Implications of the Apex Fallacy

by zed on January 10, 2011

Elusive Wapiti recently mentioned the Apex Fallacy in this comment.

For those new to the MM, this is such an important concept that it probably needs some explaining. Understanding it will explain a lot of the issues men deal with today.

First, one needs to understand female hypergamy. For those who may not have yet run across the concept and had it explained to them, I’m sure that some of our loyal readers will provide good links. What it boils down to is that women generally only consider men for potential mates who are least equal to them, and preferably above them, on the wealth/status pyramid. They are always “looking up”, never down, so men at their own level and below are simply invisible and women do not even realize that they exist – except to the extent that such men annoy them by actually seeking their attention. As many have said, most women absolutely hate beta males.

If you take such statements by women like “MEN run the world”, that is true for them because the only men they can see are the ones who do “run the world.” Statements like “most CEOs are men” are true both in fact and in perception. (The reasons this is so are beyond the scope of this particular essay.) However, the implication of the converse that “most men are CEOs” is obviously not true to men. It does seem to be true for a lot of women, because most of the men that they can see are CEOs. While the women are looking upward and only see CEOs, the men at their level and below see a lot of nose hair.

The old cultural practice for dealing with female hypergamy was the generalized practice of giving most jobs to men, and creating social roles that demanded men work – by incorporating the “provider” role into their male identity. Thus, most marriages ended up being hypergamy because a man with a job could provide a much better life than a woman without one. There was also the benefit that with normal female hypergamic tendencies mostly neutralized, people tended to sort themselves out in the dating/mating pool along lines of compatible social class. It was rare, for example, for the scion of a wealthy banking/finance/business family to marry the daughter of a waitress or coal miner. The coal miner’s daughter (thank you, Loretta Lynn) would most likely marry another coal miner, and living on the income someone else made by crawling into a hole in the ground every day, and risking death every day plus eventual death due to black lung, was far preferable to having to make that income herself.

The fairly large middle class gave women a lot more options. The daughter of a shopkeeper, for example, could get a job as a receptionist in a doctor’s office, and end up snagging the doc and retiring. Even another reasonably successful shopkeeper allowed her at least a lateral move.

However, as women entered the workforce en masse, their fixation point on the wealth/status pyramid drifted upward. With each increase in her income, the number of men at and above her own level shrank geometrically. If I felt like putting in the time I would create a diagram, but I don’t, so I’m going to rely on people’s imaginations. Imagine a pyramid stacked with 10 levels. The first level is 10×10 or 100 potential mates. Up one level and it is 9×9, or 81 potential mates, then 8×8 or 64 potential mates – all the way to the top layer where there is only 1 man.

A woman who is herself at level 7, and will only consider men at levels 8, 9, and 10, restricts herself to a universe of 1+4+9 potential mates, or 14 total. A woman at level 2, has 1+4+9+16+25+36+49+64+81=285 potential mates – more than 20X what the woman at level 7 has. Given the fact that men are not, as a general rule, hypergamous, any woman at or below his level is a potential mate, so a man at level 7 has 16+25+36+49+64+81+100=371 potential mates, or 26.5X as many potential mates as a woman at his own level has.

It’s just not fair!!! (Evil grin)

So, when EW says that alpha men have benefited a great deal from feminism, this is what he is talking about. The men at the top of the wealth/status pyramid only have each other to really compete with, while all the men lower down have to compete not only with each other, but also with the apex men who do not need a woman’s own wealth, because he has his own, and instead may opt to trade his wealth power/status for a woman’s beauty power/status. Male doctors are still more than happy to marry their receptionists – if they are cute. But, no female doctor would be caught dead marrying the orderly who pushes gurneys around.

The situation for women is reversed. A woman at level 7 only has 14 potential mates, but 371 competitors. Given that she spent the years while her own beauty power and fertility were at their peak chasing career and riding the alpha cock carousel, while she may be a 7 on the wealth/status pyramid, she has dropped to a 3 on the beauty/status pyramid. However, since

  • a) she got used to riding the alpha cock carousel when she was younger and much hotter than she is now, her ability to pull men who were 9s for one night stands have made her believe that she is a 9. So, she is still going to try to enter the pyramid at at least level 7, skipping levels 4, 5, and 6 entirely. and
  • b) men in general are not in the least bit interested in her accomplishments, and do not see them in any way as adding to her SMV,

“the best she can get” today is much less than the best she could have gotten years before, so all her chasing of achievement has not only been a waste of time, it actually resulted in her throwing away all the advantages she did have at one time.

Wah!!! It’s not fair!!! There are no good men!!!!!

{ 134 comments… read them below or add one }

Opus January 10, 2011 at 03:10

Very well put.

I don’t quite know why but I am put in mind of Ann Radcliffe’s 1791 Novel, The Romance of The Forest. There, our herione spends most of the novel evading a fate worse than death she’s definitely not ‘that kind of girl’. She could of course easily escape, by going into town and getting a job as a waitress, etc, but no, that would be beneath her. She only notices Alpha Males – and then complains about them. Along the way she falls for what we would call a metro-sexual yet most of the time is dressed in the most flaunting of clothing. That’s women for you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4
Opus January 10, 2011 at 03:31

Being more to the point:-

So what does she do?

There are a number of options:-

1. Go Lesbian – the sisters crying into their Muesli.
2. Go EatPrayLove – the guys are young and handsome but she has to pay.
3. Acquire a number of cats.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 3
Jake Turner January 10, 2011 at 03:33

Funny thing is that women very often do not recognise their hypergamy for what it is, but few have a problem accepting that men have polygamous urges.

I find that explaining things using real-life examples can help to make the point. Like your image of the doctor and receptionist.

The examples of powerful women who’ve “married down” (Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin) can normally be explained by the fact that they married before they entered politics. I wonder if Todd still turns Sarah on?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 1
Traveller January 10, 2011 at 03:40

Nice post.

I would think the situation is even worse today for average males, so called betas.

Women at level 4 or 5 for example, are entitled by feminism to see themselves at level 7, so they usually skip several levels upwards. Add the usual internet dating stuff, where every woman get a lot of attention from at least some drooling omega, just because she breathes.

Women, also, after the high school or college alpha thug collection, are not habitued anymore to engagement, the marriage, and they are not able to leave their cheating mindset. So men are never sure a marriage give them a stable possibility to reproduction, left alone the fact women at marriage are often passed their good uterus age.

Women with money are or public employees, or artists like singers, actresses, fashion designers. While as you say a doctor could go with a sexy nurse, a female doctor does not attract the male janitor because she is nervous, career oriented, care for her body only in spare time etc – he can just game her for receiving benefits.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5
Opus January 10, 2011 at 03:40

I beg to differ as to Margaret Thatcher. Her husband Dennis was a businesman of considerable wealth and that benefited her enormously at the beginning of her political career. She was a shop-keeper’s daughter who married UP.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 1
Nico January 10, 2011 at 03:50

Very interesting article.

I am quite familiar with these ideas, but how would you define the “apex fallacy” in a sentence.

Is it the fallacy women have that they will become more attractive if they gain social status? Or is it the biased vision of men they have since they are too focused on those above them?

Sorry if my question gives the impression that I understood nothing (I swear I did though :-) ),

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Alcuin January 10, 2011 at 03:52

Great article. You articulated my own thoughts, so thanks.

The apex fallacy makes it impossible to reason with women because they are blind to the fact that they are blind to the men at their equal or lower. They have no idea just how unjust and snobby they happen to be.

They also have no sense of gratitude to the men, like their hard-working fathers who made their own easy existence possible. They are blind to how hard male providers have been, so as to enable their privileged existence.

Yet feminists have booted such great men out of their lives – potential husbands most of all, but also brothers and fathers who would have faithfully served them. Because of these women’s blindness, they cannot see what they have done. They therefore have no idea why they are more and more unhappy (see “Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil”), and then keep blaming men and “the patriarchy” for it.

A man arguing with such nutcases is like someone explaining to a blind-from-birth person what the color blue is. Forget it.

Alcuin

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 4
Opus January 10, 2011 at 04:02

Thoughts are contiguous are they not.

For the ultimate example of Hypergamy may I propose Lady Di as she was. What more UP can you get the marrying the Heir to the throne. This however was not good enough hor her. Where do you go then? Big Lucy was already taken, Elvis was dead, so (EatPrayLove) you go for a dark-skinned Muslim with a dodgy background (Dodi). If MI5 did not bump her off all one can say is that it was a lucky accident. As for that girl from the council-estate who is to marry William Wales, I predict a forthcoming divorce ere long. She looks like the cat that got the cream – but you wait a few years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 11
Nick S January 10, 2011 at 04:09

Even if the over-representation of men in peak positions of power in business, government etc. was primarily due to discrimination (it isn’t, but even if it was), this would only really benefit the top 1% or so of men who actually make it to these positions. But a lot of the advantages that women enjoy over men in areas like eduction, family law, health care, life expectancy etc., don’t simply benefit a small proportion of the most successful women. They benefit a larger share of the female population.

So effectively what the fems are saying is that because the majority of women are not as well off as the top 1% of men, but are better off than the majority of men, therefore women are disadvantaged relative to men!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 2
Nick S January 10, 2011 at 04:13

The Alpha/Beta male paradigm also goes a long way to explaining why feminists are often hostile towards traditional forms of chivalry, and yet they demand more laws and policies to protect women that eerily echo traditional chivalry.

That is, they don’t accept chivalrous protection from lowly Beta males, because they are so far beneath them. They only accept chivalrous protection from the top Alpha males.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 3
Hughman January 10, 2011 at 04:15

“Male doctors are still more than happy to marry their receptionists – if they are cute. But, no female doctor would be caught dead marrying the orderly who pushes gurneys around.”

Yes and no. It was the phrase I came across when I was getting ready to apply for medicine “Fuck the nurses, then marry your colleagues” that gave me the first insight into hypergamy, both male and female.

Male docs are more than happy to fuck the cute receptionist, but why settle for a woman with a full-time Ł30K salary, when you can still fuck her but marry a doc with a part-time Ł60K salary. The latter scenario is much more satisfying. Twice the poontang, 50% more household income whilst you still have a mother for any kids you have

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 11
Hughman January 10, 2011 at 04:21

Opus, Diana was a slut, it looks like she had several affairs whilst married to Charles.

William’s fiance is from an upper-middle class family, not exactly poor.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7
doclove January 10, 2011 at 04:27

I’ve implied if not directly said this on previous posts in the commenting section. Men have a wider more flat bell curve on almost every single human behavior one can think of be that intellectually, athletically etc. This means there are a higher percentage of men who are academic geniouses but also a higher percentage who are mentally retarded for example. Too many
women and even too many men see the glass ceiling and complain that there are a higher percentage and number of men of men at the top than women; but, they say this is unfair. While this is usually true, women fail to see the glass floorin which a higher percentage and number of men are allowed to fall below either by nature or social construct of the civilization or society. If it’s not right that there are a higher percentage and number of men at the top, is it fair that there are a higher percentage and number of men at the bottom? Why no, it isn’t, but it is the way life is whether one likes it or not. The only thing one can do is accept reality and deal with it the best he can. I don’t see any of these idiots who complain about how good the top men have it and want women to have the same percentage and number of women to have the ” good life” as the top men also advocate that maybe women should have the same percentage and number of women have the ” bad life” of the bottom men. I enjoy reminding them of this whenever possible, and hope you do too!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
Opus January 10, 2011 at 04:27

Hughman. I have often noticed that irony does not work in print. I realise that Kate is middle class (I wouldn’t say Upper).

