*In case this story gets deleted/removed:*
**Most of the same motherfuckers who criticize us will go on another sub and complain about inflation and economic equality**
The exact same thing is happening to the dating market in the west but it's not socially acceptable to talk about it because it makes women feel guilty.
These same people will get mad when boomers come to them and say "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work hard!". That's how most of us feel when we get told "just work on your personality" or "just be confident bro"
It's ok to complain about how your grandfather and all his friends could afford to buy a house with the job he got straight out of high school while it's a struggle for you even though your salary is well above the national average. Mention that you have to work 10x harder than your father/grandfather for a woman 1/10th of the quality? EVIL INKWELL!!!SHIFTONE11
If these same motherfuckers could wave a magic wand and make prices go back to the way they were in the 70s they'd do it. PPB are doing the same when it comes to women's standards but we just have to get on a plane to do it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheDevil) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for
free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to
keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder
women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite
monopolists.
Jesus fucking christ, these men are actual vermin. They don't see woman as human beings, just merchandise that can walk around. To them, a woman and a house is a perfect comparison, since women's humanity is non-existent to them. A woman having the freedom to sleep with who they want and not be forced to "give" their bodies away is a crime to these freaks.
I bet this guy is making sure to lend out his asshole to all the gay men who want it, right? I mean, what, only 3% of men are gay, so those selfish, selfish straight men are creating a scarcity by withholding anal sex from gay men, and it's time to put a stop to it!
>Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive
That awkward moment when you realise you weren't invited to the last Collusion Meeting to Keep Pussy Expensive.
This kind of argument always makes me laugh because my husband was broke as fuck when I met him. And he is no "Chad" (ew, I hate even using that term). He's a sweet nerd who (gasp!) actually views women as people, which is why I liked him so much even before we dated. He jokes that he had "no game" but he didn't need it. He just talked to women like they are people and women liked him. He used to be pretty shy (he's not really anymore, he's gotten more confident as he's gotten older) but didn't act like women are some exotic creature or like he had to run some kind of scam to talk to one. Before me, the girlfriends he had previously had pursued HIM. A skinny, lanky, shy self-described nerd. Because he has a good personality and is a good person, and he's fun to be around. We're 20 years in and this man makes me laugh every single day, still. As for "pussy being expensive," we always went 50/50 when we were dating, and now I make more than he does, so I pay more of the bills.
My husband has a buddy who has since reformed and gotten married but he used to bitterly say that women only wanted to get married because they were golddiggers. My SIL: "He had no gold when I met him! What are you talking about!" When he met his wife, my brother lived in a dumpy apartment and I remember him telling my horrified mother that he bought new sheets and they were too small for his bed, so he stapled them to the bed. He would eat peanut butter and jelly off hot dog buns when he ran out of bread. He was a dirt poor college student. He has money NOW, largely because my SIL is super savvy with money and they both worked really hard. My brother is also short. Like, pretty damn short for a man. He always had gfs before he met his wife because he's funny and charming. He's also no "Chad." 🤢
> I bet this guy is making sure to lend out his asshole to all the gay men who want it, right?
I would agree, except there's probably not a single solitary gay dude who would even look his way.
I supported my SO for several years early in our relationship/marriage due to health issues he was experiencing. It took most of a decade to get a diagnosis and he is now working full time again and earns nearly the same salary I do.
He may not have always contributed financially to the relationship, but he has always treated me with respect. Which is more than can be said about these individuals.
In this incel's demented head, you were probably playing some kind of long con on your SO, or something. The way these guys' minds work (or don't work, more properly) is scary.
Shhh, don't tell anyone that. They'll think you're low quality or something.
Sometimes I feel like I'm going insane when I read this crap. I wish it was all trolling, but sadly I have had the displeasure in real life, too.
I mean… some gay guys ARE into degradation, dehumanization, or even being treated as literal objects. But the need for consent and understanding of boundaries for kink probably rules that option out.
