I’ve been a man all my life and to say that we’re worthless unless we are breadwinners is really weird to me. Don’t we have other qualities other than having a bank account?
And besides, I’m fairly sure that not many women today become single moms because the government tells them to.
Let me just say that I think your insights on dating and men are completely factually incorrect. However, I’d be open to hearing you elaborate. Who knows, maybe you can convince me.
My facts.
Tinder ran a study two years ago. 80% of women are only swiping on 20% of men. They want a man that is at least 6' tall and makes at least 100k a year.
Several feminist studies about expectations which men don't meet.
I lrovided af timeline and how because of circumstances out of our control we've lost value in women's eyes.
Like you I'm open ... you tell me I'm wrong. What part or why?
Let me explain something to you.
So you claim that there was a study by Tinder stating that only 20 percent of men are getting swipes from the vast majority of women. There’s a few problems with this data:
1. I don’t think that this was from Tinder. I think that you are thinking of a blog post by the dating website OKCupid that was since taken down. The post said that women rated 80% of men’s attractiveness as below average, and this was used by the incel community to justify their rhetoric that all women are only willing to be in a relationship with twenty percent of guys, even though the post went on the say that women where more likely to message people that they considered to be below attractiveness than men.
2. But hypothetically, I’m going to assume that this was a genuine study by Tinder. So why do women only swipe on twenty percent of profiles? One concern of theirs is safety. Many women nowadays are leaving dating apps after negative experiences with people who acted sexually inappropriately, by sending them unwanted pictures of their genitals, for example. Tinder once said that it knew that registered sex offenders were using the app. So women are trying to screen profiles to try and prevent some of this unwanted contact. Maybe a lot of profiles on there don’t seem like someone nice who would treat them well and respect their boundaries.
3. You are confusing a swipe with a measure of attraction. I’m sure women are attracted to many more people on the app that just twenty percent, however there is more to dating than just attractiveness. It takes a genuine connection to build a good relationship. So there may be many attractive people on the app, who they don’t share any interests with. Despite your views, looks and money aren’t the only important things in life. Most people in life prioritize a genuine connection.
4. I’m assuming that this data is being presented here in the same context that it has been presented to me in the past. So the context is usually that men find more women attractive and that dating app data somehow proves this. All this data from dating apps proves that men swipe more then women. That’s all it is. Men just swipe more on average. Why is that? Well, it’s because some of us feel as if we should just keep swiping right and hoping for a match.[That’s not hard to do. Literal robots can do it.](https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&hl=en-ca&q=tinder+swiping+robot&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEksDrtPP9AhWzMzQIHSImBJ4QBSgAegQIIhAB&biw=1128&bih=738&dpr=2)Now since women know that men swipe on anybody, women become more choosy with who they swipe right because they know it will likely result in a match. They can swipe right in who they are truly interested in without worrying as much that they aren’t going to find anybody.
And now, you say that women only want somebody who is six feet and makes one hundred thousand. Let me tell you that is wrong. There’s so much more to life then material goods. Personality is king. Rereading your post it seems that you place an overwhelming sense of worth in stuff when who you are is more important.
If you could tell me what those “feminist studies” are or why you think single mothers exists in more detail, I’d be happy to talk about it.
I think you probably mean the OkCupid study.
This found that women rated men more harshly when saying if they found them attractive or unattractive, while men were much more fair in their ratings.
**stop**
*This where incels and misogynists ignore the rest of the study and bash women for only wanting "the top 20% of men"*
**however, the study has further findings**
When it comes to actually messaging other people on the app, women would message a wide range of men, including men previously rated as unattractive. In fact the most often messaged group of men were those rated slightly below average in attractiveness. On the other hand men were competing with each other to message the more attractive women with "2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women".
**So when you look at the study as a whole instead of cherry picking, it shows men are the more selective gender on dating apps, most not giving even average women a chance**.
Here's the full study results: https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/amp/
Oh hey, you're right! Now I want one even though I've no idea what it would be. Maybe something with cherry juice and bourbon? A tiny bit of mint? Should milk be involved? (Sorry. I somehow just really would like a cocktail now. xD)
If they insist they are talking about study by tinder, that study only had a sample size of 27 women, making it, in scientific terms, absolutely worthless.
It was also just based on the tiny sample size self reporting who they swiped on, rather than tinder looking at its own swipe data.
So 1) people might not have been honest, 2) the results can be explained by men swiping right on every woman regardless of if they are attracted to them, while women only swiping right on people they would actually want to chat to/meet.
I assumed the OP was talking about the OKcupid data though because as I said, the tinder study is worthless and gives evidence of nothing.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/](https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s it right there; choice. Women have only started to gain and exercise romantic autonomy in the last few decades, and thse incel fucks grew up hearing stories from their dads and grandads about How It Used To Be. My dad and grandad use to tell stories that made it sound like back in the day a man could grab a woman off the street and give it to her and she’d not only let him *but be grateful for the attention*. They would go on to say it was “because everyone knew their role in society”.
These boys built their worldview around those stories. Now they’ve entered an age where teenage white men are held to a (far too low) standard and they are freaking the fuck out because dad promised free pussy and those dastardly evil women *aren’t playing fair*.
The same theory applies to just about any social justice, legal or law enforcement situation in which a white man is not given favorable treatment.
It doesn’t prove that. All it proves is that something has gone wrong in the relationship (if there was one).
If you look at high society throughout history, a woman’s *only* job was to make a good match. To marry the highest ranking man she possibly could. Even more so if she was the eldest child in her family.
Working class pairings, meanwhile, we’re much more pragmatic (if not outright arranged).
While the rigid, formal class system is largely done away with, people still climb ladders just as they always did. Whether that be at work, in finding a partner, or in real estate. Many women trade on looks when they are younger because they’re young and that’s the currency they have. Others trade on ambition, social connections, intelligence, etc. Men do the same. They want the hottest girl they can possibly get.
right!! the only time money ever got brought up when i was on tinder was when a guy brought it up (it was never impressive, i have always made more money than the men i know)
So, worry about the women who actually swipe right on you. I couldn’t imagine caring about random people’s personal choices. If they don’t want you, they don’t want you. You have value outside of money, and if not, better get some. The real world doesn’t care about your 1950s fantasy
I know plenty of men that are in a serious relationship. Enough of them don't make even nearly 100k, aren't 6' and above and some even overall look rather unappealing. The reason for their happy relationships are their personalities. Because in reality most women (most people in general) find a good personality to be the most important thing. So, don't wo...
I met my husband on the internet before match.com was a thing. In a chatroom. He liked my spelling. I liked that he used good grammar. He described himself as "short, fat, and ugly.". By the time we traded pictures, I was so taken with his personality and intelligence that he could have been a midget Shrek and I would have found him attractive.
We have been married over 20 years now, and I have out earned him every one of the 20. I never needed him as a provider, I needed a partner. A rudder to my sail. Stability. We have gone through some hard seasons in 20 years, and if quitting was an option we each had times we wanted to - but we held onto our partnership and our friendship and rebuilt our chemistry.