As for Diana, she did seem to shag just about everyone. The general view seems to be that as Charles was first to be unfaithful that justified Diana. (Typical double standards).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Hughman January 10, 2011 at 04:31

My bad Opus. But it really isn’t obvious (maybe my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet)

By British standards, she’s from an upper-middle. (the big debate was if she really wasn’t, as her parents have standard true middle class habits)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Opus January 10, 2011 at 04:48

Kate just seems normal to me, but definitely hypergamous. As someone so well put it here a while back, women like getting married, but do not like being married. Kate has four months to bask in glory, and then?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
DirkJohanson January 10, 2011 at 05:03

Great article, though a little simplistic, since it doesn’t mention that a guys’ height and/or thuggery are other symbols of, or alternatives to, social status hypergamy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
mgtow January 10, 2011 at 05:04

Female hypergamy can be summarized in three words: Bigger, Better, Deal.

You may be a millionaire but rest assured that your wife is holding out for bigger fish to leech off. Bigger waller, bigger dick or bigger thug. Something BIGGER, something special which you lack.

Also, I am reminded of something related to the famous Ladder Theory. For example, when a woman says she wants a kind, sensitive, thoughtful man, she is simply saying that these attributes are desirable if found in the men she has already set her eyes upon.

It’s what I call ‘the icing on the cake’. Too many men try to become the icing itself without first bothering to find out if they’re the cake in the woman’s eyes.

Best case scenario: She rejects your advances, say ‘Let’s just be friends’.

Worst case scenario: She actually marries you… after getting pumped and dumped by all the elusive bad boys for many years. Her fertility, freshness and overall market value are rapidly declining, and you are the sucker she settles down with. Unfortunately, you think it is ‘love’ and ‘living happily after’. Eventually she cheats, or turn into a bitter, toxic, nagging shrew. And you’re stuck.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 84 Thumb down 4
Average Joe from the UK January 10, 2011 at 05:13

According to the cliterati, she can’t be upper class because “She wouldn’t know with which knife to cut a banana”. FFS!

As an Englishman, the current Queen is alright (I’m not a fan of royalty, but she has a certain majesterial je ne sais quoi), but Chazza his son and the half blood prince can go get guillotined as far as I (and many friends) are concerned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Twenty January 10, 2011 at 05:26

@Nico

[H]ow would you define the “apex fallacy” in a sentence[?]

Here’s my cut at it:

The apex fallacy is the tendency of women to assign to all men the attributes of those men to whom they are sexually attracted; the fallacy arises because most women cannot fully perceive those men to whom they are are not sexually attracted.

For example: A woman is sexually attracted to men who have more power than she does. She is not attracted to men who have less power than she does, and therefore those men don’t really enter into her consciousness. So she concludes that men (in general) have more power than she does, and, boo-hoo, she’s (and women in general are) oppressed.

This also explains why the “all men are jerks” line inevitably comes from women who go out of their way to date jerks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 2
zed January 10, 2011 at 05:29

I am quite familiar with these ideas, but how would you define the “apex fallacy” in a sentence.

All the people at the top are men, therefore all men are at the top.

Nico January 10, 2011 at 05:34

Thanks Zed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Hughman January 10, 2011 at 05:42

mgtow, that’s a brilliant concept. I’ve never been able to to articulate that.

First, find out what cake is required, then add the icing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Opus January 10, 2011 at 05:46

Logic (old style)
All men are mortal: Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Logic (female style)

All men are at the top: You are a man. Therefore you are oppressing women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 2
DirkJohanson January 10, 2011 at 06:00

The invisibility factor mentioned in the article is another key point I forgot to mention in my first comment.

I remember when one of the mantras on Sex and the City was that there was supposedly only one guy for every six women in New York City. This canard made its way into the popular culture, even among those who did not watch the show. As a frequent visitor to NYC, I looked up the real ratios, and, in fact, the ratio in Manhattan was something north of FIVE guys for every woman, and surely a big part of the excess was very old women due to their greater life expectancy than guys.

Of course, the SATC ratio reflected that the guys who didn’t meet their hypergamous demands did not exist in their minds.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3
Opus January 10, 2011 at 06:17

Even if it were true that for every man in NYC there were six women, all that would mean is that women had most of the jobs. Now that certainly is true. Go into any bank or shop and see if you can see a male employee.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Gunn January 10, 2011 at 06:25

The William / Kate thing is actually a bit more nuanced than it might seem.

Being queen might sound like its great, but for many of the girls that move in the same circles as William and who are aristocratic, it represents a huge negative impact on the quality of one’s life. I.e. royalty carries a huge burden of duty, and for many young people that have grown up in a social environment where duty is not emphasised (as it used to be in the past), it can be hard to accept the change of lifestyle.

However, for a girl coming from Kate’s background, i.e. not upper class / aristocratic, there are positives in accepting the burden of royalty. Its a huge leap upward for her and her family socially speaking.

Some commentators maintain that this lesson on status dynamics was brought home by looking at Diana’s example, who was from a more aristocratic rather than traditional royal background.

The problem with royal backgrounds is that european royalty is hopelessly inbred, and there are in any case few eligible princesses of the appropriate age. Most would agree though that other royals are best placed to understand and cope with the stresses imposed on modern royalty.

On topic, I would agree with those that note that the hierarchy is not purely about money / status, however there are probably two pyramids in operation here – the marriage / ltr pyramid which is all about status (particularly I guess for the benefit of the children that the woman bears, even if they are not the husbands lol) vs. the sexual satisfcation pyramid which is about short term / one-night-stand type behaviour. Whilst in many cases (and probably this is true for the most desirable men) the same men occupy the top of both pyramids, there will be a large number of men who do not have any social status as such but who rank high on womens’ desirability lists (classic examples here would be thugs / murderers on death row / etc).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith January 10, 2011 at 06:36

While this is usually true, women fail to see the glass floor in which a higher percentage and number of men are allowed to fall below either by nature or social construct of the civilization or society.

Of course they don’t see them. As the author notes, men beneath them are invisible because they aren’t considered potential mates.

It’s one thing not to view them as mates, but add to that the narcissism and general regard only for the self and other women that our culture encourages and women won’t have any empathy for such men either.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Roland3337 January 10, 2011 at 06:44

Loved this bit:

“the men at their level and below see a lot of nose hair.”

How true!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Höllenhund January 10, 2011 at 07:21

This article is spot on. This kind of female behavior is apparent, universal and probably timeless. One just needs to observe their generalizing statements about men to notice that it’s true. This why I’ve seen college women state with a straight face that “men hold all the cards in the current hook-up scene”, “young girls will go to great lengths to get the attention of guys” etc. The obvious fact that they are only describing the behavior of the 15% of men they’re attracted to never occurs to them.

On the other hand, men would be well-advised not to make the same mistake. The mentality of the women that they find attractive isn’t necessarily the standard among all women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
Peter January 10, 2011 at 07:33

Go EatPrayLove – the guys are young and handsome but she has to pay.

These stories are emphasized in the media because they’re exceptions. As was recently proven, a woman with high status will overwhelmingly tend to not date younger, poorer men.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com.au/the_cougar_myth.htm

Either way, if these matches do happen, the guys have a short term goal to attain, such as Mr. EatPrayLove getting a green card. I used to clean the interior of a rolling mill for $20/hour; I’m sure there are guys who will bang an old lady for the chance of a better future.

Still, a wise man will not use a footstool for too long – he knows that women preselect men based on their current and past relationships with women. Indulge himself too much with the Demi Moore types, and he’ll find himself shut out of the 20-something carousel riders’ bajingos, no matter how handsome he is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
DirkJohanson January 10, 2011 at 07:43

Hollenhund wrote:

On the other hand, men would be well-advised not to make the same mistake. The mentality of the women that they find attractive isn’t necessarily the standard among all women.

That seems true on the surface, but the mentality is largely the same ; they just don’t have the looks to get away with it. Give them the upper hand that a ring brings, and you just end up with an obese version of the same thing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence January 10, 2011 at 07:48

I think this explanation is just awesome. Would be great reading for above-average guys who can’t understand why their comparative female equals ignore them. I know that used to make me really bitter until I understood hypergamy.

Roissy constantly points out that women like to “look up” at men physically, too. Even if a man and a woman are of comparable height, he can show superiority with strong posture and keeping his chin up.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 08:35

Hughman January 10, 2011 at 04:15
“but why settle for a woman with a full-time Ł30K salary, when you can still f*** her but marry a doc with a part-time Ł60K salary”

Because in the UK in medicine 60% of all female doctors leave the profession in the first 10 years. They have the GBP100K salary, they get married to some stupid smuck and tell him ‘I will go back to work after the kids arrive’…they buy the house they want ‘for the kids’ of course….and the kids arrive and then??? WAMMO. Wifey stops working. He now has a wife, two kids, a GBP100K income. The other GBP100K income has gone…he’s considered ‘rich’ and is in the highest tax bracket. He is a slave. If he leaves he will be screwed to the wall for ‘alimony and child support’….if he stays he has to put up with ‘screaming shrew’ for the ‘sake of the kids’. How do I know this so well? I WAS that smuck! LOL!! Marring a woman who maked money is a BIG mistake. See the article ‘do not marry a career woman’

http://dontmarrycareerwomen.wordpress.com/
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

Opus January 10, 2011 at 04:02
“For the ultimate example of Hypergamy may I propose Lady Di as she was. What more UP can you get the marrying the Heir to the throne.”

Yes…this was ‘not good enough yet’. All she had to do for a FREE LIFE was to pop out an ‘hier and a spare’. And the spare is absolutely NOT from charles as is bleeding obvious to anyone who looks at the guy she was having an affair with (Hewitt). She reportedly had another affair and the guy had a ‘fatal accident’.

And get FERGIE. Fergie actually ‘complained’ in an interview how life was ‘so hard’ with Di as a sister in law because ‘she was prettier’. I mean..did this woman not learn how to deal with a girl who was prettier than her in kindergarten? For there surely must have been one! Nope. Prince Andrew was also ‘not good enough yet’ for Fergie. When women are saying marrying into ROYALTY is ‘not good enough yet’ you know you have a REAL problem with ‘expectation management’. Women have expectations that are OFF THE CHARTS. Better to leave them to them. Even my eastern european lady friends have expectations that are too high. MANY woman want her own personal man-slave-beta-smuck-provider-loser to raise the alpha-sperm-babies she got by someone else.

Opus January 10, 2011 at 04:27
“The general view seems to be that as Charles was first to be unfaithful that justified Diana.”

Opus, I doubt there has been a royal who has been ‘faithful’ in all of history. When you are royalty women throw themselves at you. Chuck would have been fine with Di screwing around as long as it was discreet. But she flaunted it like the idiot she was. The royal family could NOT tolerate the whole Dodi thing. Period.

mgtow January 10, 2011 at 05:04
“Something BIGGER, something special which you lack.”

And if you do not lack for something they will make it impossible to deliver on their never ending demands. Like all the money my ex wanted and refusing to work while wailing about how ‘you dont spend enough time with the kids’.

