its a losing proposition.

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sorry but having average women interested in you is far better than having no women interested in you.

I've had lots of enjoyable times with average looking women.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s the kind of lack of humility and entitlement that I keep saying that men here have. He thinks 5’s and 6’s aren’t his ‘equal’ and then later whines about women not being ‘humble and appreciative’ when he’s obviously been shooting above his league.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No men around here will ever be humble or nonentitled enough for you.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

You think you’re better than women that are 5’s and 6’s?

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Christ, if you're in the top 5% I would hope so, fuck

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

A job at the local call center or strip mall is not going have the ladies swooning.

More because they're low status rather than "feminine" though.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, these jobs are pretty damn feminine. They reward feminine traits. Being forced to be obsequious and deferential all day is hardly masculine.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd say the gender ratio in call centres is like 50/50 and I don't see what makes them feminine. It's just a low status, low paying job you can't exactly flex about.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you don't see the problem I don't think I can help you. I'd rather work in the fields all day than sit in a call center.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not disagreeing that it's a shit-tier job. I just don't see how it's "feminine."

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If there is no physical component and/or manipulation of the environment/surroundings/objects component and/or leadership component and/or critical evaluation or thinking component and/or advocacy component its not a masculine job. Sitting on your butt all day on the phone and being micromanaged is not something any guy who is not incarcerated should willingly submit to.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

Men haven't really changed over time, just women's standards. The United States had a boom in the 50s because most of the factories in Europe and Japan had been leveled and the allies paid the U.S in gold for their weapons.

Prior to this time most of the working class was poor and drunk. But managed to stay married.

The current economy isn't even bad. Finding a good job is pretty fucking easy. It seems like the only people complaining about the economy right now come from over priced liberal areas

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men haven't really changed over time, just women's standards.

This a thousand times over.

What % of men hit all of the following traits

High socio-economic status (good income, education and career)
Handsome
Athletic
Tall
Great personality
Great with kids
Loyal and fidelity
Responsible

etc. Most men aren't all of those things, but lots of average women nowadays want a man who hits at least 5 of those things. The math doesn't work. Women are playing musical chairs and chasing a tiny % of elite men who can easily replace these women in a heartbeat. So pump and dump followed by women complaining about being used for sex and men not being willing to commit is the name of the game.

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Men have no incentive to find a good job or work hard anymore. What's the point? So that they can marry Stacy after she's 'explored' her sexuality with 250 men?

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing4 points5 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Good job buys you flashy status things and all the gay lube oil you could ever need

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Flashy status things have no purpose other than attracting Stacy

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Not entirely. Motorcycles get the stacies, sure, but they're also fun as fuck to ride just for the sake of it

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't need a six figure income and a corner office to afford a motorbike.

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

No, the motorcycle was a basic example, but most people have similar desirable toys that are much more expensive.

Replace "motorcycle" with "helicopter" or "speedboat" or "uber powerful gaming computer" or whatever expensive shit your heart desires.

If you don't want any if those things and are happy with the bare necessities, good for you, I'm jealous of your mindset.

But personally I don't accept that the only benefit to making good money is to attract hoes (although that's a nice benefit).

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

The benefit of most of those things is showing status and attracting women.

Personally I'd rather not show off status because it attracts the wrong type of people.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Eh, not really. I love going fast. I love the feel of v8 engines. If i wanted to attract Stacey i would've bought BMW's instead of Corvette's and mustangs and bikes

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I imagine stacey would be more attracted to corvette's and mustangs in the AF phase and more attracted to BMW's in the BB phase.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's hilarious how dumb women are with that stuff. BMW makes objectively horrible cars coasting on brand reputation from the 80s and 90s (as drivers cars which they don't make anymore) but if you roll up in a 328i with less hp than a Camry they drop trou

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Friends switch up when you in a Benz truck
Always wanna fuck, tell the bitch good luck
Always wanna fuck cuz I just came up
Drugs in my nose, good drugs in my cup

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol, I guess so, if the only thing that brings you joy in life is getting laid or having a girlfriend. But IMO that isn't an ideal way to go about life.

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

If you like overt status symbols that's fine. I think you'll find very, very few people with speed boats, RV's, lifted pickup trucks, sports cars etc regularly use them enough to justify the cost as anything other than 'look at me I have expensive stuff!'

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't forget sports car

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Flashy things are fun

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

No argument there and i basically said the same thing on automod. However, it is kinda nice having decent things and a nest egg. Possibly early retirement

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh I agree, personally my incentive is early retirement. I don't think most men understand that early retirement is possible though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The health insurance is the hardest part to figure out

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Step 1: Be born in Canada

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn't Canada expensive tho? Here in the Midwest homes are cheap, food is cheap, electric is cheap.

[–]reformedorbiter 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Houses are generally expensive but if you move outside of urban areas you can get a good deal. Food I'm not sure, when I travelled through southwest USA it seemed groceries and restaraunt meals were about the same when adjusting for the CAD - USD spread at the time (1 CAD = 0.7 USD). At 1:1 it would be cheaper but I'd also make less numerically living in the states.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Having I've in both Canada and the USA I can definitively say that its far far easier to live in Canada on a modest income. Just stay out of Vancouver and Toronto -- and even in those expensive areas there are affordable options not available in the USA. For example Surrey BC, a suburb of Vancouver, is nicer and more affordable than any downscale suburb of San Francisco.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Really this is a completely bullshit comment.

