Is It Harder For A Guy To Get A Girlfriend Then A Girl To Get A Boyfriend?

[Badger]

Women offer beauty indeed, but way more that that. Women are much better than men at giving to children, and rearing them. An immense contribution. That's just for starters.

Really? Sexist much?

 

[Badger]

Yeah, right. Garbage in/out applies to you too and with much more specificity than me. You're the one with the anti-Catholic bigotry expressed under the specious guise of Jesuits-rule-the-world lunatic conspiracy theories. (And I am not a Catholic.) Go yank the splinter out of your own eyes before finding fault - especiallay non-existent fault - with others. I think Jesus said something along those lines while condemning hypocrites.

Your last two sources:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ “The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. “
- It doesn’t seem to promote much culture but certainly promotes the scapegoating of Jews and other racist ideologies.

thechosenites.wordpress.com “Instead of just defeatist whinging and moaning and groaning about the Yid – as is the case with so many websites and blogs – it gives you a solid weapon to wield against him!"
- Also filled with anti-Jewish propaganda as well as some Flat Earth psyops for you science buffs.

I think the saying garbage in, garbage out applies and would explain some of your more alt-right beliefs.

 

[Badger]

Everybody has a will, stupid and intelligent. But how strong it is varies.

I thought being stupid means you don’t have a will.

 

[DaveFoster]

Would not be ideal solution, if you are right, but it would be better than it is now. Problem, as I stated it, on further reflection, is not too many stupid people. It's too many willfully stupid people. Non-willful stupid people can be corrected and are willing to change if given good information and resources. The willfully stupid can't, and they comprise enough of the overall stupid to stymie serious improvement.

Our education system trains youths to respect authority rather than truth. It doesn't matter if they're exposed to new knowledge because the method of inquiry involves proving one's assumptions, rather than being informed by reality. The bucket's full of holes, so it doesn't matter the quality of the water (knowledge) or strength of the rope (capacity for learning.)

 

[Deleted member 5487]

Maybe with more intelligent people, society would be like academia.

... oh, wait a minute.

Academia is the worst thing to walk this earth.
My professor yesterday said after my group presentation

"****** next time if you could stand up with the rest of the group since you are a white male people might assume you are an ***hole for sitting while the rest of the group presents"

Even though i was working the slides and scrolling through the power point on the laptop.

I have never felt more discriminated agianst.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

I'm watching a great wildlife show done in 2009, Life, with David Attenborough. It is amazing. Simply amazing.

But the thing is, these are animals. They are not conscious of outcomes and consequences, and behave the same way each time presented with similar circumstances, more or less.

This chart is very depressing if you take it at face value. There is 5% truth in it. But 95% not. Because if you turn it around, you have the two "top" groups doomed to bedding one girl after another, to having it "easy" and to never really discovering happiness with one person.

It is very Red Pill, a la Reddit, and if you've been there you know what a wellspring of unhappiness is there.

I have found that there are other "programs" men can run that bring them deep happiness, lots and lots of sex, and incredible attachment. It is a recipe for great happiness available to anyone. Of course, it is never easy to go from point A, where we are, to point B, the Promised Land. Never easy.

I think women have it JUST as tough as men, in finding a satisfactory long term relationship because like men they are really not very circumspect about the "programs" they are running. They are largely unaware of how they are following automatic programs that do not make them happy.

Quite often (usually), women today give up on "men" and are living alone. I see this ALL the time. It is quite sad because they just don't know what options they have open to them...

I am confused on your point?

Monogomaoues relationships are essential for society, but grounded in nature? I think not. Similar to other apes harems and hierarchical relationships are completely nature.

Females giving up on men are simply not accepting beta males and providers, since every gene in their body screams top 10% who will not settle for them.

Without females selectivity, humanity would never have reached this point in evolution.

 

[sladerunner69]

Our education system trains youths to respect authority rather than truth. It doesn't matter if they're exposed to new knowledge because the method of inquiry involves proving one's assumptions, rather than being informed by reality. The bucket's full of holes, so it doesn't matter the quality of the water (knowledge) or strength of the rope (capacity for learning.)

Interesting, do you think you could describe a better system of education? As in, on a practical level, what would such a school model actually look like? Classes that do not provide lectures and don't take attendance? Classes that don't administer tests and exams?

I have heard quite a few people talk about this on this forum, but few of them have ever offered anything resembling a solution.

 

[LUH 3417]

Did not intend at all to come across as condescending in manner I expressed myself. But by putting myself in your place and trying to look at that from your POV, I can see you have cause for objecting to it. I'd likely feel same way if things were reversed. So I apologize if it made you feel bad, truly, and in this and any other instance I came across that way. Will try to do better next time. (Not to say there are not others that I would consciously choose to act such a way towards, but you, never.)

