This is ... pure genius.
"
The average male always has to work very hard to secure female intimacy, love, and long-term romantic partnership.
Feminists want equality, but never address the fact that males always have to work so much fucking harder than females to attain and maintain relationships. In fact, females are desired in their natural state, and may not have to work at all.
A female could roll out from beneath a rock, unprimped, jobless, completely removed from the social and economic rat-races, and there would still be a man there within 0.5 seconds, ready to scoop her up, protect her, love her, and provide support as she integrates into society. In other words, men will do everything to help women. However, you will never see women bending over backwards or helping males in the same ways. You'll of course never see feminists complaining about how easy females have it in this respect; you'll never hear feminists say that women should do more for the opposite sex, like men are currently doing for their counterparts.
Mathcels may have come across an exercise in game theory known as "Dominant Pig, Subordinate Pig" where strength turns out to be a weakness, and weakness a strength. Likewise, male strength winds up being the downfall for a significant sum of our sex; whereas female weakness gives them an upper hand in the dating world. In the problem, the smaller pig's best possible move is to do nothing but wait for the larger pig to press a food-releasing lever, as all of the alternatives would result in her getting no food. The large pig's best option is to always push the lever, because he gets some food by doing so, but no food if the lever goes unpressed, and bear in mind, the little pig has no incentive to press the lever either because according to the game-dynamics, she still would be unable to eat, but would only burn up energy faster.
In humans, situational factors don't push the sexes towards quite as extreme strategies, but they still turn out to be grossly inequitable.
A male's biological prerogative is to spread his seed indiscriminately, and this continually weighs heavily on his mental state. It's an especial torture for a male, who so greatly desires female contact, to go a prolonged amount of time having his needs denied; he's literally failing his biologic mission. Virtually no male who suffers such deprivation can attain even a semblance of fulfillment in life.
On the other hand, females' sexual strategy is to stave off pregnancy, until she finds genes of utmost superior quality.
Women would be the 'piglets' from the game theory example. In all phases, from courtship to the act of sex itself, females don't really have to do anything, they are merely passive recipients. On the other hand, males are the 'large pigs' who must perform. They expend large amounts of energy in the attempt to prove themselves worthy suitors.
The pressing of the lever represents competiton between males (over mates). Just as the pig who presses the lever will only become stronger and faster over time, male humans grow larger, smarter, more strategic, more wiley, develop better senses of humour, etc, as they compete amongst themselves. And just as the smaller, docile piglet will not see any self-improvement, human females have remained the weaker sex: they haven't gained strength or conceptual ability at the same rate as the harder workers (males).
Why can strength be considered a weakness then?
On an individual level, the weaker sex ends up having the upper ground because virtually all members achieve success without having to do any work. In the pig experiment, the food is not near the lever, so the larger pig must run across the arena to get to the food before it's all eaten (which costs even more energy, and involves conceivable physical risks). In nature, the stronger sex enters a world of vicious competiton, in which some members may, at its most callous, face lethal challenges, and at best, suffer discrimination or excommunication from the 'center of life'.
Males often develop greater variation in physical traits throughout generations of such 'competitive' evolution. Competiton is a form of experimentation with the species.
Besides the fact that females are the limiting factor in sexual reproduction (which all but ensures their success), females also have developed lower variance in their traits. It's actually less risky for a male to indiscriminately, or randomly select, a female partner. For evidence of this, you can look at differences in standard deviations between the sexes for height, intelligence, or many other traits. Therefore, from base to summit, it's a higher mountain to climb for males to reach peak fitness.
The overarching point is that, given the wide array of disparities in the process of sexual selection, it's possible for males to work and compete hard, but never overcome their genetics.
Males have it harder because we are competing against the 'energetic' sex. We have to keep working hard just to say in competition. It's a never ending battle, not to mention, some of us weren't really even born equipped to engage in the whole ugly, genetic battle royale.