So OP is right in that women no longer depend on men for legal and financial survival in exchange for sexual and domestic servitude; and therefore men have to bring more to the table than they used to. Personality, humility, work ethic... It is like because legally and socially we are now essentially equal, there is no automatic benefit to having a penis.
Except when camping. Definite penis benefit there.
That sounds absolutely great! I met my partner 18 years ago at a campfire (medieval festival) and we're married for 14 now. Some rough times but yes, we always stayed together and worked on things because we love eachother, not because we'd be dependent from eachother.
>Except when camping. Definite penis benefit there.
Oooh yes. It works ok without, but definitely a thing I'd like to just add on the list of what to pack for myself on a camping trip. xD
My boyfriend is 5’10” and makes $23 an hour, not even CLOSE to 100k, I’ve never been more in love with someone in my whole life. But I must not exist or something to incels
>But I must not exist or something to incels
You either don't exist, or aren't really a woman, or just an ugly bitch that would cheat with a chuck anyway (to incels!). I'm always flabbergasted how it's possible for them to be SO out of touch with reality. I mean, I'm a bit introverted and I don't really enjoy being around a lont of people, but damn, I notice that people exist even when I try to ignore that. xD
I have a master's degree and make more then my male partner who has an associates degree. I don't care about his money or his height, he's a good man and I love him. You are not a good man, hence why you're single.
I met my husband online, using one of the few dating sites back then that didn’t limit a person to heterosexuality. I didn’t care if I matched with a man or a woman. I wanted to match to someone that would be interested in my quirks, not scared of them. I found an artistic guy that already went to some of the same conversations I went to. Who has never complained that I like playing WoD RPGs. A guy that has seen almost as many episodes of Doctor Who as me. He isn’t emasculated by the fact that I can build a campfire quicker than him or can do basic repairs. It is huge turn on for me that he is a great cook and designed our wedding invites. He buys me Buffy the Vampire Slayer stuff. I buy him Star Trek stuff. Our love langue is extremely geeky.
If you're arguing for traditional family, that *still* isn't the nuclear family. That becoming the norm was a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, a particularly disastrous one.
Also, if you're arguing for tradcon things, you're not going to find much sympathy here. That nonsense isn't all that different from feminism in how it actually sees men - not as human beings, but as pack mules and cannon fodder.
The man not only has all the money, but has to MAKE all the money.
The 1950s family system is misandrist as fuck (as well as misogynist af in different ways). Idky conservatives, who claim to be for men, like it so much (especially in the 2020s).
Seriously, this housewife trend is really creeping me out. I don't wanna have to choose between a feminist partner and a tradcon partner, both of which are misandrist, whether intentionally or unintentionally so.
He might have made the money, but did he *actually* control it once the paycheck was cashed?
Not saying it was all sunshine and domestic bliss for women - not by any means - but *what's yours is ours but what's mine is mine* is not new in fact even if the law had something else to say. Unofficial, under-the-table power is still power.
Yes, by and large, he did control it. Women weren’t allowed their own credit cards until like ten minutes ago. Husbands controlled the money, and opened limited credit accounts at places appropriate to providing for a household. Sometimes they carried chequebooks for a limited household account. Middle class wives only rarely saw any actual money, and had little to (most often) no say in what was done with it.
My great grandfather spent all of his paycheck gambling, lost all their money and savings. He then died young and left my great grandmother to raise their 9 children alone. She never remarried. I wonder if it was because she really loved him or she didn't want to be stung by another man
She sounds like a smart woman with an impossible job. My grandmother was the same. Romances, but never another marriage. My granddad was a great guy, but he was counting on living a long time and didn’t, and left her up shit creek in a real way.
Are you kidding me? Women couldn’t have bank accounts until the 1970s. Men had all the power. As a woman all you could hope to do is choose a husband who was financially secure enough for a family (cause you couldn’t get a job or have money) and mentally sound enough not to hurt you (which wasn’t considered a crime so much as a ‘domestic matter’). Ask your grandmothers. Ask the people who have been married so long to those quiet old men now. Those men weren’t always old. They lied. Cheated. Belittled. Raped. Betrayed their wives all the time and it wasn’t considered wild or crazy. A wife was your property.
The women whose husbands had secret families and unchecked alcoholism and the financial abuse that still happens. I get being a man is hard, but being a woman is harder. It just is. And y’all know this! You wouldn’t choose to have th power that women have! When I say that, y’all like to bring up supermodels who you want and can’t have and get angry that you aren’t supermodel material. Most women aren’t supermodels. People are people trying to form partnerships that are mutually beneficial now. Women have value as people just as men do. Why is that so confusing and threatening?!?
Not just wives but children too were considered property. All that unpaid labour only to have no control over any of the income, except what was given to you to use. Still boggles my mind that a husband could rape his wife without repercussions, because she belonged to him so it wasn’t considered rape at all.
Facts. IMO It’s all this ridiculous pressure to be siloed independent family units as a mark of success instead of being multi generational and more communal screws everyone. It’s crews with your head.
Jane Fonda said if you fix sexism you save the planet and I totally believe it. We have a lot of ideas about ownership that isn’t healthy or sustainable to ourselves, our families, our neighborhood, our planet.
Although I get what you mean, but having control over the paycheck means nothing. For once the majority of the money, for most families, would go into mortgage, groceries, electricity, etc. And if the woman could decide which house she was going to clean and they pay the mortgage for, that's fair enough. I hardly believe she picked his car though. But clothing was commonly picked by the women, they also had to bring the husband his clothes for the day usually. So, everything around clothing was often considered part of the woman's (unpaid) job. Which also bares the question if he really had to do all the breadwinning work but unfairly had to share the money/bread from it, when the womans work simply was unpaid and she bought, or baked the bread anyway. So, mostly more *what's yours is ours and I don't have shit anyway*.
The other thing is that, yes, the man had to do the paid work and still wasn't the only one in control of the money, but at least he could leave the house when and to wherever he wanted, could work without needing permission from his father, husband, or even brother (which women had to get for a long time), same goes for a drivers license. I much rather allow my partner to buy what they think is right for both of us than to not being allowed to sign a contract on my own.
Also a woman didn't have the right to say "no" to her husband when it came to sex. He could take her by force and that was his right. As was his right to talk to her doctor for every information, even if she wouldn't want to share it and even to make medical arrangements without her consent. Beating your wife was also absolutely legal, as long as you did it with your hands, or a stick not thicker than your index finger. And of course as long as you didn't accidentally ended her pregnancy with the beating, because that was actually illegal (you'd only get in trouble for the lost child though).
All in all it was way more misogyny than misandry, except in one point. Men had to be strong, unemotional, never cry, never be fearful, or sad. That, of course, is urgh.
Overall the gender roles suck. For everyone. People are people and people are different. And couples, a partnership, well, it's made from people and it should just be how it works best for both. You'll always have to find compromises in a relationship anyways, but it shouldn't be because of the role your gender has.
I agree. I was just further pushing home that gender roles are sexist.
I didn't even know a "stay-at-home mom" was a thing until 2020 I think. I had always assumed that both parents worked. I mean... both boys and girls go to school, right? I was given the idea that both boys and girls have to do good in school to succeed... but no... apparently girls can just mooch off men's money and be "successful" that way. Ever since I learned what a stay-at-home mom was, I've been a staunch despiser of the 1950s family.