[–]1UPZ_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

only for men that has "getting laid or getting women" as their primary focus or goal.

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I thought rural America voted for trump because the Mexican took their jerbs . https://youtu.be/_4Ieco-HEts

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No. We are smart enough to realize high taxes chase jobs away. Trump is winning. Deal with it

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

New York and California have some of the highest taxes in the country , yet they are some the wealthiest states in the USA . Your claim doesn't hold up .

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually business's are leaving California in large numbers. Their home less rate is well known. They went from the seventh latest economy to the sixth after liberals took over. The only thing keeping them alive is the shipping lines from China have to go through them.

So yes, my claim holds up well

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the statement is true but need A further clarification .

[–]Lorioch0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Remind me again how the economy is doing in Kansas.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, their tax rate is still higher then my state (which is booming big time)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And women's legal and cultural ability to impose those standards on everything around them, including sex and men

[–]speltspelt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

eh. pre-birth control a married woman whose guy failed to support her (which usually happened eventually) could lean on her four kids or whatever. poor child-hostile modern guys are offering basically nothing by comparison.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male enthusiasm for marriage has declined faster than male suitability for marriage, so this doesn't really matter.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Full article can be read here. The article basically says what I been saying in that women have less of a dating pool to date and marry from and that women are NOT dating down despite what various users here think is going.

So, I ahve not read the article and I am still going to makme a summary of it:

"Its all about the problems women face. Men are not filling the gender-roles expected of them. Men need to earn more money. men need to have more power. Men need to be more educated. Men need to be all things to all women all of time. Just so long as women are free from gender roles."

[–]FeyraPurple Pill Woman17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I haven't read it either (shame on me), but from the quotes I get the impression that it fits a sadly common trend of men don't matter until their problems start affecting women, then it's a crisis.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This state of affairs will change sometime around 60 trillion years after the heat death of the universe.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Half of PPD in a nutshell:

So, I ahve not read the article and I am still going to makme a summary of it:

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Its all about the problems women face. Men are not filling the gender-roles expected of them. Men need to earn more money. men need to have more power. Men need to be more educated. Men need to be all things to all women all of time. Just so long as women are free from gender roles."

Yup. Men getting suicidal and addicted to opiates and alcohol = why can't men be more useful to women. No mention of the fact that men are miserable, just that they aren't useful to women.

Also the article even mentions that the issue is structural. Outsourcing and automation are eliminating a lot of jobs, there isn't much men can do about it. But the men are still blamed in a way.

[–]MyPasswordisPutin 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Traditional masculinity? I thought the problem was that there WERE hardly any manufacturing jobs left. They’ve all been sent to places where companies don’t have to pay a living wage? So all that’s left is service jobs where you wait on the knowledge workers? Is this inaccurate?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyconfused3818 points19 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Young men and women are less interested in marriage because wages suck and debt is high. It’s not rocket science. You marry to do stuff like have kids, buy a house. If you can’t afford to do those things, what’s the point? You want to be butthurt at the Wal-mart assistant manager scraping by on 35k a year because she doesn’t see the point of marrying an unemployed guy or a part time cashier, go ahead. But what would be the point of the marriage for her?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas31 points32 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

The blue pill: “omg TRP has such a transactional view of relationships it’s disgusting!”

Also TBP: “ugh what’s in this deal for women anyways”

[–]polyconfused3813 points14 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

What do you think marriage is? It’s always been partly an economic arrangement throughout history. What I find weird is that terps think this makes it into some kind of scam, rather than finding it natural to want stability, companionship, regular access to sex and to have offspring and see them thrive. That’s not any pill, it’s just being an adult.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

rather than finding it natural to want stability, companionship, regular access to sex and to have offspring and see them thrive.

lmao you do realize marriage 2.0 is about ensuring that if the woman wants you get exactly none of those right?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

No one said it’s not natural to want sex etc, we said modern marriage in no way guarantees this

[–]polyconfused387 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Neither did marriage 1.0. Plenty of dead bedrooms in the good ole days.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not that I'm advocating for it but marital rape was legal until the mid 70's in the US.

[–]polyconfused384 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s true, but I don’t think that tons of men acted on that in a literal way.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt there is any way to find out one way or another.

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t understand how you get “dead bedroomed” like just rile her up and make her horny? Or if she really is a cold fish either divorce her or just go cheat on her discreetly

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–]Taipanshimshonhere for the downvotes5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this makes it into some kind of scam

thats not what makes it into a scam, and no terp has said that - at least not an EC.

the scam is that western society stopped treating it like thats what it is.

happily

ever

after

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's more that stability is a lie. High divorce rates, beta bucks and dead bedrooms.

If you look at it that way, it is a scam.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this9 points10 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

That's not what they said at all... People aren't having marriages and kids because they can't afford those things.

[–]concacanca4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

The problem in Europe is, and has been for 20 years, that women still jealousy guard their rights to be the stay at home parent for as long as parental leave lasts. Whilst this remains, they are going to require a high (or at least higher) earning man. In the states, I'd imagine this is less pronounced due to the fact that both parents are working but that someone has to have a high income in order to cover expensive childcare costs.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

"Parental leave"? What is that? lol

[–]concacanca6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I feel for my American brethren. I really do.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

A few years ago, a friend told me that her pregnant granddaughter was having her labor induced on such-and-such date. Alarmed, I asked what was wrong. Her reply was "Nothing," but the granddaughter only had 6 or 8 (can't remember) weeks of unpaid maternity leave, and her job required her to stop working 2 weeks before her due date. (Apparently it's bad PR when the fry cook goes into labor on the job.) So the young lady was having her labor induced 10 days before her due date, so she would have a few more precious days to spend with her newborn before putting him in daycare and going back to work.