Women just like to make mens lives miserable. They just HAVE to do all the shit-tests. If you want a woman in your house and not be a slave you have to deal with her shit-tests. Only problem is? She might just call the cops and have you beaten for dealing with her shit-tests. It is MUCH easier to not allow them to live in your house. Then when they do their shit-tests you can just date other women until they come back to you and apologise and ask for another chance. Simple as.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 5
zimmy January 10, 2011 at 08:47

In short; women want something more than they are able or willing to give.
It’s a mindset related to ‘privilege’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
aharon January 10, 2011 at 08:54

Very interesting article. It was well stated. While I’ve recently, at the MM sites, begun reading about female hypergamy the general idea of course is commented about in society. An article such as this one has really helped me to conceptualize the concept much cleaner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Alte January 10, 2011 at 08:55

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 28
Keyster January 10, 2011 at 09:10

Many young women find Obama to be very handsome and hot, but yet men don’t view Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Oprah in the same manner. Men like beauty, women like power…which is why women seeking power is a zero-sum game with regard to mate selection.

Feminism instructed middle class women to become middle class men, so now there’s a huge swath of women competing for upper class men, and a huge swath of disenfranchised men, or many men left to beg and plead at the feet of women; caught in the grasp of the “equality myth”.

And haggard single women with careers, making good money don’t know where all the good men are? Why they’re sitting in corporate executive offices waiting by the phone for you to call and beg and plead at their feet.

Feminism was all about giving fat ugly women that men didn’t like, a chance to compete directly with men, because they couldn’t compete on looks with other women. It was glorification and liberation of the dowdy Old Maid.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 09:11

No..cougars are not a myth…they are real…see..here is one…and I am so sure he really luuuuuvs her.. ;-)

http://chileik.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/23-year-old-nigerian-musician-who-married-62-year-old-american-grandmother-receives-his-visa/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 09:13

And her is one I just LOVE. Apparently this woman ‘believed’ this guy luuuuvvveeeeddddd her! LOL!! If that is so? Women are beyond delusional.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1323426/Grandmother-refuses-divorce-Gambian-hell-UK-visa.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 09:19

And, of course, women are all honest and would NEVER lie about rape or domestic violence just for personal benefit…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345823/Asylum-seeker-claimed-raped-Somalia-jailed-professionally-planned-250k-benefit-fraud.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 09:21

And I think some women are real mixed up as to where the ‘apex’ is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345676/Mother-2-flew-America-sex-boy-13-met-playing-X-Box-arrested.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
Richard "Straw Fer Brains" January 10, 2011 at 09:21

“As many have said, most women absolutely hate beta males.”

I’ll disagree – most women hate all men – PERIOD. Feminism has installed this hatred by spreading a slew of bogus statistics.

Alpha males are hated just as much if not more so by women – it is called an inferiority complex.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 6
Opus January 10, 2011 at 09:30

I am obliged to Nolan for reminding me about Fergie. There really was the ultimate in self-righteous complaining. Not as pretty as Di, and married to the also-ran. So she is a VICTIM. When girls who marry into royalty and who just aren’t that hot in the first place start complaining, you can see how off the Richter scale of reality women sometimes are.

By the way, can some american explain to me why women get wet over Obama. I can assure you that down the Dog and Duck we don’t care much for him. Is it, as, Ali G might have said ‘cos he is black’?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Keyster January 10, 2011 at 10:14

By the way, can some american explain to me why women get wet over Obama.

He’s “multi-culti”. He’s athletic. He’s confident, cool and collected. He owns any room he walks into. He has an attractive wife. He has a deep resounding voice. He has charisma and charm. Oh, and he’s the President. That seems to help.

Do ya think Sarkozy of France would have a model wife if he were a working stiff, beta?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9
Opus January 10, 2011 at 10:20

Thanks Keyster, but as I say, where I am we don’t care for him much. We find Cameron’s reserve and self-control more appealing – but then we would I suppose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Nemo January 10, 2011 at 10:32

@ Opus

He’s the nominal apex male with the highest social status.

Henry Kissinger once said “Power is the greatest aphrodisiac”.

Mr. Kissinger was never compared to Adonis.

Women love POWER and if an ugly guy is powerful, they’ll go after him.

Obama mentioned that he had great difficulty getting his wife to date him at first because he was “just” a student at Harvard law school and editor of the Law Review, a prestigious position. He was still a beta male, albeit arguably the “top” beta at Harvard Law.

Black women in the USA almost invariably go for the thugs when they are young and only “settle” for beta male provider types when they are too old to snag and shag a thug.

Once a guy has power, THEN he’s worth shagging.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
Gunn January 10, 2011 at 10:32

[Obama] has an attractive wife

lol

I hope your post was sarcastic, if not I would suggest prescription eyewear.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 4
TFH January 10, 2011 at 10:47

It is pretty standard knowledge that among the singles dating scene, 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex being had with women. The other 80% of single men are having sex infrequently, or with women far less attractive than desired. Married guys are not included in this, but many married guys are beta providers that women settled for after spending their 20s alpha-chasing, and quite often deprive the husband of sex.

Roissy says 90-10. Rob Fedders says 95-5. But in my experience, 80-20 is the reality (and still heavily skewed). Occasionally, some weirdo will come by to dispute this, but such critics are not taken seriously.

Apex fallacy stems from this, as when women talk about ‘men’ they only mean the top tier. The bottom 80% or so of men are not really even considered by them, and are not seen as fully human. Women see such ‘beta’ males in much the same way that the Japanese view whales – as a resource to be pillaged, rather than as intelligent beings that can feel pain.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 4
doclove January 10, 2011 at 10:52

@ Bob Smith
I appreciate your response and comments to my comment; and, I agree with what you are saying so far. In fact, I’ve been agreeing with this for a while before you stated them. Take a look at the African-American community to see what the insanity feminism has wrought on their community to the children, men and even the women. It has been by far worse for the men and children though. The crime rate, out of wedlock childbirth rate, divorce rate etc. is much higher than other races. Feminism has ravaged the most vulnerable population, African-Americans. Feminism will do the same damage to the Native Americans, Hispanic-Americans, White Americans and Asian-Americans etc. probably in that order if we in the USA continue on the same trajectory as the African-Americans. We probably will which is horrifying and sad.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Opus January 10, 2011 at 11:09

Oh I agree. It is all too obvious that when a guy with a six pack walks in the room women flock like bees round honey, not that I blame them, but it does rather show the hypocricy of their usual response, that ‘they are not that type of girl’ and ‘all men ever think of is sex’.

I just doubt that they see their double-standards. I am reminded therefore of a passage in Richardson’s Clarissa, (1749) where our hero Lovelock asserts that all women are whores. His reasoning goes like this: Some women clearly are whores. You (a woman) may not be and it may be that your protestations of innocence are true, but until I have tested you I cannot be sure one way or the other, soIi will test you to see whether you be whore or not. Cosi Fan Tutte (they all are like it).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
aharon January 10, 2011 at 11:29

What is the general take on Roissy? I’ve read several references to him and visited his site briefly. Is he generally regarded as a cut to the chase straight talk about women from a man who really knows the female gender?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Opus January 10, 2011 at 11:42

aharon: Roissy is all about Game that is to say out-gaming or playing on female susceptibilities. I suspect (as he writes about it) that he is in reality an armchair Casanova. Rookh (of The Anglo-Bitch thesis) however thinks that Game can end you with sexual harrasement charges, if you are not careful, and that what women really want is a big strong alpha. He also has something to say about the success with women of |British Omega’s with women. It is as much a puzzle to him as to me. It may be that Game works in America, but I don’t see it being big on this side of the pond.

My take as I indicated above is that some guys have it for a lot of women: they do not need to make any effort, and women flock to them. I actually feel sorry for guys like that because having that sort of drive, Don Giovanni-like (albeit with success) must be psychologically very painful.

In reality, you have to be yourself, and if a woman likes you then good and if not thats good too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9
NMH January 10, 2011 at 11:44

Female education and employment + hypergamy + obesity epedimic (fat chicks) = no satisfying relationships for most men with women for the rest of their lives.

Its really the perfect storm for male misery, and its hard to mentally reprogram yourself to find alternatives for happiness without women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Lavazza January 10, 2011 at 12:05

Keyster: I read a book about French politicians’ sex lives where the reasoning was that politics is all about seducing and manipulating the voters and therefor politicians will be experts at seducing women.

http://www.amazon.fr/Sexus-politicus-Christophe-Deloire/dp/list/2226172556

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Lavazza January 10, 2011 at 12:08

“The central premise of the book is that in France, a successful politician is also a seductive politician. Sex, the authors say, is almost a civic imperative.

“Far from being a flaw, to cast yourself in the role of seducer is without doubt an important quality in our political life,” the book claims.

Certainly, power attracts. When Edgar Faure became prime minister in the 1950s, he held the lofty title of “president of the council,” and that apparently made all the difference.

“When I was a minister, some women resisted me,” he once was quoted as saying. “Once I became president, not even one.” He died at the age of 79, in the bed of his half-clothed mistress.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/world/europe/16iht-france.3180613.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft January 10, 2011 at 12:34

I gotta put a plug in yet again for this show. Pure entertainment for we MRAs:

“Princess” on Slice.ca is a Canadian show hosted by a ball-buster Gail Vax-Oxslade (I give her props – you just have to watch the show to know why).

Each episode she tears down the self-centered, narcissistic and shallow attitude of the modern empowered woman (you know the ones – they’re the ones who rejected us with no consideration for our feelings and proper decorum). We see their massive debt, little-to-no intellectual depth, and sometimes blatant theft from family and friends.

And get this, in one episode, one shopaholic Princess had to go on DISABILITY because she was exposed to too many stores nearby?!? Believe it, this show is full of these examples.

Princess, on Slice.ca.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Mikey January 10, 2011 at 12:39

This article just reinforces for me a lesson I’ve recently learned the hard way. All women are thugfuckers, and the ones who pride themselves on being “decent” are the biggest thugfuckers of all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1
Keyster January 10, 2011 at 12:53

Once a guy has power, THEN he’s worth shagging.

She’s really evaluating his potential while still young. His he ambitious? Is his personality and “look” such that he’ll more easily rise to the top in his profession; or more importantly always stay at least a step above her in status and worth? She’s taking quite a gamble if she commits too soon, but then she can still bail out while she has her looks, if he should fail. It’s a very indepth assessment of his character, his “measure of a man” that she’ll always be fussing over in her mind.

Meanwhile, his criteria is simply, “Man I hope she doesn’t get fat like her mother.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Zammo January 10, 2011 at 13:24

I see apex theory in action all the time in the world of online dating. Women holding out for their alpha “soulmates”. There have been some profiles online for years.

I actually initiated an chat with a mildly attractive 49 yeal old woman who had originally rejected my attempts to write her a message. I figured I’d help her rationalization hamster along and do my best to keep her her perpetually single…

I open:

“Never settle”

She responds:

“I won’t”

I respond:

“You’ll find your perfect man, but it will take a lot of time, you need to be patient.”

She responds:

“Thanks, I appreciate your words of encouragement.”

I log off and end the chat. I basically cursed this woman to a long life of spinsterhood while she reads online dating profiles hoping that her Prince Charming will appear all the while being in a harem of women being schtupped by older, alpha guys who have no need to settle down.

She will eventually own lots of cats.

Yeah, it’s schadenfreude, tough shit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 1
Patr333x January 10, 2011 at 13:26

Nick S. wrote: The Alpha/Beta male paradigm also goes a long way to explaining why feminists are often hostile towards traditional forms of chivalry, and yet they demand more laws and policies to protect women that eerily echo traditional chivalry.

That is, they don’t accept chivalrous protection from lowly Beta males, because they are so far beneath them. They only accept chivalrous protection from the top Alpha males.

