The glaring inconsistency of the manosphere

[jurry]

A male dominated, relatively monogomous culture (like the 1950's) is great for low value betas. They have the law and societal expectations and norms on their side, and a higher value woman is more likely to settle with a lower value man for financial security, start a family, etc.

A more equal (gender wise, but is still unquestionably male dominated), less monogomous culture like we have now is disastrous for low value men.. As women are able to do what they want and are less reliant on a man to provide her with financial security. This means they are free to pursue the men who truly make their vag's tingle and keep the world new and exciting for them. This is perfect for a high value man, who is now dealing with more sexually and culturally unbound women than ever before.

Now why is it then that popular manosphere sites like chateau heartiste (and many people on this forum) that preach sexual market value and how to improve as men are constantly whining about this transformation? If we are or becoming the high value men we set out to be, then we should be celebrating this change.

The defenders of this ideology will come out and say "no no we just feel bad for our beta friends (whoever they may be) and how hard it is for them now". More likely it is that these wise internet sages are in fact refusing to acknowledge the low value "beta" that is inside of them, and so have cunningly recrafted their argument to avoid facing this truth.

There are some interesting and attractive cultural changes that I see resulting from this kind of shift that is happening, but its a lot to write down so ill keep this shortish for now. The bottom line is this: embrace (celebrate if you have high smv) change and enjoy the world and its women around you.

 

[Tictac]

True enough.

It's not like there's a choice anyway (griping and moaning is not a choice).

Vive' la difference!

 

[sylvester the cat]

A more equal (gender wise, but is still unquestionably male dominated), less monogomous culture

what's a more equal but still unquestionably male dominated culture supposed to mean?

i'm not complaining. although if 'Alphas' think the red pill stops at how to engage with women then i'm afraid they're going to be in for a shock.

 

[jurry]

what's a more equal but still unquestionably male dominated culture supposed to mean?

i'm not complaining. although if 'Alphas' think the red pill stops at how to engage with women then i'm afraid they're going to be in for a shock.

It means that if we were at a 1 or 2 out of 10 in the 1950s (0 being totally male dominated and 10 being female dominated, 5 being equal), then now we are at probably a 3 or 4.

 

[Who Dares Win]

1)if all men work to increase their "value" the necessary value to be above others is gonna be higher and higher year after year making it like some kind of work by itself, plus it will become a rat race where no man is free to sit and breath at the cost of being cut out

2)if the minimum value to be considered "worth" as a man is getting higher and higher at the same time women can decrease that same value to be considered "worth" thus you will have man forced to climb more and more for less while women will be free to do less and less while getting the same or even more.

3)a country of alphas busy on outalphing each other wont send men to the moon, build masterpieces or discovering cold fusion, betas dont make gina tingles but push society forward with benefits for all, if you use your cellphone its because a skinny-fat nerd created and keep active such technology while if you make that nerd nevrotic he will move on drugs rather than express his potential

4)a majority of frustrated young man will pose a threat to society as a system, you can be alpha as you want and be surrounded from women but if there are riots in the streets you better be the guy which run the fortified suburb and the the neightbourhood guard otherwise your women will move with him, forget taxes which are needed for hospitals, police departments and schools etc.

I believe there should be a balance, you cannot say "everybody deserves X" but at the same time you cant tell either "fvck them its their problem".
Those two extremes dont work in economics and dont work on society as well.

 

[Bokanovsky]

A male dominated, relatively monogomous culture (like the 1950's) is great for low value betas. They have the law and societal expectations and norms on their side, and a higher value woman is more likely to settle with a lower value man for financial security, start a family, etc.

A more equal (gender wise, but is still unquestionably male dominated), less monogomous culture like we have now is disastrous for low value men.. As women are able to do what they want and are less reliant on a man to provide her with financial security. This means they are free to pursue the men who truly make their vag's tingle and keep the world new and exciting for them.

A "more equal" culture is also disastrous for the vast majority of women, because there are no societal expectations and norms, as you put it, to keep them from making stupid decisions. And stupid decisions they do make...in spades. From unwed mothers having kids with criminals/unemployed deadbeats to "career-oriented" women spending their prime years slaving away at some corporate job and missing out on the opportunity to start a family (and then being miserable for the rest of their lives). And their kids, if they ever do have them, end up being a dysfunctional mess, lacking proper parenting and traditional family structure.