Females don't acknowledge how good they have it, being strongly desired, sought after, and being able to just sit back and pick out their boyfriends like they're picking out a new eye-catching accessory at Louis Vuitton.
It's especially gruelling for men today, where the introduction of social media and smartphones may have turned this rigged match over into its final gear: technology is the ultimate catalyst, separating the quality of life for males into ever-widening classes.
I've written a lot more about this in the following posts:
I've witnessed males desperately reinventing themselves and 'their game' entirely, just to win the favour of anyfemale they can get. They spend long hours at the gym or at work, just so a woman will love them.
All a female needs is a phone and a few one-word replies, and she will secure human touch and intimacy, and also get her foot through the door of a real relationship. This ease, this privilege is the cause of females being the 'parasite gender'. By comparison, they are like anemic, lower-level humans. A cursory look at human accomplishments will prove as much. Females will also claim that they are held to unrealistic beauty standards, which is nothing short of delusion or unawareness. A simply youthful, slim female is the picture of beauty, but I suppose it's too much to ask a modern woman to not live her life inside of a refrigerator. But even still, fatties may face some criticism, but they have absolutely no problem obtaining fit, healthy boyfriends, while fatness in males is a sentence to the gallows.
If males all at once adopted the exact set of standards females possess, there would actually be more female incels than male incels.
Yet, these fatass, IT, feminist slobs have the gall to come on this sub critiquing our hard efforts. They're slave drivers thrashing us with whips and screaming that we're not working hard enough; from their position of privilege, they cry that we just need to make such and such changes, and finally our efforts will be adequate and praise-worthy. Whether the work will ever be good enough or not, is besides the point, it's all incredibly insulting, demeaning and unjust. Men truly are the cucked sex, existing on the female plantation. If only the blackpill would diffuse throughout society, and men would rise up against their taskmaster's hypocritical bullshit."
"
The average male always has to work very hard to secure female intimacy, love, and long-term romantic partnership.
Feminists want equality, but never address the fact that males always have to work so much fucking harder than females to attain and maintain relationships. In fact, females are desired in their natural state, and may not have to work at all.
A female could roll out from beneath a rock, unprimped, jobless, completely removed from the social and economic rat-races, and there would still be a man there within 0.5 seconds, ready to scoop her up, protect her, love her, and provide support as she integrates into society. In other words, men will do everything to help women. However, you will never see women bending over backwards or helping males in the same ways. You'll of course never see feminists complaining about how easy females have it in this respect; you'll never hear feminists say that women should do more for the opposite sex, like men are currently doing for their counterparts.
Mathcels may have come across an exercise in game theory known as "Dominant Pig, Subordinate Pig" where strength turns out to be a weakness, and weakness a strength. Likewise, male strength winds up being the downfall for a significant sum of our sex; whereas female weakness gives them an upper hand in the dating world. In the problem, the smaller pig's best possible move is to do nothing but wait for the larger pig to press a food-releasing lever, as all of the alternatives would result in her getting no food. The large pig's best option is to always push the lever, because he gets some food by doing so, but no food if the lever goes unpressed, and bear in mind, the little pig has no incentive to press the lever either because according to the game-dynamics, she still would be unable to eat, but would only burn up energy faster.
In humans, situational factors don't push the sexes towards quite as extreme strategies, but they still turn out to be grossly inequitable.
A male's biological prerogative is to spread his seed indiscriminately, and this continually weighs heavily on his mental state. It's an especial torture for a male, who so greatly desires female contact, to go a prolonged amount of time having his needs denied; he's literally failing his biologic mission. Virtually no male who suffers such deprivation can attain even a semblance of fulfillment in life.
On the other hand, females' sexual strategy is to stave off pregnancy, until she finds genes of utmost superior quality.
Women would be the 'piglets' from the game theory example. In all phases, from courtship to the act of sex itself, females don't really have to do anything, they are merely passive recipients. On the other hand, males are the 'large pigs' who must perform. They expend large amounts of energy in the attempt to prove themselves worthy suitors.