On top of that, women expect the chivalrous actions from “lesser” men out of deference. Women want good treatment from all men, but to reciprocate with only a very few.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
Opus January 10, 2011 at 13:41

Patr333x:
So true, is it not. The difference between the approach of a beta and an alpha to a female is precisely zero. The one is perceived as a harraser the other as a hunk. The appaling thing is that people are and have prosecuted for nothing more.

So far as finding a soulmate is concerned, women might be advised to remember Dr Johnson’s reply to Boswell when asked if he thought there was a woman for every man. Boswell suggested fifty, to which Johnson replied fifty thousand. Certainly once upon a time many married the girl next door and lived tolerably, but now women think they want a real Prince. I think they should be given short shrift. Of course it is only the fat old ugly ones that hold out, which is what makes it doubly tragic/hilarious.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft January 10, 2011 at 13:56

Zammo: “I see apex theory in action all the time in the world of online dating. Women holding out for their alpha “soulmates”. There have been some profiles online for years.”

What is even more telling is how they become less choosy in their selection. At first, they don’t want this or that, then eventually they drop these conditions, hoping for anything with a pulse. Hilarious.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Jake Turner January 10, 2011 at 14:03

mgtow

Great comment, very well put

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
NMH January 10, 2011 at 14:53

“Princess” advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIOOcj1N9YY

*slaps face with hand*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Zammo January 10, 2011 at 15:14

What is even more telling is how they become less choosy in their selection. At first, they don’t want this or that, then eventually they drop these conditions, hoping for anything with a pulse. Hilarious.

Actually, I have seen quite the opposite! At some point, the rationalization hamster starts really dancing in the wheel. This is usually after the single woman hits 45 or so and she’s not attracting the alpha guys for a committed relationship. She’s also getting tired of being in the Bentley-driving alpha man harem. So her hamster starts doing the “I’m happy being alone” two-step. This also when pet ownership – and the subsequent obsession – becomes increasingly more important in a woman’s life.

Dalrock mentioned this when discussing the marriage strike in one of his epic, statistically-laced essays. It’s actually the re-marriage strike that is at work and it’s precisely because women have no conception of apex theory nor their innate hypergamy except for the pathetic whines of “where are all the decent men?”

As an aside, I am usually dating at least four women concurrently with a few more in the online dating pipeline. When I read “no games, no players”, that tells me that the women are attracted to guys who play games and guys who are players. After all, how would the woman know about such types unless she’s run across (gotten her vagina tingles from) such fellows?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
greyghost January 10, 2011 at 15:25

You have been at this for a while zed. You know damn well all the femmees that we arroused with the boycot american women on the femmees web sites are here to read that. Nice job and very good article. I said it before and will say again you are motivated right now. Good things must be happening.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur January 10, 2011 at 15:55

“I wonder if Todd still turns Sarah on?”

I would love, Love, LOVE to see Todd AMOG Obambi in front of Mrs. Obambi on prime-time live.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
scatmaster January 10, 2011 at 16:57

Lovekraft. I accidentially put in www. princess.ca instead of slice.ca
Check it out. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith January 10, 2011 at 17:13

He (Obama) has an attractive wife

In what universe is Michelle attractive?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
Zammo January 10, 2011 at 17:35

In what universe is Michelle attractive?

The same universe where Sara Jessica Parker is considered attractive?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
crella January 10, 2011 at 17:39

For the ultimate example of Hypergamy may I propose Lady Di as she was.

Holy Teledo, I had no idea what she was like. The Japanese don’t print anything uncomplimentary about another country’s royal family. All very hush-hush, at least until the late 90s. Princess Diana came to Japan a couple of times, everybody loved her. I really thought she was beautiful. I went to the US on a trip and saw all that was going on, I was instantly repulsed. No amount of beauty could cover all that up. Why women continue to worship her is beyond me.

Excellent article , Zed. A good explanation of the term, it was fairly new to me and I didn’t quite understand exactly what it was. In your opinion, when did married women continue it after marriage and start to serially ‘grade up’? Looking around at My parents , who got married in the mid-50s, and grandparents who of course married decades earlier, finding the right guy and getting married was the goal, the ‘trading up’ by married women seems more recent, is it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9
Bob Smith January 10, 2011 at 17:51

The same universe where Sara Jessica Parker is considered attractive?

I never understood why she got more press than Kristin Davis. Kristin actually qualified as hot.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
doclove January 10, 2011 at 18:02

I don’t always agree with Susan Walsh of http://www.hookingupsmart.com but at least she tries harder than most women to see what is really going on especially considering she’s in her mid fifties. I haven’t been able to read all of her articles nor the commentators on her blog either. Some of the Commentators seem to have brilliant insights though, and I’ll point to one of them in particular. I thought it might add to the discussion to provide the necessary links as well as the article names and dates. Here they are:
Eleven Key Insights From The Men Of Hooking Up Smart 03 January 2011
http://www.hookingupsmart/.com/2011/01/03/relationshipstrategies/eleven-key-insights-from-the-men-of-hooking-up-smart/
Sex And The Pareto Principle 14 September 2010
http://hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/11/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
A Commentator named Brendan gave a good comment which is fifth in the comment section of the last article. These articles should provide wonderful insights into female HYPERGAMY. The last article will provide data about sex in the USA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Bambino January 10, 2011 at 18:14

It’s important for the young men here to remember the following:

Women are the original “free agents.” They LOVE the bigger, better deal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
ReaderLon January 10, 2011 at 18:23

I agree with TFH. This not really news for regular readers of roissy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
duke January 10, 2011 at 18:24

All women are whores it’s just the price that changes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
zed January 10, 2011 at 18:27

@crella,

Among the people I have known personally, I haven’t really seen that much “trading up” going on. The entire mating game has pretty much changed entirely since I was going through it. Most of the people I knew picked the best they thought was available from the people around them, and if that one didn’t work out they went back on the market. Personally, I haven’t known many women, or men, who held on to one branch only for the purpose of reaching for one higher up. A bunch of my college friends did play musical wives/husbands for a while – one group of 4 couples all divorced within a year and 3 out of 4 of both sexes married someone from the other 3 couples. It made for really weird card parties for a year or two. It was so funny because the Steven Stills song “Time to change partners” was popular at the time, and that is just what they did. The lyrics of that song are a really good description how they got to where they were –
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Change-Partners-lyrics-Stephen-Stills/74EEF95BDEBE195B48256D59002AA056

The pattern I saw, more than “trading up” was –
search for your “soulmate”,
fall in love with someone you can project your fantasies onto,
be disappointed by the reality,
get divorced,
rinse, repeat.

I started noticing women whose expectations and demands for men was way out of line with what they had to offer as mates in the late 1980s. By that time the sexual revolution had been accomplished, and they seemed to want a man at least as good as, or one step up from, the best they had been able to pull for a one night stand, to commit to them. One big problem was by that point, most of these women had either herpes or genital warts, or both, which knocked their mate value way down, even if they still looked halfway decent.

doclove January 10, 2011 at 18:32

Only the first link of my last post seems to be working. The first article is currently the second one on http://www.hookingupsmart.com today. Go to the search engine on her website and type in Pareto Principle if you want to see the articles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 10, 2011 at 19:45

I am compiling a list of articles that I would consider essential reading for new blood in the MRM. This one just got added to the list.

Spot on perfection, and really, really important stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
crella January 10, 2011 at 19:55

Thanks Zed. My experience doesn’t resemble the type of thing I read so often lately, that a woman ‘will always’ be on the lookout for a BBD, even when married. If that, purely, was ‘hypergamy’ and ‘women have always been hypergamous’, then it didn’t fit in with what I understood to be the general social pattern up to and through, eh, the mid-60s. As far as my experience went, I know that women have always married up, or tried to, but I was not aware of large numbers of married women on the lookout for someone better. Thanks for the clarification.I wouldn’t call a women dumping her husband for someone richer hypergamous so much as just a mercenary, heartless b*tch….

People long long ago :-D seemed to be satisfied on the most part that they got married. They seemed to put up with each other’s faults a bit better, realize that people had faults! People’s expectations keep changing, more and more ‘romantic’ conditions are placed on marriage (the ring, destination weddings, presents, flowers etc) , the ceremonies themselves are expensive and lavish even if it breaks the budget. My jaw dropped when I saw brides on TV in the US saying things like ‘My dress budget is $4000 ($3,000-$6,000)’ For a dress you’ll wear ONCE! After all this, daily married life must really fizzle out. I noticed in the early 90s that things were changing, and not for the better..it was obvious, when I was going back only every 4-5 years.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11
Bob Smith January 10, 2011 at 20:08

It’s not that married women weren’t just as on the lookout for “better” than single women (they are after all still women), it’s that the cost of jumping ship kept most of them in their place. Now that divorce is both much easier and much more lucrative, especially if there are kids involved, marriage is a lot less effective at curbing women’s hypergamous instincts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Gunn January 10, 2011 at 20:50

I would actually add to Bob Smith’s comment above

Now that divorce is both much easier and much more lucrative, especially if there are kids involved, marriage is a lot less effective at curbing women’s hypergamous instincts.

that the cost of not entering marriage is also much lower / non-existent these days for women, because of the huge subsidies provided to them in education (affirmative action, pro-female teaching methods etc) and credentialed employment (i.e. employment based on the fact that you are a woman or belong to a particular selected minority, NAMs in the US, and have been provided credentials through your education).

So women have no incentive to settle for a husband when they’re young, as their grandmothers had to, and conversely no incentive to stick to a marriage they’re in because of no-fault divorce and preferential treatment with alimony and child support.

In this environment, anyone who honestly wonders why women display the hypergamy that they do is a bona fide retard.

Also, I noticed something someone posted above about Kristin Davis in SatC being hot. I wondered this as well, she is clearly better looking than the 3 hags on that programme (although Kim Cattrall was hot back in the 80s, who can forget Mannequin?). Perhaps its because her character in SatC is the betrayer of feminist ideals; iirc, she desires marriage, family life and children, and is therefore regarded as a sellout to the ‘fabulous’ lifestyles enjoyed by her co-hags.

Nevermind ofc the fact that if you asked men which behaviour they most wanted in their women, most of them would say something approaching her character, even without knowing that she is also the hottest of the four.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Keyster January 10, 2011 at 20:51

But, but it wasn’t supposed to be like this!
After all women are equal to men, right?
So then they both have successful careers, make good money, drop the children off at daycare every morning. She’s satisfied because she’s not a “domestic slave” or oppressed, and he’s happy because she’s happy. The whole world of men and women becomes an egalitarian utopia, where traditional marital/parental lines are blurred.

Women would fall in love with men, not because of their earning potential or status, but because of their “values”. Being a sweet, kind loving man was gonna be enough. Why he might even make for a fabulous little homemaker. Wasn’t that the glorious vision the academic elites and mass media had way back when? What the hell happened?

