Post: #26

I think there has been a lot of good suggestions, actually. Improve your appearance (lots of things that can be done for even the most unfortunate girls), have a very pleasant personality, lower your standards, consider older men and betas/omegas etc.

Ultimately I think Samseau is right though; it's hard to envision a male-friendly world with democracy really. As long as you give women and betas the right to vote, you will get feminism. In a lot of countries, women acquired the right to vote in the 20th century and this was also when feminism really began to seriously take hold. Just look at the world right now. The least democratic countries are often the most male-friendly. (I don't make this point to justify the moral transgressions or aggressive policies of authoritarian leaders).

Post: #27

I generally ignore them.

Post: #28

Post: #29

This whole thread is just mental masturbation because:

*It's pretty obvious what women need to do to get the best results.
*Those who need to change the most are the least receptive to change. This goes for both men AND women.

The 'manosphere' has the attention of proportionally few men, and vastly fewer women.

You can show someone the righteous path, but you can't make him take it.

Post: #30

Chorus:
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

Chorus

A pretty woman makes her husband look small,
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her, then she starts,
To do the things that will break his heart.

But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You'll be happy for the rest of your life.
An ugly woman cooks meals all the time,
She'll always give you peace of mind.

Chorus

Don't let your friends say you have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway.
Her face is ugly, her eyes don't match.
Take it from me, she's a better catch.

Chorus

Say, man?
Hey baby!
I saw your wife the other day.
Yeah?
Yeah, and she's ugly!
Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby!
Yeah, alright.

Post: #31

(12-29-2012 12:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  *Those who need to change the most are the least receptive to change. This goes for both men AND women.

I have a theory that women are the least likely to change because as they evolved they have had to do absolutely nothing to attract suitors. Genetics determined their success for the most part. That's why they're averse to losing weight in this unnaturally resource abundant society. Negative feedback is over their heads.

Post: #32

(12-29-2012 12:41 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 12:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  *Those who need to change the most are the least receptive to change. This goes for both men AND women.

I have a theory that women are the least likely to change because as they evolved they have had to do absolutely nothing to attract suitors. Genetics determined their success for the most part. That's why they're averse to losing weight in this unnaturally resource abundant society. Negative feedback is over their heads.

Good point, though more so in our society where it's a hookup market and not a marriage market, and where single women make at least as much money as men. In societies where men are scarce and/or more valuable, the woman must bring more to the table, like a dowry.

"A woman simply is, but a man must become" - Camille Paglia.

Post: #33

(12-29-2012 01:07 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 12:41 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 12:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  *Those who need to change the most are the least receptive to change. This goes for both men AND women.

I have a theory that women are the least likely to change because as they evolved they have had to do absolutely nothing to attract suitors. Genetics determined their success for the most part. That's why they're averse to losing weight in this unnaturally resource abundant society. Negative feedback is over their heads.

Good point.

"A woman simply is, but a man must become."

yeah men don't bother doing petty backhanded shit to other men for the same reason while it's the livelyhood of females since they have no other method of elbowing each other out.

Post: #34

So I've been thinking more about this problem, and the responses in this thread have clued me in to an idea.

It seems that feminists always argue with the unspoken premise that material and sexual wealth will make lives better for both ugly women and pretty women. Feminists promise better jobs and access to unrestricted sex with higher value men.

Thus the manosphere's response should be the opposite. We should argue that chasing material wealth isn't going to make women happy, no matter if they are pretty or ugly. The manosphere should argue that there is more to life than having the biggest and baddest job, making the most money, or having banged the hottest partners (although there's nothing wrong with a little indulgence...). We should argue there is a sublime beauty in raising a well-bred family with a loving husband, and no amount of worldly goods can replace that.

We should claim that feminists offer a false idol to women, and instead led them on a path of self-destruction in the name of greed and desire.

Post: #35

(12-30-2012 07:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  We should argue there is a sublime beauty in raising a well-bred family with a loving husband, and no amount of worldly goods can replace that.

Hmmm, we should encourage women to become mothers and wives???

I think that would be good for society.

Only one problem. They are all sluts, right?

(11-30-2012 01:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think all girls are whores

(12-21-2012 04:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I don't consider myself a woman-hater, but I've never met a good girl.

(12-21-2012 04:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The nicest girl I've ever dated was cheating on her boyfriend the entire time.

(12-27-2012 01:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  if they are experienced sluts (and they all are)

So you think all girls are sluts but you want us to marry them???

I don't want to marry some whore!

I don't want to get married at all.

Post: #36

I am sure most guys on this forum are dating girls that other's would consider ugly. Perhaps you have heard the saying "one man's dinner is a next man's dog food".
I dated a girl who was not that pleasing to the eyes, but the sex was world class and that is all I cared about.
So my answer is these girls are great for batting practice and some can even win you over with there kindness.

Post: #37

(12-30-2012 01:27 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(12-30-2012 07:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  We should argue there is a sublime beauty in raising a well-bred family with a loving husband, and no amount of worldly goods can replace that.

Hmmm, we should encourage women to become mothers and wives???

I think that would be good for society.

Only one problem. They are all sluts, right?

(11-30-2012 01:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think all girls are whores

(12-21-2012 04:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I don't consider myself a woman-hater, but I've never met a good girl.

(12-21-2012 04:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The nicest girl I've ever dated was cheating on her boyfriend the entire time.

(12-27-2012 01:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  if they are experienced sluts (and they all are)

So you think all girls are sluts but you want us to marry them???

I don't want to marry some whore!

I don't want to get married at all.

1. Just because all women have the same slutty/whorish nature does not mean they are incapable of love with a man. Every year, millions of women find their man and stop sleeping around. The man keeps her in line and she is happy.

2. Marrying a woman with a slutty past wouldn't be a big deal if there was no divorce rape. Imagine a world where if you divorced, there would be no alimony and minimal (200-400 bucks a month) child support. How many men would have aversion to being married in those circumstances? I wouldn't give a shit.

3. A world where women marry quickly and have lots of babies is a good world for players, because that world will produce LOTS of young babes ripe for seduction.

Post: #38

(12-28-2012 07:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It's not an ugly woman's fault she's ugly. In fact, it's a tragedy that women are born ugly in the first place, but there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I know if I was an ugly ass woman, I'd be a feminist too. It would be totally in my self-interest.

Thus, what can our response for ugly women be? How can we argue against them? How could we ever offer them the vision of a better world?

This is mother nature working her way. We need to be aware of the above that Samseau has noted and the trends that are in action in relation to it.

For most of recorded history society has revolved around providing value and people getting ahead based on merit. Times were too tough to give slack to people who couldn't support themselves. Now we live in times of debt powered excesses, billed into the future and that will never be paid off. This fake wealth has allowed people to cut loose from meritocracy and the need to provide value. People have had time to sit on the sidelines and ponder the evils of some people doing better than others.

As Samseau points out these people tend to be those who are less gifted in terms of physical, mental and social prowess. While many of our survival strategy may be merit and providing value to others, these people believe they can't survive in this system. Their survival strategy is using often hysterical emotional manipulation to make you feel guilty and to deconstruct yourself down to their level, or ideally below. It's a system based on weakness, rather than strength, and can only collapse if their society is ever realised. Particularly as they will eternally turn on themselves in their self-devouring crusade to make everything equal.

The sort of people with the genetic and social makeup to produce such anti-merit philosophies have been lurking around throughout all of history, but only recently has a space existed in which they can assert their desire for complete equality of outcome. Just as gays were forced underground and have spent centuries pretending to be straight, likely passing on genes that make you more likely to be gay, the social strata of past societies has forced social injustice warrior types to deal with it and find a space in the society. The very nature of past societies has likely meant both groups progenitor genes are less common, but not enough for them to completely disappear.

There is in particular one fatal flaw to equality authoritarians, feminists and other grief culture groups - they have really low fertility rates. In the US, if you look at fertility rates by state, the fertility rate is higher in all the more masculine-individualist states like the Dakotas, Texas, Utah, Alaska; and lowest in feminist-collectivist states like DC, Massachusetts, Oregon and so on. If you drill down further and look at the county level, for example in Maryland, the most Democrat leaning county has a fertility rate of barely half replacement, about 1.2 and the most Republican county is above replacement at about 2.2. Maryland is currently a quite heavy Democrat state, but there are already more children born to registered Republicans than there are to registered Democrats. When you look at the individual level, the further you go towards masculinity, gun ownership, individualism the higher the fertility rate and the further you go towards feminism, big government, redistribution the lower the fertility rate.

The whole paradigm of the left is oriented towards having fewer children, but it's only them who've swallowed that idea. A Gallup survey shows that about 75% of Americans adopt the political ideas of their parents and of those that adopt their parents leftist views, 40% will end up identifying as conservative in latter life.

The whole leftist system is designed to tear down aspects of society, but their own methods are destroying themselves the quickest. One of their big pushes is the "woman's right" of abortion. But abortion mainly kills future Democrats, SJWs and blacks. If they do succeed in tearing down society, we will be left with few resources and have no choice to go back to civilised human nature and the reality of living in a physical world, meritocracy.

To answer the OP's question - what to do?

I would say distance yourself from SJWs, collectivists, feminists etc. Don't let them take any of your value or waste any time on trying to save them from extinction. Focus on yourself, making yourself better, finding the best woman you can, out-breeding them and making strong and independent children who are better than you.

I think the next 100 years or so is going to get really rocky, partly due to the destablisation of a society that has evolved over 10,000s of years. SJWs aren't going to make it. They've been milling around for millenia, slowly growing as society became softer. But after this century, their genes will be like the dinosaurs, gone.

Post: #39

Send them to Utah.