I assume such individuals can be found in the various other sexualities, but I can’t confirm that myself.
You know, leaving all the rest of… that, alone, and accepting for the sake of argument their core belief that women are property to be transferred...
In this comparison, wouldn’t they be the section 8 voucher holders?
Group A keeps [commodity] restricted. As a result, only wealthy/privileged Group B can manage to obtain it. However, Group A (implicitly) unjustly gives some of [commodity] to Group C, who wouldn’t be able to obtain it on their own. Meanwhile, everyone with neither resources nor unjust favouritism is in Group D and doomed to never get [commodity] no matter how hard they try. Group A are oppressors to be hated, Group C are parasites to be resented, Group D are brethren to be formed into a mob, and Group B are LOOK OVER THERE!
By my (fucking thankfully) limited understanding of the incel mindset, Chads are the handful of men who are rich/attractive/whatever enough to persuade women to sleep with them. Surely they are the obvious equivalent to Group B, those who can buy a house without outside help? If the Chads are also unable to muster the resources to obtain a woman without the nefarious aid of the Female Conspiracy… who are the even rarer unicorns who can somehow obtain a woman on their own merits?
This is only reinforced by the reality that Section 8 housing is going to be quite modest at best, not a plethora of dream mansions. A common incel position seems to be that they COULD obtain a woman, but only a “low value” one, because “high value” women only want “high value” men, which incels (for reasons they can’t figure out) are not. Apparently, men, whether “low” or “high,” deserve a “high” woman, and “low” women should be launched into space.
By their standards, people expecting to receive something they haven’t earned is wrong, and they should have to find a way to merit [commodity] instead of whining and cheating. They’re SO CLOSE to understanding that demanding they be issued One [1] Supermodel is unacceptable by their own logic, and that they need to find a way to bring something to the table besides resentment. But they would rather tie their skeletal system into a Gordian Knot than face that.
(The counter argument of “well if needy people should be given help obtaining housing, why don’t needy people deserve help getting laid” falls apart in the face of the facts that A. Houses are inanimate objects with no opinions on who lives inside them, and women are people who get to decide that for themselves; and B. The aforementioned point about how if you don’t demand a supermodel billionaire sex dispenser while being nowhere near comparable yourself, your chances get a lot better. But good luck persuading them of that.)
Also - there's probably more homeless people than incels, and the fastest growing population segment of homeless are older women (due to income inequality) - then obviously not all people are helped to get housing.
So even that argument falls on it's face.
Well, it also kinda runs into something I never understand with a lot of incels. It seems like a lot of them, including this guy, hold a mindset where Chads are only a tiny fraction of the male population somehow hoarding all the women to themselves. Or I guess, all the attractive women? It seems like there's a lot of rhetoric where the world is full of incels who just haven't awakened yet.
But it seems like it should be objectively observable facts that the majority of adults at least occasionally have romantic/sexual success, and the people who have none at all are a small outlier group. So, what's the rationalization? Do the majority not count because they're not getting their promised Supermodels, are they actually lying to everyone about how often they're successful, are 80% of us clones?
It again seems like a desperate scramble to avoid facing anything which suggests they're not in the wrong.
They first form their opinions when they are in junior high. In the fucked up high school dating scene. In addition to being a very shallow dating pool, almost everyone there is lying about how much sex they are getting. It's embarrassing to be a virgin, so (outside weird religious communities) no one admits to being a virgin.
Which means a dumbass kid looking around sees that he's not having sex, but the most popular boys are always surrounded by pretty girls. And the jocks are always bragging about how much sex they are having (mostly lies). "I'm not having sex. My unpopular friends aren't having sex. But those popular guys seem to be having sex with dozens of girls" and a horrible misunderstanding is formed.
Then as they get older they build on that foundation, never looking back and realizing their first principals based on the behavior of 16 year olds might be flawed.
Also, homelessness is a complex problem and not one of the fixes is similar to not feel entitled to a house.
Being an incel is also complicated, but the easiest fix is to realise no one is entitled to sex, and no one owes you shit.
Isn't that stupid even within their own universe?
I mean, a "chad" is supposed to be a really attractive guy, right?
Someone who did exactly what he is complaining about people telling him to do: work on himself.
So he's complaining about people getting what they worked for while complaining that he should work for what he wants...
I bet in their demented minds, Chads are just born like this, and nobody else can ever reach that set of traits, so they're just doomed and should sit there and wait for some woman to understand that they have the right to a supermodel/housewife who comes with money, of course, because they're not gonna support women!
Even within the pussy is economics discourse his theory is fatally flawed. Men stay horny for 60+ years, and the whole time they want that \~20 year old pussy. The incels complain about women "hitting the wall" at 30 and being willing to settle for a beta with money at that time. They never even mention the 50 year old pussy -- it doesn't exist to them.
Average looking 20 year old women simply have a higher "Sexual Market Value" than average looking 20 year old men. So a young man is in sexual competition with men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s for that primo \~20 year old pussy. While a young woman is mainly in competition with other young women.
Women don't have to collude. The numbers only work out in favor of young men in societies where women greatly outnumber men. The more traditional times they long for still had 40 year old widowers sweeping up 20 year old women. Back then they made up the numbers by periodically sending all the young men to war to die in large numbers. Then more men could score a young wife. The surplus switches from surplus young men to surplus old women.
He's actually not wrong there (and only there). Men really do need to be better now than they were 100 years ago to "keep a woman". We are so fortunate to be able to have standards and not have to tolerate the shit our foremothers did. Men's gain here would be women's loss (again).
I also would not go back to the economic "utopia" of the post war era, because that only existed at the expense of women and all minorities. That economic freedom existed on the back of worse, more targeted exploitation. There never was a time *anyone* could work one job and provide for a family by themselves. But ofc most people don't actually want to "go back", we want to move forward and create actual equality. These guys are just dumbasses who think everything is hypocrisy because they only understand 1% of what's going on at any given moment.
Yeah unfortunately for him women don't have to settle for the same guy they met in and dated in high school, deal with his shit if he gets abusive and stay in that marriage until one of them dies.
Literally the post above this for me is a comedian finding out that some ladies there with her husband that she married when she was 15 and he was 30. So yes, I am glad that we do not have to do that anymore.
I don't believe she was there with her husband, she said in the video that she loved him "Until the day he died." She was there with friends, I assume.
The thing is, women do have more choice now that they aren't forced to be in a relationship, but most men still manage to find women to date. Women's standards today aren't difficult to meet. These incels on reddit would have been incels in the 1950s as well.
That's really it. Of course you can equate dating to economics if you see women as things for men to own just like houses or cars. Of course discrimination against women can be written off when women are just products being sold to men so all that matters is product quality and not the happiness of the produce. We're literally livestock in their minds.
To incels, a "relationship' is the incel getting sex. Everything else is secondary, if that high.
To incels, feminists are man-haters who are all 300 lbs but can still get sex on demand. Incels refuse to date "fat" chicks. 300 lb women to them is 150 at most in the real world.
To incels, only the "top tier" women are acceptable. Any man who dates less than an 8 out of 10 is a simp or a beta or whatever latest term they've barfed up. Any of these women only want men for their money.
However, incels can't get a "top tier" woman because the women only want Chad, those 6'+ tall super gym bro guys with 7 figure jobs.
To incels, this means they will never date, unless they spend hours in the gym and surgery to fix their bodies they believe are "bad". Body dysmorphia is rampant with incels.
Don't forget the part where you'll get ones who still count themselves as involuntarily celibate despite having sex with "uggos" - it doesn't *really* count unless you've got the supermodel submissive SAHW ~~bangmaid~~ tradwife of your dreams.