Oh, that’s right. The natural order won out over social engineering, AGAIN.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
doclove January 10, 2011 at 20:54

I lifted these figures from http://www.hoohingupsmart.com which got them from the CDC on the article found on 14 September 2010 called “Sex and the Pareto Principle.” These are the Percentages below.
Partners Last Year
0 1 2 3+
Male% 15.4 67.9 16.7 10.4
Female% 17.7 72.3 10.0 6.8

Lifetime Sexual Partners
0-1 2-6 7-14 15+ Median
Male% 16.6 33.8 20.7 28.9 10.4
Female% 17.7 72.3 21.2 9.4 3.7

Partners in Last Year by Age
0 1 2 or more
Male%
age 20-29 15.7 53.2 31.1
Female%
age 20-29 15.1 66.0 19.0
Male%
age 30-39 15.6 69.6 14.8
Female%
age 30-39 9.4 79.6 11.0
Note that these are self reported figures. I personally suspect women are vastly under-reporting and men may be slightly over-reporting. I believe the men are more honest though. I believe women have a tendency to under-report because of the anti-defense slut syndrome even in anonymous surveys like this. People may also have different ideas as to what constitutes sex. For example oral sex may be counted as sex by one person, but not by another person. Also keep in mind that for the men the virginity and celibacy is probably not their choice while for the women it probably is. If the above statistics don’t prove HYPERGAMY I don’t know what else will except maybe venereal disease statistics!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
zed January 10, 2011 at 21:03

As far as my experience went, I know that women have always married up, or tried to, but I was not aware of large numbers of married women on the lookout for someone better.

I think our generation of the Boomers – who I call the “straddle” generation because we were generally born into and raised under the old values and then actively participated in throwing most of them out the window – has very different experiences than the generations which have come after us.

What I observed was not so much always being on the lookout for something better, but rather a chronic and pervasive dissatisfaction with whatever they did have. The concept of “good enough” seemed to get thrown out the window, and no matter how much a woman had it wasn’t enough or good enough. Nothing less than “perfect” (according to the woman’s Oprah, Lifetime & Oxygen networks, and romantic comedy influenced fantasies) would do. One woman I knew constantly used the word “optimal”, anything less than “optimal” just wasn’t worth bothering with.

I wrote about a buddy of mine who was an orthopedic surgeon in this comment – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/chivalry-on-the-titanic/#comment-4480 The guy gave her everything she ever dreamed of having, sold his medical practice so he could nurse her through a kidney transplant, and she repaid his loyalty and all he had given her with one of the nastiest divorces I have ever seen. In her case, it looked less like she was trying to trade up than trade out. I don’t think she had anyone else lined up, she just wanted to get out of the marriage while keeping all the money.

I have to amend what I said above a little bit – I have actually had to deal with 3 married women who wanted to trade up. But, they were spread over more than 20 years and were all very different – not quite the same stories guys today are telling.

If I had to pick a time, an era, when the change became apparent, I would have to say the Madonna – Material Girl years. I haven’t known a woman since then who seemed even a tiny bit capable of thinking about anything other than herself and what she wanted. I’ve known a lot of women who weren’t necessarily looking to trade their husbands but wanted to cheat on them. By the end of the 90s I had learned to avoid married women as much as I possibly could.

I noticed in the early 90s that things were changing, and not for the better.

That fits pretty well with what I observed. I think Madonna was mid to late 80s.

doclove January 10, 2011 at 21:05

@ TFH or anyone else who runs into Rey de Corazones or someone like RdC
Use my above post and direct him to that article and all other acsociated links. All I got to say is POW!!!! Right in the KISSER!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
TFH January 10, 2011 at 23:40

Readerlon,

I agree with TFH. This not really news for regular readers of roissy.

Except Rey de Corazones thinks this is absurd. He threatened to reveal my true identity for merely stating what is this particular common knowledge.

doclove,

True, but we are dealing with a sicko here. Facts did not school him last time, and won’t this time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
x2 January 11, 2011 at 00:38

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21
x2 January 11, 2011 at 00:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20
x2 January 11, 2011 at 00:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 21
Rey de Corazones January 11, 2011 at 00:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 23
Opus January 11, 2011 at 02:02

I love Keyster’s expression Egaliterian Utopia. …and like all Utopia’s…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
crella January 11, 2011 at 04:06

but rather a chronic and pervasive dissatisfaction with whatever they did have.

That’s it in a nutshell, good way to put it. Exactly. There was a lot of that with my mother , again, always p*ssed me off. She never worked, had it easy while Dad worked full time, came home for a quick dinner and then part time in the evenings. Now that he ‘s gone, and she has to rely on my sister for rides, shopping , etc and she has no companionship in the daytime while my sister works and my niece is in school, she knows what she had. Too goddamned late if you ask me….

Doc’s story…..oh….my…..God…..what ever the hell possessed her to do that!? If she hadn’t been so selfish and let her diabetes go she wouldn’t have ever gotten that sick and destroyed both their lives. It’s all on her, and then she shafts him like that!? And her parents helped her….he was so smart to back himself up like he did, and keep researching and not give up.

MIL refused to acknowledge that she had diabetes, refused treatment and/or ignored her doctor’s dietary advice, now she has all kinds of circulatory problems, and it’s likely that’s why she has Alzheimer’s too, her blood sugar and A1C being over the roof for so many years. People like that drive me nuts. It’s their bodies, I know, but it never ends with them….I’ve been caring for her now for 8+ years with the AD, and many more trying to keep her diabetes under control. No thought as to the toll it takes on those around them, is there?

Glad Doc’s wife got her ‘just commupance’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 11, 2011 at 04:17

NMH January 10, 2011 at 11:44
“Its really the perfect storm for male misery, and its hard to mentally reprogram yourself to find alternatives for happiness without women”

I would disagree. There are PLENTY of women available to men, just not in the west. Further. It’s about time men educated themselves that prostitution is lawful and told the cops where the hell to go over prosecuting prostitutes and ‘johns’. One prostitute can give MANY men a ‘good time’ in one day. And she will be hotter that most women a man could date.

When men start to act like grown ups and not like children you will find that there are more than enough women to go around…whether it be outright prostitution or the ‘prostitution’ where she is ‘agreeable’ as the ‘investment’ to get ‘babies and money’ which is NORMAL. The feminists denouncing prostitution is one of their more hypopcritical positions.

Zammo January 10, 2011 at 15:14
“It’s actually the re-marriage strike that is at work”

This is correct and Mark Rudov has also noted this. Men are VERY wary of a second marriage because they have seen how the OTHER women treated them at the end of the first marriage. Early after my separation, when I still ‘be-LIE-ved’ in ‘good women’ I immediately started dating again. Not a problem. I just got a bad one, right? But the OTHER women hated on me so much for wanting my ex punished for her crimes. This was ASTOUNDING to me at the time. I could NOT believe it. But women sprewed so much HATRED at me for nothing more than wanting my ex punished for the crimes she was committing and for my rights to stop being violated and my rights be respected. It was the endless sprewing of HATRED at me for no good reason that woke me up to ‘NAWALT’ is a lie. Any man who married TWICE must be a complete idiot. Really.

I will continue to tell young men that women spewed HATRED and bile at me ENDLESSLY for wanting nothing more than my rights be respected when I had committed no crime myself. Any young man who does not take that on board when hearing it? That is HIS problem. Even today, after three years of this? Women STILL like to provide me more evidence for the young men by ENDLESSLY spewing HATRED at me when I commit the ‘crime’ of pointing out the truth. Indeed, without the FULL CO-OPERATION of women men like me could not be so effective in educating the young men as to the true nature of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 11, 2011 at 05:42
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 11, 2011 at 05:57

Welmer, you are going to LOVE this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345979/Paul-McCartney-prenuptual-agreement-law-stop-golddiggers.html

Note:

“A gold-diggers’ law could stop husbands and wives plundering their spouse’s fortune if they divorce, Whitehall experts have said. It would allow men and women to keep the cash, income and assets they owned before they married.”

My comment was:

Steve, you are a reporter. Could you please point me to all the documented cases where HUSBANDS have managed to plunder their SPOUSES fortunes if they divorce? I must be stupid because I can’t seem to find all these cases. Could you please help all us men find these cases of these ‘gold digging men’. After all, with ‘equality before the law’ the men must also represent 50% of the gold digging cases. And just a many men must have been able to ‘plunder their spouses fortune’. Right?

Anyone who wants to ask Steve similar, please click on over!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Bob Smith January 11, 2011 at 08:22

what are your thoughts on the fact that, now that men are not the only ones who bring home the bacon, there are probably more relationships/marriages in which the woman is attracted to the man for reasons other than his money?

You are mistaken, that is not a fact. A woman’s money only raises the bar at which she becomes attracted to man’s money, it does nothing to stop her from being attracted to money. Hence the phenomenon of executive women whining there are no good men. There are plenty of good men, they just don’t make enough money for her to be attracted to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
zed January 11, 2011 at 09:06

There was a lot of that with my mother , again, always p*ssed me off. She never worked, had it easy while Dad worked full time, came home for a quick dinner and then part time in the evenings.

Feminism was the personality of your mother moved into the political realm – a lot of chronically, deeply, bitterly, angry and unhappy women with no idea why they were so angry and unhappy, or what to do about it, but perfectly clear on the point that it was all men’s fault. And that bolded part means both ways it could be read – all the fault lay with men, and all men were at fault.

They created this monstrous bogeyman they called “Patriarchy” and projected onto it all of their own worst characteristics. Since women really did tend to band together against men, then men must have banded together against women and conspired to make them miserable. When the political became personal and the personal became political, a monstrous dysfunctional marriage between all men and all women got created. Where women like your mother were limited to making the lives of one man and their own children miserable, any and all women became “empowered” to make the lives of any and all men and any and all children as miserable as they could. (Jessica Valenti and Liz Jones being great examples)

Your mother’s life became “being kept in the kitchen, chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant.”

One of the biggest reasons why your experience is so different from what the men here report has to do with timing. Your mother was part of the “older generation” from the mythical “golden days” of the 50s. Think about the kids born after about 1965 – when the US was just getting started in Vietnam and LBJ’s “Great Society” was just being launched.

They entered the mating pool in the mid-80s – just about the time you and I started noticing very significant changes. Men of that age were faced with the “Material Girls” on one side, and the hate intoxicated little zealots that colleges were churning out – with their degrees in advanced victimology (Wimminz’s Studdees) in hand – on the other side. The ability of such women to engage in doublethink was illustrated by the fact that most women of that cohort expected to make as much money as any man, but were also able to expect that they would marry a man who was a bit older and made more money -and see absolutely no contradiction or conflict in that.

And there is the real bind and contradiction of hypergamy that Bob Smith just pointed out. Even while they were competing for the very jobs which would have allowed men to make more money – with the playing field tilted in their favor by Affirmative Action – women seemed to believe that good, affluent, husbands apparently grew on trees.

This is when the man-bashing really kicked into high gear. For woman dead center in the earnings distribution, the 50% of men who fell below them simply did not exist, while they competed for the 50% at or above their level with almost 100% of all women. Not enough high earning men to go around and meet their elevated expectations of entitlement became “there are no good men.”

And then, it got even uglier. The whole bill of goods of “rewarding career” that women got sold turned out to be really empty. They never realized that men didn’t have “careers”, they had “jobs.” Working at anything was simply a means by which they fulfilled their socially indoctrinated provider role. Men who could chose careers – like medicine, as Doc did -did so because it was a path to be able to provide very well for their families. Without that specific financial incentive, I’m sure Doc would have gone into teaching, because now that he is retired and doesn’t need to make money that is what he does on a volunteer basis. There really is a strange bit of role reversal there – he is now getting to do the volunteer work that Betty could easily have spent her time doing while he supported her, and is really enjoying it. I’m sure he wouldn’t be able to do it if she was still around poisoning his life with her unhappiness, so in a strange way she did set him free by leaving.

But, anyway, careers were not as rewarding for women as they expected them to be because they did not have the provider identity and social role to live up to – until they started dumping their husbands to become single moms.