Your answer below is fine, as it gives me a start in how to think about it. But if you don't mine, let me pose my question another way that's slightly personal and maybe more concrete: since you seem to be pretty open about conspiracy theories of say, CIA influencing the public in bad ways - which is fine, I think they do too - does it not occur to you there is something maybe just a little odd that anthropology, the most ideal field for studying racial characteristics, seems to ignore doing science on this and for so long? Even though I know terribly little about the field, it just seems to me there is something weird about this omission, no matter their Marxist slant and and skepticism about objectivity. Perhaps my expectations are misplaced, but I would think quite sincerely that a person as open to conspiracy theory as you would have a similar curiosity to this angle. Though you were not at graduate school level, I would think you are much closer to that academic world than I could possibly be and hence be able to have some insight, which is why I ask you. I constantly look at all kinds of things, left, right, liberal, conservative, all religions, FOX and MSNBC, Marxist, alt right, etc., etc. to avoid confirmation bias and get at the truth objectively as possible. Some pretty intelligent, scholary stuff I have lately seen on race in alt right and non-alt right sites makes me want to understand this issue more reliably.

I think anthropologists were 100% used by the CIA and other agencies to cultivate or foment certain movements. They were basically agents of culture and were very useful to the CIA. I did a quick google search and found this
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Anthropology-Pentagon-Growth/dp/0822361256

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1849...=FH415HNMJ8MSPD5TAY9E&dpPl=1&dpID=41N3oybWU1L

I also remember reading in the book thy will be done, which is about Rockefeller and oil and evangelism in South America, how anthropologists were extremely useful and necessary to converting and displacing indigenous people.

I don’t think the CIA is currently recruiting undergrads and turning them into Marxists in order to become PhDs and brainwash other undergrads. Whatever communist sympathies my professors had seemed very genuine and that’s why I mentioned Taussig because he wrote an entire book on commodity fetishism and his academic career includes a cultural critique of capitalism and specifically states how anthropology is responsible for critiquing both western and capitalist culture.

From Wikipedia: His polemic is that the principal concern of anthropology should be to critique Western (specifically, capitalist) culture. He further argues that people living in the periphery of the world capitalist economy have a critical vantage point on capitalism, and articulate their critiques of capitalism in terms of their own cultural idioms. He thus concludes that anthropologists should study peoples living on the periphery of the world capitalist economy as a way of gaining critical insight into the anthropologists' own culture. In short, this polemic shifts the anthropologists' object of study from that of other cultures to that of their own, and repositions the former objects of anthropological study (e.g. indigenous peoples) as valued critical thinkers.

It’s just way too earnest of a stance for me to be skeptical of it as CIA. I could definitely be wrong though.

In terms of race, I think anthropology wants to distance itself from any affiliation it may have with eugenics, and make reparations for its dark past by working towards indigenous causes. Like I said, I think it steers clear from any objective studies on race because it lacks the tools for objectivity, and is more comfortable promoting concepts like agency of dispossessed people - namely indigenous people. An anthropologist today would be far more likely to write a book on the reasons why concepts of racial variation exist in a culture, than a book on those proposed variations.

 

[Pulstar]

Females giving up on men are simply not accepting beta males and providers, since every gene in their body screams top 10% who will not settle for them.

Regardless of the exact reasons, it just shows that it's as difficult to find a partner for a woman, as for a man. Looks are good to have, but it's not "be all end all".

 

[Deleted member 5487]

Regardless of the exact reasons, it just shows that it's as difficult to find a partner for a woman, as for a man. Looks are good to have, but it's not "be all end all".

Expectations are too high

There is a surplus of provider males in any city in our society. The split is 80% provider males/20% paramours.

Female ovulation seeks the most dominant genetics when most fertile, and resourceful males with worse genetics the rest of the time.

Find a attractive dominant man willing to provide is futile for 98% of women. Only 2-3 females out of 100 can pull this off.

The rest get to read about it in 50 shades of grey.

There is a surplus of resourceful men genetically inclined to provide in hopes of reproducing.

Your biology simply won't be attracted to him, so u don't even bat him a glance.

Which is why it's "difficult" to find a partner.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I am confused on your point?

Monogomaoues relationships are essential for society, but grounded in nature? I think not. Similar to other apes harems and hierarchical relationships are completely nature.

Females giving up on men are simply not accepting beta males and providers, since every gene in their body screams top 10% who will not settle for them.

Without females selectivity, humanity would never have reached this point in evolution.

You completely missed all my points. Because you are looking through the filter of the Red Pill, genetic pre-destiny et cetera, I think.