Now, how fucked-up is THAT?

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's disgusting.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not in this thread, but I’ve heard these contradicting complaints from TBP for years

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're going to reference comments made in other posts, especially going back years, maybe you should link to some of them so people know what you're actually talking about.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You marry to do stuff like have kids, buy a house.

Not necessarily.

But what would be the point of the marriage for her?

Love? Commitment? Sharing her life with the man who captured her heart? Going through life as a team instead of as two individuals, a cohesive unit.

You sound pretty cynical here.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Love? Commitment? Sharing her life with the man who captured her heart? Going through life as a team instead of as two individuals, a cohesive unit.

You can do all this without getting married.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You may see yourself that way, but societally you won't be treated as that cohesive unit without being married.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would I care what "society" thinks? It's a relationship between me and my SO, not me, my SO, and random judgy strangers.

Besides I'll always get judged for not having kids anyway, fuck 'em. If I actually spent my life trying to please other people and follow the rules of "society" I'd be a very miserable fucker.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

And I'm not saying that you have to get married personally. But there's very definitely a point to marriage that has nothing to do with kids or a house.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just wondering why others do care. I cannot get into that mindset. Most of the pro-marriage arguments I see on here, outside of the family ones you're disagreeing with, pretty much add up to "it's what people expect me to do."

As my mum always said: "if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If your not making money in this economy then the problem is you.

[–]polyconfused3813 points14 points  (193 children) | Copy Link

Women who make the median income or lower don’t want men to make less than them because you basically can’t raise a family that way— the woman’s income isn’t enough alone, yet two working parents requires them to pay for childcare which will eat up most of the second income. This has less to do with evolution or gender norms and more to do with practical economic realities than Terpers think. Also there is huge UMC bias in the way terpers talk about this stuff. Anecdotal but I know plenty of UMC couples where the wife makes more or there’s a stay home dad. A lawyer making 200k is less likely to mind a husband staying home or earning 30k because they can still afford a family.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Women who make the median income or lower don’t want men to make less than them because you basically can’t raise a family that way

So that's why they become single mothers isntead?

[–]storffish7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

a baby is something to live for and potentially a way to keep a man (which works maybe a third of the time.) from what I've seen it's entirely about finding a sense of purpose in being a mom with no thought given to the economic realities of it ("I'll figure that out later.")

mind you these are mostly poor women who don't have access to a lot of breadwinning striver working-to-support-my-family types and who aren't exactly great marriage material themselves. the traditional route is fairly well shut off to them.

[–]polyconfused386 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

You’re assuming that there’s an intentional process of “becoming single mothers” at work. I’m pretty sure most of them aren’t making a trip to the sperm bank with the intention of “becoming single mothers”, so it has to be something more like they get knocked up and hope the guy will stay and he doesn’t, or they’re just young and don’t think things through at all, or they are divorced.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM9 points10 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You’re assuming that there’s an intentional process of “becoming single mothers” at work.

You are absolving women of all responsibility. There are tons of birth control methods, and regret pills and abortion if all else fails. There is an intentional process.

However one issue is that it may be more economic beneficial to be a single mother, than a two low-income household.

[–]polyconfused388 points9 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

It has nothing to do with absolving anyone. A girl who gets pregnant at 16 is not making a deliberate and rational choice to be a single mother because, she’s not thinking it though much at all.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's the cycle of poverty complete with a terrible culture. You have to educate the ever loving fuck out of kids to get them to avoid this. However, they do themselves no favours by using babies as money makers.

However, people in poorer communities tend to be more religious, too. Premarital sex is a big no-no so they shouldn't be fucking around to begin with. While the environment sucks, they should be responsible for their decisions because that kid would have much rather preferred a better environment to be born in. Seen too many pregnant teens to know that they know what they did was stupid but they don't care because there is a system incentivizing this shit. The day single moms receive no benefit from being single moms - emotional, financial or otherwise - is the day that shit ends.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The day single moms receive no benefit from being single moms - emotional, financial or otherwise - is the day that shit ends.

In past decades, when it was customary for babies born to single mothers to be put up for adoption, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was very low. There's simply no percentage in having a baby if you can't keep and raise it.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

"In past decades, when it was customary for babies born to single mothers to be put up for adoption, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was very low. There's simply no percentage in having a baby if you can't keep and raise it."

Wooo that is cold. I don't think we are going to be able to legislate that all single mothers have to he forcibly give up their womb turds.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They weren't required to do so by law then, but most couldn't afford to support a child sans government assistance, which didn't exist at the time, so they took the only route available to them. I suspect many if not most unintended pregnancies resulted in shotgun weddings, though. Sometimes the children were adopted by older married siblings or other family members.

[–]polyconfused381 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think there’s any plausible world in which there is no “system incentivizing this.” The system incentivizing it is called human biology. Most women want kids.

[–]Jammerly1Snatching TRP Bald since 20170 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s also a biological imperative for women to produce children. It’s in our DNA. Some women are good at controlling this urge, others aren’t.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I kinda disagree. These girls look into the future and don't see much happening. They're always going to be poor; they're always going to live in rundown apartments; they're always going to have crappy jobs like "cashier at the Dollar General." The men available to them also will be marginally employed; some will have drug and/or alcohol problems; many have costly scrapes with the law.

