Frosty

I actually have this dilemma myself, I am an atheist agnostic. However a great many of the nu-atheists that came from the liberal/SJW movement are fairly leftwing people. Before I started to identify as MGTOW probably about >5 years ago, I would actively try and date and I couldn't wrap my head around the idea of dating someone with genuine religious beliefs, I didn't think i'd be able to respect that person, it'd be like dating someone who genuinely thinks Father Christmas is real. Fast forward maybe 4 years and I'm a MGTOW and I tend to keep an eye on how the dating scene is evolving and changing, mostly with the intention to just verify my position is actually a rational one. But then I started to 180 my position on theists, mostly from FDR and learning that what you really need to look for more than anything else is virtues and values. So just out of intellectual curiosity I went back and changed my dating profile filters to allow religious women and the profiles are a lot better on average, purely from my anecdotal experience. I've started to see the benefits of traditional marriage, it's basically better in about every way we can reasonably measure which is why I feel like I've become more right wing. It's certainly an odd position because I am liberal about some things like gay marriage, and libertarian at core, but definitely do recognize that if you want to do the family unit thing, then there's already a good template for how to do it. One of the biggest things I've been thinking about for maybe 2 years is how do we replace the values religion has instilled in people, because it's a fact, religion is going away, at least in the UK, at about 1% per year. Tracking the national census 2001 was 15% non religious, 2011 was 25% non religious. We want to do away with the irrational stuff that conflicts with science, reason and evidence. But ideally we need a replacement for the moral/values part. That's not to say that biblical morality is perfect, it's downright awful in places, but the basics seem to be there. That's something I'm coming to believe more strongly as I listen to lectures by a guy called Jordan B Peterson, check him out, interesting Dawinian take on religion. The point is we need rational and secular replacements for the masses, most people do not think deeply about this and so liberalism has become very much anything goes morally. This whole "find a good woman" thing is so terribly naive in my opinion, sure we want to avoid the state machinery that sucks up fathers and husbands, drains them of all their money and assets, takes their kids away and spits them back out. Just find a good woman, yeah right. Just looking at the ratio of women to men with FDR shows you the maths wont ever work out for this strategy. World is a mess and I default back to my position of MGTOW, stay away from this horrible horrible mess because it ain't worth traversing this particular minefield.

Going to see this in Norwich UK on the 18th, there's screenings for the 18th and 19th. Cassie is also going to be there, so will Erin, which is awesome. So excited, I can't wait. Glad I backed the kickstarter for this all those years ago,

Basically this. The statistics on bottlenecks to sex are well known. Women are picky and selective so men have to bring their A game and put a lot of effort in. Men are generally horny dogs (or a lot are) which means being a slut it easy. Doing something hard gets you recognition and doing something easy to excess is generally frowned upon, kind of like a type of gluttony. There's also a supply/demand balance that women collectively benefit from, the less the supply of sex the more value it has, and so it can be used to get presents, meals, jewelry, etc. When women devalue it by being slutty then they increase the supply and the value drops.

I try not to engage in discussion with women that is likely to lead to them being upset about something, it simply isn't worth it because you'll never in a million years get something rational out of them, so why bother. The few times women have seen fit to sling insults or get angry I don't recall being called crazy. Remember that women are much better social manipulators than men, they've evolved with social manipulation as a primary strategy for having agency in the world, they're also trained around other girls from a young age to socialize and manipulate through their play. I would make a stab in the dark that you're sensitive to this particular insult. Has it been used any more than the others, or is it confirmation bias where you remember that particular insult more than others. What women choose to call you won't be random, it will be designed (albeit it unconsciously) to do the most amount of damage. And women can feel out your personality quite well over time. So for example if you have a deep worry that you'll turn out like your father, and he was hypothetically a drunk or whatever, then they'll shout something like "you're just like your dad". So question. Does that insult bother you more than others? If so why? Do you think you outwardly project anything that would tell a woman that it would be a particuarly damaging insult to you? Those are HARD questions to answer on your own because of your subjective bias. If you have a close female friend then speak to them about it and ask them those questions.