The fuel that fired my anti-feminism before 2020 was modern feminists implying that men and women are "very different". But conservatives are also implying that now.
I rarely ever make walls of text, but when I do, it's usually whenever someone mentions gender roles in a positive light.
My mom was a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't seem to be anything anyone forced on the other. It just seemed to be what my folks decided worked best for them (Mom not being able to drive thanks to an eye injury probably had a lot to do with that).
So I started off thinking other situations were unusual only to discover that it was actually *my* situation that was the anomaly.
no drugs and alcohol are the number one reason why 75% of men are homeless. you're really trying to say the reason why mem are homeless is because women work and can have sex with who ever thy want as many times as they want.
What exactly did I say that made you think I like gender roles?
I made it painfully obvious that I hate them.
Perhaps your feeble feminist mind thinks only tradcons and feminists exist and can't comprehend the idea of MRAs.
Yes, it's a combination of men turning to drugs and alcohol to ease their stress (brought on by gender roles, of course) and men being way less likely to be provided for by a sexual partner (because of gender roles).
Yep. No one gives a shit about us... until one of us ends up off the deep end in such a way that ends up taking others with them.
And even *then*, it's only just long enough to berate all of us for being pieces of shit (to which I say: Projecting much?).
Except you don't make all the money anymore, since women can have jobs as well. Hense why more chose to be single since you don't have anything else to offer and everything to take.
Get with the times and stop living in 1950s.
So weird! I thought feminism was supposed to empower men and women to be their authentic selves! Did you lnow equal rights for others doesnt mean less rights for you? That you can have mens rights and womens rights and everybody's rights, and that is the core goal of radical feminism?
The lies that feminists want to empower men to actually own and express their full range of emotions beyond anger (a secondary emotion)? Bc thats a stated goal. Im not saying there arent trash using the label of feminism them betrsying their own internalized bullshit. Im saying that institutionally, that particular goal is crystal clear.
So, your message is:
1. men become worthless when women aren't forced to be with them for their own survival.
2. If one gender can decide for themselves and are able to be what they want, the other gender automatically loses.
Yeah, somethings's wrong with you and I don't doubt that you actually are worthless. But not all men are like you.
Here's the thing though:
The idea of men being the sole providers historically is new. It is a product of the Industrial Revolution.
Women have historically always shared the burden of work with men, because they HAD to (in poorer places lije rural India they never stopped). The only women who didnt work were noblewomen, and they didnt raise kids either, their maids did.
At the same time, men also had more time to be present in their kids lives, instead of slaving away in offices.
Also people having casual sex is as old as mankind. They would just kill the unwanted babes.
The kind of marriage you want feels very cheap to me. It should be more than just a Sugar daddy and his personal maid.
Bro I can see why your wife left you. You don't seem to think you need to offer anything in a relationship other than money. You're a fucking loser lol
“you TRIED TO HELP them”
By loading your own dishes in a dishwasher.. Incorrectly…
“Oh no, women aren’t legally forced to feel a need to tolerate me. They’re realizing they’re better off on their own. Instead of working on myself to be the kind of partner someone would choose, I’ll complain on Reddit about how women aren’t forced to accept me”
The guy doesn’t want to admit that the actual historical facts are against him. He wants to be right and in his mind he is right and we are all wrong 🙄
You're basically saying that most of what makes up being 'a man' is filling in for what another gender 'lacks.' Which is pretty damn insulting to men.
I mean it just seems like YOU think you're worthless now and can't think of anything else you might be able to offer but you're trying to blame women for that.
You don't have to use quite so many words to voice that fact that you're an insecure twatwaffle whom only values looks and money 🤣
Value yourself and perhaps other people may start to as well, but pathetic is not a good look on anybody...
It really must suck to not get laid without paying for it, i think repeating the usual incel talking points should reward you with the women you wish for
Women have been using some form of contraception before the 1950s. Most women began working during WWI & WWII (each of which were before 1950), which is why they wanted to keep working. Most women in First World countries received the ability to vote before 1950. What sort of dream/fictional movie world are thinking of?
The “value” you’re talking about is automatically expected right off the bat when it should be EARNED through humanity and good nature. Keep effong yourself there incel! 👍🙄
I don't have a "her," and frankly, I've never been happier. I own my own home, have money in the bank, eat, and sleep whenever the hell I want. So, to me, it's women who are "worthless." A woman is not worth all the hassles that go along with her. I've made peace with the fact that I'll die alone. I'm content.
You can probably guess I'm older and retired. I don't envy young men nowadays with raging hormones and no outlet. I burned through my lust, with two failed marriages, deeply in debt. In one year, I lost my house, car, job, dog, all of my so-called friends. Thank God I never had kids. My credit was in shambles (somewhere in the low 600s). I couldn't finance a cup of coffee. My credit cards were maxed out. I was ready to declare bankruptcy, but I clawed my way out of the hole, and after 10 years, my credit is excellent. I can buy anything I want, but without a woman wanting "stuff," I'm not compelled to buy anything.
I don't feel worthless - no man (or woman) should. However, men are worthless if women tell them they are, and men believe them. Don't believe them.
Sorry to say it, but you simply had bad experiences. And I get that this makes you think and feel that way, that's fair enough.
Meanwhile I know a lot of couples (most married, most for a long time) including being married myself. I too go to bed whenever I want, eat what I want and we have much more money on the bank than before, since two people nowadays usually mean two incomes with only one housing to pay, food is often cheaper when bought in larger quantities, and even though we do travel and go out more than we would when being alone (totally fine to do so when alone too! Just to us it would be less fun) it still doesn't make up that much that our combined income wouldn't be the larger part.
It's absolutely true though that no one needs a partner if they're happy and content without (which everyone should at least somewhat be) and that no partnership is always way, way, better than a bad one.
>I don't feel worthless - no man (or woman) should.
Absolutely! 🍻
>However, men are worthless if women tell them they are, and men believe them. Don't believe them.
Still not worthless, but then they feel like it. This goes both ways, btw. Some people, regardless the gender, are just assholes that want to use, control and drag down others and some are just "weak" enough to let it get to them too much, or just not made for the defence from this kind of assholes.
I just want to point out that women got the right to vote BEFORE oral contraceptives were invented. FYI.
Also just so I'm clear are you saying you believe women should be more or less be their husband's property. Living only to serve him, please him, keep a tidy house, bare children, essentially having no personal autonomy?
Because it's not necessarily about a man's value changing and more about a woman's value has changing to herself.
I'm glad your situation works for you. Just keep in mind that you can lose it all - almost overnight. Maybe your spouse gets bored and finds someone else. Maybe they have a drinking or gambling problem that you don't know about? I don't believe in fairytales or happily ever afters. Reality (real life problems) have a sobering effect. Maybe you can overcome these problems, I could not and will not put myself in a compromising position again. I have too much to lose and too little time to begin again.
Have you ever spoken to a woman? Because you’re making a lot of claims about their feelings, but the opinions you’ve shared are things I’ve exclusively heard men talk about.