Doc’s story…..oh….my…..God…..what ever the hell possessed her to do that!?

Glad Doc’s wife got her ‘just commupance’.

No one really knows why she did it. She basically lost all her support system and skunked her entire extended family with her betrayal. No one from their old social circle talk to them at all any more. The best guess of most of the people who knew her “back when” is “The Whispers” (great post by Dalrock on “The Whispers” here)

She probably sat around at the country club with the other ladies who lunch, bitching about their husbands and being angry and unhappy at how unfulfilled their lives were – just like your mother. They probably assured her that he was a “rich” doctor and the court would certainly just hand over everything if she played the victim card right. And, since husbands generally just rolled over and did whatever their wives demanded (like your dad may have done) they did not expect Doc to fight back.

When he surprised them all and did, things got really ugly. Princess Betty was the only child of an entire generation – none of her uncles or aunts had any children. That may have been why she was so spoiled, but it also made her the proxy for the entire older generation in her family. After the mess was a bit cleared away, her aunts and uncles starting hearing “Hey, I hear your niece really tried to stick it to her husband.”

It pretty much destroyed the entire family’s reputation in the smallish town where they all live. It’s almost funny to watch them show up at some social gathering and see the crowd just drift away from them leaving an empty zone of about 10 feet.

TFH January 11, 2011 at 10:59

if you fancy yourself a leader of a nascent movement,

I don’t. It is but one of many topics my website covers. My website has been around since 2006, and the first anti-misandry article was in 2010.

you would be well advised not to tell obvious lies and fish stories about yourself

..and I haven’t. You seem to be the only one interested in whatever number of LTRs, engagements, or marriages I may have had, and think that has any huge bearing on my articles.

If you are truly so obsessed about my history in Game, go back to the ebss (SF lair) and nyctsf (NY lair) yahoogroup archives starting in 2002, where you will see many posts and field reports by me, praised and corroborated by people who today are big names.

In fact, I have often talked about areas of difficulty I had in Game, as well as how some people (like myself) can never get beyond intermediate level, even though I started at the same time and place (and am good friends with) masters like J-Dog, Matador, and Lance Mason.

Got that? I saturated at intermediate whilst my good friends became advanced. I consider myself a specialist on the subject of who can really go how far in the practice of Game.

I had a break in the middle due to an LTR (not keeping in touch with the lair guys during that period was a mistake), but it is rather odd that you should be so interested in this.

the lies are out there

No lies at all. See above.

In fact, someone who finds my real identity will discover other positive accomplishments of mine, such as my humanitarian work (which I have never talked about here).

At any rate, it is more than a little odd for a man to be so interested in the level of another man’s Game, particularly when the latter is only claiming to be intermediate, and not peddling any seminars or products.

Now read this several times, so you understand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
The White Rider January 11, 2011 at 11:38

what are your thoughts on the fact that, now that men are not the only ones who bring home the bacon, there are probably more relationships/marriages in which the woman is attracted to the man for reasons other than his money?

Here are the problems:

1. Single Provider households are, well, no longer feasible, unless you’re an upper class high earner.

2. Women by and large have the mentality of “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is ours.” when it comes to money in relationships. They do over 80% of the spending of the money. This includes part of the man’s money as well.

3. Many of them get into these relationships due to economic necessity. The vast majority of single mothers are either welfare queens (and/or divorce-theft recipients) or high earners themselves, though few fall into the latter category.

They NEED the man’s money, but believe they owe him no loyalty. This is why bastardy is so rife. Those paternity testing statistics will blow your mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
doclove January 11, 2011 at 13:31

First I would like to report that I made an error in copying the Female Lifetime Sexual Partners at 72.3% when it should read at 44.4% for the numbers of sexual partners between two and six. My apologies for this error. Next I hope when I type in the numbers again it will be easier to read like a chart. It looked like that when I typed it off my screen, but not when it came into the commenting section here at The Spearhead.

Partners Last Year
0 1 2 3
Male% 15.4 67.9 16.7 10.4
Female% 17.7 72.3 10.0 6.8

Lifetime Sexual Partners
0-1 2-6 7-14 15+
Male% 16.6 33.8 20.7 28.9
Female% 17.7 44.4 21.2 9.4

Partners in Last Year by Age
0 1 2 or more
Male%
age 20-29 15.7 53.2 31.1
Female%
age 20-29 15.1 66.0 19.0
Male%
age 30-39 15.6 69.6 14.8
Female%
age 30-39 9.4 79.6 11.0

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
x2 January 11, 2011 at 15:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18
doclove January 11, 2011 at 15:20

@ Rey de Corrazones and X2
@ RE: TFH
The numbers by far more support my and TFH’s side. It better to be in the top half of men as anyone who can read would notice. It’s not as good to be in the bottom half of men too. The statistics below and my commentary explain the HYPERGAMY of women, especially American women below. Try to follow and think about what TFH and I as well as others are trying to say to you.
I read somewhere that at least 95% of American men and women have had sex in their lives and so yes you are right that most people have had sex and can get it at some point in their lives. Even TFH would agree with this, I think. I think the virgin rate percentage is higher among men, but even if it is not—A FEMALE VIRGIN IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CHOSEN TO REMAIN A VIRGIN THAN A MALE VIRGIN IS LIKELY TO HAVE DONE SO. LIKEWISE, A FEMALE CHASTE NON-VIRGIN IS ALSO MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CHOSEN TO REMAIN CHASTE THAN HER MALE COUNTERPART. MOST MALE VIRGINS AND MALE CHASTE NON-VIRGINS DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE VIRGINS OR CHASTE IN MY OPINION; AND MOST FEMALE VIRGINS AND CHASTE NON-VIRGINS DO IN MY OPINION. This is where TFH and I are right and both of you are wrong!
Where you both fail and TFH and I succeeds is the grinding celibacy which most likely is not of the majority of men’s own choosing the bottom men face. Men are 6.2% more likely to be chaste in their thirties than women with men being chaste in any given year at 15.6% and women at 9.4%; yet, this means women are only approximately two-thirds as likely to be chaste in any given year in their thirties. Men are 0.6 percent more likely to be chaste in the last year than women with men having no sex partners at 15.7 percent to women’s 15.1 percent in their twenties. The twenties people have men being chaste at only 0.6% more than women which doesn’t seem so bad, but it is not asking if the men or women chose to remain chaste in that year. It never asked either gender, did you have opportunities to have sex within the last year to men and women in their twenties. I believe a lower percentage of men than women even had the opportunity to have sex within the last year-this is my opinion. Why? As you said in the article about India, Rey de Corazones, men chase and women are chased.
Where TFH and I succeed and you two fail is the number of men who have 2 or more sexual partners within every year is higher than the women. Also a higher percentage of men are more likely than women to have had 15 or more sexual partners within their lifetime than women. In fact 28.9% of men have had 15 or more partners as opposed to 9.4% of women;and, this is about triple for men to women. Women only slightly outnumber men for one or zero sexual partners in a lifetime 17.7% to 16.6%, but women are more likely to have chosen their lower number of lifetime sexual partners than men in my opinion. Women slightly outnumber men for lifetime number of sexual partners being 7-14 partners 21.2% to 20.7% and greatly outnumber men in having 2-6 lifetime sexual partners 44.4% to 33.8% which is food for thought. This means the 28.9% of men who have 15 or more lifetime sexual partners are more likely to have had sex not only sex with the 9.4% of women who have 15 or more partners, but also with the women who have had between 2 and 14 lifetime partners.
Noone is asking how each sex got their sexual partners either. Did they do it through marriage? Did they do it through the Venusian Arts of Seduction known in slang as having “Game”?( It doesn’t matter on this one whether the individual, man or woman, was the seducer or the seduced.) Did they do it through prostitution?(It does matter whether the individual was a male customer, female customer, male prostitute or female prostitute.)
My opinion is that there are a higher number and certainly percentage of male customers of prostitutes than female customers of prostitutes because men find it necessary to pay for sex because they can find no woman to give them(men) what they(men) want for free. Women are more likely to get sex for free. Men are also more likely to pay for sex with woman they desire than women because women are more likely to get sex from a man they desire for free. Men are also more likely to pay for the kind of sex they want from prostitutes for example 2 or more women having sexual relations with one man at the same time because they(men) find it more difficult to convince two women to have sex with such said man for freeat the same time. Women find it easier to get two or more men to have sex with each woman at the same time for free, for example. Do you agree or disagree with anything I said in this last paragraph, Rey de Corazones? You never answered it adequately last time when there was an article about India in this blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
x2 January 11, 2011 at 15:22

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18
x2 January 11, 2011 at 15:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18
crella January 11, 2011 at 15:56

Feminism was the personality of your mother moved into the political realm-a lot of chronically, deeply, bitterly, angry and unhappy women with no idea why they were so angry and unhappy

Oh geez…….*shudders*. In our (then) mainly Catholic neighborhood, feminism was a bit slow to trickle into daily life. Girls from my class were still planning on marrying. I left the US in 1980, so it’s been hard to tell for me when the big shifts began but every time I went back it was something else. By the mid-90s I started to get that ‘down the rabbit hole’ feeling.

One of the biggest reasons why your experience is so different from what the men here report has to do with timing. Your mother was part of the “older generation” from the mythical “golden days” of the 50s.

Oh, definitely. My parents were born in 1930 and 1932 , it was a different ball game then. I left the country in ’80 and wasn’t back till ’83 then ’88 or 89. It’s hard to see all of it and piece it together from visits. Sometimes I read things on the net about how women act and think ‘when did that become the norm, and how the hell did it come to this?’ I don’t see all the steps in between, and so sometimes feel jarred a bit.

The whole bill of goods of “rewarding career” that women got sold turned out to be really empty. They never realized that men didn’t have “careers”, they had “jobs.”

A running joke between me and a friend of mine when we read some feminist BS about ‘careers’ is ‘I don’t know about you, but I work to eat’ :-D because it’s WORK, not a playground…I can’t count the times I heard my mother say to my father, ‘You get to go to work everyday while I have to stay here’. She really didn’t . There were plenty of part time jobs in the neighborhood shopping mall, she never applied for one that I knew of.

They probably assured her that he was a “rich” doctor and the court would certainly just hand over everything if she played the victim card right.

Aaahhhhhh……I had forgotten the poison friend factor. They probably all thought that she’d get a huge sum of money that they could all use to have a good time, she’d have all the trapping of the life without the “burden” of the husband. That he had to do that much work to keep from being railroaded is a travesty, but unfortunately par for the course in family court.

leaving an empty zone of about 10 feet.

The image that popped into my head was a Petri dish with a disk in it, and that big clear border around it.

Well, with all the Princess antics, the hissy fits, sh*t testing etc that my mother did, she was the perfect example of how NOT to treat a husband.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
W.F. Price January 11, 2011 at 16:12

Oh, definitely. My parents were born in 1930 and 1932 , it was a different ball game then. I left the country in ’80 and wasn’t back till ’83 then ’88 or 89. It’s hard to see all of it and piece it together from visits. Sometimes I read things on the net about how women act and think ‘when did that become the norm, and how the hell did it come to this?’ I don’t see all the steps in between, and so sometimes feel jarred a bit.