I've been a MGTOW for about 4 years and live alone. It's sustainable for me so far. We have a brilliant service in our area called Deliveroo which allows you to order food from a restaurant locally and have it shipped to you, so I order that about 3 times a week for food, you get restaurant quality food to your door for a delivery fee of about £2.50, otherwise there's takeaway delivery, and the other days I just eat things like microwave meals. I literally cannot be bothered to cook, no point. Most normal days there's a sandwich lady at work who visits and I buy salads/greens from her to stay a bit more healthy. Long term you have to balance out the costs, there's savings if you share a home, rent and bills. But then also you're going to spend a lot on her, probably gifts while you're courting, an expensive wedding, and then the biggest of all costs are children. Most married couples have children and they're super expensive, this is where long term you make your bank. Children cost something in the region of £250,000 as a minimum to raise and it can be a lot more depending on things like if you go private school route and have to pay for tuition. Living alone isn't a problem for anyone who isn't a total mong. Get on a career ladder and you can be earning more than enough cash for the bachelor lifestyle. And you get to spend all of your money on yourself. I'm saving for a mortgage at the moment and get to drop silly money into my savings account each month. It happened in Rome shortly before the fall of Rome. The native Roman population in the major cities had become rich through owning land during the aggressive expansion of the empire. Roman men became lazy fatcats who didn't care for wives or children, they were just seen as an unnecessary burden. The native birth rate plummeted way below replacement rate. In the end they put in a bachelor tax for unmarried men and for married men without children, but the Roman men just paid the tax and went on with their lives. Interestingly it was the monks who wanted to remain celibate for religious reasons who turned over the laws. It's also happening in a more advanced stage in Japan, men are checking out in massive numbers, they tend to be called Herbivore men or "grass eaters" who have little to no interest in long term relationships with women, their birthrate is way below replacement rate at the moment.

I think it's worth understanding that many of these things are hardwired biological responses, they're not reasoned. And you have to be careful about the cause and effect, not getting these 2 things flipped. During humans early development, men capable of providing and protecting gave the genes of women a survival advantage. The men that acquired these resources displayed outward indicators of their success, which is generally more confidence and more alpha traits of dominance and many cases charity, which in the case of charity to beta males created social hierarchy. The women who evolved a strategy of being attracted to alpha male traits were more likely to sexually interact with the alpha and thus more likely to pass on those qualities in their genes. Game is just a modern day attempt to recreate those qualities. One of your points correctly shows that women aren't always interested in a mans resources, especially if she has a lot herself, but remember the attraction is not to resources but to what indicate the resources, which is the confidence and the alpha male traits. And because that biology evolved over a long period of time, it's not going away any time soon, and PUA make use of that fact to get laid. Game isn't used to pick partners for long term relationships, a large number of the people using it are simply interested in getting laid and are logically picking the shortest line between 2 points. The more tricky thing about relationships where this becomes a grey area for me is that I believe virtue is a better reason to pick a partner than for just biological attraction, but does the existence of game directly conflict with virtue? I'm not so sure. What I believe for sure is that it's not a direct replacement, that you need to display virtue to attract other virtuous people, but I suspect that certain elements of game can be used in addition to that to increase your chances. Intelligence certainly isn't a moral virtue, and so while an intelligent female might understand when they're being gamed and reject the man, what you might lose in virtuous intelligent women you might be able to gain in virtuous attractive women, and that seems like a reasonable trade off for many men. Some elements of game may be considered fraud in the context of negotiating a relationship though and so plausibly a violation of the NAP. Outside of that I see it as relatively harmless, a kind of "male makeup", women boost their attractiveness to men with makeup. Intelligent men know why this works and may reject women who use it a lot, but what women lose in intelligent men they gain in having greater pick of attractive men, or men with other qualities they prefer.

Go to the police, they have a process for escalating punishment for harassment, if you have reasonable grounds for a restraining order then any such further action is punished severely because the person harassing is given a warning to stop and boundaries they should not exceed, which seems reasonable to me. However my gut tells me we don't have the entire story here, that someone that persistent is likely either doing it for some reason which we don't see here, maybe the girl is pregnant with his kid, or she owes him money, or whatever it is. Or that the guy in question has some kind of mental imbalance that doesn't allow him to deal with loss/breakup. It's rare that people are just crazy and risk harassing other people for literally no reason at all, which is kind of the premise we're implicitly being asked to accept in this scenario. Given the police response that there was circumstances leading to the breakup that matter, we'd need to understand what those circumstances were, and ideally from a 3rd party impartial person who could tell us without bias. It's super easy when you hear only one side of a story to assume who the bad guy is here. You see this kind of hilarious 180 degree flips in understanding from things like reddit posts on relationships where a woman comes in and tells this torturous story of woe and the guy finds it and posts his side of the story and suddenly we learn actually he's been extremely reasonable and she's been manipulative to both him and the readers.

