Post: #51

The previous posts and excerpts from reddit, etc. are hysterically accurate.

I didn't think about it, but hearing "lawyers" comprising most of the "League" sounds so obvious, particularly since they are so awful. Of course they'd be on this.

Post: #52

(01-10-2018 05:26 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I registered a few weeks ago when I saw this thread.

Seriously - if you want to get a woman who is highly interested in your material success, then why not go the SA-route and Game the girls over there? Some of them over there are about as innocent as the League Lawyercunts, but at least will fuck you fast and screw down the shit-test-meter.

I totally agree. There is a natural hypergampy from the <25 year olds at college or in their entry level jobs on SA rather than the cunty version of hypergamy by professional women who've been round the block.

On SA itself, its the women over a certain age who are the most materialistic and whorish.

I think it is the whole "power coupling" phenomenon that late Western capitalism is seeing whereby affirmative action white collar women pair up with even richer men, divorce them, remarry higher up the scale - leaving only a minority of men who can afford the marriage risk and a widening gap between rich and poor.

Post: #53

(01-10-2018 06:26 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  The previous posts and excerpts from reddit, etc. are hysterically accurate.

I didn't think about it, but hearing "lawyers" comprising most of the "League" sounds so obvious, particularly since they are so awful. Of course they'd be on this.

My experience of female lawyers is they are the most likely to get their first positions because of their looks. I really doubt that many of them know what it is like to be rejected from an interview. If firms have an affirmative action quota to fill, they might as well fill it with pretty, low-fee earning/ non-productive personnel who happen to be good to look at and submissive.

This does however lead to a cunty attitude towards their male peers at university who have to land their first job and get crucial work experience the hard way after periods of unemployment.

I suspected a glass basement into white collar jobs when I was looking for my first job when women in my university class who got help with assignments from men were the ones who got employed first.

Now that my rank and work experience has given me some protection from the competition of pretty young women, I can see from the annual graduate intake that most are women, most are prettier than the UK average and these women come from university classes that are made up with less than 10% women.

I would go far as to state that most if not all young men have been overlooked for an entry level job on account of their sex because of affirmative action policies are an excuse for Beta directors to hire pretty young women who are more submissive to sit beside them.

Post: #54

(01-11-2018 02:04 AM)N°6 Wrote:  I think it is the whole "power coupling" phenomenon that late Western capitalism is seeing whereby affirmative action white collar women pair up with even richer men, divorce them, remarry higher up the scale - leaving only a minority of men who can afford the marriage risk and a widening gap between rich and poor.

You've got this one on the center line ±.002.

It is estimated that 39% of Law graduates are jobless/not working in a Law job after 2 years from graduation from their JD. I wonder how big the chunk of this figure are 1) women who quickly realize they hate/can't handle a real Law job, and what amount are 2) male JD's who got rejected at the interviews because the firms hired the good-looking, semi-capable female grad to satisfy their quota and provide some office eye candy to the rest of the firm.

Post: #55

(01-11-2018 02:15 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 06:26 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  The previous posts and excerpts from reddit, etc. are hysterically accurate.

I didn't think about it, but hearing "lawyers" comprising most of the "League" sounds so obvious, particularly since they are so awful. Of course they'd be on this.

My experience of female lawyers is they are the most likely to get their first positions because of their looks. I really doubt that many of them know what it is like to be rejected from an interview. If firms have an affirmative action quota to fill, they might as well fill it with pretty, low-fee earning/ non-productive personnel who happen to be good to look at and submissive.

This does however lead to a cunty attitude towards their male peers at university who have to land their first job and get crucial work experience the hard way after periods of unemployment.

I suspected a glass basement into white collar jobs when I was looking for my first job when women in my university class who got help with assignments from men were the ones who got employed first.

Now that my rank and work experience has given me some protection from the competition of pretty young women, I can see from the annual graduate intake that most are women, most are prettier than the UK average and these women come from university classes that are made up with less than 10% women.

I would go far as to state that most if not all young men have been overlooked for an entry level job on account of their sex because of affirmative action policies are an excuse for Beta directors to hire pretty young women who are more submissive to sit beside them.

That reminds me of that dumb experiment they did by sending the CVs out of female STEM graduates and seeing them rejected x-times more than if they sent out their real ones.

The same results came back when they forced some public government agency to gender-neutralize all CVs (delete all info about the person that could point to the sex). It instantly created more male candidates being chosen as they were more qualified and experienced on a purely meritocratic level.