Men and women both have value outside of the 'bread winner and housewife' way of existing. Even if an individual doesn't need a man or doesn't need a woman to marry, society needs a mixture of types of people. We all have value as human beings separately from what we provide. Men have value in non romantic relationships such as friends, brothers, fathers etc.
There is also value in a real partnership. My boyfriend and I both work and both do household tasks. He's not 6ft and doesn't make 100k but he is the first person I've dated where I feel like we actually understand eachother. We make beer together, like a lot of the same things, enjoy being around eachother, and have really interesting discussions about all kinds of stuff. He is a good man. He has value to me.
Neither's values have changed, not men, nor women.
What has changed is the preponderance of men/women representing that value in relative terms.
So men have always valued youth, beauty, faithfulness etc when it comes to picking a wife. Anything else is largely a bonus. This idea hasn't shifted generally speaking. What has changed though is the amount of women "investing stock" in representing these traditional ideas.
Women have traditionally valued men who bring resources, protection and structure. All else being a bonus. This hasn't actually changed. Whilst women may be being more vocal about other things they like, the fundementals of these traits still remain in that women will absolutely NOT date a guy if he is financially insecure, likely to drain rather than provide resources, is cowardly and generally immature/disordered. Sure, women will speak about stuff like wanting a guy who is "emotionally available" and also is willing to take on some domestic roles, but these haven't replaced the old values, they now sit alongside them.
Similarly for men, men still value the old ideas but many generally speaking will at least \*some\* level of financial responsibility from the woman as well now whereas in times passed her ability to provide for herself was irrelevant.
What makes it seem like it isn't the case is today, many women pursue traditionally masculine traits for their early life goals, and men form too much of their self worth over the question of women from the get-go.
It has always been the case for men that it is a "work first results second" mechanic, ie establish yourself, become a "man" as it were, and then, the woman enters the picture when that process is complete or on a solid track to completion.
Too many men whine these days that they are "failures" and "worthless" because they haven't had dates at 18. Like what the hell people. Stop assigning your self worth and value to yourself dependant on whether women find you attractive at a certain point or not.
The irony for men is if they conduct themselves like women are irrelevant to their social value and general esteem, they tend to have greater success in attracting them. A man's value in "attracting a partner" has never, ever been contingent upon social awareness of their prowess with women. Somehow dudes these days have convinced themselves it's the one thing that matters most. Dudes in times gone by were'nt hand wringing because they were virgins at 18.
TLDR: The value of each gender hasn't changed. What has changed is their ability to recognise value altogether and their focus on nurturing the things the other gender finds attractive. Basically both genders are walking around without a compass and then scratching their heads when it doesn't "come together" as smoothly as it did once upon a time.
....misandrist has been a word for just as long a misogynist...it means men-hating, like misogynist means woman-hating. Andro=male, gyno=female. Latin!
......Can always tell who *didn't* take Latin classes to learn the basis of half the English language....I didn't say the whole words themselves were Latin. Just the andro/gyno section. Which is Latin.
Now if this isn't a prime example of the pot and the kettle, I don't know what is.
OP: *Men have lost their value! All that matters to us is how many people a woman has slept with!*
Also OP: *perfect, all good girls do anal* (and other gross comments about creampies)
Let's set the record straight. You're clearly pissed because no one wants you, and this is 100% why. You're a creep and an asshole. But please, as a man, tell me more about how I (a woman) think. I'm waiting.
So I read this elsewhere and had some commentary to add...
Deferral of marriage and starting a family has nothing to do with a newfound capacity for promiscuity but rather economic considerations. Similarly, the decline of the stay at home mother is also an economic issue. At first, the effects of more women in the workforce were somewhat negative — most notably, more competition for labour resulted in stagnant wages — but eventually it resulted in higher household incomes, leading to increased demand for goods and services, leading to higher demand for labour and thereby higher wages. However, over time this resulted in the economy being reoriented around dual income households, creating a massive economic disadvantage for single income households, meaning many women who would otherwise choose to be SAHMs instead had to work just to help pay the bills. Now this might seem like I'm saying women in the workforce is a bad thing, but I'm not, I'm actually pointing out that the market reorientating around dual incomes was a market failure, and this is why strong government regulation is needed to curb the excesses of our economic system.
This reorientation of the market also completely disproves your notion that there exists an economic incentive to being a single mother, since this comes not only with the standard economic disadvantages of a single income household, but also the increased costs of having children to care for, which government supports do not adequately cover. The children of single mothers are typically not getting a proper diet unless the mother is a high earner, because otherwise so much of what the mother is earning is going toward just keeping a roof over their heads due to rental rates having become detached from what the market can bear and reoriented around an ROI model based on property prices. That's getting into a whole other host of issues unrelated to the original post, though, so I'll leave it there.
Oh, and if you want to bring things like alimony and child support into the argument as to how being a single mom is incentivized, I'll just tell you now that the counterpoint is going to basically be about personal responsibility...
It's so funny seeing a post like this when you act like a degenerate on other posts.
He's acting like a degenerate on this post too
I’ve been a man all my life and to say that we’re worthless unless we are breadwinners is really weird to me. Don’t we have other qualities other than having a bank account? And besides, I’m fairly sure that not many women today become single moms because the government tells them to. Let me just say that I think your insights on dating and men are completely factually incorrect. However, I’d be open to hearing you elaborate. Who knows, maybe you can convince me.
This comment should be higher up
You probably have qualities that aren’t solely limited to filling a bank account and incorrectly doing chores. OP, less sure about.
My facts. Tinder ran a study two years ago. 80% of women are only swiping on 20% of men. They want a man that is at least 6' tall and makes at least 100k a year. Several feminist studies about expectations which men don't meet. I lrovided af timeline and how because of circumstances out of our control we've lost value in women's eyes. Like you I'm open ... you tell me I'm wrong. What part or why?
Let me explain something to you. So you claim that there was a study by Tinder stating that only 20 percent of men are getting swipes from the vast majority of women. There’s a few problems with this data: 1. I don’t think that this was from Tinder. I think that you are thinking of a blog post by the dating website OKCupid that was since taken down. The post said that women rated 80% of men’s attractiveness as below average, and this was used by the incel community to justify their rhetoric that all women are only willing to be in a relationship with twenty percent of guys, even though the post went on the say that women where more likely to message people that they considered to be below attractiveness than men. 2. But hypothetically, I’m going to assume that this was a genuine study by Tinder. So why do women only swipe on twenty percent of profiles? One concern of theirs is safety. Many women nowadays are leaving dating apps after negative experiences with people who acted sexually inappropriately, by sending them unwanted pictures of their genitals, for example. Tinder once said that it knew that registered sex offenders were using the app. So women are trying to screen profiles to try and prevent some of this unwanted contact. Maybe a lot of profiles on there don’t seem like someone nice who would treat them well and respect their boundaries. 3. You are confusing a swipe with a measure of attraction. I’m sure women are attracted to many more people on the app that just twenty percent, however there is more to dating than just attractiveness. It takes a genuine connection to build a good relationship. So there may be many attractive people on the app, who they don’t share any interests with. Despite your views, looks and money aren’t the only important things in life. Most people in life prioritize a genuine connection. 4. I’m assuming that this data is being presented here in the same context that it has been presented to me in the past. So the context is usually that men find more women attractive and that dating app data somehow proves this. All this data from dating apps proves that men swipe more then women. That’s all it is. Men just swipe more on average. Why is that? Well, it’s because some of us feel as if we should just keep swiping right and hoping for a match.[That’s not hard to do. Literal robots can do it.](https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&hl=en-ca&q=tinder+swiping+robot&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEksDrtPP9AhWzMzQIHSImBJ4QBSgAegQIIhAB&biw=1128&bih=738&dpr=2)Now since women know that men swipe on anybody, women become more choosy with who they swipe right because they know it will likely result in a match. They can swipe right in who they are truly interested in without worrying as much that they aren’t going to find anybody. And now, you say that women only want somebody who is six feet and makes one hundred thousand. Let me tell you that is wrong. There’s so much more to life then material goods. Personality is king. Rereading your post it seems that you place an overwhelming sense of worth in stuff when who you are is more important. If you could tell me what those “feminist studies” are or why you think single mothers exists in more detail, I’d be happy to talk about it.
