Women are trapped in an ironic pseudo position where they fervently and fanatically pursue agendas they dont want because what they want is for men to stop them.
This. Modern men somehow forgot about the shit test? All women do from the beginning is prod and test everything around them, feminism is just that approach scaled up to every single woman in the world. They are WAITING for male pushback because men have become so weak and conditioned by them.
spoiler: you dont have to "impose" values on society if the society is homogenous, shares borders, language, and culture and has strong kin and familial bonds.
But that's not the case so what does it have to do with current year in America. Politics should be about just smoothly guiding the ethnostate but that's simply not reality so instead it's basically a war at this point where the winner is trying to subjugate the opponent
>Sex ratio theory suggests why mating practices have become dysfunctional in the West and other regions. [...] Statistics from the Nordic countries—the world’s most gender-equal region—indicate that subjective perceptions of the sex ratio in modern environments drive singledom and low reproduction. Scandinavia has the world’s highest occurrence of one-person households: 43–46%. In the past decade, the Norwegian fertility rate dropped from 2.0 to 1.5. Sex ratio studies suggest that women’s perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygynous mindset, which in prosperous, monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair-bonding.
>Statistics show that women are increasingly unwilling to copulate or pair-bond with less attractive mates. Although women desire relationships, as they have gained equality, their standards have increased. Today’s rising economic stratification motivates further discrimination of certain men. With improved gender equality, women sorted away the poorest men. Rising economic inequity makes women exclude those men who are just below average (Brooks et al., 2022). Being a high-value man in the modern environment is about more than financial capital. Women generally want men with high education and status, financial success, greater intelligence, a tall stature, independence, and self-confidence (Buss, 2016; DeSantis, 2021). Those unable to attract such a man may forego pair-bonding and reproduction to prioritize other sources of fulfillment, such as a rewarding career or financial independence (Sng and Ackerman, 2020).
The increased social status of women makes them choosier resulting in a growing number of men being excluded from the mating market.
On the flip-side, a growing number of women remains unpartnered because they find themselves unable to find a man who meets their expectations. But this wealth of unpartnered women also affects the cognition of men - high status men in particular.
>Instead of raising their standards to attract a higher-value partner, men would lower their standards to have more promiscuous sex. Instead of lowering their standards to attract a mate, women would raise their standards to avoid being deceived by men who seek short-term mating (Stone et al., 2007).
The high status men, desired by women, become more promiscuous and less likely to commit to a single partner, raising their standards for long-term relationships. Women respond to this by becoming choosier and more promiscuous at the same time.
>They compete more fiercely and do so by catering to male mate preferences. Women permit more uncommitted sex (Schmitt, 2005). They signal promiscuity, for instance, by wearing shorter skirts (Barber, 1999). A novel expression of such female–female competition, informed by male preferences, is that when high income inequality reduces the proportion of attractive bachelors, women post more sexualized selfies (Borgerhoff Mulder, 2018). Early pregnancy is another competitive means. In low-ratio contexts, women appear to compete for males through teenage pregnancies and pregnancies outside of marriage (South and Trent, 1988; Barber, 2000, 2001; Chipman and Morrison, 2013).
As a consequence both men and women become frustrated with the opposite sex. Women because they can't get the long-term relationships with the high status men they desire and men because they find themselves confronted with a increasingly competitive dating market from which certain men are excluded in entirety.
In liberal circles people often blame plummeting birthrates on economic hardship but the Nordic countries serve as a counter-example.
>In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Trägårdh 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic “taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would.” In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).
Instead of the birthrates being raised, they dropped even further.
>In 1974, the typical Norwegian woman was 23 years old when she married. In 2020, she was 34 (Statistics Norway, 2015, 2022a)—although her first birth was at 30 (Statistics Norway, 2022b). Over this period, her fertility rate fell from 2.13 to 1.48 (Statistics Norway, 2022e).
And the poorest men were sorted out rather than being enabled to have families.
>Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Håkonsen and Krekling 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women’s recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Østby, 2014)—which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40—those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almås et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Mænds Sundhed, 2017).
tl;dr - the inability of men and women to pair bond results in demographic collapse. Immigration does not help remedy this problem either and introduces other negative externalities.
>Experts give an impression of not knowing why this is occurring or which policies could counter the demographic collapse. Their most common recommendation has been to increase immigration (Grant et al., 2006; Grunfelder et al., 2020; Vollset et al., 2020). Since many developing countries still have high fertility rates, transferring parts of their population to developed nations appeared as a viable solution. From 2000 to 2015, Norway’s immigrant population tripled (Midttun, 2018), yet the fertility rate kept falling. Today, 15% of residents are immigrants (Statistics Norway, 2022c), which increases the population, but without motivating reproduction near replacement levels. A cultural change across Europe after the 2015 migrant crisis has made continued large-scale immigration a less compelling proposition. Recent long-term-cost estimates have shown that instead of improving national finances, many groups of immigrants undermine the future viability of Western welfare states (NOU 2017:2, 2017). Eastern European and Asian cultures have been less willing to open their borders to counter low fertility (Vollset et al., 2020).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
so basically >women want men with more money than them >"muh wage gap" >government throws mountains of money at women so they have more than men >now men need to have more money than the government (which gets its money from men)
shit's so fricked
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>shit's so fricked
You forgot the reason why women need more money- because they lived their lives on the basis that easy money they got for being a hot 20yo would last forever, or that their future husband would pay their debts, so they took out loans that far exceeded their ability to repay them and by their 30s are drowning in debt.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I dunno , seems more likely that women just work more now and make enough to live on.
Not having the need to depend on a man to make ends meet, they stop settling for less than the bare minimum. Pair that with less desire to procreate and most women would rather be alone than with a man who doesn’t meet their standards.
If she doesn’t need you and you’re not adding anything to her life, then why would she want you ?
ty for this post. I needed some evidence to counter that shit-tier argument ("it's the economy") for why birthrates are so low.
No, it's the result of full rights for women. Which idc either way.
Where is your greentext sourced from btw?
On the flip-side, a growing number of women remains unpartnered because they find themselves unable to find a man who meets their expectations. But this wealth of unpartnered women also affects the cognition of men - high status men in particular.
>Instead of raising their standards to attract a higher-value partner, men would lower their standards to have more promiscuous sex. Instead of lowering their standards to attract a mate, women would raise their standards to avoid being deceived by men who seek short-term mating (Stone et al., 2007).
The high status men, desired by women, become more promiscuous and less likely to commit to a single partner, raising their standards for long-term relationships. Women respond to this by becoming choosier and more promiscuous at the same time.
>They compete more fiercely and do so by catering to male mate preferences. Women permit more uncommitted sex (Schmitt, 2005). They signal promiscuity, for instance, by wearing shorter skirts (Barber, 1999). A novel expression of such female–female competition, informed by male preferences, is that when high income inequality reduces the proportion of attractive bachelors, women post more sexualized selfies (Borgerhoff Mulder, 2018). Early pregnancy is another competitive means. In low-ratio contexts, women appear to compete for males through teenage pregnancies and pregnancies outside of marriage (South and Trent, 1988; Barber, 2000, 2001; Chipman and Morrison, 2013).
As a consequence both men and women become frustrated with the opposite sex. Women because they can't get the long-term relationships with the high status men they desire and men because they find themselves confronted with a increasingly competitive dating market from which certain men are excluded in entirety.
In liberal circles people often blame plummeting birthrates on economic hardship but the Nordic countries serve as a counter-example.
>In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Trägårdh 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic “taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would.” In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).
Instead of the birthrates being raised, they dropped even further.
>In 1974, the typical Norwegian woman was 23 years old when she married. In 2020, she was 34 (Statistics Norway, 2015, 2022a)—although her first birth was at 30 (Statistics Norway, 2022b). Over this period, her fertility rate fell from 2.13 to 1.48 (Statistics Norway, 2022e).