And what of the "high value" men, however you choose to define them? Do they really enjoy stewing in this toxic social brew, having to deal with low quality modern women? There is more to life than just getting laid. Wouldn't a "high value man" prefer to have a family and kids with a woman who is not a feminist-brainwashed, carousel-riding gutter trash wh0re? Would a high value man really want to settle down with a "liberated' woman who has fvcked half the football team in college, had threesomes, drunken one night stands, etc.? For the "high value man", the modern social order is a feast...of stale, rotting leftovers.

 

[jurry]

From my experience this type of woman is not "the vast majority of women", but a small minority that would do those things regardless of the cultural paradigm she is in.

Men are just as capable of making bad decisions.. murdering and bombing millions of people, setting up a global, parasitic economic elite who live off the corporate slavery of the rest of humanity for instance.

 

[Julian]

Nothing is equal and life isn't fair. It comes down to the individual.

 

[SmooveMooves]

The problem is family units are no longer possible to maintain. Sure "high value" men enjoy the now uproar in promiscuity and sexual prowess. But what happens when the the same "high value" man is 37 and ready to have & raise kids without having to visit them.

I believe this is why most people complain. I don't care who you are, no one wants to be a bachelor forever.

 

[stevo]

Presently the highly educated and higher earning women have it worse. Some of the dime pieces have it worse. Women as alphas almost always turn to lesbos.

Every man cannot be alpha because then there would be a need for super alpha and the sorts which would be a repeat of what we have now. A set of individuals accepting the society manual for how to act (betas) and the set of individuals sworn to promote their utmost self respect and putting their focus on their betterment rather than bagging punanis, taking on an attitude opposite to societal manual. Of course because this mentality isn't the norm, chics dig it and more punani end up flowing in.

It's also important we separate a DJ from the alpha being talked about as every DJ display alpha qualities but every alpha doesn't DJ qualities.

If DJs increased in our society, the scale would be balanced and more punani would spread to the regular dudes lacking now.

If alpha was to increase, there would be even less punani going around as women would be drawn to the super alphas.

 

[mbas44]

but then the super alphas would have to morph into some kind of super super plus alphaz.. THen the lower teir beta would need to go whaling until such time where he moves up to normie beta level. All the regular alphaz would be dropped a level to upper tier beta or omega where they would wallow in a sort of middle class of purgatory.(DIviding their SMV by their partners DMV: SMV: HO ratio obviously) Thusly the super alphaz would mate with only normie type women whilst the super duper alphaz procreate and spread their seed with every 7 and above on planet krypton.oh my God some of the innane babble that goes on in this forum. How do you guys come up with some of this ****? Are people really this stuck in their own heads about this stuff? its truly hard to believe sometimes. Of course when I read the other thread where members were actually posting percentages of women that sleep with the top percentage of men and were actually breaking the **** down into decimal points I shouldve guessed. I think if I ever got to this point its time to put the damn computer away and go for a walk.

 

[( . )( . )]

Now why is it then that popular manosphere sites like chateau heartiste (and many people on this forum)

You're either a moron or playing coy. This isn't exactly rocket science and has been covered extensively for you to understand.

When civilization builders (today's betas) are no longer incentivized as we are seeing clear signs now will assure the future will not be looking good for our children and their children etc etc. Matriarchal societies always fail. How many news stories have been whining about men "dropping out" or doing as little work as possible?

Those civ builders have to want to get out of bed of a morning and get to work and innovate and build and compete and invent and they need a carrot, when they don't get that carrot we all suffer. That carrot was once his own castle, a wife and his genetic continuation. Video games and porn is not really cutting it.

In short the more we devolve from a once K selected society to our now burgeoning r selected the more we resemble a toilet. There's just not going to be enough alphas and faggots to keep all these pet food superstores every clueless progtard is probably envisioning clean, stocked, policed and running.

 

[Trump]

A male dominated, relatively monogomous culture (like the 1950's) is great for low value betas. They have the law and societal expectations and norms on their side, and a higher value woman is more likely to settle with a lower value man for financial security, start a family, etc.

A more equal (gender wise, but is still unquestionably male dominated), less monogomous culture like we have now is disastrous for low value men.. As women are able to do what they want and are less reliant on a man to provide her with financial security. This means they are free to pursue the men who truly make their vag's tingle and keep the world new and exciting for them. This is perfect for a high value man, who is now dealing with more sexually and culturally unbound women than ever before.

Now why is it then that popular manosphere sites like chateau heartiste (and many people on this forum) that preach sexual market value and how to improve as men are constantly whining about this transformation? If we are or becoming the high value men we set out to be, then we should be celebrating this change.

You are confusing the issues and assuming. Being a high value man has nothing to do whether you are in a monogamous culture or a more equal culture, you do it for yourself.

A high value man may not want a sexual liberated marketplace and sleep with a lot of women. He may want one women to settle down with and start a family with. What incentive does he have to do this when the state, society and government is on her side?

 

[jurry]

I dont agree with the idea of some ever increasing alpha plateau that men have to compete for.. Its not about competition, it is about raising your value relative to women. Whereas their value is relatively fixed to their looks, a man can increase his value in a number of ways.

More dj's = more sexual variety and experience for men, less relationships and marriages founded upon a clinging weak man trying to hold on to "that one girl", inevitably losing her.

Also, if your argument against it is that we wont have enough "civilization builder betas" (slaves basically) who will toil their life away for the promise of a piece of pvssy, then id say you're a pretty sick person who doesnt care for your fellow man. Men are dropping out of the workforce because there arent any jobs, not because of feminism you incomparable moron.

To say that men and women are not able to have happy marriages anymore is just too absurd a point to even address.

 

[( . )( . )]

• You think 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are icky.
• You can't stand the thought of a man not committing to a woman if he doesn't meet his terms.
• And now with this post, you think we are still in a Patriarchy.
• And again with this post, you think it is evil to state the reality that beta's with a purpose are the foundation of a stable functioning society.

Jurry, swallow the damn red-pill already and stop hating on people and calling them names simply because you cannot counter their statements. This is getting pretty old.

You can also add the "evil white man" trope it continually trots out to that list. jurry apparently thinks we'd all be living in space colonies and riding to work on hoverboards if it wasn't for those dead white men oppressing us all coz patweearchy™. Come to think of it this muppet talks very similar to zarky, who also funny enough started a retardathon almost identical to this one about 6 months ago.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I dont agree with the idea of some ever increasing alpha plateau that men have to compete for.. Its not about competition, it is about raising your value relative to women. Whereas their value is relatively fixed to their looks, a man can increase his value in a number of ways.

More dj's = more sexual variety and experience for men, less relationships and marriages founded upon a clinging weak man trying to hold on to "that one girl", inevitably losing her.

Also, if your argument against it is that we wont have enough "civilization builder betas" (slaves basically) who will toil their life away for the promise of a piece of pvssy, then id say you're a pretty sick person who doesnt care for your fellow man. Men are dropping out of the workforce because there arent any jobs, not because of feminism you incomparable moron.

To say that men and women are not able to have happy marriages anymore is just too absurd a point to even address.

Danger pretty much answered all your points, I believe the only moron is the one who is unable to understand that most of those we call geniuses through history by today standards will be considered "betas" and would be unable to deal with women even in the lowest way.

Think of Tesla which had a single date in his life and didnt mange to talk or Newton which died a virgin...now do you believe those men would have achieved and discovered what they did in todays world?

They would have been probably picked up as the "weird guy" made fun of cause they had no girl and despite their value they wouldnt even probably ot a scholarship....oh sure their classmates would be hitting the gym, dress cool and running kino on their classmates before nailing them, right?

Most of all are you gonna tell 90% of men that they "dont fit" liberated women criteria and that they will spend their whole life in sex starvation except those few years an oldie will marry them to divorce and steal their money right after thanks to the government?

Do you believe they will say "yes sir" and go back in their corner while working in unfair conditions and pay taxes to feed a system which basically dont reward them?

Is that so hard for you to understand? the name sodini reminds you of something? he was a high IQ man (according to newspaper he was much wealthier than the average man) which derailed after noticing that despite his best efforts he was basically cut out and unable to get his "share".

Do you believe hard workers beta stopping working and paying taxes or engaging anti-social behaviours will have no impact on society?

 

[crazyboy]

Ok if we are talking about dating women would always have advantage over men in this. I mean dang there are the ones that get pregnant and are the ones that have the bear most of the consequences in dating. I mean if you dont marry or give a woman a child. What power does she have over you none. We live in a patriarchal society. Men run the world the economy, wars, politics, and almost everything else beside dating/divorce. But some of you guys are such slave's to the puzzy you don't see this. Using those great sciences is great for your example of betas but wasn't einstein quite the player i might add and still contribute greatly to society.

Some men are not good with women and some men don't care and pursue other interest even stephen hawking had a wife obviously before his disease.

Yes there are a lot nutjob women out there but there are alot entitled bishy complaining behind men as well. There are good women out there that a family and want to raise children without all the added bs.

If you gonna judge women in there 20's for bad behavior , inconsistency , and selfishness. Then judge men in there 20's the same way because we are no better in regards. No i don't have a white knight mentality that all women are angel and fart fairy dust.

But lets keep it real most men get angry because they're not getting there way. Then we come to this site to learn how to get the woman we never could get or keep. So we do stuff this site teaches us and go try on that same woman. Not thinking of the fact that she was never into us to begin with or that love is lost. Instead moving on to new women and better yourself with different type of women. Anything you get good at you get better with practice whether be your job, videogames, sports, sex, or anything for that matter. You have to practice and refine your technique.

And lastly many men claim that men are more logical than women to a degree. But it seem a lot men here make a lot of there decision base on emotion instead seeing the facts. Because if we were logical as we say we are then alot bs that we "deal" with women wouldn't affect us. But ugly truth we are just as emotional the only difference is we don't know how to deal with it.

"alphas" and "betas" don't exist within humans are society structure is too complex for that. This is just nerd talk to try define the winner and losers of the getting laid game.

 

[jurry]

Lol cmon danger you can make a better argument than that.. Dont attack the messenger attack the message.

This is a strange attitude you guys have towards betas, maybe u are all filthy rich and like the betas role as a wage slave who can be placated with a woman.. It isnt that hard to get a girl you are acting like betas dont get laid.

Anyways, im a bit drunk good night i love you all (even tits)

 

[skinnyguy]

Alpha/ beta isn't the problem.

The problem is that "game" has pedestalized women to the point that even a HB 3 thinks she deserves Brad Pitt.

 

[Soolaimon]

You are right. They sure are inconsistent with their same asinine invalid comments.

It's hilarious!

The only thing they are consistent with is repeating each other with their
same repetitive false claims.

who hates those yucky 1950's housewives

You think 1950's feminine, nurturing housewives are icky.

See? The same b.s. repetition over and over again.

What do you care about 1950's housewives for?

You are terrified at the thought of marriage assuming you will go through a divorce.

You are deathly afraid of marriage Danger.

This is a failed example for you guys.

Get a new one!

You can't stand the thought of a man not committing to a woman if she doesn't meet his terms.

Let me answer this false claim for you.

Read carefully so you can understand what the words mean without projecting or lying in your next post.



My woman is meeting my terms of exclusivity by removing other men from her life on her own.

Those ARE my terms that I want.

She is doing that for me cause of my high value.

I don't have to prod her to get rid of them like you have to.

I see that she understands what exclusivity means. That shows she is high quality and knows what commitment means.

Yours is too dumb to know what it means cause you have to keep reminding her
defining your terms to her that she may not choose to follow.

Can you see the difference?

Can you understand that?

I doubt it.

How are you going to argue against that?

We will see more projection, lying, and shaming from you in your next post.

Jurry, swallow the damn red-pill already and stop hating on people and calling them names simply because you cannot counter their statements. This is getting pretty old.

Why? So he can live in a state of fear of his woman cheating like you do with yours everyday? Living a life of delusion?

Every claim you have made has been countered by me and other posters several times.

You repeat the same false repetitive claims in each post.

That's what's getting old.

Marry your woman so she can be a 1950's housewife.

You are too scared to put a ring on her finger to marry her cause you fear a "bad investment".