I see no reason to believe that a smart, moral and virtuous person must never use makeup, or that use of it necessarily implies the lack of those things. It is however a red flag for me, if a woman uses makeup and sexual attraction alone to net a partner, then it could be reasonably assumed that she is primarily interested in men who are interested in her for her looks. However if you meet a woman who displays virtuous traits and looks for virtuous traits in people she is romantically interested in, but also happens to wear makeup, then I see no problem with that at all, it's something that needs to be seen in context. As humans we're hard wired to enjoy certain things and there's nothing wrong with indulging those desires, it's kinda like saying if a man takes you out on a date and he pays for an expensive restaurant that serves 5 star food, then be on the lookout as he might be trying to buy your affection. There's nothing wrong with enjoy good food or enjoying an attractive face, it just can't be the primary motivator for a relationship if you want long term happiness. I wouldn't be outspoken against makeup or even particularly supportive of women who don't wear it, that's the wrong end of the stick. Just continue to champion virtue. Why not have it all, virtue, attractive looking mate and good food?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, most humans have at least some empathy which is triggered by outward physical indicators of distress. In some senses my understanding of it is more logical than it is emotional, the crying really doesn't trigger empathy in me and I don't lack empathy in many other situations so something odd is going on. I think because it feels like we've waged war with these people for so long, a war in which we're fighting to stop them from robbing more of our money and assets through force, we find it hard to emphasize with someone who does not reciprocate it. I can put myself into their mindset enough to know why they're upset and if you are an "emotional thinker" then it's not a surprise to see an overly emotional reaction to the result. And I can even understand in their world view why they think trump is a Monster/Hitler/Super Villain. But what really pushes me over the edge where I take almost a perverse pleasure in their suffering, and why I think it's justified, is that these people think they're so morally virtuous and so smug about being right, and they didn't think Trump stood a chance, it was hilarious to them that he might win (see audience reaction on Ann Coulters prediciton of a Trump win on the Bill Maher show). The emotion is real but the suffering really isn't, most of these people are liberal middle class white women, they're among some of the most protected people on the planet, they've never had to work a dangerous job, or ever been left unprotected by men, these are some of the most entitled people on earth. Their lives are so good the thing that makes them break down crying is an election loss. Anyone who is hard because they went through rough childhoods or had/has to work in a dangerous job, or has a disability they overcame, or were abandoned or abused and had to fight on their own...these people understand that crying at this kind of crap show you're a very sheltered person. It's like the person who whines about having to go to the dentist to have an injection to numb an area for drilling. Complaining about the pinch is something you only do when you've never felt the absolute agonizing pain of an exposed nerve in a cavity. It betrays their lack of perspective.

I think in the case where significant damage is done and where there's heavy reliance on the government by many, simply kicking the crutch away would be an enormously bad idea, we're talking about the likely deaths of many people as they fail to be able to support themselves, a power vacuum that would almost certainly be filled by something undesirable. If I got to personally pick a future for America, and really the world, it's that we'd gradually lessen government and wean people off and gradually lower the amount of violence and coercion in the process. I've discussed this before on this board with libertarians or anarchists who are so principled that they'd prefer to just snap their fingers and end government. That's why if I was a US citizen I'd vote Trump, not because his policies are best or align with my own beliefs, but because they're CLOSER to what I believe than any other party/candidate who actually stands a chance of winning. With the hope that if people see the benefits of less tax and smaller government, then people will change the way they vote to reflect that, for more freedom, and keep repeating this process until government is negligibly small. Many drug addicts are successfully weaned off drugs by continuing to administer smaller and smaller doses of either the drug or some chemical equivalent, and that typically causes less pain and discomfort to the drug user and has less chance of a relapse that comes with people who go cold turkey.

It might come down to the type of lie, lies of omission such as leaving out skills you do have or leaving out other work placements I wouldn't personally consider immoral, it's an assumption by the employer that your CV covers everything, it's their responsibility to ensure you're appropriate for the position and not yours, that means they need to check the facts they care about. Other types of lies such as presenting false information, for example altering the period you've worked for prior employees could be construed as fraud I guess (not fraud by any legal standard I'm aware of), which is broadly against the NAP, you are misleading someone else for your own benefit at their expense. It's plausible an employer might tie terms of contract to information you've provided being accurate which if later discovered would be seen as a breach of contract which and you'd have to suffer whatever agreed penalty that came with.