And the poorest men were sorted out rather than being enabled to have families.
>Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Håkonsen and Krekling 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women’s recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Østby, 2014)—which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40—those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almås et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Mænds Sundhed, 2017).
tl;dr - the inability of men and women to pair bond results in demographic collapse. Immigration does not help remedy this problem either and introduces other negative externalities.
>Experts give an impression of not knowing why this is occurring or which policies could counter the demographic collapse. Their most common recommendation has been to increase immigration (Grant et al., 2006; Grunfelder et al., 2020; Vollset et al., 2020). Since many developing countries still have high fertility rates, transferring parts of their population to developed nations appeared as a viable solution. From 2000 to 2015, Norway’s immigrant population tripled (Midttun, 2018), yet the fertility rate kept falling. Today, 15% of residents are immigrants (Statistics Norway, 2022c), which increases the population, but without motivating reproduction near replacement levels. A cultural change across Europe after the 2015 migrant crisis has made continued large-scale immigration a less compelling proposition. Recent long-term-cost estimates have shown that instead of improving national finances, many groups of immigrants undermine the future viability of Western welfare states (NOU 2017:2, 2017). Eastern European and Asian cultures have been less willing to open their borders to counter low fertility (Vollset et al., 2020).
>Statistics show that women are increasingly unwilling to copulate or pair-bond with less attractive mates. Although women desire relationships, as they have gained equality, their standards have increased
Stopped reading right there. This is bro-tier manosphere bullshit that really just continues to put women on a pedestal, but complains that they won't voluntarily come down off of it.
Miriam Lindner, evolutionary psychologist at Harvard, writes:
>Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.
>With gender imbalances in educational achievement becoming increasingly clear (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006), many high-status women not only increasingly remain unmarried, but also they might opt to remain single rather than adapting to deficits in the sexual marketplace, thereby reversing conventional patterns of marital hypergamy (“marrying down”) (Lewis & Oppenheimer, 2000; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Qian, 2017). Women also display more choosiness in the economic domain. Lichter et al. (2020) compared estimates of the preferred sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses with the actual distribution of unmarried men. They reported that unmarried women prefer partners who have an average income that is about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men available. Further, 71% of women who are financially secured by their own income still deem it essential that their partner has a steady income; in contrast, only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences in their potential partner (Fales et al., 2016).
>Exacerbated female choice thus creates a pool of excess, low-status men without opportunities for sexual and/or romantic relationships - that is, a shortage of educationally and/or economically attractive, unmarried men for women to marry. Empirical data attests to this trend: Whereas men and women did not differ much in the prevalence of being single from the 1980s through the 2000s, a gap appeared in the 2010s, such that more men (compared to women) remained unpartnered. For example, in 2018, 42% of women and 31% of men reported that they were not currently in a relationship, and 56% of women reported it difficult to find someone who matches their expectations – a number that was significantly lower (35%) among men (Brown, 2020).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>These statistics underscore the importance of evolutionary (as opposed to purely socioeconomic) explanations of the mating marketplace: they refute the hypothesis that women value status and wealth in romantic and sexual partners because society prevents them from attaining those assets themselves. The fact that women would rather be celibate than date a lower-status man (while this is not true of men) strongly suggests an evolutionary psychological explanation.