Women give up on men because today, dating is very difficult due to social media and technology replacing the male-female interactions that were taking place up until maybe 5 years ago.

"Every gene" in her body, really? Doesn't that depend? Maybe a 20 year old young woman, but is this true for a 50 year old?

And my point again is this:

1. There are genetic programs.
2. We as humans can free ourselves from the tyranny of these programs if we want to.
3. We do it all the time.
4. Animals do not.
5. We can run programs that exist inside us that cause us to be very happy, simple hacks really, that bypass the shitty programs altogether.

Monogamy is in fact NOT just for society, it is also a happier condition in general for most men and women. We pursue what has been called "serial monogamy" but still, it's a form of monogamy.

People get older. As they do, their passage in life changes. They have children. The children grow up. They get sick. They become unsexually marketable. Monogamy with real love can create a happy life at all ages. Nothing else really can.

 

[LUH 3417]

Expectations are too high

There is a surplus of provider males in any city in our society. The split is 80% provider males/20% paramours.

Female ovulation seeks the most dominant genetics when most fertile, and resourceful males with worse genetics the rest of the time.

Find a attractive dominant man willing to provide is futile for 98% of women. Only 2-3 females out of 100 can pull this off.

The rest get to read about it in 50 shades of grey.

There is a surplus of resourceful men genetically inclined to provide in hopes of reproducing.

Your biology simply won't be attracted to him, so u don't even bat him a glance.

Which is why it's "difficult" to find a partner.

What is your definition of most dominant genetics when most fertile? What if the woman is fertile and in poor health but her health changes dramatically during pregnancy and produces a healthy and intelligent child? There are so many variables

 

[Cirion]

Dunno if it has been said in here (probably has), but my 2c is that the reason why it's difficult for both genders these days is also simply because we're so unhealthy (both genders). Unhealthy men are going to lack the drive to pursue women, and conversely, you notice a lot of women these days seem to have mental disorders, which makes them less desirable to the men (just look at the red pill reddit and see how many men complain about crazy women, and my granted I'm n=1, but my ex was bipolar), and the reason for these disorders is primarily a result of so much stress in today's culture both from bad diets, bad environment, etc, and the fact that the vast majority of women don't take of their health either.

Red pill has lots of great thoughts and I do think women tend to have certain tendencies, such as hypergamy, but there's so much negativity and hate on those forums that I stopped reading them. You can easily realize female nature and get mad at it, but imo the main takeaway from RP is to work on yourself anyway, not to worry about what others do or what they think of you. Besides, there's plenty of "hypergamy" among high quality men too anyway, it's hardly a unique female trait. It's more like a human trait. It's in our nature to want to best for ourselves, and why not? The thought of spending the rest of your life with someone less than ideal for you can and should scare you.

 

[LUH 3417]

Dunno if it has been said in here (probably has), but my 2c is that the reason why it's difficult for both genders these days is also simply because we're so unhealthy (both genders). Unhealthy men are going to lack the drive to pursue women, and conversely, you notice a lot of women these days seem to have mental disorders, which makes them less desirable to the men (just look at the red pill reddit and see how many men complain about crazy women, and my granted I'm n=1, but my ex was bipolar), and the reason for these disorders is primarily a result of so much stress in today's culture both from bad diets, bad environment, etc, and the fact that the vast majority of women don't take of their health either.

Red pill has lots of great thoughts and I do think women tend to have certain tendencies, such as hypergamy, but there's so much negativity and hate on those forums that I stopped reading them. You can easily realize female nature and get mad at it, but imo the main takeaway from RP is to work on yourself anyway, not to worry about what others do or what they think of you. Besides, there's plenty of "hypergamy" among high quality men too anyway, it's hardly a unique female trait. It's more like a human trait.

I disagree. People have always been crazy. And there have always been famines, nutritional deficiencies, less than optimal environments and societies. There was just way more pressure on having kids and staying married. Once that stopped being the norm people started choosing different lifestyles.

 

[Cirion]

I disagree. People have always been crazy. And there have always been famines, nutritional deficiencies, less than optimal environments and societies. There was just way more pressure on having kids and staying married. Once that stopped being the norm people started choosing different lifestyles.

Fair enough... we probably just hear about it more because of social media and the internet.

However, we've never had more options than ever before in modern culture though. Even the most attractive of women probably never had more than a few dozen potential suitors before the internet, but now all one has to do is get on Tinder or POF or whatever and literally have thousands of options.

Ironically, this illusion of more options actually makes it harder to choose. I'm trying to remember the study I saw about this, but basically a few people were told to choose between 4-5 delicious cupcakes and then told to choose from a list of like 100. They found it was significantly harder to choose when they had more options.