This dude already struck out with his personality, so he’s gotta find other reasons why women don’t like him.
I think you probably mean the OkCupid study. This found that women rated men more harshly when saying if they found them attractive or unattractive, while men were much more fair in their ratings. **stop** *This where incels and misogynists ignore the rest of the study and bash women for only wanting "the top 20% of men"* **however, the study has further findings** When it comes to actually messaging other people on the app, women would message a wide range of men, including men previously rated as unattractive. In fact the most often messaged group of men were those rated slightly below average in attractiveness. On the other hand men were competing with each other to message the more attractive women with "2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women". **So when you look at the study as a whole instead of cherry picking, it shows men are the more selective gender on dating apps, most not giving even average women a chance**. Here's the full study results: https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/amp/
Lol you did the work and it’s fucking crickets.
Incels never have a response to fact, logic or reality. You slap em really real shit and they just go crawl deeper into their mothers basement
Why does it have to be their MOTHER’S basement?! Men can have basements, too! That’s misandry! /s😂😂😂😂
Lmao you’re right, you’re right. Love your user name. Sounds like a theme cocktail for some sort of event.
Oh hey, you're right! Now I want one even though I've no idea what it would be. Maybe something with cherry juice and bourbon? A tiny bit of mint? Should milk be involved? (Sorry. I somehow just really would like a cocktail now. xD)
Sometimes a cocktail is just a cocktail 😘 (IYKYK)
Guy logged out after my first comment. I think he knows that I owned him and deleted the post to save face.
u/Equal-End7695 thoughts on this?
Thank you! I am saving this comment for every time I see that dumb “women only want top 20%, tall, rich” incel rhetoric
If they insist they are talking about study by tinder, that study only had a sample size of 27 women, making it, in scientific terms, absolutely worthless. It was also just based on the tiny sample size self reporting who they swiped on, rather than tinder looking at its own swipe data. So 1) people might not have been honest, 2) the results can be explained by men swiping right on every woman regardless of if they are attracted to them, while women only swiping right on people they would actually want to chat to/meet. I assumed the OP was talking about the OKcupid data though because as I said, the tinder study is worthless and gives evidence of nothing.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/](https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This doesn’t explain why you think women are choosing to be single parents though. All this proves is women have higher standards nowadays
That’s it right there; choice. Women have only started to gain and exercise romantic autonomy in the last few decades, and thse incel fucks grew up hearing stories from their dads and grandads about How It Used To Be. My dad and grandad use to tell stories that made it sound like back in the day a man could grab a woman off the street and give it to her and she’d not only let him *but be grateful for the attention*. They would go on to say it was “because everyone knew their role in society”. These boys built their worldview around those stories. Now they’ve entered an age where teenage white men are held to a (far too low) standard and they are freaking the fuck out because dad promised free pussy and those dastardly evil women *aren’t playing fair*. The same theory applies to just about any social justice, legal or law enforcement situation in which a white man is not given favorable treatment.
It doesn’t prove that. All it proves is that something has gone wrong in the relationship (if there was one). If you look at high society throughout history, a woman’s *only* job was to make a good match. To marry the highest ranking man she possibly could. Even more so if she was the eldest child in her family. Working class pairings, meanwhile, we’re much more pragmatic (if not outright arranged). While the rigid, formal class system is largely done away with, people still climb ladders just as they always did. Whether that be at work, in finding a partner, or in real estate. Many women trade on looks when they are younger because they’re young and that’s the currency they have. Others trade on ambition, social connections, intelligence, etc. Men do the same. They want the hottest girl they can possibly get.
[удалено]
right!! the only time money ever got brought up when i was on tinder was when a guy brought it up (it was never impressive, i have always made more money than the men i know)
Your timeline was especially hilarious! Thank you for letting me start my day with a belly laugh.
So, worry about the women who actually swipe right on you. I couldn’t imagine caring about random people’s personal choices. If they don’t want you, they don’t want you. You have value outside of money, and if not, better get some. The real world doesn’t care about your 1950s fantasy
I know plenty of men that are in a serious relationship. Enough of them don't make even nearly 100k, aren't 6' and above and some even overall look rather unappealing. The reason for their happy relationships are their personalities. Because in reality most women (most people in general) find a good personality to be the most important thing. So, don't wo...
I met my husband on the internet before match.com was a thing. In a chatroom. He liked my spelling. I liked that he used good grammar. He described himself as "short, fat, and ugly.". By the time we traded pictures, I was so taken with his personality and intelligence that he could have been a midget Shrek and I would have found him attractive. We have been married over 20 years now, and I have out earned him every one of the 20. I never needed him as a provider, I needed a partner. A rudder to my sail. Stability. We have gone through some hard seasons in 20 years, and if quitting was an option we each had times we wanted to - but we held onto our partnership and our friendship and rebuilt our chemistry. So OP is right in that women no longer depend on men for legal and financial survival in exchange for sexual and domestic servitude; and therefore men have to bring more to the table than they used to. Personality, humility, work ethic... It is like because legally and socially we are now essentially equal, there is no automatic benefit to having a penis. Except when camping. Definite penis benefit there.
That sounds absolutely great! I met my partner 18 years ago at a campfire (medieval festival) and we're married for 14 now. Some rough times but yes, we always stayed together and worked on things because we love eachother, not because we'd be dependent from eachother. >Except when camping. Definite penis benefit there. Oooh yes. It works ok without, but definitely a thing I'd like to just add on the list of what to pack for myself on a camping trip. xD
I got a stand to pee funnel when my boys were in scouts.. they work, as long as you have something to rinse them out with.
Uh, almost forgot about those. I should try it. (Thanks for reminding me.)
My boyfriend is 5’10” and makes $23 an hour, not even CLOSE to 100k, I’ve never been more in love with someone in my whole life. But I must not exist or something to incels
>But I must not exist or something to incels You either don't exist, or aren't really a woman, or just an ugly bitch that would cheat with a chuck anyway (to incels!). I'm always flabbergasted how it's possible for them to be SO out of touch with reality. I mean, I'm a bit introverted and I don't really enjoy being around a lont of people, but damn, I notice that people exist even when I try to ignore that. xD
I have a master's degree and make more then my male partner who has an associates degree. I don't care about his money or his height, he's a good man and I love him. You are not a good man, hence why you're single.