My predictions are that if we see collapse it wil predominantly be economic, I don't think we need to worry about cabins in woods or guns, I don't think food will stop being produced or that shelter will collapse and water stop pumping. What'll happen is that people with assets and savings will get completely wiped out, which means you need a safe place to invest your money. That can be overseas in more economically stable regions or in physical assets with some intrinsic value such as precious metals. One convenient ways to buy gold which you can spend with a credit card type deal is with Peter Schiffs gold banks, i think it's EuroPac, you can buy gold which he holds overseas and you spend gold through a typical card and you spend gold at its current value against the currency. Don't look to gold to save you from societal collapse, no one is going to trade gold at the end of the world, instead it's really just a good mechanism to sustain value through economic upheaval. You want to make sure that when the currency crashes and eventually builds back up to where it was, that the value you have stored is the same and not completely demolished. Any assets held in the currency that crashes will become worthless. I think food hording is generally silly, if things get that bad then what you'll need is guns because if no one else is prepared and you are, then people are going to be coming for your stuff.

Sex is determined by genetics, the XX and XY chromosome pairs, in "normal" human growth that covers the vast majority of the population and has been the working mechanism powering evolution by creating diversity from which nature selects. These genetic differences in sex leads to typical differences in physical and mental characteristics, testosterone produced by men makes us more aggressive and bigger risk takers for example, men are taller on average etc. Outside of genetic abnormalities or illness sex has largely stayed a binary distinction. Sex is entirely nature and nothing to do with nurture. Gender and sense of gender identity is a term which has changed with usage over time, as our understanding has improved. Gender identity is thought to be set during fetal development while the brain structure is developing, spikes in testosterone at certain weeks can cause permanent changes in brain structure and give males a more female orientated brain and females a more male orientated brain. So a sense of gender identity is also nature, whether that be congenital conditions or illness, or just environmental, nurture cannot set or undo a sense of gender identity. It can only suppress expression of it. It's worth noting that gender identity leads to a type of gender expression in society and this expression is where nurture comes in, different races evolve different cultures in which gender expression is typically different although shares some commonality, this suggests that gender expression is still influenced by gender identity but not completely. That is to say there is some common elements that are feminine and masculine but this changes in subtle ways from culture to culture. In most of the important ways discussed today it seems like most gender differences come down to evolutionary traits that benefit eiher men or women. So for example females tend to do better on standardized empathy tests and have more interest in helping other people in their careers and personal lives, this would facilitate raising children while men went off to hunt, men tend to be more aggressive this facilitates protection of the family. You can pretty much tell what is a social construct and what isn't if you look to evolutionary biology for reasons we might have these different behaviors, if there's a good evolutionary reason and the trait crosses cultures then odds are its heavily influenced by nature and not by society. Feminists tend to want to believe that apart from sexual organs that men and women are essentially the same and that all differences are due to society, which is getting cause and effect the wrong way around. Sexual dimorphic characteristics that come directly from evolution heavily inform gender expression which then inform societal behaviour, for example we know that people who are over exposed to testosterone as a fetus are more likely to enter the STEM field later in life, irrelevant of whether you're male or female, it's just that typically men are exposed to more testosterone under normal healthy conditions. A good documentary on this investigates these issues, links here https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

It seems obvious to me that HRT would make it harder for male to female trans to compete against other men, and that there would be a natural disadvantage due to inability to grow and maintain muscle mass. However that's not the same thing as saying that they're on par with naturally born females, the smart money would be that because they grew up male for some portion of their life and inherited benefits of being male during important growth periods and formed male skeletal structure but also suffer from diminished capacity that they'd lay somewhere between the average woman and average man in athletic ability. I think it's something for athletes to figure out among themselves, what I'd expect to see is if it becomes a problem people do what they always do in the free market and vote with their feet, move to professional athletic competitions which support your preferred treatment of trans athletes, that is to say if you're a female runner and some trans woman joins the competition and thrashes everyone, stop competing there, go compete elsewhere where trans competitors are not allowed. The free market will sort the rest out.

I'm confused, you obviously use the internet...yet you thought that dating a feminist was going to end well. Can anyone help me out here?