This is why I say that the advent of the internet has actually killed dating. No one has to commit any more because there's always another option just around the corner, something seemingly more alluring and better.

 

[LUH 3417]

Fair enough... we probably just hear about it more because of social media and the internet.

However, we've never had more options than ever before in modern culture though. Even the most attractive of women probably never had more than a few dozen potential suitors before the internet, but now all one has to do is get on Tinder or POF or whatever and literally have thousands of options.

Ironically, this illusion of more options actually makes it harder to choose. I'm trying to remember the study I saw about this, but basically a few people were told to choose between 4-5 delicious cupcakes and then told to choose from a list of like 100. They found it was significantly harder to choose when they had more options.

People also didn’t really date before. You would marry someone from your town or who your parents knew. Arranged or pseudo arranged marriages were normative.

 

[LUH 3417]

Fair enough... we probably just hear about it more because of social media and the internet.

However, we've never had more options than ever before in modern culture though. Even the most attractive of women probably never had more than a few dozen potential suitors before the internet, but now all one has to do is get on Tinder or POF or whatever and literally have thousands of options.

Ironically, this illusion of more options actually makes it harder to choose. I'm trying to remember the study I saw about this, but basically a few people were told to choose between 4-5 delicious cupcakes and then told to choose from a list of like 100. They found it was significantly harder to choose when they had more options.

This is why I say that the advent of the internet has actually killed dating. No one has to commit any more because there's always another option just around the corner, something seemingly more alluring and better.

I just don’t see how all of this is exclusively bad and terrible for humanity. Things sucked before. Having new openings and possibilities can just lead to other openings and potentialities.

 

[Cirion]

People also didn’t really date before. You would marry someone from your town or who your parents knew. Arranged or pseudo arranged marriages were normative.

Perhaps, depending on the culture at least. I'm not necessarily saying it was better or worse overall today or yesterday, more like each generation has its own unique challenges. And I'd never want to do away with the internet, overall I do think it has improved our lives. Just have to make the best of the generation that you live in. And I think that's one of the reasons many of us post here at RP so that we can improve ourselves :)

I used to just complain and whine about the current state of affairs, but that was my poor health speaking. Now as I improve my health, I realize that things are not actually that bad, and I can do plenty to improve myself and make living a lot more enjoyable.

 

[LUH 3417]

Perhaps, depending on the culture at least. I'm not necessarily saying it was better or worse overall today or yesterday, more like each generation has its own unique challenges. And I'd never want to do away with the internet, overall I do think it has improved our lives. Just have to make the best of the generation that you live in. And I think that's one of the reasons many of us post here at RP so that we can improve ourselves :)

I used to just complain and whine about the current state of affairs, but that was my poor health speaking. Now as I improve my health, I realize that things are not actually that bad, and I can do plenty to improve myself and make living a lot more enjoyable.

Yes I agree. My grandmother had to marry my grandfather because she was picking asparagus or something in the field and he pulled down her pants. Her parents were so mortified they forced her to marry him because they thought she’d never get married off and it was a shame to the family. She had her first baby at 17. I’m so glad I live in a world where that doesn’t need to be the life that any future daughter of mine is destined for. That I have to marry her off to some prick who mooned her because I feel ashamed.

 

[x-ray peat]

Yeah, right. Garbage in/out applies to you too and with much more specificity than me. You're the one with the anti-Catholic bigotry expressed under the specious guise of Jesuits-rule-the-world lunatic conspiracy theories. (And I am not a Catholic.) Go yank the splinter out of your own eyes before finding fault - especiallay non-existent fault - with others. I think Jesus said something along those lines while condemning hypocrites.

Nice deflection. Your knowledge of the Bible is obviously superficial. Christians are actually called to judge between right and wrong and to correct our Brothers, but to do so with humility and the knowledge of our own sins.

Saying something negative about an order of 20,000 Jesuit priests is not the same as being against over a billion Catholics. Numerous Popes, Catholic Kings and Statesmen, Priests and ex-Jesuits have all said much worse than I about the Jesuits. They have been kicked out of over 80 countries, many of which were Catholic, for attempting to subvert their Governments and committing all sorts of evil acts.

Was Pope Clement anti-Catholic for issuing a Papal Bull abolishing the Jesuits forever because of their misdeeds and thereby sealing his death by their hands? Was the Catholic General Marquis de Lafayette anti-Catholic when he said. “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.”

Only someone lacking any knowledge of the real history of the world would think being anti-Jesuit is the same as being anti-Catholic.

But by all means, keep reading and posting from your White Supremacist blogs. Just don’t think that the source of your eugenic or racist intellectual gems won’t be pointed out.

BTW the Bible also says “Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.”