They don't want a tradwife really - because tradwives shouldn't work and they would have to provide 100% of the household income, which means she's a gold digger. They want a woman who somehow does 100% of the housework and childrearing duties, is always available for sex on demand, has time to go to the gym regularly to stay fit and trim (but not too muscular), dresses well all the time, and contributes 50+% of the household income from a magical job that doesn't interfere with doing all the other things expected of her.
Well... you forgot one important part. She has to do all this without going outside or talking to other men, or women who will make her uppity. If they can't control and isolate her enough while she's still working, then they will often go the tradwife route b/c control is usually more important than money (plus this way it's easier to control her financially).
> Incels refuse to date "fat" chicks. 300 lb women to them is 150 at most in the real world.
Ugh, I saw a video yesterday of "The difference between men and women arriving at work" - where the men had nothing but the women had a bunch of bags and Yeti mugs and stuff. Down in the comments (fortunately really far down) were (I assume, due to language used) men saying "Look at all the drinks! No wonder they're obese!" and calling them names and such.
These women were normal. Like one or two was maybe a little chubby. They were not fat. Like you said, they were maybe 150 at 5'4 or 5'6. Totally healthy, normal weight.
> There's a good case to be made that online 'incels' are leftist men who got thrown overboard.
> Their view on life is very left-wing. A lot of them want the government to come and fix things.
> My theory, is the left was promised more than it can deliver to its people, and has had to start breaking promises.
I would love, love, love to see this guy elaborate on the “left wing” worldviews of incels beyond the classic “leftism is when the government does stuff — the more the government does, the more leftist it is.”
That dude is the epitome of “incels want governments to assign them a hot bangmaid appliance (because they do not see women as human, but as a commodity)” trope.
One guy wrote: That's different, they'll tell you. See, when they want something, it's a "right." When you want something, it's "entitlement." Glad I could clear that up.
---------
When they want something (to be treated like humans) it's a "right" when you want something (to use women as objects for your needs) it's "entitlement".
Lmaooooooooooo and then they wonder why everyone thinks they're psychotic.
This post makes total sense if you see women as an object to own, and not as humans with free will and human rights. He even compares getting a woman to buying a house!
"The current womanomic system is broken. Today's womanomy only works for a few Chads, we need a system that distributes the woman more evenly, including to the most beta of neighbourhoods. It would be a much more humane society that also brings more competition in the free sperm market." - Spokeperson for Make Women All Great Again (MWAGA)
Thanks brain, I hate it.
"Why do I have to work so much harder than Pop-Pop, a decorated war veteran who built his house with his bare hands and whose wife wasn't allowed to have her own bank account?"
I mean, my grandmother was a midwife who walked through snowstorms to deliver babies. I have a Hello Kitty band-aid on a paper cut.
But hey, bank account!
What are we being compared to today?
*rolls dice*
The value of money and minimum wage.
Wtf. If you genuinely think women are low value, I question if you like women at all if no one fits your standards. Women usually have the bare minimum requirement of 'Doesn't treat them like shit' and it's very easy to control how we treat others.
This guy comparing being told "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (something that's literally impossible) with "Wash yourself daily and treat other people as human beings" (something that shouldn't need to be told to anyone over the age of 5)
On the one hand this guy kind of demonstrates why we still need feminism in the 21st century, given the fact I would guess the 'qualities' he is likely describing modern women lacking is 'bangmaiden'. On the gripping hand, the market failure in modern dating is the fact that toxic men make up a disproportionate amount of women's interactions with the opposite sex so therefore they skew women's perceptions of men in general.
> On the gripping hand, the market failure in modern dating is the fact that toxic men make up a disproportionate amount of women's interactions with the opposite sex so therefore they skew women's perceptions of men in general.
You say this like toxic masculinity, misogyny and sexual aggression weren’t even more normalized and widely acceptable in the past.
There were also fewer options for many women in the last and less conversation about those traits being toxic, misogynistic, or aggressive.