My suspicion is that most of the people in these movements have themselves experienced something horribly negative about men, I watch videos online of feminists trying to hold it together when people from the mens rights movement try and engage in honest dialogue with them but it erupts into emotion and before you know it you'll get pretty much a straight up confession that they were raped or sexually assaulted. There's a reason why most of these people are passionately following social movements, it's why they all look the same as well, glowing colorful hair, face full of piercings or alternative looks, you can spot them a mile off, it's that kind of rebellious "i can do whatever I want" attitude. So you have to really think carefully before going to debate these kinds of people and be realistic what to expect from them, you won't find much intellectual honesty or arguments based on evidence, as you said, a lot of it tends to start from a position of defensive rage. More specifically to address this particular feminist, one thing you have to understand is that often their entire world view is different from most rational people and understanding the difference is a short cut to getting right down where you disagree. A lot of feminists deny there is any difference between men and women, that sex organs are all that is different and all other differences observed are due to social pressures and not inherent to biology. They can't understand that men think differently to women and broadly have different preferences/tastes, this sounds insane to most reasonable people but it's true that a lot of feminists are like this and it's why we see their ideology push for things like 50/50 representation in jobs, because they'll credit lack of women in computing down to the patriarchy before they'll acknowledge that testosterone in boys creates different preferences in the work place. To argue/convince these people you'd need to deconstruct so much about their world view and replace with truth, that they're basically a lost cause. Once they've gone too far down that rabbit hole nothing is going to convincingly correct their world view, it's too much false information crammed in there. Best way to help your children avoid this kind of nonsense is to teach them the benefits of science, reason and evidence. Understanding the scientific method is key, demanding that assertions are backed by rationality, learning formal logic and structure of formal propositions as well as learning how to spot logical fallacies, all this is great stuff which will inoculate them from this kind of devastatingly irrational thinking.

Yes, quite a few. I didn't track stats but rather this is my honest impression after browing probably thousnads of profiles over the years. Women are far more likely to list what they want from a man than describe themselves, confirming they're more interested in what men can do for them (make them laugh, take them on holiday etc) than who they are. The idea that you can spot the feminists and SJWs by things like bright hair and facial piercings and being overweight is basically confirmed. The women done up in a lot of makeup and/or showing cleavage tend to not even bother filling out profiles about them which indicates to me they're shallow and only interested in looks Things like tattoos and pictures that show attitude tend to be from women who have similar profiles full of attitude and all the red flags of having a bad relationship with their father, even to the point where i've literally seen "things I hate - my father" in profiles. Probably the saddest thing of all is that virtues and lack of most of the above tends to occur on profiles of women who are religious, more specifically christian or some denomination, which kind of confirms in my mind that women aren't making a good leap from religious morality and value systems to secular ones. It's sad because I don't think I could bring myself to date someone religious like that but they look like the best prospects for a LTR. Life can be cruel

No this is wrong because the inference is directly supported by the statistics, it's not mathematically possible for women to find 80% of men below average looking because biology is statistically distributed about a mean and that's used in science all the time to work out approximations of accuracy in experiments and studies. It's necessarily the case that perception of what is "average" is actually false and skewed towards the high end, and that fits perfectly with the rest of the data we have about females which is that they're hypergamous and use their sexual market value to date up, this is backed by endless other studies and information such as the fact that women initiate most of the divorces and that reasons listed by women for divorce are things like simply being dissatisfied not because of any kind of pressure to leave such as cheating, domestic violence, etc.

Rage/anger is considered to be a fairly common part of swallowing the Red pill on gender dynamics. I would offer an explanation that anger comes from actually being lied to quite heavily throughout your life about how men and women are, and that when you discover those lies by starting to understand the real nature of women that can be a very angry and bitter time. However I don't think it's reasonable to be angry at women for their behaviour, they're just behaving in ways which their biology informs them, it's probably not what you thought it would be and that sucks but ultimately its up to them to decide to how to live their lives and for us to accept that providing they're not harming anyone else. In other words you ought to be angry with the deceit and not the truth, you're not angry at women you're angry at myriad of little lies that lead you to a false understanding of their nature, and probably a bit angry at yourself for falling for it. What you really need to ask yourself is how do you as a man respond to this. You really have several different options, continue to have faith in blue pill reasoning and pursue women and risk that mess. Go your own way (MGTOW) and just opt out of relationships which is what I do. Or you can go full PUA and use your new found understanding of women to sleep with as many of them as you can for your own pleasure, providing you're not coercing or being fraudulent then that's not in violation of the NAP. One thing is for sure, anger is a legitimate response to injustice and that's fine to express that and get it out your system, places like MGTOW forums where you can just blow through the lines ranting about women are fantastic for this. But if you want to remain healthy emotionally you need to get past that phase, once the bitterness of the red pill is gone you ought to be left with a new (and more accurate) view on life and be in a better position to get what you want, after all to get what you want requires agency and agency comes from rationally understand reality around you so you can manipulate it to your advantage. Having swallowed the red pill something like 5+ years ago and knowing many other men who are post-bitterness I can say that the anger tends to be relatively short lived and women stop being something of a romantic interest and come across...well for me I increasingly get the feeling that a large number of women are "playing" adults in the same way that a child "plays" chef or mechanic. It's more superficial than anything, but if you actually look at things adults do like take responsibility for their actions, have agency, make decisions with consequences rather than rely on safety nets (of parents, government, spouse, whatever) etc, I don't often find this with women.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm simply making an observation that this is the way it is in reality, and I'd go one step further and argue it's not just because men don't step up, it's because female perception of men is skewed and we have really good data on that as well. Go find the OKCupid study done across their dating site regarding females perception of male attractiveness, across a broad selection of females they found that women find 80% of men below average attractiveness, which isn't even mathematically possible. This demonstrates females hypergamous nature, their desire to marry up and get as much resources as their eggs and genetics can get them. This bias in dating isn't anything to do with men not stepping up, it's a perfectly natural imbalance that genetics tells us has existed pretty much throughout our entire past, in fact there's now enough genetic evidence to show that about 80% of women in our genetic history got to reproduce, but only about 40% of men did. I'm not saying there's coercion, what I'm saying is very simple. In the main, one gender has a choice between many different suitors and the other does not, they make many attempts to initiate romantic with people they find suitable and most are shot down but some work. The barrier, or rather the bottleneck to men and women engaging in romantic partnerships is with women, that is completely undeniable at this stage. And that means the choice as to whether a partnership takes place sits predominantly with the women. Picking a partner to have children with is a choice for women, one that has consequences and since they're entirely in control of their choices they have to accept responsibility for if they pick a low quality male. It doesn't excuse bad male behavior but it does lay the responsibility with the women if she ends up in a bad state due to her bad choices, and we have to acknowledge those bad states negatively affect the raising of children and so they own those effects as well. It's sad that holding women responsible for these kinds of decisions is so foreign to so many people and creates such a backlash when you do. We're talking about grown adults who know the repercussions of their actions and the harm that can do to their future children, who are only interested in putting their selfish desires above that of their children when picking men who are completely unsuitable fathers. It's also funny that we observe this behavior in men all the time, when a woman is hot but crazy off her rocker men will generally tell other men "don't stick your dick in crazy" because we actually hold each other accountable for our decisions and if we do start seeing the crazy ones and it blows up in our face then we hold that person accountable for their idiotic decision. Men treat other men like grown adults but many men treat women basically like children, and then we wonder why there's so many failed marriages and single children experience what can only really be described as abuse. We need to hold women accountable for their decisions, something that we once used to do but have completely forgotten about.

They're not anecdotal though, this is based off the fact that 95% of romantic partnerships and/or dating are initiated by men, and you can find this number in studies all over the place, it's not a particularly controversial thing, most people experience this imbalance in real life, it's just that no one ever talks about it. It absolutely does give women power that men don't have, if you have zero suitors who are actively pursuing you like the overwhelming majority of men then you have no choices except for those that you initiate. However women generally speaking have multiple interested people and they get the benefit of picking between those interested people and rejecting those she deems unfit and starting a relationship with who she deems is most appropriate. That's not completely unique to women but it's massively skewed that way and certainly true for the average guy. Whether a date occurs or not is basically down to the woman 95% of the time, she gets to reject the mans advances or not, she get's to decide if there will be a 2nd date or not, she get's to decide to say yes or no to proposal, and yes the stats here mirror the same thing, about 5% of those people married claim the woman did the asking. There's so many good moments in the talk, it's definitely my fave to date and I think I've seen most of his public speaking, he's a funny guy when he wants to be, but the messages he conveys are serious and it all comes across clear and concise so the audience can really absorb it. Seeing someone stand up and actually hold women accountable for their choices is really refreshing, I had a discussion with a friend of mine recently about women and children, he's not married and lives with his partner and they're raising their 2 year old, and he defends women to the very end with excuse after excuse. He claims that I'm "lucky" that I live alone and have myself protected from ever increasingly forceful UK law regarding partners (a bill is going through that allows for alimony claims against partners you live with and have a child with, but aren't married to). People like this just think life is all luck and you can't engineer your own fate, it's depressing to listen to.