-Crella

Yeah, funny how that works, isn’t it? I was only expat for a couple years and when I came back I felt like I was in some time warp Mostly because of the pop culture, but I imagine I would have been really shocked if it had been ten years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Robert Griffith January 11, 2011 at 16:12

While reading this I came across the passage “Alpha Cock Carousel”!!!! LOL!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!LOL!!!!! I laughed my ass for 5 minutes straight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
doclove January 11, 2011 at 16:22

@X2
I never stated 80% of men never get sex. I may have been misconstrued that way. I’ve stated in the above post that I believe at least 95% of the men have had sex at least once in their lives. This means that no more than 5% of men remain virgins.
I’ve stated above that 28.9% of men have had 15 or more lifetime sexual partners as opposed to 9.4% of women who had 15 or more lifetime sexual partners which means this group of men has had sex with women who have had anywhere between 2 and 14 partners as well as women who have had at least 15 partners. This is what it means to be Alpha for number of sexual partners for most men I know.
At least you have enough sense to agree that men face celibacy not of their own choosing more than women do, and that men are more likely to be celibate in any given year between the ages of 20 and 39. This is what it means to be beta or worse omega in terms of sex to most men at least here on this site.
When I agreed with TFH, I agreed in principle if not actual percentages. I’ve stated what has been my opinion upon my observations. I’ve also given the best statistics I could find and tried analyze and interpret them with my opinion as best I could. I’ve stated that Alpha men regarding women can have more partners while beta and worse omega men go for long droughts of celibacy even if the beta and omega men are not virgins. I’ve made it known that it is very difficult for the bottom 20%or should I say the bottom 15.7% of men especially and the bottom 50% to some extant. The top 20% or should I say the top 28.9% of men are getting women to ride them in the cock carrosol for Lifetime sexual partners.
I later tried to ammend and clarify what he said. I stated that the top 20% of men are swimming in vagina. The bottom 20% of men are getting little to none at all The bottom 80% of men have it rougher because they are getting lower quality women today than what they could before( probably pre 1965) because a low quality woman can get sex from a better man for at least a short term basis. Men are more willing to dumpster dive sexually than women at least in the short term if not the long term. TFH seemed to agree with what I said above and even tried to ammend to clarify what he meant.
TFH and I were coming closer to the truth on this issue. Please read my above post. I’ll try to break this down in shorter paragraphs next time to make it easier for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
john thames January 11, 2011 at 17:33

The author is absolutely correct. Here is one I wrote along the same lines.

WHY MEN SHOULD HAVE THE JOBS

Everyone these days accepts the idea that women should have equal job rights with men. But this view is entirely fallacious. There are sound reasons why men should be given preference over women in the job market. A man cannot attract a woman as a mate unless he has a job to provide for her and her children. But a woman can attract a man by offering her sexual services and her reproductive capacity. He must have the job to get married; she can get married without the job. A man’s money strengthens the marriage and the family; the woman’s money weakens it. When a man is supporting a family, the child grows up with two parents. The male children have a role model to aspire to. The woman, being dependent on her husband’s pay check, has an incentive to stay married and function as a home maker. When the woman has the job and the money, she can reproduce on her own with the father absent. The social consequences are disastrous. Single mothers generate male criminals by the bushel. Even when the woman does marry, her economic independence enables her to file for divorce without fear of the consequences. Thus, marriage exists at the woman’s whim. It ceases to be the bedrock of society.

There are additional problems caused by giving women the jobs. Women like to marry up; women like to marry down. Marriages where the wife out earns the husband have a considerably higher divorce rate than marriages where the husband out earns the wife. When women must marry down, the usual consequence is an increased divorce rate with increased chances of spousal abuse. Women pursuing careers tend to suppress their reproduction to climb the corporate ladder. Despite maternity leave, women know that corporations do not like maternity disruptions. The old “family wage” system of paying a man enough to support a family encouraged reproduction. The woman could raise the children without the extra burden of working at an office.

In short, giving women job equality is theoretically wrong and has proved disastrous in practice. Few realize that driving women out of the home and into the job market under the pretense of “liberation” has always been basic Marxism. When the industrial revolution began women demanded that employers pay their husbands sufficient wages to allow women to stay home and raise the children. It was Marx and Engel’s and their disciples who wished to destroy the system to make women members of the working class. Today, the old Marxist ideal has been achieved by the capitalist wage-slave system. Both husband and wife must work to afford what they used to have on one pay check. Women have achieved proletarian equality by enraging their men folk. The family has been destroyed and sex roles have faded into oblivion. Neither men nor women have benefited from this process. But one red-haired Khazar who writes of “The End of Men” in the Atlantic Monthly, knows precisely who has really won.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
zed January 11, 2011 at 18:11

it’s been hard to tell for me when the big shifts began but every time I went back it was something else. By the mid-90s I started to get that ‘down the rabbit hole’ feeling.

Imagine what living here was like! 8O

The mid-90s was when I just gave up on the dating racket and quit dealing with American women except as the sexless “persons” they demanded to be.

A-man January 11, 2011 at 19:02

TFH said (emphasis mine) :

It is pretty standard knowledge that among the singles dating scene, 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex being had with women. The other 80% of single men are having sex infrequently, or with women far less attractive than desired. Married guys are not included in this, but many married guys are beta providers that women settled for after spending their 20s alpha-chasing, and quite often deprive the husband of sex. Roissy says 90-10. Rob Fedders says 95-5. But in my experience, 80-20 is the reality (and still heavily skewed).

Sounds about right.

x2 seems to be have trouble with ‘infrequently’ vs. ‘never’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
crella January 11, 2011 at 19:29

Imagine what living here was like!

Oh, I bet! Lord almighty!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot January 11, 2011 at 20:29

I just read some comments on that jizzabel site…

Young, over”educated” you-go-girls railing against beta males and anyone who judges them for being whores.

Hopefully, I have saved someone else the trouble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Ronin January 11, 2011 at 21:20

@ john thames
“Both husband and wife must work to afford what they used to have on one pay check.”

Double the tax base and it’s win win for the overlords.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
doclove January 12, 2011 at 01:49

@A-Man
Re: X2 and Rey de Corazones
Re:RE: TFH
Thanks for finding TFH’s quote. What TFH meant was this to make it simple. Line up 10 men and 10 women. Imagine them as a microcosm of American society of men and women below the age of about 50. Two of these men have had sex at some point in their lives with eight of these women. The other 8 men have had lower lifetime sexual partner count to one degree or another. That’s my short version interpretation of what TFH meant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
river es mundial January 12, 2011 at 02:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21
SMC January 12, 2011 at 09:12

@river es mundial

You are correct on both counts…
1) Conservatives DO advocate “redistribution” too.
And
2) I too find it a little superficial and myopic that they’re saying “no fat chicks man”. Feminism’s oppression of men is more than that. (Note the comment-ariat here doesn’t do that that much.)

Regarding 2), females are just as discriminatory and superficial– _if not more so_– than males are. Especially true since society accepts and promotes discrimination against men and pedestal-izes female behavior. (It always has, therefor feminism’s whole original root premise is faulty.)

Female lenses and criteria are simply sometimes a little different though from men’s. Ie genders want different things from each other.

Eg females hate male weakness like males hate fat chicks. (I’m feel sorry for fat chicks [see * below] –but I’m also sorry for men, one of which is me.) And now females are “lookists” too on top of their other forms of objectification.

And females are certainly less empathic when it comes to making fun of the opposite gender (females have standard inferiority complex issues). Females are also crueler and less empathic in most categories, social babble measures (eg crime and punishment).

Society has used the different lenses boys and girls use to say “females are less discriminatory towards males than the reverse. But that is wrong. (Note that most EVERYTHING western society believes and says about gender and females is a lie, ignorance or delusion.)

To deny the above makes one either delusional, ignorant or a sycophant to female power (or a female which is another way of saying delusional). (That male sycophancy is a root reason men defend feminism BTW. Think monks carrying an emperor baby on a pillow.. all must bow to the procession… except the monks… )

Now the real point of my response…

You are on to something very important. “Pu$$y socialism.”

I have long since addressed it: http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

Pussy is the real wealth that motivates all the other kinds. So therefore if liberalism wants to make people equal and stop pain and suffering, war and caste etc as it has said, it should prevent female dalliance and game playing (…secrets, taunting, teasing, lying, mocking, discrimination etc) since that is the real motivation behind the male competition –and consequent disparity– liberalism says it wants to ameliorate.

If money is redistributed equally, pussy will simply move on to some other criteria for deciding who they should be “nice” to. (Liberalism is simply too stupid to understand simple biology though.)

*The way to make “pu$$y socialism” more broad minded –and to solve all human condition problems (fat chicks, weak men)– is to make everybody the same biologically. It stops all politics cold.

If some males are bad and low and callous objectifiers and what have you, it doesn’t mean that all men are bad. So therefore liberalism’s broad-brush tariffs on all males (excusing of course the wealthy and law-types –the “monks”) are not only state oppression but also stereotyping. Two things liberalism specifically said it wanted to stop. If liberalism is having a problem with the behavior of some males why not just advocate eugenics to get rid of just those males?

These males here are not as you said “doing well in the other categories.” They ARE the losers that liberalism traditionally said it was going to en-status. Admitting that to yourself though destroys your entire world view. Thus you don’t admit it; instead you invent a fallacy where these guys are rich wasps.

Also except for a few of the slower ones here, Anti fem is not about simple tax break politics. True anti fem is more threatening to your status quo than standard “conservative” gibberish. (Anglo conservative gibberish is at cross purpose with what it says it wants.)

I explain most everything that needs to be known at my blog.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13
Gunn January 12, 2011 at 11:06

@river es mundial

nice try, but you’re being disingenuous.

you’re taking a single dimension, pussy, and in isolation claiming that the bulk of commentators here want to socialise it. however, what you’re conveniently forgetting is that all men are paying disproportionately into society in order that women are able to make ‘independent’ choices.

in other words: suppose we stripped out welfare (unlucky, single mothers); affirmative action (unlucky, career bitches); biased education (unlucky, credentialed cows); and family law court prejudices (unlikely gold-diggers). what do you suppose would happen to womens’ ability to reject men?

sure, they might like to chase ‘alphas’, but those guys wouldn’t be able to afford to maintain their harems, and well women have to eat. in such a world, the guy that is a productive element of society suddenly seems like a far worthier catch than the bad boy thug who knows nothing, does nothing, and depends on the charity of society in order to survive.

the real problem with our modern day set up is that the vast majority of men are enslaved as beasts of burden, working for society, without any real reward or fruit for their labours. in times past, we had a word for such men; slave

so you can continue to regard these arguments as a call for socialism of the pussy, but in reality the only reason women are able to choose as they do is because socialism has stripped away mens’ economic rights and given them back nothing but a slap in the face as the women they pay for through their work and taxes happily ignores them for the alpha thug who does nothing except lower the quality of the human gene pool.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
The White Rider January 12, 2011 at 13:56

however, my point was thus: would you rather live in a world in which you have the chance of great success (and, subsequently, the chance of great failure), or a world in which you have the chance of neither–but the guarantee of a slightly-greater-than mediocre life?

I suppose you’re asking about this in a purely Darwinian sense of big winners and big losers in reproduction, yes…?

I’m asking because the bastardy-rife society we have right now that disenfranchises most men is not sustainable. It is not really about having the opportunity to be some big winner with 100 children here. It is about having a stable society.

What you have to realize is that the majority of men will flip the bird to society in some way or another and our civilization will implode. It’s about sustainable practices. And that’s why marriage 1.0 and old laws which held both men and women accountable for their sexual conduct existed.