Having a baby is something that makes you the center of attention, at least for a little while. You can lavish love on a baby and be the most important person in someone's world! That is heady stuff when you have nothing else going on in life. I think they're actually making a pretty rational choice, under the circumstances.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Teenage pregnancy makes up a tiny proportion of births. A better example is a 25 year old women that absolutely knows what they are doing.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or the 30 year old whose "clock" has gone off and wakes up screaming "I WANT A BABY!" over and over again.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Exactly this. I couldn't care less that I make way more than he does, because I make way more than I need to live comfortably.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

marry me. I can cook.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

This is acceptable only if the husband is engaged in a status career, such as academia

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I actually think you're on to something here. I spend a lot of time arguing with people on here about the fact that I'm honestly 100% ok with being the breadwinner. But, he -does- have an academic career. I'd probably be less happy dating a cashier.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

That's because real potential might be comparably attractive to realized potential.

[–]oceanicallyunbounded 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I think it's probably closer to "because ambition and intelligence are attractive", and money is just often used as a proxy for that.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

To me that's the same thing. Ambition and intelligence ARE what give someone potential.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Potential for succeeding in life (financially and otherwise).

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure potential by itself is meaningful, it's the goals you set, your values, and how you apply yourself to them.

How are goals any better/different than potential? Goals might be a little more specific. Goals suggest/imply potential, but to me it's pretty much the same thing said differently. It's all hypotheticals at that point about something that might happen in the future.

[–]polyconfused383 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Acceptable to whom? I’m talking about actual couples I know.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw a study where when a woman earns 81-100% of household income, the divorce rate is double vs a couple where the man earns 81-100% of household income.

Also in households where the dad is a SAHD, his rates of having an affair are something like 3x higher. The wife has a higher affair rate too, but I forget the exact number.

A lot of people have trouble shaking off the cultural and evolutionary gender roles we have been assigned

[–]vornash210 points11 points  (161 children) | Copy Link

A large part of the problem is the fact too many women work, thus driving the cost of living up substantially compared to the past. Housing price inflation alone suggests this dual income dynamic is very destructive to family formation. You're literally competing against people who sometimes don't want kids, only careers, money, vacations, bigger houses, nicer cars, ect, ect. You know, the "real" life everybody is bragging about on facebook. Disgusting web site and people.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (104 children) | Copy Link

A lot of us have to work too in the current economy. If half the women just stopped working all at once, ok, maybe, but that’s not going to happen so it’s not like we all have some practical choice to just not work.

[–]vornash2-1 points0 points  (103 children) | Copy Link

Of course you have a choice. If hispanics can do it you can too. But people are too greedy, selfish, and lack faith.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am confused by your hispanics comment because all the hispanic/latino women that I know work.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mostly out of need, not desire, that is the difference. They like big families regardless.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.12 points13 points  (59 children) | Copy Link

It’s not a practical or appealing choice and has nothing to do with being “too greedy, selfish and faith-lacking.” I don’t want to live off my husband’s salary alone and neither does he, nor do we want to add kids to the mix if that was the case. Capitalism is going to result in ambitious people who want to make money. I’m not going to sacrifice a career where I (and my husband and future kids) can benefit so that there’s one more job for a man (which isn’t even guaranteed), which won’t have much of an effect on anything except me and my family and that man and his possible family. He’s free to compete like the rest of us.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

PREACH

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (57 children) | Copy Link

Which is why I have strongly considered the idea of rolling back all the progress we've made, no right to vote for women, no college, no abortion, and no contraception unless they have 3 children. Increased freedom has proven to be a disasterous experiment.

This is really unfortunate that modern societies may have to resort to such extremes to create a sustainable birth rate and maintain their cultures. Pray nobody like me is given the power to apply my theories in the real world. But as things deteriorate, it becomes increasingly likely.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

That would only benefit men and not even all the time.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

It would benefit the next generation, not people today.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily and it would certainly not be beneficial to women of the next generation.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Feminism was really fought so the top 20% of women can go to college and have careers, the rest of them just want normal lives and to take care of their families. So no.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It might benefit the men of the next generation.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The women too, at least most of them that wanted a family anyway.

[–]Lolashaulke2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So, if I'm an infertile woman or gay, what should I be doing in your situation? You do know women die in childbirth, right?

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Adopt children.

[–]Lolashaulke3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How are the women supposed to get the ~20k per child to adopt if they can't work/get higher paying careers? Also, do men need to adopt?

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're infertile and can't adopt, you are dead weight and useless to society except for whatever economic productivity you can create, but even that is typically very limited.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Good luck with that, lol.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

One supreme court death and abortion is gone, very soon.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Abortion always will be available to women of means who can afford to go where it's still safe and legal. At best, you'll restrict poor women's access to safe and legal procedures. Abortion drugs -- perhaps obtained via the black market -- will stand in the gap.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Only dumb people need abortions for the most part, which is why I really hate to get rid of them entirely.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah right. It doesn’t work that easily.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Maybe instead, people can save for their own retirements instead of relying on other peoplle's children to pay their pension?

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You understand social security doesn't work like that right? People have been paying into this mother fucker their entire lives, they expect what was promised. It's a huge problem with no solution. And you greedy fucks not reproducing are destabilizing the entire system we depend upon.