Stefans talk at the MRM conference about male violence and the issues stemming from childhood abuse, typically by single mothers, was the single best talks I've ever seen given on this and I agree with him on basically everything. And he reflects my own position on this particular topic very well during the talk. There is a seriously huge imbalance between the sexes when it comes to dating, the statistics show that men approach many different women and initiate most encounters regarding dating and alike, it's about 95% of the time going by most studies. Conversely almost all women have multiple potential suitors approach them and they have the almost unique opportunity of picking between who she wants to date. She then goes through usually a long period of courting and dating to evaluate how virtuous that man is and if that man is the kind of person who would be suitable to father her child and then typically marriage would occur and some time later they would become pregnant. A virtuous man is going to stick around and provide for that baby providing the woman is virtuous and doesn't drive that man away, someone who lacks virtue is a flight risk. The problem is that a huge number of modern women do not pick men for their virtue, they pick men who are cool, rich, powerful, sexy, fashionable, dominant, etc. None of these things are virtues and so you have no good reason to expect a man with these qualities to stick around when things get tough. If instead you look for loyalty, kindness, empathy, trustworthiness, respectfulness, a sense of justice and things like that, then that man isn't going to leave you and your child. My experience is that all around me no one ever wants to hold women accountable for their actions, in fact quite the opposite sometimes, it's quite often something that results in heavy amounts of white knighting. This is one of the strongest points I think Stefan has made and continues to make, and that is we should hold women absolutely accountable for the choices and actions. We should also hold men accountable for lacking virtue and their evil actions, but lets not pretend women aren't in a unique position here, because they overwhelmingly are. Until there's some kind of parity in the dating scene where women chase men and men are the ones who get to pick between suitors then the responsibility is going to disproportionally be with women. This is the talk, it's absolutely brilliant and really funny as well -

This is commonly known as white knighting, white knights are men who stick up for women in order to gain some kind of favour with the women. You only need look at the liberal sphere of politics to find many of these men, they lack typically alpha male traits such as being assertive, confident and dominant and probably find it easier to make and maintain contact with women by siding with their opinions and defending them rather than impressing them. As Matthew has pointed out, the media is very liberal these days, you have to look to the right or alt-right media to find people such as Lauren who are strong and independent women who don't need men sticking up for them, and who disagree with the feminist narrative. It's a crying shame there aren't more women like Lauren, sadly I think they're really rare as most women just want to keep silent and not challenge the feminist narrative because they receive too many benefits from the ever growing state.

My belief is that early term abortion is not immoral and that women should have bodily autonomy, and that force should not be initiated against them because of choices they wish to make to their body even if that has consequences for the baby, although preferably abortion be done when no suffering can occur (before brain/nervous system development) Given that I don't think any many should have any say over whether or not a woman can keep the baby, it should be her decision what she puts her body though. But there should definitely be consent with regards to raising children that has to occur before responsibility for the child becomes something you can enforce. So a man who doesn't consent to being a parent shouldn't be held accountable for the child if he's not consenting to the responsibilities of fatherhood, but by not consenting to that responsibility he loses all rights as a guardian/parent. Currently men do not have the right to legal paternal surrender which just results in the use of force against them to extract resources to give to women which is bad enough on its own but also encourages families splitting apart and harm to the child under a single parent. The current status of this is a complete and utter mess in the 1st world and is why I won't go anywhere near women anymore, the thought of pregnancy and children is utterly off putting because you're just handing the woman a loaded cannon and being force to stand in front of it, hoping that she wont light the fuse and blow you clean in twain. I'd argue that until we see a reverse in the laws and decrease in state power, we'll continue to see an increase in divorce, single parenthood and men opting to stay clear of women in greater numbers (MGTOW, Herbivore men, etc).

I felt like I had to comment, this is what I wrote in their comments section: It's all feelings and perception with women which is why taking a survey of women on their perceptions tells you nothing about the actual reality of the situation. The reality is the same as anywhere where the market is still relatively free, hiring is done based on merit and ability to adapt to the work place, if you can't operate in a certain environment then you're going to lose the job to someone who can.