It’s like the people who originally wrote all of the old religious texts understood all of this on some level, but for some reason felt the need to dress it up in a bunch of strange mysticism bullshit so that hundreds of years later, no one would really know why.

In a sort of abstract way the Muslims have a story in that tells why women need to stick with one man so that the father can be identified, but the rest of all of the rules related to sexuality in all of the other religious texts I’ve read just comes off as some kind of “Edict from God” that makes no logical sense. Take circumcision as another example example. A Jewish religious practice you might say , but where did it originate…? Well, if you research it you will find out that it was a practice used to control male sexuality. Not that I advocate for it or anything because nowadays it’s just used to turn a profit by cutting up boy’s penises at birth to harvest foreskins for use in various products and services.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
SMC January 12, 2011 at 15:17

Your response to rivers mundial is fine.

BUT how does simply explaining the _mechanism_ of the ‘invisible hand’ and ‘taxation’s chilling effects’ prevent the capitalist republic [and etc tautological definitions of the modern west] from being hijacked AGAIN by the have-nots that form (who are instinctually prone to envy and historically effective* coup d eta)?

Anglo world conservatives/ capitalist types keep explaining the trickle down mechanism. They have been doing it as their one big deep thought in politics, for generations. EVERYONE GETS IT. Explain how it won’t be hijacked again.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-small-govt-anti-stateism-wont-work.html

* http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/search/label/2%20Alpha%20beta%20gamma%20principle

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Lovekraft January 12, 2011 at 18:41

Desire is suffering, yet in order to tame the boredom and monotony of living in a post-industrial world where there is no more hunting, we create new desires. Whatever one chooses to distract (drugs, exercise, alcohol, game etc etc) can be self-destructive, or liberating.

Which is where the MRM on a philosophical level comes in. It refines our desires to manageable levels, where men are allowed to find refuge and comraderie against the myriad of external stimuli.

So, in a nutshell, this is the great benefit of the MRM – solace, distraction and application of excess mental energy. And who knows, perhaps from it we will actually influence our culture. But as several prior comments above show, the chances that this will result in some type of utopia for men (docile, subservient women, we in meaningful careers, our spawn following our lead) is very unlikely.

For as I state above, mankind is not quite ready to escape from the cycle of boredom / desire and once feminism is relegated to the dustbin of history, another challenge will take its place and the cycle will continue.

My suggestion, fellow MRAs, is to keep grounded, humble and put our struggle in perspective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
river es mundial January 13, 2011 at 01:10

White Rider:

the real problem with our modern day set up is that the vast majority of men are enslaved as beasts of burden, working for society, without any real reward or fruit for their labours. in times past, we had a word for such men; slave

WR, there is some point to what you’re saying here, but I don’t think you are seeing the full perspective of the issue, which is that *most* men are very much built to be creatures of habit. At the core, this is really what’s meant by referring to men as “betas” — the followers of the group, the ones who would be out of their comfort zone by branching out, doing their own thing, daring to seize leadership roles.
In other words, MOST men are perfectly happy to serve whatever abstract cause, for crumbs in return. It could be God or the church; it could be family; it could be a country or an army that you serve to the death despite its fundamental indifference to you; and it could be “society”, whether that society is good, bad, or ugly.

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

As WFP wrote in his recent article, male heroism isn’t rare; it’s around us, everywhere we look.
What’s the flipside of that? It’s the realization that the same instinct that generates “heroism” will also generate a temperament that’s OK, if not perfectly content, with doing much more for society than society does for you.
Think about it — think how many men, especially when under pressure, would ride right into the valley of death along with those six hundred.

Most of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Omnipitron January 13, 2011 at 08:04

@ river es mundial

While there is a point about the fact that men can serve some higher purpose with little in return, you miss the obvious that for the outlay men put out, what they receive is insufficient.

The key is this website itself, if men where still happy about the situation there wouldn’t be the grumbling there is now, yeah?

Men in the past where more than happy to submit their livelihoods so long as their children where safe, their wives where somewhat happy and when they got home they where respected and cared for. If we take your point, then you only prove that the situation has degraded far beyond what is acceptable for men and that there is indeed an issue to be rectified.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron January 13, 2011 at 08:17

Think about it — think how many men, especially when under pressure, would ride right into the valley of death along with those six hundred.

Most of them.

Afraid not. Most men would indeed do so when they have something to protect. Take a quick look at the attitudes and tone of Game Blogs compared to those by married men (ie Hawaiian Libertarian, Dalrock, Elusive Wapiti.)

Ferdinand and Roissy have no families and therefore, no real interest in society. Their take is more of a middle finger to everything, taking what they want from more than willing women and leaving the rest. Dalrock and the others are also despondent about the current situation of things, but their temperament is different, there have concern for society due to the fact that they have ‘dogs in the fight’. Namely, a FAMILY.

If family life has no incentive for men, or worse yet, has significant disadvantages or risks, men will no longer engage out of self preservation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 13, 2011 at 09:22

Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 11, 2011 at 05:57
Welmer, you are going to LOVE this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345979/Paul-McCartney-prenuptual-agreement-law-stop-golddiggers.html

Surprise, surprise, my comment was censored.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Steve+Doughty

Steve Doughty…one more man-hating mangina.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
john thames January 13, 2011 at 11:50

As Steve Moxon points out in his book “The Woman Racket” a man cannot attract a mate without having the income to support her and her children. But a woman can attract a man as a mate by offering her sexual and reproductive services. He needs the job to get married; she doesn’t.

And that is the root fallacy of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
jedielf January 13, 2011 at 21:36

I am an Asian Australian blonde (of course I’m a natural blonde ) woman in my twenties and know of these kinds of people who do look for men who are perceived as “above” in social status and whatnot. But I don’t count myself among them.

Most of my time is spent divided between going on the Internet (I have five characters on World of Warcraft), playing my guitar and looking for a job, any job. Pretty much the only TV I ever really watch is the news and Doctor Who. And I often go to gigs – don’t really like clubbing. Never had a boyfriend (the previous sentence may explain why) even though a few have been interested. Because quite frankly, they have not have a lot in common with me.

Income’s never really been important to me in a guy – unemployed and looking for work is fine by me, because that’s what I’ve been doing for the past few years since I finished my degree in Creative Writing. So, money/status/etc. Hot bod is a bit of alright, but don’t get jealous at me cos I will be gobbling lots of junk food, hardly ever exercising and I am skinny. And I prefer skinny dudes.

So if you’re a guy with whom I can talk music (alternative rock/folk) and gaming with – as far as I’m concerned, you’re on the right track. Women who want to marry/date “up” can if they want. It leaves more opportunities for the rest of us girls.

All that said, I also think a lot of the whole “marrying up” thing is something that our families try to teach us. I know my folks would prefer it if I married a(n Asian) guy with a prestigious job, but that’s not likely to happen (for one, I’m not sure if I actually really want to get married at all hahah) It all seems to come from when women couldn’t get their dad’s inheritance, so they had to marry a guy with a bit of money.

That’s my two cents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Luke February 9, 2012 at 16:57

VERY interesting!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster February 26, 2012 at 09:23

Someone asked for a one-sentence description of what the Apex Fallacy is. I don’t know if there’s an earlier instance or not, and maybe it can be distilled down some more, but this describes it:

The phrase “Apex Fallacy” sprung to mind as it elucidates fully the inaccurate fashion by which they [feminists] assess the status of women in America. The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy. These hordes of men – who make possible feminist lives of leisure – are totally invisible to the harridans who compare women, on aggregate, to the rich and famous alone. Indeed, when judging female progress, juxtaposition is only made with those males at the apex of our status hierarchy. It seems that feminists can discern none but the elite.
– Bernard Chapin (10/23/08)

Peter Zohrab’s similar but much earlier term is based on a common presumption of group identity politics, that only a representative of group X can represent group X, and that that’s all they do:

“The Frontman Fallacy” is a term I invented myself. What happened was that someone on the Usenet newsgroup alt.mens-rights [early to mid-90's?] asked for help in devising a term. The term was to encapsulate the wrongheadedness of a common Feminist assumption. This was the assumption that the fact that men held most of the positions of power in the world meant that men ruled the world principally for their own benefit [or men in general] — i.e. they “oppressed” women.

My suggestion, which was accepted by the person who had asked for the help, was “The Frontman Fallacy”. So the Frontman Fallacy is the mistaken belief that people (men, specifically) who are in positions of authority in democratic systems use their power mainly to benefit the categories of people (the category of “men”, in particular) that they belong to themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joey July 1, 2012 at 00:58

My two cents:

I agree that modern society has definitely lead to the creation of a “harem effect” where a small group of men are getting way more women, depraving beta of any of the action.

BUT This is an incredibly one sided discussion. The apex fallacy also exists for men in the fact that men also only view attractive women 20-40 as “visible” too. Once women become older and lose their cuteness and glowing looks men also psychologically ignore these women. (though no as extreme as women, who verge bn being assholes when it comes to ignoring equal or lower men).

Just think of how many men would refrain themselves from an older, fat ugly but good personality woman, but will use up everything they have to just have a chance with the “bitch prom queen” type which he has no similarities whatsoever with.

Think of it this way, a man in his 20s still has a long time before his reproductive potential runs out, a woman has to think about settling down or risk not finding anyone above her after the age of 30 (unless she has money for surgery or age very well). A man who is in a middle management position already has lots of females that are below him status wise, provided he doesn’t completely live in a shell its not that hard for him to find somebody.

If the apex fallacy for females is completely true then there wouldn’t be couples everywhere, obviously a lot of females settle even though they might be secretly tempted to cheat up. Females are not stupid they know they can get sex from an alpha male, but can’t get commitment from them (those who chase this commitment end up getting used)

Another point is what we are discussing here is essentially “modern culture” or “western culture” the idea that women have to look for big dick, tall , muscular, dark, uber rich, mind blowing sex is completely generated by media and western self obsessed culture. Just go to asia and you’ll see lots of attractive women regularly settling for very average/ugly dudes, because yes they are attracted to wealthy, but they haven’t been brought up to believe thats the only way to be happy. Remember perceptions of whats desirable change over time.

I mean I still think that women are incredibly ungrateful for how priviledged they are in society ESPECIALLY with advances in technology that allows them to keep their looks for much longer time, but the apex fallacy exists on both sides, just more extreme for women that they will selectively avoid or render equal or lower men invisible.

Men just feel based on looks, they think to have their status and self confidence judged unfair because these things are not easily obtained. There are a lot more beautiful women out there than self confident and high status men, and we’re angry, jealous and we want their love so much at the same time. Painful to be a omega-beta.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Joey July 1, 2012 at 01:04

Sorry to add to the above:

When we say women are priviledges and assholes, we also means the ones we like the ones that won’t look at us twice the hot ones that makes our heart melt. Yet we never think about the 50 year old woman tired, lonely, overworked, divorced (yes there are lots of them). Then, there are the fat ones, the ugly ones. They try so hard, but we don’t care about them, yeah maybe for a fuck but we don’t want to stay with them alas we would be ashamed to be seen with them.

Just another point of view. Believe me i’m fed up with women’s bullshit too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
C.M. December 6, 2013 at 19:32

You know, the difference between this article (and articles like it), and articles on ‘women’s’ sites about women’s issues, is that this one has a really nasty, vitriolic undertone. The last line in particular.

Also, this theory sounds good on paper, but it’s completely untested, not backed up by any research, and overly simplistic.

When did it become ‘men versus women’? Why perpetuate such a thing???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 8 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: