Consept

I totally get what your saying and I think most on the thread do. But I feel like you're somewhat misunderstanding the central point. Ill try and break it down consicely Im not saying women in general are striving for success specifically to get a man. What I'm saying is that if you are successful that doesn't raise our attraction to you, it doesn't necessarily decrease it either, some might like it more some might like it less but it's not a big factor. Therefore if you don't want to cut out most men you shouldn't have high standards on the basis that you're successful, it will be based on how men value you normally. So if you are doing your life purpose because you love it that's great and if I'm dating you and I like you then I'll probably like your life purpose, but if your life purpose was a family and I wanted that too I'd also be behind that. Its not the main point of attraction. As has been mentioned before, some successful women develop masculine traits to get to where they are. This is not attractive. If you are successful without these masculine traits, that is attractive. Side note I'm watching dragons den (English shark tank) the panel is usually 3 men 2 women, all of them are multi-millionaires, I've never once been attracted to any of the women on there, haven't even considered it. But the men on there are usually attractive to women. There's another show 'the apprentice', with a woman on there who's on the panel, also a multi-millionaire, but to me she's attractive, she comes across feminine, caring, good looking. So it's really nothing to do with the success either way from my perspective. Lastly if you are a strong, successful woman, you are free to go for a more caring feminine man, this would make more sense for balance

Its not privatised in the UK and the hospitals were basically over run, all other treatments were getting pushed back etc. Having spoken to nurses in the hospital system who had treated and even caught covid, its hard to imagine that covid didnt have any effect on this. So lets say a virus didnt kill anyone, it could be treated, only thing is it is very contagious so millions get it and you need hospital treatment to recover and even if you recover you may have bad affects with breathing and other things later down the line. In this case do you think it would make sense to only focus on the death rate and come to the conclusion that because its 0 no precautions should be taken?

I think the death rate is actually higher, its said to be between 0.5% and 1% (https://fullfact.org/health/covid-ifr-more-01/) . But either way lets say youre right and its really that low, do you think the death rate is the only thing to take into consideration? Also do you think everything wouldve been fine if there were no lockdowns or precautions taken? As in no extra stress on hospitals, no long covid etc if not what measures do you think wouldve been reasonable?

This is a really good video that covers a lot of topics raised in this thread -

This vid will probably answer a lot of your questions

So do you think theres absolutely no truth in the scientific consensus in the case of Covid 19 and climate change? Also if there was a scientific consensus that agreed with your conclusion on these topics would you accept that?

If you feel like you 'should' do something thats usually a society thing where others have drilled that into you and so you feel bad for going against this. I think in general society, esp western but not limited to that, has really made success, achievement and money making the be all and all of everything, so much so that you can actually be considered less of a person if you dont feel the same way. Its seen as though youve failed not that that youve made a choice. This is the issue with feminism, in reality feminism should be that you have freedom of choice but what its turned into is that women should compete with guys and therefore a woman that chooses a traditional role or is more family orientated is looked down on compared to 'successful' women. What we dont seem to take into account is that being a high powered, highly successful, status driven person is usually not very healthy, male or female and actually would need some psychopathic traits to actually make it to be the ceo of a top company. Think about the amount of hours, sacrifice, dedication all at the expense of everything else in life, this is not what i want to do and most men dont want to do it, but there are some that want to and these are usually men. Women get annoyed because there arent as many ceos but i see it as women just arent as crazy as men lol. Regarding your situation, your brother seems to be someone who fits the bill of looking down on others just because they are not as successful in terms of career. Its a ridiculous position to have as not everyone has the same drives and as i said its the reason for a lot of the problems highlighted in this thread.

By the way this is really healthy, I also think it would be great to have a business with a partner where they handle the creative side and I handle the business side. Like doing up houses and they decorate and I do the deals or manage the construction stuff. In any relationship there has to be balance, if both are creative or both or business minded it's a case of too many cooks. What's interesting is that you thought not being career focused was a negative trait because of the sentiment around you. But in reality what you've said there is probably more healthy in general but also regarding relationships, than all of those successful women you mentioned, probably of you ask them they might tell you they've had a lot of relationship problems. But this is the problem, convincing women to be like men, most of the time it doesnt work

I think this a good take, a lot of people don't take responsibility or ownership for their actions or choices and this of course will have a massive impact when you get into a relationship. Obviously women don't want a guy who just kinda goes whatever way the wind blows him as they want stability esp when raising kids. So yes job and wealth is an indicator of it. The thing is there are always reasons for women's preferences, it's not necessarily or usually the case that they're shallow. But when a guy says women put success in a guy high up its usually taken that he means they're shallow or a gold digger so it's often hard to talk about it, it's been the case in this thread as well. It's an example which I'm drawing an equivalent meaning to what you said when you said a 'woman's success is directly proportional to her looks'. You stated this as a fact and I've shown that it's wrong using actual facts and studies and then an equivalent statement which is just as out there. But I have noticed that you draw your conclusions only from what you see around you, I understand why you do that it makes sense. However if we are having a discussion about wider societal trends it is pretty useless. As I said if you say I know 10 good looking successful women and I say I know 10 ugly successful women, what conclusion are we even coming to? It's just a nonsense argument based on examples we can find to prove our own point. Which is why I looked for more information so we can have a wider view of it. Truth can encompass more than one view, I often find people are not wrong, it's just the data input is limited so they haven't taken in the whole picture and have drawn conclusions anyway. If I was to give advice to you which I'm sure you'll dismiss, it's try and understand where the other person is coming from and how they've got to it before arguing that they're wrong.

It is but apparantly not when it comes to making money. The halo effect works for things like making friends, attracting partners etc. But in terms of making money a lot of studies have shown more unattractive people make more, there's a few reasons if you read the stories I posted earlier

Your taking your anecdotal experience and extrapolating it to make a wider point. I could find 10 overweight and not good looking women who are very successful but it doesn't necessarily mean every woman who is successful is that way. If you then say 'oh but I know 10 women who are good looking and successful', both samples are so small that they don't really help as come to truth that's why it's better to look at a wider scope of society than your own. The equivalent of what you said would really be something like 'a man's physical strength is proportionate to his success' which obviously doesn't make any sense. But the whole thing of if you're not that good looking you'll always be behind good looking people, is again not true and basically incel mentality.

OK so I guess you read the standard studies as well and take them into account. You are aware that there's a scientific consensus contrary to your central points. How do you square the circle of accepting the scientific consensus but also disagreeing with it? Let's 98% of experts say make up the consensus and 2% disagree, does it make sense to give equal weight to the 2% that disagree?

@BadHippie what you don't see is that in this discussion @Forestluv is not saying you're right or wrong. Your viewpoints are correct, they just don't encapsulate the whole picture. It's like your looking at one corner of a painting and saying 'it's a cloud, that's all there is' , but if you stand back and look at the whole painting there's a whole country scene that's been captured. You have to acknowledge that truth encompasses things you don't know and/or don't accept, if you don't you are severely limiting yourself

This could be true for models or jobs that are based on looks but for every other job this is a reach. By your logic, every female in politics, law, medicine, tech should be a super model as these are the top jobs, of course this isn't the case, that is actually the most sexist comment on this thread so far ?? I love you though https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/28/opinions/ugliness-premium-opinion-drexler/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/really-ugly-people-make-more-money-2018-4%3famp

Yeah the funny thing is that this mindset is actually very similar to a male incel mindset. They believe 'women should just want them just because and its womens fault because theyre whores that are only attracted to chad'. Theres not much difference between 'high value men should want me because im successful and if they dont its because they cant handle a woman like me and theyre weak', both shift responsibility onto the opposite sex because theyre not being chosen. These are extremes, but with the incels they are kind of shunned and looked down upon, rightly or wrongly so, with the females theyre almost pandered and catered to, a lot of people agree will agree with them in conversation, which is why i think it could be a real problem if it becomes a mainstream way of thinking, which i guess it kind of is already. The result is the same though, both groups will end up alone and/or unfulfilled if they dont address their own personal issues.

Yes on a personal level i would be interested in someone who can engage in deep conversations, even if they cant but are open to new ideas thats also a plus. I do have to be attracted to them though otherwise i would more just see it as friends, its happened a couple times for me, but it definitely puts their attraction level up though, so if it wasnt someone id typically be attracted to, this factor could put them over the edge. Right im completely with you on this point and here in lies the issue of the thread. There are a lot of women that dont posses these almost default qualities or at least suppress them, successful women in particular who think to be successful means being like an alpha male type man is just not attractive to men and the issue is that they think because now theyve got all this success in the material world that it automatically translates to success and desirability in the dating world. If you have success and keep these qualities then you wouldnt have a problem, there maybe issues with a man being insecure but as you say youll filter them out or possibly if you really like him work it out. I know some women, some even family members, who are very successful, phds, high education all of that, who are very strong, direct, say whats on their mind, theyre usually very vocal in terms of feminism, but they come off as masculine. They can barely get a man to stay around for a couple days let alone a relationship and if you tell them anything to help or make them think, theyll rip your head off and tell you 'men are the problem they just cant handle strong women'. This to me is sad because i do care about these people and i know that they will most likely never get someone who will be with them long term. Its also sad because in moments of introspection or just a deeper conversation you can see that feminine energy coming through. So these women and women like this, really need to work on themselves, not in the way they think but actual counselling to open up their feminine and intuitive side. These woman also seem to blame men for all their troubles, this needs to stop as well, this is not co-operative by any stretch of the imagination. There should be understanding between the sexes and i feel these type of women deeply want to be understood but have zero understanding of any man.

What is that based on?

Numbers wise, there just won't be enough men to give every woman in this bracket a partner that they would accept. So they have a few options, one is of course being single forever (if they always get what they want this will be tough), dropping their own standards and picking through intuition or love or being single but having boyfriends (sugar mummy style). This generation is unlucky in that they have success or at least opportunity for it, but they also evolutionarily speaking want someone equal or preferably higher status. So they're stuck in two worlds. Equality in this sense is great but it means that they also might have to take on the man's traditional role and be the breadwinner and head of the household, I can't really see them wanting to do it but it looks like it's kinda going that way. So yeah you could start to see a lot of traditional gender reversed relationships where the man is the stay at home dad. The other thing of course is men could get really disenfranchised with this setup, you're already seeing things like mgtow. Men always accepted their role now a vast amount are being made redundant. I don't know exactly where it will go but definitely the dynamics have are irreversibly changed.

I kind of agree, but to really be honest all the things you mention like individuation, education etc are things we end up liking because we like you. If we like you, we accept whatever about you, we don't like you specifically because you are into personal development or into fitness, there's just something we like about you. The foundation of which isn't about maxing out on looks or being feminine (I don't know what a maxed out feminine person would even be) but there are a certain set of qualities that most guys want, (that I've mentioned) if they had a choice. However this is the foundation of attraction, then other things as you mentioned, are built on top of this. In terms of keeping a man, if I was to give advice to women, I would say don't compete with him, don't try and change him - if there's something you really can't stand and can't get passed then maybe move on, co-operate with him - be on the same team, add value to his life in some way, take a genuine interest in what he's interested in, have a high level of respect for him. If you don't feel like you can do these things then it probably won't work or you'll think it's working but he'll be unhappy underneath

Im just going to focus on the points that i think theres a misunderstanding, hopefully ill make it clear what i mean When i say a woman has made herself too valuable im literally talking about he sees herself as too valuable, im not saying a man sees her as too valuable and is threatened, Im saying he just doesnt consider her success and so from a mans attraction point of view it doesnt make her more attractive. This is a very important point. To flip it lets say a man works on being nurturing, being more feminine, he learns about womens fashion, he gets really good at housework and looking after kids, this guy might really believe that his value in terms of women being attracted to him is going up, he may put himself at a 10 and think he can relate to women and hes got lots of stuff going for him, he may think that hes now more attractive to women but once he gets out there he'll find that probably isnt the case (yes some will be attracted to that). Just because you think something youre doing makes you more attractive it doesnt make it so and its not to do with guys being intimidated, if you lined up an attractive woman with an unattractive woman who was successful, a guy is not choosing the attractive woman because hes intimidated by the other option. Right but the laundry list tends to be from successful women because of their own inflated value, but yes if you dont have a laundry list then there will be a lot of potential partners. Im not saying you have to make yourself small or less valuable to attract a man, however you are will attract men if you look good, women control the access to sex they choose partners ultimately, but when it comes to marriage and long term relationships, men control that aspect of it. The acid test is whether a man wants to marry you or not. For this a man, especially a man valued highly by women, has to really want to do it and to really want to do it, yes he has to see value in the woman on his terms. As you say, if he doesnt and he doesnt think it will work he wont marry her. Again its not about men being one upped or wanting to be catered to, the list for men is very simple and very short, feminine, attractive, co-operative, nurturing, its pretty much it. Even if women havent got a long laundry list youd be lying if you said theres not some things you want, this is the same for men and men wont settle down with you if you dont match up, at least if we have options. So im not saying change yourself, you shouldnt, but if you dont have those qualities you probably wont get what you might consider a higher quality man. True, but there will be a limit for women, most dont want to look after a man, ive not met one that is looking for that, whereas a man would. So there are practical implications here. I agree he should be interested in that, but then it depends what he wants. If he wants a family he may choose a woman whos dreams and goals are to have a family. There is you are filtering out 99% of the male population. Also you will get a lot of men wanting to hang out but as i said the acid test is if they want to settle down. You might not, but a lot of women i know have problems keeping a man around but not getting them in the first place. But i agree that its probably cos theyre not in their feminine. Actually i believe that if you are with a woman in a long term relationship or marriage, the man should provide that safe space for them to grow and do what they want, so i agree with you on this. If a man brought up that hes the breadwinner or even really believed in its importance and so it showed subtly in his behavior, i think a woman would notice this and not like it. Its the same if a woman does it, but its obviously a slightly more sensitive subject for men, given the history of humans

First of all i appreciate your response and the time you took to consider the points i brought up. Im gonna just clarify some of the stuff i said. So yes there are some complaints on the forum about women's preferences, but i would say that if its about womens's high standard then its a valid complaint, if its just the fact that women have preference then obviously thats a poor argument. Either way men may complain but the majority have always historically married women, protected them, provided for them etc. Whereas as some women today are complaining to the point of not settling for anyone and putting it on the men ie the Tomi Lahren vid. OK so this is all fine if the women doesnt have a criteria that rules out 99.9% of men. So this is really for the women that are complaining that there arent enough good men, which are usually (not always) successful women. Women traditionally and really even now, will have a certain amount of suitors as you say, who approach them and they make their selection out of those. Obviously the more attractive women will have more options. Whats happened now is that some women have overvalued themselves to the point that theyve priced themselves completely out of the dating market. This is because theyve tied their attractiveness to their success, which as every man has commented on this thread, does not increase their attractiveness. Because theyve judged themselves to be so high up, essentially they are becoming the pursuers as their criteria is so high it only includes a certain amount, so they know who the want, the problem is those guys most likely dont want them as their criteria is no where near as high plus theyre probably looking for different things. Therefore there is accountability on the womans part in this case because she needs to compete with the other woman, without her success being a factor. So if she wants that top guy she has to appeal to him otherwise accept the suitors who are giving you attention. That top guy may just want basic things, a feminine woman, co-operative, attractive, fit body, if you cant provide those things, thats not the guys fault and your success does not make up for it. yes agree completely It definitely can happen, in fact some women who earn more than their partner have actually said they have to really consider how to make him feel ok with earning less. This makes sense as if its the other way women dont like to be reminded that the man is earning all the money either, but of course men have had years of being told they should be the breadwinner so it hits harder

Yep and thats what you call an incel mindset which is why incels are bottom of the barrel

That's what you took from what I said? The success doesn't matter, I've said that many times

I saw your comment just after i posted mine lol, but yes i completely agree with your take and i like your conclusion that women are picking with head rather than heart, that is really the core of the issue. On a wider point just on this whole topic - Woman have always been the choosers, men have had to do what they can to be chosen, this is an evolutionary thing. The reason why men are even ambitious or driven in the first place is that the men women chose, back in hunter gatherer days, were the most resourceful and physically able to protect their family. This how its been for 1000s of years, men have never complained about this even when it leads to things like wanting them to be physically imposing by having a certain height or having enough resources or being able to connect emotionally, all these things and more push men to improve and be their best to attract a woman. If its things they cant change like height they play the cards they were dealt. The alternative is going into victim mode and becoming an incel. From an early age we almost intuitively know we have to work in some way to get a woman, at first we're told be society we need to be really nice to them, then when that doesnt work we might overdo it with the 'badboy' persona, then (if we get there) we realise we have to actually understand women on a deeper level and not treat them as some fragile pixie and actually treat them as a human and reach a connection on that level. This is a hard, long, confusing process (not many tell you this). Now cut to women, for the first time in history the last 50 years have seen women nearly reach parity with men in terms of resources, opportunities, pretty much everything, girls are outperforming boys at school so this is likely to carry on. This is great of course, there should be freedom for anyone who wants to do anything (within legality). But now with the choice comes responsibility for the choice, for example back in the day it wasnt that men wanted to do all the work, they just knew if they didnt they wouldnt get a partner. They were free to make that choice to some extent but they knew that it would severely limit their options. Now im not saying thats exactly the same as women working, its not, but you have to realise that men like certain things like a woman whos caring and nurturing, who is co-operative, who doesnt compete with him (oneupmanship), who is attractive, who is fit etc. What ive seen a lot from women that complain about men is 'he needs to take me as i am', which is fine but understand that many men may not want to do that, the same way women will not take a man who hasnt developed himself in the ways ive mentioned previously. So there has to be some accountability here of not being what men want, which by the way is not a very long list. Success doesnt factor into a mans selection to pursue you, its really all the other factors that would put someone off. Also a lot of successful women are not even looking at Mcdonalds workers or refuse collectors, theyre not looking at 91% of men who dont earn more than them, then cut into that 9% with height, fitness, age etc. So when you get to this probably 1% of the male pool that a successful woman would want, this person has a variety of choices, plus he doesnt care about dating someone who earns as much as them, so why would he choose this woman if she doesnt match up in the areas that are important to him? Also the guys that are put off by a womans income, this will not even be a factor until they get married and have to work out bills and things like that, in most cases i dont think a guy like this would even get past that womans selection process. If he does what will put him off are other attributes that could be synonymous with a successful woman, its not the success itself.

OK apologies for mis-representing you in that case. But men don't have a problem with it, she can have her own financial independence. The issue is women think it makes them more attractive so their expectations of what they can attract go up, but for most men it makes no difference. Likewise a man can think being a caring, nurturing guy who wants to be looked after by a woman will make him more attractive and women might even support his view, however in reality he won't get much action.