The only field I know which still hires predominantly men are those that have instant direct verifiable results - investment banking quants (often mathematicians, physicists or other high-IQ candidates preferred) as well as discretionary traders whose abilities are quickly visible. Then suddenly both the IQ distribution slanted towards men as well as the intellectual drive is far more important than "boobs-you're-hired". They would have to fire the bitches in a few months anyway and their own bonuses would take a tremendous hit if they did what law practices did.

Post: #56

(01-11-2018 10:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That reminds me of that dumb experiment they did by sending the CVs out of female STEM graduates and seeing them rejected x-times more than if they sent out their real ones.

The same results came back when they forced some public government agency to gender-neutralize all CVs (delete all info about the person that could point to the sex). It instantly created more male candidates being chosen as they were more qualified and experienced on a purely meritocratic level.

Link?

Post: #57

(01-11-2018 10:20 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 02:04 AM)N°6 Wrote:  I think it is the whole "power coupling" phenomenon that late Western capitalism is seeing whereby affirmative action white collar women pair up with even richer men, divorce them, remarry higher up the scale - leaving only a minority of men who can afford the marriage risk and a widening gap between rich and poor.

You've got this one on the center line ±.002.

It is estimated that 39% of Law graduates are jobless/not working in a Law job after 2 years from graduation from their JD. I wonder how big the chunk of this figure are 1) women who quickly realize they hate/can't handle a real Law job, and what amount are 2) male JD's who got rejected at the interviews because the firms hired the good-looking, semi-capable female grad to satisfy their quota and provide some office eye candy to the rest of the firm.

Well there are too many JD's as is. You could eliminate at least 75% of the law schools and still have too much competition for big law jobs. After seeing the dismal employment reports for schools outside the traditional powerhouses, can't see why anyone would go to law school unless they get to the cream of the crop.

Post: #58

(01-11-2018 08:15 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 10:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That reminds me of that dumb experiment they did by sending the CVs out of female STEM graduates and seeing them rejected x-times more than if they sent out their real ones.

The same results came back when they forced some public government agency to gender-neutralize all CVs (delete all info about the person that could point to the sex). It instantly created more male candidates being chosen as they were more qualified and experienced on a purely meritocratic level.

Link?

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthr...?t=4817892

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...x1pqg.html

Quote:DPM&C study finds public servants more likely to hire women

STEM hiring study:

100% female advantage:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

Quote:National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

I am sure that certain entry-level jobs at companies have an even more disastrous result for young men.

Also I might add - young women up to 30 in almost all big cities in the US are outearning young men. One of the reasons is the female-centric hiring practice. But of course when the feminists look at corporate they see a male dominated top-tier staff. The reason however is that the most talented, sometimes most scheming and most ambitious men rise to the top after decades. Getting hired because of boobs is one thing, working 80-100 hours for 3 decades and surviving the corporate bonanza - that is an entirely different ballgame. But feminists are just female supremacists who want to hoist women up regardless of achievement. They ignore gender differences just as they ignore racial differences demanding EQUAL REPRESENTATION regardless of merit.

Post: #59

(01-12-2018 04:35 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I am sure that certain entry-level jobs at companies have an even more disastrous result for young men.

Also I might add - young women up to 30 in almost all big cities in the US are outearning young men. One of the reasons is the female-centric hiring practice. But of course when the feminists look at corporate they see a male dominated top-tier staff. The reason however is that the most talented, sometimes most scheming and most ambitious men rise to the top after decades. Getting hired because of boobs is one thing, working 80-100 hours for 3 decades and surviving the corporate bonanza - that is an entirely different ballgame. But feminists are just female supremacists who want to hoist women up regardless of achievement. They ignore gender differences just as they ignore racial differences demanding EQUAL REPRESENTATION regardless of merit.

All a woman (especially if white) has to do to get an entry-level white collar job with a company is just show up, not look hideous, and not be a total idiot. How do you think so many of them are able to live in large cities like New York right out of college? (other than their parents' money of course) Certain kinds of industries *cough*law and accounting*cough* are worse offenders at this than others as some people in this thread have already said.


The people who get screwed the most from this, however, are not white men, but qualified black and hispanic men who mysteriously get barred from entry-level positions. Of course, with all the smoke and mirrors from "diversity initiatives" that these companies have, one would think that the female-dominated HR departments and their beta orbiters are trying to expand their efforts beyond the usual token minorities. Lol

Post: #60

So I've been using this app for about 6-8 weeks now I would say. The first week or so I would always get at least one match, but since then matches have come rarely. Most girls I match with don't even respond to my opener or if they do respond they go ghost at the mere suggestion of a meet up. I have met up with one girl, which led really close to sex on two occasions, but on both occasions this girl tried to pull the "we'll do it next time" card. The first time was fine but the second time she was clearly trying to do it for control and I dropped that girl like a rock.