Any childless person over the age of 35 should probably be heavily penalized via surtaxes on income to compensate the Government for the loss of citizens and future revenue. This money should be redistributed to families with 3 or more children. Something like this may be the only hope short of outright tyranny and loss of rights. I hope so anyway.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I should approve this plan as I do, in fact have three children. However, SS does in fact work like that. Retirement age was set at 65 when the average life span was 67. Now that life span has shot right up and medical expenses to keep sick old people have skyrocketed, the only way it works it to have a pyramid shaped population to draw on. People are going to have to plan to self fund their retirement (which we have also done) or realise that SS will provide a subsistence level lifestyle only. None of this, two people living in a three bedroom house which people seem to think they are entitled to.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If you find freedom so offensive why not move yourself somewhere more compatible with your values?

[–]vornash22 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Because I value my culture and I want to preserve it, not assimilate into some shithole culture.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But your culture includes freedom and it's consequences.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"Your culture" has left you behind as it adapts to the new reality. There's nothing left of what you want to "preserve".

It will never go back to the way you want, because you have an idealized view of a mythical past that never existed in the first place.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Trump is president because my culture is not completely dead yet, we are actually fighting back now, and we may win. Only one side will win.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay, you lost me on that one Bud.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Am I suppose to care?

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Supposed*

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

ill kill every man for free if this happens.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

The most pointlessly selfish thing that can be done at this point of history is having kids.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense. There's no overpopulation in the Western world.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Which is why you adopt orphan kids from the world that does have overpopulation, whenever possible. Failing that, from your own country.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Nope. I want my kids to have my DNA.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Hence pointlessly selfish.

[–]vornash22 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Reproduction is suppose to be selfish. The best genes get passed on. Retards don't reproduce, this is a good thing.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Again nonsense. If you want to save the third world, go ahead and knock yourself out. Preaching to others that they must adopt kids is silly. And while you're at it, why don't you cuck yourself. Having a wife all for yourself is pointless. Share with dudes in Cameroon!

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Malthusian propaganda. Our economy literally depends on a sustainable birth rate, which allows us to pay for the retirement of the elderly.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Adopt a kid from another country then, last time I checked there's no shortage.

[–]vornash25 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Low IQ babies not desirable.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's assuming genes influence IQ more than upbringing, barring fringe cases like Down's.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All the evidence I've seen says it's at least 50%, maybe more.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah. Who wants their damaged kids from shithole third world countries?

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most people's genes are not going to change the world.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's economically necessary for women to want children. It's not pointless nor completely self-serving.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Hispanic fertility is way down, and hispanic single motherhood families way up in the USA.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

And it's still way above whites.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is? I'm not so sure. Brazil, the largest country, has a total birthrate of 1.8/woman. USA used to be around 2.1, although recently US birthrates have cratered even below much of Europe's. So perhaps you dipped below.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes you can look it up easily for yourself.

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

why dont you men stop working, hmm? why does it have to be the woman? not every woman wants crotch spawns.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Because there are actually a lot of jobs women can't do or do well. Men are larger than women for a good reason. We're stronger, we have a higher percentage of the male population that's classified as geniuses, but also more idiots than women, so it balances out. Men pay for this by being disposable human beings to some degree. We go to war, we die or get horribly disabled or PTSD. We get injured at work, we die or get disabled. How many women do you think have no arms or legs because they were too close to an explosion? Even if they were, they probably more likely to die in the explosion. I could go on, but I hope this is sufficient.

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

it is not sufficient. it doesnt explain why should women drop out of college collectively and seek a provider. what men do today that isnt done by a robot already? like women dont get ptsd. also, what does your "intellectual" superiority have to do with menial jobs? menial job > being dependent on a male, who will later on use it as an excuse to bully you. no thanks.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course men abusing women is unacceptable, but there are laws for this. They should do it because they need to pay back society for existing, and only they have the reproductive power. If we could grow babies in a test tube, maybe I wouldn't be such hard ass. Just as we pay taxes for the earnings we make in society, women need to reproduce if they are able. It is the honorable thing to do.

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

just because i have uterus means some dude out there gets to put a bun in it? or else hes gonna drop out of society? luckily, i got it removed (hysterectomy). its honorable that a woman gets to exercise her reproductive rights. its anything but honorable that a dude gets to tell her shit about it.

[–]belletaco12 points13 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

You're literally competing against people who sometimes don't want kids, only careers, money, vacations, bigger houses, nicer cars, ect, ect. You know, the "real" life everybody is bragging about on facebook.

As opposed to what? Being miserable and barely scraping by so you can raise kids?

[–]vornash24 points5 points  (43 children) | Copy Link

It comes down to values. Hispanic families do it with lower incomes than the rest of america. But they still have their faith in god for one thing. And they are very family oriented. If someone is ill they all go to the doctor's office together. They actually give a fuck about family which is refreshing to see sometimes. And I don't think they are all miserable either. That's very insulting to people who are arguably living a better life than modern households with less money.

[–]belletaco11 points12 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I definitely did not mean to attack families who have strong family values. I just find when people often say that, what they are saying is, "Stop enjoying life and spending your money on things you want to and get down to having kids and being miserable like your parents were!"

[–]vornash24 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

But you did attack them without even realizing it. That's how casually we dismiss such people today. It's gross. The idea that reproduction is all a sacrifice is a mockery of life itself. The only objective purpose of life is to fucking reproduce! We are therefore biased to enjoy the process, just like women find babies adorable.

