Why do Normies always blame men for their lack of dating?

Post Reply New Topic

Easy said when you're not the one having to be bold and make moves only to be rejected constantly til you crack.

Me too.

This again.

Alright the best way to explain it is women are showed in society they are valued very openly.
Imagine a females car breaks down typically a man will stop and offer assistance. This is easily seen.
For men the value is the ability to talk in a room, to enter a room and there is this subtle thing about conversation where they have a higher ammount of respect instantly just for being a man basically.

But for me who don't take advantage of this air of respect they can command, or for those who don't care for it the scale can be heavily imbalanced.

So more or less men are TOLD they are respected by society subtlety.
Women are shown they are respected by society by actions.

There is something to be said for knowing you A might have to be drafted, B in the event of divorce you have a high potential to lose kids etc C You have a higher potential to get a stronger sentence for crimes D being with women or attracting them is harder for the non top 80% ohhh and this.

Excerpt from a classroom to sum up stuff st a young age. https://therationalmale.com/2014/12/05/ ... dren-well/

When asked what don't boys like about being boys these were the answers.
Not being able to be a mother
Not supposed to cry
Not allowed to be a cheerleader
Supposed to do all the work
Supposed to like violence
Supposed to play football
Boys smell bad
Having an automatic bad reputation
Grow hair everywhere

So the idea is because society openly veiws masculinity as toxic while secretly loving it things become hard for guys who can't accept that. Treat others the way you want to be treated and all that isn't really how society works especially between genders.

Tldr tho.

Men subtlety told they are valued.
Women openly told through visable actions. Ofc there are a few gray areas here but none of them REALLY matter to men.

Its hard when you are told that the only way to be complete is with a woman meanwhile women are told you don't need a man to be complete lol.

^ It depends on the person's situation but there's certainly a gender bias of life easiness depending on the situation.

-Life of single non-taken man is as hard as non-taken woman, none has the advantage.

-Life of a poor woman is as hard as life of a poor man.

-Life of a working mother is typically harder than the life of her working husband; for the reason that most of the childbearing related tasks fall on her, and many men are too lazy or even unskilled (in that area due to how they got raised) to do most of the housework.

-A wealthy woman (ie. head of business, not the same as wife of a wealthy man) doesn't have it easier than of a wealthy man.

Now here are life situations that may look (significantly) easier for women:
-Childless women who are totally depending on their men financially, like housewives and housegfs, yes, it's an easy life that consists only of house shores and cooking (a working single person would have to do them too). The houehusband role is almost non existent and still very socially unacceptable (even in the 1st/2nd World).

-Women who live as stay at home mom (No, it's not "the hardest job in the world", not at all, this title should go to the full-time WORKING mother), this writer explains it best and I agree with her:
http://theweek.com/articles/684153/yes- ... -job-world
Maybe they have it as hard as (or as easy as) their husbands' life, depending on the husbands' job but certainly not harder.

- The life of rich man's housewife has the optimum easiness in life, she doesn't do any house shores (ie. maids, nannies..etc), and her life is certainly by far easier than her husband who has to work and maintain his wealth most of his life. I strongly believe that the housewives of wealthy men have the easiest life among all the human kind.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 14 Sep 2017, 6:08 am, edited 4 times in total.

Fair enough.

I could list a load of women's problems in response, but you'll have heard it all before.

No one has the upper hand. We're all just struggling along in an unfair world. Why does it have to be a competition over who has it worse.

No one has God mode privelidges except the super rich and even then they're just as human as us.

I'm ok with this awareness of men's issues and they should be talked about and improvements should be strived for.

The problem is guys coming on here and turning that into absolute hatred and distrust of women and sewing seeds of suspicion.

But this is a problem. And women don't seem to get it. It's not each set has there own problems. It's that the level of problems are on two different spectrums. If society tells you openly you are toxic, and tells you to fend for your self in many situations no man gives a damn if women are treated lesser in a room of men. Tangible signs things that happen to women each day rarely happen to men.

So yes there are trade offs but as far as younger men and women go. Women have it easier with LESS effort into society on average. The trade off is that with WAY MORE effort men have it easier than women by far. But for some reason when we talk about these things women assume that every man is a "superman" by default naturally.

Superman the peak of a man completely has it way easier over any version of woman period. But superman is rare and not encouraged. Man is weaker than woman and super woman by far.

Scale to break this down hurt.
Man 1-50 80%
Woman 150-200 80%
Superwoman 201-400 20%
Superman 401-1000 20%

Numbers are a joke but I hope you get where I'm coming from here. Women assume a majority of men are superman status. Not sure why.

You can't have it. It's for women only.

As for "guys coming on here and turning that into absolute hatred and distrust of women and sewing seeds of suspicion", the song "Wind of Change" by Scorpions comes to mind.

^ but what about Batman?

Don't mock me you got the point. I'm trying to have an honest discussion here with people about this. 1 because it fascinates me how people don't see it and 2 because I enjoy talking about this kind of stuff. I also have an open view on both sides seeing as my status kind of let's me.

Honestly I didn't get your points system at all, try to include some concrete examples.

To be honest, I had trouble following your post myself. I'm not sure who "superman" and "superwoman" referred to. Unless it was a different take on the alpha/beta divide. Which, by the way, exists only among men, and not among women.

Eh I can't accept that last part. There are women a strong strong tier above the rest of women let's be real here. And yes that is sort of what I was going for without using terms like Alpha and Beta because I don't like those terms.

A supermodel chick who makes a s**t ton of cash, has a great personality and has quirky hobbies is NOT going to be the same as average susan who works at dunkin donuts.

Come on now, you may not see it but there is some hierarchy in the female dating world, it's not visible as my example here but it exists for men who have the honor of being able to see it.

That's because they aren't true, they evolved from a paper written in the 1970's about wolf packs that had no basis in reality.

From David Mech, one of the world's foremost wolf experts, and also the person who wrote said paper that was distorted by society:

But humans are primates, not canines, remember that. Wolves as a species are egalitarian and monogamous, far more than most primates.
Even the sexual dimorphism among wolves is negligible (ie. female wolves are as strong as males) when compared to gorillas, chimps and even humans.

The alpha male thing my not exist in wolves but it definitely exists in chimps and gorillas.

Therefore, proving that wolves in nature don't have alpha males doesn't mean that humans and other primates don't have them (And even the wolves in captivility have them).

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 14 Sep 2017, 8:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

I believe alpha males don't 'naturally' exist but they certainly do 'culturally'.

What do you call a tall, fit, convetionlly attractive, confident, socially successful, rich, mentally healthy, physically healthy, famous, intelligent man?

Better to say 'alpha male' in everyday conversation than list each individual attribute every single time.

Well, that's kind of the point: the entire concept of "alpha male" derived from that paper, the term didn't exist before then, and the author himself claims it's a complete mischaracterization, the quote I provided is the same author clarifying his paper. Does that quote sound anything like our concept of 'alpha male' today? Hell no, because 'alpha male' was built on a lie.