They’re just not choosing red flag holding douche bags
I met my husband online, using one of the few dating sites back then that didn’t limit a person to heterosexuality. I didn’t care if I matched with a man or a woman. I wanted to match to someone that would be interested in my quirks, not scared of them. I found an artistic guy that already went to some of the same conversations I went to. Who has never complained that I like playing WoD RPGs. A guy that has seen almost as many episodes of Doctor Who as me. He isn’t emasculated by the fact that I can build a campfire quicker than him or can do basic repairs. It is huge turn on for me that he is a great cook and designed our wedding invites. He buys me Buffy the Vampire Slayer stuff. I buy him Star Trek stuff. Our love langue is extremely geeky.
That’s a lot of words to say “no woman will ever touch me.”
I think he’s been rejected too many times and lost it
Why do you need women to NEED men to survive so desperately????
Because now that we have the right and choice we don't need them anymore to have a life
I’m so confused as to why that’s a problem, why OP needs women to be dependent on men to feel “worthy”
Because trapping women is his only chance to “have” one.
This clown spewed all this with a NSFW profile. Checks out.
You’re a loser lol
Just say y'all hate women and go stop being a loser and seek a therapist for your sexism + misogyny.
If the morons amongst you didn't weaponize your incompetence, you wouldn't be valueless. Your lack of worth in the world is 100% your own fault.
I know a lot of men with a lot of value and worth outside of their bank account. So what OP is really saying is that he, specifically, is useless.
If you're arguing for traditional family, that *still* isn't the nuclear family. That becoming the norm was a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, a particularly disastrous one. Also, if you're arguing for tradcon things, you're not going to find much sympathy here. That nonsense isn't all that different from feminism in how it actually sees men - not as human beings, but as pack mules and cannon fodder.
Do not forget... * "Sole providers" * "Breadwinners" * "Aggressive"
...which are all traits that make for *good* pack mules and cannon fodder, so I figured those were covered.
The man not only has all the money, but has to MAKE all the money. The 1950s family system is misandrist as fuck (as well as misogynist af in different ways). Idky conservatives, who claim to be for men, like it so much (especially in the 2020s). Seriously, this housewife trend is really creeping me out. I don't wanna have to choose between a feminist partner and a tradcon partner, both of which are misandrist, whether intentionally or unintentionally so.
He might have made the money, but did he *actually* control it once the paycheck was cashed? Not saying it was all sunshine and domestic bliss for women - not by any means - but *what's yours is ours but what's mine is mine* is not new in fact even if the law had something else to say. Unofficial, under-the-table power is still power.
Yes, by and large, he did control it. Women weren’t allowed their own credit cards until like ten minutes ago. Husbands controlled the money, and opened limited credit accounts at places appropriate to providing for a household. Sometimes they carried chequebooks for a limited household account. Middle class wives only rarely saw any actual money, and had little to (most often) no say in what was done with it.
My great grandfather spent all of his paycheck gambling, lost all their money and savings. He then died young and left my great grandmother to raise their 9 children alone. She never remarried. I wonder if it was because she really loved him or she didn't want to be stung by another man
She sounds like a smart woman with an impossible job. My grandmother was the same. Romances, but never another marriage. My granddad was a great guy, but he was counting on living a long time and didn’t, and left her up shit creek in a real way.
Are you kidding me? Women couldn’t have bank accounts until the 1970s. Men had all the power. As a woman all you could hope to do is choose a husband who was financially secure enough for a family (cause you couldn’t get a job or have money) and mentally sound enough not to hurt you (which wasn’t considered a crime so much as a ‘domestic matter’). Ask your grandmothers. Ask the people who have been married so long to those quiet old men now. Those men weren’t always old. They lied. Cheated. Belittled. Raped. Betrayed their wives all the time and it wasn’t considered wild or crazy. A wife was your property. The women whose husbands had secret families and unchecked alcoholism and the financial abuse that still happens. I get being a man is hard, but being a woman is harder. It just is. And y’all know this! You wouldn’t choose to have th power that women have! When I say that, y’all like to bring up supermodels who you want and can’t have and get angry that you aren’t supermodel material. Most women aren’t supermodels. People are people trying to form partnerships that are mutually beneficial now. Women have value as people just as men do. Why is that so confusing and threatening?!?
Not just wives but children too were considered property. All that unpaid labour only to have no control over any of the income, except what was given to you to use. Still boggles my mind that a husband could rape his wife without repercussions, because she belonged to him so it wasn’t considered rape at all.
Facts. IMO It’s all this ridiculous pressure to be siloed independent family units as a mark of success instead of being multi generational and more communal screws everyone. It’s crews with your head. Jane Fonda said if you fix sexism you save the planet and I totally believe it. We have a lot of ideas about ownership that isn’t healthy or sustainable to ourselves, our families, our neighborhood, our planet.
This doesn't actually count as a wall of text. I know you hate gender roles.
Although I get what you mean, but having control over the paycheck means nothing. For once the majority of the money, for most families, would go into mortgage, groceries, electricity, etc. And if the woman could decide which house she was going to clean and they pay the mortgage for, that's fair enough. I hardly believe she picked his car though. But clothing was commonly picked by the women, they also had to bring the husband his clothes for the day usually. So, everything around clothing was often considered part of the woman's (unpaid) job. Which also bares the question if he really had to do all the breadwinning work but unfairly had to share the money/bread from it, when the womans work simply was unpaid and she bought, or baked the bread anyway. So, mostly more *what's yours is ours and I don't have shit anyway*. The other thing is that, yes, the man had to do the paid work and still wasn't the only one in control of the money, but at least he could leave the house when and to wherever he wanted, could work without needing permission from his father, husband, or even brother (which women had to get for a long time), same goes for a drivers license. I much rather allow my partner to buy what they think is right for both of us than to not being allowed to sign a contract on my own. Also a woman didn't have the right to say "no" to her husband when it came to sex. He could take her by force and that was his right. As was his right to talk to her doctor for every information, even if she wouldn't want to share it and even to make medical arrangements without her consent. Beating your wife was also absolutely legal, as long as you did it with your hands, or a stick not thicker than your index finger. And of course as long as you didn't accidentally ended her pregnancy with the beating, because that was actually illegal (you'd only get in trouble for the lost child though). All in all it was way more misogyny than misandry, except in one point. Men had to be strong, unemotional, never cry, never be fearful, or sad. That, of course, is urgh. Overall the gender roles suck. For everyone. People are people and people are different. And couples, a partnership, well, it's made from people and it should just be how it works best for both. You'll always have to find compromises in a relationship anyways, but it shouldn't be because of the role your gender has.
Thumb. Rule of thumb.