[–]RadaNotaTaakaDaPillsOfficially a Wizard9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only objective purpose of life is to fucking exist. The human species may have evolved to be biased towards procreation, but humanity did not come into being to reproduce. That's ascribing some intent by some universal force to create beings that reproduce and spread. However, the desire to reproduce is just a symptom of existence, not some categorical imperative.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression8 points9 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The only objective purpose of life is to fucking reproduce!

Really? Curing cancer or establishing peace in the Middle East, etc., are unworthy compared to the simple act of being successfully inseminated?

Giving birth is pretty basic; almost every female can do it, barring some physical abnormality. Having a kid doesn't make you some kind of special snowflake, IMO.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Whoever cures cancer is unlikely to be a woman. Not because women aren't as smart as men, but the bell curve distributions of human intelligence don't match perfectly. This means there are way more stupid men, but also more geniuses. Men are nature's experiment, women are the safe bet. This is why women are neither interested in or good at STEM. They are more emotionally intelligent and therefore their skills are best suited elsewhere, but these jobs are not as intellectually demanding. There's your red pill for the day.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

LOL, so uninformed! You really should get out more. For instance, the BRCA gene malfunction that sometimes causes breast cancer was discovered by a female researcher. Try again?

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Of course women are biased to be interested in breast cancer. This isolated example is meaningless. There is no cure for cancer. Women do not win many nobel prizes for science or medicine. That is reserved for men, even though women are well represented within the medical field.

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The only objective purpose of life is to fucking reproduce!

And most people on this beautiful green Earth do, in fact, have kids! You'd think we're living in a post-apocalyptic world the way you guys complain about women having fewer children.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fewer is fine, not enough to prevent the population from aging is unacceptable.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I married into a hispanic family. All the women work.

I'm not sure where you're getting that hispanic families are all traditional with SAHMs. I agree that they have strong family ties, but having lived around hispanic people my whole life, I knew very few families where the mom didn't work.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve also lived around Mexicans my whole life in CA and there are many who Work and also many SAHMs . They are extremely family oriented and holy shit do they flood the hospital when someone’s sick which is a big problem because their fucking kids run all over unsupervised. I once saw a firefighter kick the family out because there were so many of them they exceeded the max capacity of the building . This isn’t a funeral home JFC

BUILD THE WALL

Srs tho I love Mexicans I don’t wanna deport em

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah they work chickenshit jobs to bring in a little extra cash. They can't maintain a career and have 3-4 children simultaneously.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, and those "chickenshit jobs" are often a lot more physically taxing and offer less time off and flexibility than most "careers," so I'm not sure what your point is. They're still not staying home raising the kids.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

My point is if you're a waitress you can drop that shit in a minute to go have your next baby. Other career paths are not as flexible, which is why women often choose to have 1 or 2 children then stop. The hispanics have lower incomes and education, so they are even more dependent on the second income, not so for other households.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Values, culture, lower cost of living. Young hispanic girls get married early and start having babies almost immediately.

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL, you have no idea what you're talking about. Some of these women are working 10-12 hours days on their feet all day.

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

i dont give a fuck about family unit, i want muh hard earned cash.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Greed and selfishness. At least you are honest. That is commendable at least compared to others.

[–]Fuck-your-misoginy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

greed? how it is greed? i just want my money, and not to depend on a man.

[–]polyconfused386 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I half agree but I don’t think fewer women in the workforce would solve the problem as there are other macroeconomic forces driving down wages, as well as inflating costs like housing and tuition and reducing social supports.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those things are minor compared to the potential to double household income (with wife working) vs a traditional family (stay at home mom).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This is straight up /r/badeconomics.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Please explain how it's bad economics.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I would, but given what you said here there's no point. More so this post furthers that point. You want to push traditionalism "economics". Here's the thing such economics are not going to work in today's world as much as you think. Its 2018 not 1920's. There's this thing called world trade. Traditionalism fails under such economics.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

South korea and japan are actually very traditional in general, so false. Before women had all these rights we still had global commerce and trade. Even up to 1960 women were mostly stay at home moms, then it gradually started changing. 50 years ago is really not much time. It doesn't even support the current framework as sustainable in the long run. A full human lifetime hasn't even passed. Ridiculous, you have no argument, as I suspected.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No I have an argument its clear tho you have zero clue what your talking about. As I said there's literally no point in explaining to you why as you don't even know what your talking about. You clearly have zero clue about the economy in Asia let alone how they differ from the West.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

America was still fairly traditionalist up to 1960 or 1970, and we had world trade. So your argument is shit. Lets see if you can just address that flaw. I'll make it simple for you. So please tell me more about your fucking economic knowledge.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

America was still fairly traditionalist up to 1960 or 1970

You mean the time period where the US was starting to go thru a culture change? I am sure you heard of hippies. Also look at when single motherhood start taken off.

So your argument is shit.

Don't get mad over being called out on spewing bad economics.

So please tell me more about your fucking economic knowledge.

I know its better than yours. But as I said before its clearly not worth going into why your wrong on the economics.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're literally competing against people who sometimes don't want kids, only careers, money, vacations, bigger houses, nicer cars, ect, ect.

Yep that you are. We're easy to spot, we're the ones having all the fun.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women who make the median income or lower don’t want men to make less than them because you basically can’t raise a family that way

They can't make it on two low incomes, but they can raise a family on a single income? "single-parent homes go up."

[–]polyconfused380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Single parenthood isn’t typically a deliberate choice. More UMS mindset at work skewing things.

[–]freshestpr1nce2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good. Marriage is such a stupid fucking institution anyway.

Society and the media cram down the idea of “if your man really cares he’ll pay for a big wedding” and how it’s the “most special day of your life”. Cue in multi billion dollar industries for wedding bullshit. And for what? A ring on your finger and pictures that’ll sit in your attic? Biggest fucking scam existing today, and if it died out that would be great for everyone.

[–]friendlylooking9 points10 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Women punish men by not choosing them? That's some weird stuff right there.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the whiners in the manosphere don't have the ear of Congress

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s how dependent men are on women. And this heightened desperation for women is why a lot of them resent women. They don’t necessarily hate them, they just resent them because women seem to not want or need them as much as men need women.

It’s why most of RP can basically be summarized as men tearfully telling women, “now you’ll be sorry!”

[–]vornash27 points8 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

A lifetime of lonliness seems pretty punishing to social animals like people.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you apply for a job and don't get it, are you being "punished" by "businesses"?

If you don't win at the roulette table are you being "punished" by "casinos"?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Nah, men just need a different purpose in life

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

just some men ;)

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Fake purposes are shit

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

define fake purpose.

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There is only one objective purpose of humans, reproduction facilitated via human peer bonding. Everything else is imaginary, fake, not real, only in your head, subject to change, ect. But not everyone makes a good husband or wife, so they're sort of defective people, and nature will eliminate them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, if we are going back to nature, most males leave after inpreganting. This is seen in most species.

So I guess a man's only purpose then is to fuck?

[–]vornash21 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Humans obviously are more advanced, yes?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good question. Are we? Our society is advanced, but do we only do things out of constant programming?

[–]methylotrophMGHOW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Where do you think all that "purpose" of breeding is going to end? I put high bets humans will be extinct by the year 3000. Genetic reproduction replace by machines and synthetic life, post-humans who are immortal and don't reproduce in any "natural" way. If we are lucky this may happen without some of our lifetimes. Why the fuck should I waste my time and money on a obsolete talking ape progeny?

[–]friendlylooking1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Loneliness is awful, but describing this as punishment from women is the weird thing.

[–]vornash20 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nothing weird

[–]friendlylooking1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's weird. Maybe it's common, but it's still weird. Women aren't doing anything, so they shouldn't be blamed if you're lonely. They're just moving forward with their lives.

[–]InternationalArm5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The article basically says what I been saying in that women have less of a dating pool to date and marry from and that women are NOT dating down despite what various users here think is going.

The focus of the article is on the fact that men that are unemployed aren't getting married. There's a difference between income disparity and someone not being employed.

I don't see anything shocking here.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah for real, since when was it news that being unemployed makes you less suitable for marriage? No shit Sherlock.

[–]methylotrophMGHOW3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What? But why don't women want house-husbands? I thought career women would have their careers and make the house husband raise the kids, you know the modern self-sufficent feminist women right?

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men don't mind sleeping with women who they perceive having less status than them. Women don't want to sleep with men who they perceive having less status than them, whether that status is from appearance/personality, or income/provisioning ability. Due to the nature of the female sex drive, I don't see this changing. Men have to find a way to impress women, and no amount of whining about women's desire for equality or their pickiness is going to change that.

[–]concacanca10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand how you can write that and end with blaming men lol.

You aren't wrong, women aren't changing any time soon. This is the new reality. I just think it ends with more unhappy people than some sort of paradigm shift in male behavior.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because one can't force women to be attracted to men who don't have positive qualities that they can admire. This is how ou biology works. Men have to be the ones who adapt, although both the men and women in power need to look at men's issues more than they are already doing to help the men who are already trying to adapt.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The issue is more that people are lazy and don't want to better themselves. They rather be a fat slob than work hard and be a sexy 6 pack guy. The younger generation is even worse off, no sense of humor and no social skills.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Also women's standards have gone up so much that it is a losing competition. It'd be like if McDonald's started charging $15 for a big mac. Even if you can afford it, its still not a good deal.

I know a guy who is an athletic physician. He married a woman who is 300 lbs, a total bitch and who has a kid from a previous marriage. As a guy, what is the point of being an athletic physician if that if your reward? As guys we are expected to be tall, handsome, fit, successful, educated with great personalities, etc. but the reward is a bunch of average women with above average demands. Even if you have it, it is not worth it.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]jax006Red Pill Gives You Wings1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

they also wonder why all the men they meet are down for 1 to 3 smash sessions and then ghost them

This one always amuses me. And they will typically dress it up in a very somber and pitying narrative where they are the victim; whenever I have this conversation with a potential partner I mentally next them.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

While this is all true, it only takes into consideration blue collar manufacturing jobs. There are still lots of careers outside of that.

But it really doesn't matter IMO. I know lots of guys who have decent white collar jobs who are SOL on the dating market because the market is full of women who think they deserve Chad because a bunch of thirsty men hit on them on Tinder.

Women are pricing themselves out of the market for various reasons. The dearth of male jobs that offer a living wage is only part of the problem. The massive gender differences in educational attainment, or women's inflated egos due to the modern dating market are bigger problems but they all have the same result. Many women can't find a man 'good enough' for her because the kinds of men that are good enough in actuality are not only fairly rare, but they are several steps above her on the ladder and have better options.