The pressing of the lever represents competiton between males (over mates). Just as the pig who presses the lever will only become stronger and faster over time, male humans grow larger, smarter, more strategic, more wiley, develop better senses of humour, etc, as they compete amongst themselves. And just as the smaller, docile piglet will not see any self-improvement, human females have remained the weaker sex: they haven't gained strength or conceptual ability at the same rate as the harder workers (males).
Why can strength be considered a weakness then?
On an individual level, the weaker sex ends up having the upper ground because virtually all members achieve success without having to do any work. In the pig experiment, the food is not near the lever, so the larger pig must run across the arena to get to the food before it's all eaten (which costs even more energy, and involves conceivable physical risks). In nature, the stronger sex enters a world of vicious competiton, in which some members may, at its most callous, face lethal challenges, and at best, suffer discrimination or excommunication from the 'center of life'.
Males often develop greater variation in physical traits throughout generations of such 'competitive' evolution. Competiton is a form of experimentation with the species.
Besides the fact that females are the limiting factor in sexual reproduction (which all but ensures their success), females also have developed lower variance in their traits. It's actually less risky for a male to indiscriminately, or randomly select, a female partner. For evidence of this, you can look at differences in standard deviations between the sexes for height, intelligence, or many other traits. Therefore, from base to summit, it's a higher mountain to climb for males to reach peak fitness.
The overarching point is that, given the wide array of disparities in the process of sexual selection, it's possible for males to work and compete hard, but never overcome their genetics.
Males have it harder because we are competing against the 'energetic' sex. We have to keep working hard just to say in competition. It's a never ending battle, not to mention, some of us weren't really even born equipped to engage in the whole ugly, genetic battle royale.
Females don't acknowledge how good they have it, being strongly desired, sought after, and being able to just sit back and pick out their boyfriends like they're picking out a new eye-catching accessory at Louis Vuitton.
It's especially gruelling for men today, where the introduction of social media and smartphones may have turned this rigged match over into its final gear: technology is the ultimate catalyst, separating the quality of life for males into ever-widening classes.
I've written a lot more about this in the following posts:
- Why it's called 'getting lucky'
- Just give it time. If you're a good-natured guy, females will grow to like you.
- Why looks are way more important right now than they've ever been. Why, if you don't have looks, all roads to sex and romantic life are sealed off
- Why personality isn't enough
I've witnessed males desperately reinventing themselves and 'their game' entirely, just to win the favour of anyfemale they can get. They spend long hours at the gym or at work, just so a woman will love them.
All a female needs is a phone and a few one-word replies, and she will secure human touch and intimacy, and also get her foot through the door of a real relationship. This ease, this privilege is the cause of females being the 'parasite gender'. By comparison, they are like anemic, lower-level humans. A cursory look at human accomplishments will prove as much. Females will also claim that they are held to unrealistic beauty standards, which is nothing short of delusion or unawareness. A simply youthful, slim female is the picture of beauty, but I suppose it's too much to ask a modern woman to not live her life inside of a refrigerator. But even still, fatties may face some criticism, but they have absolutely no problem obtaining fit, healthy boyfriends, while fatness in males is a sentence to the gallows.
If males all at once adopted the exact set of standards females possess, there would actually be more female incels than male incels.
Yet, these fatass, IT, feminist slobs have the gall to come on this sub critiquing our hard efforts. They're slave drivers thrashing us with whips and screaming that we're not working hard enough; from their position of privilege, they cry that we just need to make such and such changes, and finally our efforts will be adequate and praise-worthy. Whether the work will ever be good enough or not, is besides the point, it's all incredibly insulting, demeaning and unjust. Men truly are the cucked sex, existing on the female plantation. If only the blackpill would diffuse throughout society, and men would rise up against their taskmaster's hypocritical bullshit."