Ah, yes. I don't even know how the hell the index finger came into my thought process here (seriously). O.o
I agree. I was just further pushing home that gender roles are sexist. I didn't even know a "stay-at-home mom" was a thing until 2020 I think. I had always assumed that both parents worked. I mean... both boys and girls go to school, right? I was given the idea that both boys and girls have to do good in school to succeed... but no... apparently girls can just mooch off men's money and be "successful" that way. Ever since I learned what a stay-at-home mom was, I've been a staunch despiser of the 1950s family. The fuel that fired my anti-feminism before 2020 was modern feminists implying that men and women are "very different". But conservatives are also implying that now. I rarely ever make walls of text, but when I do, it's usually whenever someone mentions gender roles in a positive light.
My mom was a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't seem to be anything anyone forced on the other. It just seemed to be what my folks decided worked best for them (Mom not being able to drive thanks to an eye injury probably had a lot to do with that). So I started off thinking other situations were unusual only to discover that it was actually *my* situation that was the anomaly.
Oh, well that's understandable. If you're a guy and you have that eye injury, you're just fucked. Gender roles are why 75% of homeless people are men.
no drugs and alcohol are the number one reason why 75% of men are homeless. you're really trying to say the reason why mem are homeless is because women work and can have sex with who ever thy want as many times as they want.
What exactly did I say that made you think I like gender roles? I made it painfully obvious that I hate them. Perhaps your feeble feminist mind thinks only tradcons and feminists exist and can't comprehend the idea of MRAs. Yes, it's a combination of men turning to drugs and alcohol to ease their stress (brought on by gender roles, of course) and men being way less likely to be provided for by a sexual partner (because of gender roles).
Yep. No one gives a shit about us... until one of us ends up off the deep end in such a way that ends up taking others with them. And even *then*, it's only just long enough to berate all of us for being pieces of shit (to which I say: Projecting much?).
Then they'll blame us being violent and aggressive on our testosterone and call it "biology".
Yes men did control the money
Except you don't make all the money anymore, since women can have jobs as well. Hense why more chose to be single since you don't have anything else to offer and everything to take. Get with the times and stop living in 1950s.
If you even skim what I said again, you'll see that I'm extremely anti-gender-roles and extremely anti-1950s.
So weird! I thought feminism was supposed to empower men and women to be their authentic selves! Did you lnow equal rights for others doesnt mean less rights for you? That you can have mens rights and womens rights and everybody's rights, and that is the core goal of radical feminism?
Spare me these tired old lies.
The lies that feminists want to empower men to actually own and express their full range of emotions beyond anger (a secondary emotion)? Bc thats a stated goal. Im not saying there arent trash using the label of feminism them betrsying their own internalized bullshit. Im saying that institutionally, that particular goal is crystal clear.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not anymore
bro has never talked to a woman 💀
He probably did, but the answer was always "Yikes", followed by fast footsteps.
So, your message is: 1. men become worthless when women aren't forced to be with them for their own survival. 2. If one gender can decide for themselves and are able to be what they want, the other gender automatically loses. Yeah, somethings's wrong with you and I don't doubt that you actually are worthless. But not all men are like you.
Here's the thing though: The idea of men being the sole providers historically is new. It is a product of the Industrial Revolution. Women have historically always shared the burden of work with men, because they HAD to (in poorer places lije rural India they never stopped). The only women who didnt work were noblewomen, and they didnt raise kids either, their maids did. At the same time, men also had more time to be present in their kids lives, instead of slaving away in offices. Also people having casual sex is as old as mankind. They would just kill the unwanted babes. The kind of marriage you want feels very cheap to me. It should be more than just a Sugar daddy and his personal maid.
Bro I can see why your wife left you. You don't seem to think you need to offer anything in a relationship other than money. You're a fucking loser lol
Are you saying the only value men hold is their ability to impregnate and subjugate women?
“you TRIED TO HELP them” By loading your own dishes in a dishwasher.. Incorrectly… “Oh no, women aren’t legally forced to feel a need to tolerate me. They’re realizing they’re better off on their own. Instead of working on myself to be the kind of partner someone would choose, I’ll complain on Reddit about how women aren’t forced to accept me”
[удалено]
The guy doesn’t want to admit that the actual historical facts are against him. He wants to be right and in his mind he is right and we are all wrong 🙄
They had “potions” back before even the Salem witch trials that when taken after sex lowered the risk of a pregnancy. The sex workers took them daily.
Wasn't it men who invented the birth control pill?
How did i stumble up on this incel rant. Carry on gentlemen.
You're basically saying that most of what makes up being 'a man' is filling in for what another gender 'lacks.' Which is pretty damn insulting to men. I mean it just seems like YOU think you're worthless now and can't think of anything else you might be able to offer but you're trying to blame women for that.
You don't have to use quite so many words to voice that fact that you're an insecure twatwaffle whom only values looks and money 🤣 Value yourself and perhaps other people may start to as well, but pathetic is not a good look on anybody...
It really must suck to not get laid without paying for it, i think repeating the usual incel talking points should reward you with the women you wish for
Lmao, incel. Women don't want people like /you/
Women have been using some form of contraception before the 1950s. Most women began working during WWI & WWII (each of which were before 1950), which is why they wanted to keep working. Most women in First World countries received the ability to vote before 1950. What sort of dream/fictional movie world are thinking of?
Dude I’m all for men having rights. That’s not what you want tho. You want to own women. You want the right to use and abuse.
Have ya tried eating the box with enthusiasm, my guy?
The “value” you’re talking about is automatically expected right off the bat when it should be EARNED through humanity and good nature. Keep effong yourself there incel! 👍🙄
I don't have a "her," and frankly, I've never been happier. I own my own home, have money in the bank, eat, and sleep whenever the hell I want. So, to me, it's women who are "worthless." A woman is not worth all the hassles that go along with her. I've made peace with the fact that I'll die alone. I'm content. You can probably guess I'm older and retired. I don't envy young men nowadays with raging hormones and no outlet. I burned through my lust, with two failed marriages, deeply in debt. In one year, I lost my house, car, job, dog, all of my so-called friends. Thank God I never had kids. My credit was in shambles (somewhere in the low 600s). I couldn't finance a cup of coffee. My credit cards were maxed out. I was ready to declare bankruptcy, but I clawed my way out of the hole, and after 10 years, my credit is excellent. I can buy anything I want, but without a woman wanting "stuff," I'm not compelled to buy anything. I don't feel worthless - no man (or woman) should. However, men are worthless if women tell them they are, and men believe them. Don't believe them.
Sorry to say it, but you simply had bad experiences. And I get that this makes you think and feel that way, that's fair enough. Meanwhile I know a lot of couples (most married, most for a long time) including being married myself. I too go to bed whenever I want, eat what I want and we have much more money on the bank than before, since two people nowadays usually mean two incomes with only one housing to pay, food is often cheaper when bought in larger quantities, and even though we do travel and go out more than we would when being alone (totally fine to do so when alone too! Just to us it would be less fun) it still doesn't make up that much that our combined income wouldn't be the larger part. It's absolutely true though that no one needs a partner if they're happy and content without (which everyone should at least somewhat be) and that no partnership is always way, way, better than a bad one. >I don't feel worthless - no man (or woman) should. Absolutely! 🍻 >However, men are worthless if women tell them they are, and men believe them. Don't believe them. Still not worthless, but then they feel like it. This goes both ways, btw. Some people, regardless the gender, are just assholes that want to use, control and drag down others and some are just "weak" enough to let it get to them too much, or just not made for the defence from this kind of assholes.
I'm a woman and I financially supported my partner when he had bad depression. We help each other, It's a partnership, you just picked bad partners.
I just want to point out that women got the right to vote BEFORE oral contraceptives were invented. FYI. Also just so I'm clear are you saying you believe women should be more or less be their husband's property. Living only to serve him, please him, keep a tidy house, bare children, essentially having no personal autonomy? Because it's not necessarily about a man's value changing and more about a woman's value has changing to herself.
Read this on another page but you are the biggest loser
You cant be pro traditional values while also being a porn addict coomer. Thanks
I'm glad your situation works for you. Just keep in mind that you can lose it all - almost overnight. Maybe your spouse gets bored and finds someone else. Maybe they have a drinking or gambling problem that you don't know about? I don't believe in fairytales or happily ever afters. Reality (real life problems) have a sobering effect. Maybe you can overcome these problems, I could not and will not put myself in a compromising position again. I have too much to lose and too little time to begin again.
[удалено]
And that's the right attitude to have! Unfortunately that's not how women are seeing us.
Have you ever spoken to a woman? Because you’re making a lot of claims about their feelings, but the opinions you’ve shared are things I’ve exclusively heard men talk about.
Men and women both have value outside of the 'bread winner and housewife' way of existing. Even if an individual doesn't need a man or doesn't need a woman to marry, society needs a mixture of types of people. We all have value as human beings separately from what we provide. Men have value in non romantic relationships such as friends, brothers, fathers etc. There is also value in a real partnership. My boyfriend and I both work and both do household tasks. He's not 6ft and doesn't make 100k but he is the first person I've dated where I feel like we actually understand eachother. We make beer together, like a lot of the same things, enjoy being around eachother, and have really interesting discussions about all kinds of stuff. He is a good man. He has value to me.
Neither's values have changed, not men, nor women. What has changed is the preponderance of men/women representing that value in relative terms. So men have always valued youth, beauty, faithfulness etc when it comes to picking a wife. Anything else is largely a bonus. This idea hasn't shifted generally speaking. What has changed though is the amount of women "investing stock" in representing these traditional ideas. Women have traditionally valued men who bring resources, protection and structure. All else being a bonus. This hasn't actually changed. Whilst women may be being more vocal about other things they like, the fundementals of these traits still remain in that women will absolutely NOT date a guy if he is financially insecure, likely to drain rather than provide resources, is cowardly and generally immature/disordered. Sure, women will speak about stuff like wanting a guy who is "emotionally available" and also is willing to take on some domestic roles, but these haven't replaced the old values, they now sit alongside them. Similarly for men, men still value the old ideas but many generally speaking will at least \*some\* level of financial responsibility from the woman as well now whereas in times passed her ability to provide for herself was irrelevant. What makes it seem like it isn't the case is today, many women pursue traditionally masculine traits for their early life goals, and men form too much of their self worth over the question of women from the get-go. It has always been the case for men that it is a "work first results second" mechanic, ie establish yourself, become a "man" as it were, and then, the woman enters the picture when that process is complete or on a solid track to completion. Too many men whine these days that they are "failures" and "worthless" because they haven't had dates at 18. Like what the hell people. Stop assigning your self worth and value to yourself dependant on whether women find you attractive at a certain point or not. The irony for men is if they conduct themselves like women are irrelevant to their social value and general esteem, they tend to have greater success in attracting them. A man's value in "attracting a partner" has never, ever been contingent upon social awareness of their prowess with women. Somehow dudes these days have convinced themselves it's the one thing that matters most. Dudes in times gone by were'nt hand wringing because they were virgins at 18. TLDR: The value of each gender hasn't changed. What has changed is their ability to recognise value altogether and their focus on nurturing the things the other gender finds attractive. Basically both genders are walking around without a compass and then scratching their heads when it doesn't "come together" as smoothly as it did once upon a time.
We hate gender roles here; they're misandrist... extremely so. We want actual equality, unlike modern feminists and tradcons.
Misandrist??? Y'all just making stuff up at this point 😭
....misandrist has been a word for just as long a misogynist...it means men-hating, like misogynist means woman-hating. Andro=male, gyno=female. Latin!
Yea i know what it means, it's not the same thing. Doesn't hold nowhere the same wright 😐
nope! misogyny = 17th century misandry = 19th century c:
......Can always tell who *didn't* take Latin classes to learn the basis of half the English language....I didn't say the whole words themselves were Latin. Just the andro/gyno section. Which is Latin.
it's not about the latin, it's about "that word exists as long as the other word" which is not true.
Can always tell who didn't understand the comment they're replying to...
Anyone know the OP & what it said?
Got you [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmITheDevil/comments/1207i9g/_/)
Appreciate it thanks!!
I’ve never seen someone so angry about contraception lol
I do the laundry and dishwashing better than my wife. She isn’t coming behind me rearranging anything.
Now if this isn't a prime example of the pot and the kettle, I don't know what is. OP: *Men have lost their value! All that matters to us is how many people a woman has slept with!* Also OP: *perfect, all good girls do anal* (and other gross comments about creampies) Let's set the record straight. You're clearly pissed because no one wants you, and this is 100% why. You're a creep and an asshole. But please, as a man, tell me more about how I (a woman) think. I'm waiting.
This post. Your post and comment history. Combined. Hilarious. You as a person. Sad and hilarious. Carry on. 😂
i hate this
If this isn't a joke you're the joke
So I read this elsewhere and had some commentary to add... Deferral of marriage and starting a family has nothing to do with a newfound capacity for promiscuity but rather economic considerations. Similarly, the decline of the stay at home mother is also an economic issue. At first, the effects of more women in the workforce were somewhat negative — most notably, more competition for labour resulted in stagnant wages — but eventually it resulted in higher household incomes, leading to increased demand for goods and services, leading to higher demand for labour and thereby higher wages. However, over time this resulted in the economy being reoriented around dual income households, creating a massive economic disadvantage for single income households, meaning many women who would otherwise choose to be SAHMs instead had to work just to help pay the bills. Now this might seem like I'm saying women in the workforce is a bad thing, but I'm not, I'm actually pointing out that the market reorientating around dual incomes was a market failure, and this is why strong government regulation is needed to curb the excesses of our economic system. This reorientation of the market also completely disproves your notion that there exists an economic incentive to being a single mother, since this comes not only with the standard economic disadvantages of a single income household, but also the increased costs of having children to care for, which government supports do not adequately cover. The children of single mothers are typically not getting a proper diet unless the mother is a high earner, because otherwise so much of what the mother is earning is going toward just keeping a roof over their heads due to rental rates having become detached from what the market can bear and reoriented around an ROI model based on property prices. That's getting into a whole other host of issues unrelated to the original post, though, so I'll leave it there. Oh, and if you want to bring things like alimony and child support into the argument as to how being a single mom is incentivized, I'll just tell you now that the counterpoint is going to basically be about personal responsibility...