>Greater within-sex status variance allows some men to monopolize marketplace power while others are missing out. Usually, it is the degree of such monopolization of females by males that characterizes the degree of “effective polygyny” of the marketplace. The more intense this competition to secure a female partner, the more men will be inclined to use risky tactics to secure a mate. And, as described previously, one with a potential of perceived grounds for grievance against women, a target typically associated with lower power of physical coercion. Polygyny is positively associated with domestic violence (Ahinkorah, 2021; Ebrahim & Atteraya, 2021; Jansen & Agadjanian, 2020), and cultural evolution may have selected for monogamy and strong pair-bonding between males and females because it suppresses intra-sexual competition by reducing the number of unmarried men, which in turn reduces conflict over mating resources documented to involve crime, including rape, murder, and assault (Gavrilets, 2012; Koos & Neupert-Wentz, 2020; Seffrin, 2017; Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>As with all markets, monopolies change everything. In the sexual marketplace, monogamy is the ultimate coalitional tactic that favors low-status men: Men enforce laws that that guarantee that even the lowest-status man can secure a partner (if we assume that all women want to be paired with some man). It is compatible with the proposed theory that recent trends toward de facto polygyny–unmarried high-status promiscuous men, married men who have affairs, and serially monogamous men–would tend to lead to incel culture. Overall, female empowerment exacerbates this trend. In the current supply-and-demand model for relationship dynamics, such a gender imbalance in demand is expected to decrease the supply of available women (mostly of their own volition) relative to men who are seeking a sexual or romantic partner. To evolved male psychology, this ‘inflates’ female marketplace power and allows women to be even more selective, inflicting perceived grievances on men who are now ‘losing out’.
>The tangible effects of female empowerment span other domains as well. For example, female empowerment is inversely associated with the number of children in both WEIRD and non- WEIRD societies (Abadian, 1996; Hindin, 2000; Kabir, Ibrahim, & Kawsar, 2004). Higher gender equality is also associated with more sexual activity, including more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, and younger age at first sex among women in both industrial and non-industrial societies (Baumeister & Mendoza, 2011).
How does that square with the fact that as men become more high-status economically, they tend to have fewer children? Tyrone the crackhead has 8 kids by 7 different baby mamas while Gabe the engineer has a cat
It’s actually extremely easy if the woman isn’t completely gone
>be more traditional >ugh why? >it looks better, and simply IS better
You just have to show the actual value. If she is completely detached from reality, and no, not all women are, good fricking luck.
He inherently doesn't understand the psychology of women which is to be an opportunistic moron even if it blows up in their face and they start screaming for help.
The ninteenth amendment is fundamentally flawed because it's based on the false idol of equality, a made up concept that does not exist in the real world and that no one should ever be basing any political ideas off of. It should be repealed on flawed logical grounds. Men and women are different things and there is thus no reason for them to be treated the same, because they are not the same.
Women currently wield as much power as men in terms of voting, so what they think and how politicians are constantly manipulating their emotions is actually pretty important.
Women are traitors unless proven otherwise. If voting mattered, the only way they could be allowed to vote would be to impose rigorous loyalty tests upon them, with those who pass given suffrage and those who fail executed. Not letting them vote is clearly the more humane approach.
look at where women voting has taken us? they're miserable. they just wanted to be happy but are they? now they are busy taking wiener from Chad, poison from the israelites, and insults from beta simps
kek there will be order in the new world but not like how it was planned by Builder Berg
my dad fricks me when i sleep
How do you know it is him?
Son we talked about this. This is supposed to be our little secret.
How do you know? You're sleeping
Tyrone your dad left before you were ever born, you have to move on.
Women are trapped in an ironic pseudo position where they fervently and fanatically pursue agendas they dont want because what they want is for men to stop them.
This. Modern men somehow forgot about the shit test? All women do from the beginning is prod and test everything around them, feminism is just that approach scaled up to every single woman in the world. They are WAITING for male pushback because men have become so weak and conditioned by them.
spoiler: you dont have to "impose" values on society if the society is homogenous, shares borders, language, and culture and has strong kin and familial bonds.
But that's not the case so what does it have to do with current year in America. Politics should be about just smoothly guiding the ethnostate but that's simply not reality so instead it's basically a war at this point where the winner is trying to subjugate the opponent
The evolutionary psychologist Mads Larsen writes:
>Sex ratio theory suggests why mating practices have become dysfunctional in the West and other regions. [...] Statistics from the Nordic countries—the world’s most gender-equal region—indicate that subjective perceptions of the sex ratio in modern environments drive singledom and low reproduction. Scandinavia has the world’s highest occurrence of one-person households: 43–46%. In the past decade, the Norwegian fertility rate dropped from 2.0 to 1.5. Sex ratio studies suggest that women’s perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygynous mindset, which in prosperous, monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair-bonding.
>Statistics show that women are increasingly unwilling to copulate or pair-bond with less attractive mates. Although women desire relationships, as they have gained equality, their standards have increased. Today’s rising economic stratification motivates further discrimination of certain men. With improved gender equality, women sorted away the poorest men. Rising economic inequity makes women exclude those men who are just below average (Brooks et al., 2022). Being a high-value man in the modern environment is about more than financial capital. Women generally want men with high education and status, financial success, greater intelligence, a tall stature, independence, and self-confidence (Buss, 2016; DeSantis, 2021). Those unable to attract such a man may forego pair-bonding and reproduction to prioritize other sources of fulfillment, such as a rewarding career or financial independence (Sng and Ackerman, 2020).
The increased social status of women makes them choosier resulting in a growing number of men being excluded from the mating market.
On the flip-side, a growing number of women remains unpartnered because they find themselves unable to find a man who meets their expectations. But this wealth of unpartnered women also affects the cognition of men - high status men in particular.
>Instead of raising their standards to attract a higher-value partner, men would lower their standards to have more promiscuous sex. Instead of lowering their standards to attract a mate, women would raise their standards to avoid being deceived by men who seek short-term mating (Stone et al., 2007).
The high status men, desired by women, become more promiscuous and less likely to commit to a single partner, raising their standards for long-term relationships. Women respond to this by becoming choosier and more promiscuous at the same time.
>They compete more fiercely and do so by catering to male mate preferences. Women permit more uncommitted sex (Schmitt, 2005). They signal promiscuity, for instance, by wearing shorter skirts (Barber, 1999). A novel expression of such female–female competition, informed by male preferences, is that when high income inequality reduces the proportion of attractive bachelors, women post more sexualized selfies (Borgerhoff Mulder, 2018). Early pregnancy is another competitive means. In low-ratio contexts, women appear to compete for males through teenage pregnancies and pregnancies outside of marriage (South and Trent, 1988; Barber, 2000, 2001; Chipman and Morrison, 2013).
As a consequence both men and women become frustrated with the opposite sex. Women because they can't get the long-term relationships with the high status men they desire and men because they find themselves confronted with a increasingly competitive dating market from which certain men are excluded in entirety.
In liberal circles people often blame plummeting birthrates on economic hardship but the Nordic countries serve as a counter-example.
>In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Trägårdh 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic “taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would.” In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).
Instead of the birthrates being raised, they dropped even further.
>In 1974, the typical Norwegian woman was 23 years old when she married. In 2020, she was 34 (Statistics Norway, 2015, 2022a)—although her first birth was at 30 (Statistics Norway, 2022b). Over this period, her fertility rate fell from 2.13 to 1.48 (Statistics Norway, 2022e).
And the poorest men were sorted out rather than being enabled to have families.
>Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Håkonsen and Krekling 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women’s recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Østby, 2014)—which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40—those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almås et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Mænds Sundhed, 2017).
tl;dr - the inability of men and women to pair bond results in demographic collapse. Immigration does not help remedy this problem either and introduces other negative externalities.
>Experts give an impression of not knowing why this is occurring or which policies could counter the demographic collapse. Their most common recommendation has been to increase immigration (Grant et al., 2006; Grunfelder et al., 2020; Vollset et al., 2020). Since many developing countries still have high fertility rates, transferring parts of their population to developed nations appeared as a viable solution. From 2000 to 2015, Norway’s immigrant population tripled (Midttun, 2018), yet the fertility rate kept falling. Today, 15% of residents are immigrants (Statistics Norway, 2022c), which increases the population, but without motivating reproduction near replacement levels. A cultural change across Europe after the 2015 migrant crisis has made continued large-scale immigration a less compelling proposition. Recent long-term-cost estimates have shown that instead of improving national finances, many groups of immigrants undermine the future viability of Western welfare states (NOU 2017:2, 2017). Eastern European and Asian cultures have been less willing to open their borders to counter low fertility (Vollset et al., 2020).
so basically
>women want men with more money than them
>"muh wage gap"
>government throws mountains of money at women so they have more than men
>now men need to have more money than the government (which gets its money from men)
shit's so fricked
>shit's so fricked
You forgot the reason why women need more money- because they lived their lives on the basis that easy money they got for being a hot 20yo would last forever, or that their future husband would pay their debts, so they took out loans that far exceeded their ability to repay them and by their 30s are drowning in debt.
I dunno , seems more likely that women just work more now and make enough to live on.
Not having the need to depend on a man to make ends meet, they stop settling for less than the bare minimum. Pair that with less desire to procreate and most women would rather be alone than with a man who doesn’t meet their standards.
If she doesn’t need you and you’re not adding anything to her life, then why would she want you ?
ty for this post. I needed some evidence to counter that shit-tier argument ("it's the economy") for why birthrates are so low.
No, it's the result of full rights for women. Which idc either way.
Where is your greentext sourced from btw?
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1062950
genius at play
>Statistics show that women are increasingly unwilling to copulate or pair-bond with less attractive mates. Although women desire relationships, as they have gained equality, their standards have increased
Stopped reading right there. This is bro-tier manosphere bullshit that really just continues to put women on a pedestal, but complains that they won't voluntarily come down off of it.
Miriam Lindner, evolutionary psychologist at Harvard, writes:
>Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.
>With gender imbalances in educational achievement becoming increasingly clear (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006), many high-status women not only increasingly remain unmarried, but also they might opt to remain single rather than adapting to deficits in the sexual marketplace, thereby reversing conventional patterns of marital hypergamy (“marrying down”) (Lewis & Oppenheimer, 2000; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Qian, 2017). Women also display more choosiness in the economic domain. Lichter et al. (2020) compared estimates of the preferred sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses with the actual distribution of unmarried men. They reported that unmarried women prefer partners who have an average income that is about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men available. Further, 71% of women who are financially secured by their own income still deem it essential that their partner has a steady income; in contrast, only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences in their potential partner (Fales et al., 2016).
>Exacerbated female choice thus creates a pool of excess, low-status men without opportunities for sexual and/or romantic relationships - that is, a shortage of educationally and/or economically attractive, unmarried men for women to marry. Empirical data attests to this trend: Whereas men and women did not differ much in the prevalence of being single from the 1980s through the 2000s, a gap appeared in the 2010s, such that more men (compared to women) remained unpartnered. For example, in 2018, 42% of women and 31% of men reported that they were not currently in a relationship, and 56% of women reported it difficult to find someone who matches their expectations – a number that was significantly lower (35%) among men (Brown, 2020).
>These statistics underscore the importance of evolutionary (as opposed to purely socioeconomic) explanations of the mating marketplace: they refute the hypothesis that women value status and wealth in romantic and sexual partners because society prevents them from attaining those assets themselves. The fact that women would rather be celibate than date a lower-status man (while this is not true of men) strongly suggests an evolutionary psychological explanation.
>Greater within-sex status variance allows some men to monopolize marketplace power while others are missing out. Usually, it is the degree of such monopolization of females by males that characterizes the degree of “effective polygyny” of the marketplace. The more intense this competition to secure a female partner, the more men will be inclined to use risky tactics to secure a mate. And, as described previously, one with a potential of perceived grounds for grievance against women, a target typically associated with lower power of physical coercion. Polygyny is positively associated with domestic violence (Ahinkorah, 2021; Ebrahim & Atteraya, 2021; Jansen & Agadjanian, 2020), and cultural evolution may have selected for monogamy and strong pair-bonding between males and females because it suppresses intra-sexual competition by reducing the number of unmarried men, which in turn reduces conflict over mating resources documented to involve crime, including rape, murder, and assault (Gavrilets, 2012; Koos & Neupert-Wentz, 2020; Seffrin, 2017; Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007).
>As with all markets, monopolies change everything. In the sexual marketplace, monogamy is the ultimate coalitional tactic that favors low-status men: Men enforce laws that that guarantee that even the lowest-status man can secure a partner (if we assume that all women want to be paired with some man). It is compatible with the proposed theory that recent trends toward de facto polygyny–unmarried high-status promiscuous men, married men who have affairs, and serially monogamous men–would tend to lead to incel culture. Overall, female empowerment exacerbates this trend. In the current supply-and-demand model for relationship dynamics, such a gender imbalance in demand is expected to decrease the supply of available women (mostly of their own volition) relative to men who are seeking a sexual or romantic partner. To evolved male psychology, this ‘inflates’ female marketplace power and allows women to be even more selective, inflicting perceived grievances on men who are now ‘losing out’.
>The tangible effects of female empowerment span other domains as well. For example, female empowerment is inversely associated with the number of children in both WEIRD and non- WEIRD societies (Abadian, 1996; Hindin, 2000; Kabir, Ibrahim, & Kawsar, 2004). Higher gender equality is also associated with more sexual activity, including more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, and younger age at first sex among women in both industrial and non-industrial societies (Baumeister & Mendoza, 2011).
Does Harvard have a women and gender studies department? Ok then.
Those posts are such a waste of effort on your part.
It's getting late here, so I don't have the time to help you. In any case, you should read more attentively. Good night.
Nothing you wrote was worth reading attentively.
This is a literal bot.
How does that square with the fact that as men become more high-status economically, they tend to have fewer children? Tyrone the crackhead has 8 kids by 7 different baby mamas while Gabe the engineer has a cat
This guy comes to all the same conclusions as me. Therefore he's based
men voted to give women voting rights. Therefore, no one should be voting.
It’s actually extremely easy if the woman isn’t completely gone
>be more traditional
>ugh why?
>it looks better, and simply IS better
You just have to show the actual value. If she is completely detached from reality, and no, not all women are, good fricking luck.
You don't have to persuade them. Just don't let them persuade you.
He inherently doesn't understand the psychology of women which is to be an opportunistic moron even if it blows up in their face and they start screaming for help.
The ninteenth amendment is fundamentally flawed because it's based on the false idol of equality, a made up concept that does not exist in the real world and that no one should ever be basing any political ideas off of. It should be repealed on flawed logical grounds. Men and women are different things and there is thus no reason for them to be treated the same, because they are not the same.
civilization can deny reality but not the consequences of denying reality
we're never gonna get anywhere so long as you morons keep worrying about what women think
Women currently wield as much power as men in terms of voting, so what they think and how politicians are constantly manipulating their emotions is actually pretty important.
I aplaud her. It takes guts to say this as a woman nowadays
Homosexuals shouldn't vote
almost the correct material analysis keep trying
I frick my moronic son while he sleeps
>no solution exists except one which stops basically everyone from voting
Absolutely fricking based and both red and black pilled.
"Taking away women's right to vote" isn't a solution to the system because there is no way in hell you can do that within the system.
that's like voting to deport the nonwhites
nonwhites are half the vote
>We need to make women less feminist
>Why don't we just stop them voting
>Oy Vey then everyone needs to stop voting.
Men of the right everyone. ITs why this movement can't get any traction.
Women are traitors unless proven otherwise. If voting mattered, the only way they could be allowed to vote would be to impose rigorous loyalty tests upon them, with those who pass given suffrage and those who fail executed. Not letting them vote is clearly the more humane approach.
look at where women voting has taken us? they're miserable. they just wanted to be happy but are they? now they are busy taking wiener from Chad, poison from the israelites, and insults from beta simps
kek there will be order in the new world but not like how it was planned by Builder Berg
He is correct.