Also lets be honest, women have become a lot less desirable in the last 30-40 years too. Women today in general are fatter, have bigger egos, are more likely to be single mothers and are more likely to destroy you financially in a divorce than they were 40 years ago. It isn't like women have gone up in quality in the last 30 years while men have gone down. Both genders have declined in quality.

[–]1UPZ_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the vagina bubble.. err.. vagina value bubble!

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. People don't like this, but this is exactly what is happening.

[–]MickDash1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is misandrist rape

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

fear of dying alone is part of it. My dad is single at 65 and good luck finding women to just fuck at that age. Its possible but its a barren situation once you get older.

[–]WeCaredALotP-P-P-PURPLE4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

According to some guys on here, all your Dad has to do is go find some 25-35 year old to wife up.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Older people don't care as much about sex. If anything I'd say they have a more social community then everyone else. Old people are very social

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, most women aren’t interested in being a permanent GF, much less having kids with that guy. If you can find some high quality women willing to do that, more power to ya.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

...and that women are NOT dating down despite what various users here think is going.

Does any significantly large group of people here believe that women marry down?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think that what you think you want is actually good for you, why do you think you are the best judge of yourself? Why do you think that you even understand yourself to begin with?

Don't know how that is remarkable. Men are looking for an out/release to their lack of job. As they don't have any other place to turn to and its their escape from reality and how they cope.

This is very important, this conclusion that you came up with should be read and than applied to everything else that you have to say. Obviously a lot of people on opiates cant work from chronic pain and a lot of them are junkies who can get a job because of drug tests OR their drug use got them fired from their job. The reason for their drug use is not gonna be because they are coping from not having a job lol. You had to try really hard for that one

This shows your level of bias towards all of this, so in this case there will be things that I actually agree with you about, but I still wont think that you should be making a case for what you need because any agreement we have is coincidence. You need to first accept that what you need must come from someone elses mouth, if you cant get to that point than there is no solution

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The reason for their drug use is not gonna be because they are coping from not having a job lol.

Eh, it can be in some cases man. Unemployment is depressing. Opiates provide a quick (temporary) fix.

It's also honestly pretty easy to work on opiates. I've rocked up to work literally on the nod before haha. But that's just because I stupidly took a higher dose than I meant to. At a moderate dose of any given opiate I can function absolutely fine.

I'd suggest a lot of unemployed people addicted to opiates are just looking for an escape from their shitty reality especially if they're in small towns with very little work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, but that post makes it sound like those people weren't fucking with opiates before they lost their job. When they lose their job they have so much free time and pressure that they can easily make it worse. But I cant imagine many regular people who don't fuck with drugs losing their jobs and jumping straight into banging heroin, certainly not enough to talk about it in a cause and effect way like that

I havent fucked with opiates in a while, im more of a stim guy but ill speedball every once and a while just to remind myself what im missin

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah I agree with that. They were probably fucking with the opiates already and after losing their job they upped their use and became full on addicts to fill the hole unemployment leaves in your life.

That's a classic story with these kind of things, going from a casual user to an addict because something disrupts your life. Applies to drinking most often.

Also you sound like the kinda guy I can fuck with haha, I'm about to start popping my dexamphetamine for the day, would love to mix it with some morphine as well, maybe just a little Xanax to take the edge off, and of course light up a joint as well... then head off to work. Luckily I don't drive 😂

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The reason why women are rare at the top is because there's no one to date (among dozens of other reasons).

Obviously feminists wanting more women in positions of power and status fail to realize that it's very, very lonely up there.

[–]Ordinate1Brown pill - Eat shit and die, motherfucker!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Traditional masculinity is standing in the way of working-class men's employment," Johns Hopkins sociologist Andrew Cherlin said in an interview.

"And that's when I hit him, your honor."

No, what is standing in the way of working-class men's employment is a lack of working-class jobs.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women date down in terms of looks.

[–]bunniebellPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not men’s fault that women changed the societal landscape during the sexual revolution. There used to be a tight social contract between the genders—men worked in public life, women worked in private life, they always married, divorce was shunned, children must be legitimate or given away...women wanted a choice about all this. They were tired of being forced to live that way.

So they fucked it up for the future generations of women.

It’s cool that women have choices now. The consequence is...their relationship with men has necessarily changed. Men changed because of that. The only reason men were the “the strong masculine type” was because they were also forced into that role by society. If women got to have sex freely, with anyone, never settle down, and raise illegitimate children, then men should be able to, as well.

It’s only now, after females’ see the consequences of their sexual revolution, do they want to go back to typical gender roles.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All ok with me as long as we who do pay taxes don't pay for single mothers and their progeny.

[–]Nu_Guy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She is just trying to tame a chad. These toxic masculinity rants are not for the average guy.

To rebutt this maddness, look in your place of employment and tell me that masculine men with their heads geared for success are not on top........

[–]pinkgoldrose0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

And remarkably, half of unemployed men in the U.S. are on some sort of painkiller.

I've noticed that unemployed people at the doctor usually have a story that goes something like "I injured my back 12 years ago at work lifting a box and I've never been able to work again" and they come to the doctor for pain medication. Maybe they get more welfare money if they are on pain medication?

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, you don't automatically get more money, but those pills have a black-market value, IYKWIM.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For the most part welfare is a thing of the past. Federal SSI/SSD claims are how they survive. Once people are adjudicated as disabled they seldom go back to work.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter