If there was a way to regurgitate the worst possible inference from the absolute mess of society and male/female dystopia - this has to be it.
Damn, 10 minutes on Hoemath and a man could figure out that the top 10% of men "have it really good". But this isn't encouragement. In comes off as crass and snobbish. If there was a reasonable justification for violent marxism, it would look something like this. And if things continue, maybe it'll happen. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of arrogant people.
That 10% figure is ridiculous - the range of men who are attractive to women is VASTLY higher than that. According to the US Census, 60% of men over 15 years of age have children, and given that the average age of fathers is much higher at around 30, that must mean that at least three quarters of US men are chosen by women to have children, probably more. I'm sick of hearing men on hoemaths and other youtube Blackpill sites pretending that women just want the Top 20%/10%/5%/1% of men. It is defeatest BS.
As one manosphere guru who was more marriage-oriented once put it, back in the day: "Of course, your preferred woman is only attracted to the top 10% of men. But you don't have to be in the top 10% of all men everywhere as perceived by a hypothetical average woman. You only have to be in *her* top ten percent specifically, according to her personal tastes for what she's attracted to and in the pool of men she actually knows."
It’s true that men who have their act together have it good right now. Especially when women graduate college more than men do (it’s close to 3 women for every 2 men) and usually want a man who is also college-educated, leading to an advantage in the dating market. A man who has a degree, stays away from weed, and isn’t addicted to video games or sports betting already has a huge advantage.
But this also makes the flip side true: the men who are unsuccessful are really failing. There are many young men today that are basically locked out of the relationship market. Women no longer need to marry men anymore to be provided for. Those men, the ones that feel like they’re left-over or obsolete, are the ones that Reeves worries about.
Have you seen the vast amount of losers who still get relationships with women if they want them? You don't need to be a champion to get laid in the US or even to get a woman to bear your children. This is one of the fakest thematics going in the redpill space. The most ordinary Average Joe can EASILY get a wife if he makes the effort to court a woman and is realistic about who he pursues.
It's important to account for how many of those folks stay together though. Back before incels were the hot controversial topic, a lot of "red pill" thinking was focused on answering the question, "How come even though I did everything I was told women want, my wife divorced me anyway?"
Some of the popular answers (well, popular among the politically correct anyway) include, "You weren't in the top percent, she settled for you when she wanted children and moved on once she had them" (whether true or not, this is a corollary to the 10%/20%/whatever figure and the source of a lot of the ugly griping about women's behavior when they're "hitting the wall" and such), and "What you were told women want is either incomplete or false, here's what makes you more attractive instead" (which I think – not meaning to put words in his mouth of course – I suspect is the sort of advice our host is referring to when he says that secular men's influencers often have more accurate accounts of relations between the sexes, and which to the point here dovetails a bit better with the idea that you probably can and certainly should try to pull yourself up towards the category of men who "have it together" and can pursue their goals in life whether romantic or professional, etc.).
One of the more interesting takes I've ever heard, by the way, put those two things together and said that while "red pill" accounts of attraction and sex are mostly correct as far as, well, attraction and sex, that on the other hand when women want marriage or children they are in fact more inclined towards the men who behave the way society says women want, i.e. empathetically and trustworthily and such, and that therefore you need _both_ the attractiveness qualities and the trustworthiness qualities. I'm always surprised this idea of a balancing act doesn't get more play among red-pill-adjacent but Christian commentators. Not only would it explain a lot about romance, but in my experience something like it rings true even outside of intimate relationships: if you're going in for a job interview for instance, you have to showcase your strengths to be attractive, then listen to what they need and try to build a connection and convince them you care about them and what they care about etc.
This is great. More of this, please.
We need aspiration. No greatness without aspiration.
Thank you.
"Good morning men,
We're going to win."
At least that's how I saw this post... And I liked it.
This is great, Aaron.
If there was a way to regurgitate the worst possible inference from the absolute mess of society and male/female dystopia - this has to be it.
Damn, 10 minutes on Hoemath and a man could figure out that the top 10% of men "have it really good". But this isn't encouragement. In comes off as crass and snobbish. If there was a reasonable justification for violent marxism, it would look something like this. And if things continue, maybe it'll happen. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of arrogant people.
That 10% figure is ridiculous - the range of men who are attractive to women is VASTLY higher than that. According to the US Census, 60% of men over 15 years of age have children, and given that the average age of fathers is much higher at around 30, that must mean that at least three quarters of US men are chosen by women to have children, probably more. I'm sick of hearing men on hoemaths and other youtube Blackpill sites pretending that women just want the Top 20%/10%/5%/1% of men. It is defeatest BS.
As one manosphere guru who was more marriage-oriented once put it, back in the day: "Of course, your preferred woman is only attracted to the top 10% of men. But you don't have to be in the top 10% of all men everywhere as perceived by a hypothetical average woman. You only have to be in *her* top ten percent specifically, according to her personal tastes for what she's attracted to and in the pool of men she actually knows."
It’s true that men who have their act together have it good right now. Especially when women graduate college more than men do (it’s close to 3 women for every 2 men) and usually want a man who is also college-educated, leading to an advantage in the dating market. A man who has a degree, stays away from weed, and isn’t addicted to video games or sports betting already has a huge advantage.
But this also makes the flip side true: the men who are unsuccessful are really failing. There are many young men today that are basically locked out of the relationship market. Women no longer need to marry men anymore to be provided for. Those men, the ones that feel like they’re left-over or obsolete, are the ones that Reeves worries about.
Have you seen the vast amount of losers who still get relationships with women if they want them? You don't need to be a champion to get laid in the US or even to get a woman to bear your children. This is one of the fakest thematics going in the redpill space. The most ordinary Average Joe can EASILY get a wife if he makes the effort to court a woman and is realistic about who he pursues.
It's important to account for how many of those folks stay together though. Back before incels were the hot controversial topic, a lot of "red pill" thinking was focused on answering the question, "How come even though I did everything I was told women want, my wife divorced me anyway?"
Some of the popular answers (well, popular among the politically correct anyway) include, "You weren't in the top percent, she settled for you when she wanted children and moved on once she had them" (whether true or not, this is a corollary to the 10%/20%/whatever figure and the source of a lot of the ugly griping about women's behavior when they're "hitting the wall" and such), and "What you were told women want is either incomplete or false, here's what makes you more attractive instead" (which I think – not meaning to put words in his mouth of course – I suspect is the sort of advice our host is referring to when he says that secular men's influencers often have more accurate accounts of relations between the sexes, and which to the point here dovetails a bit better with the idea that you probably can and certainly should try to pull yourself up towards the category of men who "have it together" and can pursue their goals in life whether romantic or professional, etc.).
One of the more interesting takes I've ever heard, by the way, put those two things together and said that while "red pill" accounts of attraction and sex are mostly correct as far as, well, attraction and sex, that on the other hand when women want marriage or children they are in fact more inclined towards the men who behave the way society says women want, i.e. empathetically and trustworthily and such, and that therefore you need _both_ the attractiveness qualities and the trustworthiness qualities. I'm always surprised this idea of a balancing act doesn't get more play among red-pill-adjacent but Christian commentators. Not only would it explain a lot about romance, but in my experience something like it rings true even outside of intimate relationships: if you're going in for a job interview for instance, you have to showcase your strengths to be attractive, then listen to what they need and try to build a connection and convince them you care about them and what they care about etc.