And apparently this app has expanded to Paris, Dallas, and some other cities that I can't remember. The great thing is that you can use this app very passively, but matches seem to be quite limited. I'm going to change my preferences and see what happens.

Post: #61

(10-21-2018 09:58 AM)Rang off the Pipe Wrote:  So I've been using this app for about 6-8 weeks now I would say. The first week or so I would always get at least one match, but since then matches have come rarely. Most girls I match with don't even respond to my opener or if they do respond they go ghost at the mere suggestion of a meet up. I have met up with one girl, which led really close to sex on two occasions, but on both occasions this girl tried to pull the "we'll do it next time" card. The first time was fine but the second time she was clearly trying to do it for control and I dropped that girl like a rock.

And apparently this app has expanded to Paris, Dallas, and some other cities that I can't remember. The great thing is that you can use this app very passively, but matches seem to be quite limited. I'm going to change my preferences and see what happens.

I've been using it for 6+ months now and never gotten a date from it. Meanwhile, I've banged a bunch of girls from Tinder in that time, with essentially the same photos (replaced my suggestive shirtless photo with a more natural outside one).

Any app that gives you a limited list of girls to swipe on a day (Coffee Meets Bagel is similar) is near-worthless.

If you only get 3 likes per day (I swipe left on 2/3 usually), you have no volume.

Post: #62

(10-21-2018 12:18 PM)corsega Wrote:  Any app that gives you a limited list of girls to swipe on a day (Coffee Meets Bagel is similar) is near-worthless.

Not to drag the thread off-topic but the advantage of limiting swipes is that it also limits FEMALE swipes, hence attacking the 80/20 rule and the paradox of choice. Of course, this only works when women feel it's to their advantage to handicap themselves, which is a hard-sell.

Post: #63

(10-21-2018 10:54 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 12:18 PM)corsega Wrote:  Any app that gives you a limited list of girls to swipe on a day (Coffee Meets Bagel is similar) is near-worthless.

Not to drag the thread off-topic but the advantage of limiting swipes is that it also limits FEMALE swipes, hence attacking the 80/20 rule and the paradox of choice. Of course, this only works when women feel it's to their advantage to handicap themselves, which is a hard-sell.

I get many matches and girls who actually want to meet on CMB.

Post: #64

(10-22-2018 12:23 AM)Player_1337 Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 10:54 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 12:18 PM)corsega Wrote:  Any app that gives you a limited list of girls to swipe on a day (Coffee Meets Bagel is similar) is near-worthless.

Not to drag the thread off-topic but the advantage of limiting swipes is that it also limits FEMALE swipes, hence attacking the 80/20 rule and the paradox of choice. Of course, this only works when women feel it's to their advantage to handicap themselves, which is a hard-sell.

I get many matches and girls who actually want to meet on CMB.

That's insane to me. I am literally running a male model profile right now who has ZERO matches in five days on the app. And he is being fed only 4s, 5s, and 6s.

I think location matters a lot. In San Francisco, Coffee Meets Bagel is worthless.

Post: #65

Well since my previous post, I've averaged about 2-3 matches every 2 weeks. This is in Philadelphia and my settings are on White, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Hispanic with a 20-30 (can't go below 20 for some reason) age setting within 8 miles from a very central part of the city. Almost all the girls that show up are white college students (undergrad and grad) as well as some girls in entry-level corporate/non-profit jobs...so basically future careerists. And not surprisingly, the girls either don't respond or ghost at the mere hint of a meetup.

If it weren't for the fact that this app requires an infinitesimal level of engagement, I would've deleted it ages ago.

Post: #66

(12-26-2018 04:53 PM)Rang off the Pipe Wrote:  If it weren't for the fact that this app requires an infinitesimal level of engagement, I would've deleted it ages ago.

I had the same thought for a while, but I ended up just deleting it and I'm so glad I did... it's not even worth the space in my App Drawer and the 30 seconds it takes to use it a day.

Post: #67

I tried to get into this but was rejected and put on the wait list.
I also tried to get into Inner Circle.
It just seems like a pseudo-sugar daddy site for over 30 women.

Anyone tried The League recently?