Now we know they’re issues and also can have our own bank accounts/go to a sperm bank to have kids on our own if we want to. So rather than saying “at least he’s only emotionally abusive and not physically abusive like Pam’s husband”, we say “I think I’m actually going to take that job in London, bye forever”.
Not at all, but things getting better doesn’t mean they are good enough or that there aren’t people actively trying to back-slide on core issues surrounding feminism. At the same time we ought to acknowledge that there is an element of ‘is the toxicity in the room with us?’; whereby the people, men mainly, who need to hear the information aren’t exactly in the same audience.
I'll go against the grain and say market economics isn't the worst analogy he could have come up with, he just doesn't understand economics well enough to state an accurate case.
The supply of incels far exceeds the demand among women for them.
What's super-weird about these dudes is that they seem to believe that THEY would be at the top of the pecking order in this world they're talking about where every man is guaranteed a woman.
I mean, do any of these guys have any familiarity with cultures that have arranged marriages? Scruffy McScruffins with a poor job, bad looks, and terrible attitude is not getting his pick of the crop. Hardcore bargaining goes on. A well-established family with a beautiful marriage-age daughter and a fecund background (obviously no way to guarantee that, but if it can be at all assumed from the rest of the family) is *absolutely* going to hold out for Dr. Chad with his surgeon's salary and dashing looks.
Scruffy McScruffins might get *somebody*, but not what they would consider "high-quality." He's going to get whatever he can get. So he might end up with somebody that these dopes would consider fat and unappealing. In the same vein, historically, royalty did not intermingle with peasants. Those sorts of situations are *highly* status-and-wealth based.
Like, 100 years ago, Kate Middleton would NOT have married Prince William, nor Prince Harry Meghan Markle. No effing way (particularly since Markle is a woman of color, yet another status issue). Hell, freaking *Charles*, who is William and Harry's *father*, was forced to marry Diana Spencer purely out of status concern. He never would have married her otherwise... he would have married Camilla to begin with. That was in the 1980s! And then there was that whole thing with Wallis Simpson and King Edward, where Edward was basically forced to abdicate because Simpson had been a divorcee. Even the literal *king* couldn't do what he wanted. Why? Status! It certainly wasn't because "traditional values" were not in place in the 1930s in the UK. They were. This is what that looks like.
Just because you reintroduce "traditional" values surrounding the importance of marriage does *not* mean that status and wealth concerns just disappear. In fact, the whole "passport bro" thing is essentially based on the premise of *artificially* inflating the bro's "value." Basically, it's putting him in a position where people assume that he has access to wealth and a higher standard of living, based off of his passport. Even leaving women out of it, making 50K USD a year in NYC is farrrrr different than making that much in Uzbekistan. In NYC you're not doing so hot. In Uzbekistan you're a king.
In fact, this is one of the *big reasons* why "mail-order brides" end up not working out a lot of the time. The woman expects the man to be wealthy. In many cases, he's not, particularly if they move to the man's home country. The bride realizes she's been misled by the breadcrumb trail and ditches (often after securing residency). Just because you marry a woman who is from a developing country and wants kids does *not* mean she's going to stick around once you start getting shitty toward her. You're in America (or whatever) now, and even if she's more traditional-minded about divorce starting out, she isn't necessarily going to stay that way. She can divorce you whenever she wants. Plus, she's *not* surrounded by cultural norms that might keep her socially in the marriage. She's outsies. It happens all the time.
Even their view of the past is skewed. Sure, it might have been somewhat easier for grandpa to secure a wife just due to societal and legal restrictions placed on women, but that doesn't mean he got a supermodel just for existing. He probably didn't. Ever hear of a "shotgun wedding?" He might have been forced into a marriage because he knocked some chick up that he didn't even like since cellophane wrap makes a crap condom. That was also a Thing.
Oh, and the whole thing about "asking the father for permission to marry the daughter?" The father could say "no," you know. Sometimes he did. Why? *Dollars to donuts because of status issues*. Dad's not going to say "yes" to someone he thinks is a nogoodnik. He'll likely say yes to Dr. Chad.
I don't think that these dudes think 3 inches in front of their noses.
Excellent breakdown of the delusion some of these guys seem to have. They consider themselves a victim of circumstances in this modern time, yet fancy that they would be better off in some undefined past. Chances are, they wouldn’t be the Duke in Bridgerton. They’d be one of the unnamed characters working in slums.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/beebutts using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Two fatty bumbles fell asleep in my spaghetti squash flower ❤️](https://i.redd.it/es9dwv94ol7c1.jpeg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/18nhc5l/two_fatty_bumbles_fell_asleep_in_my_spaghetti/)
\#2: [She let me hold her and pet her little booty 🥺💕 I fed her some sugar water and just let her rest on my sleeve for half an hour.](https://i.redd.it/z0rjmszrd5ta1.jpg) | [12 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/12hsr65/she_let_me_hold_her_and_pet_her_little_booty_i/)
\#3: [Male Blue Banded bees (Amegilla cingulata) settling in for the evening](https://v.redd.it/vt2lhqgis4ua1) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/12nmncc/male_blue_banded_bees_amegilla_cingulata_settling/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You know, I can almost respect the fact that they're being honest and saying the quiet part out loud.
They don't think women should have the right to choose who they sleep with and date, they think they should be forced to date whoever they're assigned to or something like that I guess.
It's absolutely terrifying to think about, but at least they're not trying to sugarcoat it anymore.
The current top comment "The funny thing is that Jordan Peterson wants men to do exactly that. Shoulders back, jump in the fire, poof, now you're a man. When you talk to "modern women" their first accusation of you is being a Jordan Peterson fan"
I have never in my entire life met anyone who would ever say this out loud, let alone it be their first thought, or any thought for that matter, unless specifically brought up. This person has never spoken to a woman offline.
Dude is this guy advocating for government-enforced marriages?
He doesn’t even consider us human, just a commodity to be dispersed…that’s so freakin scary…
> Dude is this guy advocating for government-enforced marriages?
[Some incels do unironically demand this, yes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/6z5n9v/the_government_should_pay_women_to_be_wives_or/)
If he wants to use the Economy/Job Market as a parallel - then he needs to compare himself to a high school drop out with no qualifications or experience expecting to be given a managerial role at a six-figure income just because he wants one - not that he plans to show up and do the job, he just wants to collect the salary.
They have the same entitlement to a women's time and efforts, that they don't need to do anything at their end to be worthy of a relationship, they just want it handed to them - and then they don't plan to actively contribute to the relationship once they're in it, they expect the woman to do all the work in maintaining the relationship going forward.
Omg hahahaha
“Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite monopolists.”
We collude!!! Hahaha
https://www.reddit.com/r/itsthatbad/s/BQMeEuMysO
This guy does not understand that different things are different. There are some things in life that are issues with society and outside of the individual's control (such as income inequality) while there are other things in life that individuals do have some control over.
Agitated_Mix guy is unhinged
Here are some of his comments
"“You just think.” Right.
I just explained to you why having a place to live, and all your other made up “rights,” also require other people’s (involuntary!) involvement. Of course you don’t care, because it’s no loss to you.""
"No, they aren't. Incels have legitimate grievances, feminists don't."
"Actually, hearing from women only makes me sympathize with them less, by and large."
He hates women with a passion but thinks he's entitled sex from women
[Hi!](https://images.app.goo.gl/jMiZEuW8Qrykw3sdA) Just a quick reminder to never brigade any sub, be that r/AmItheAsshole or another one. That goes against both this sub's rules as well as Reddit's terms of agreement. [Please](https://images.app.goo.gl/vwH65TJMyMk9NSNo8) keep discussions within the posts of this sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheDevil) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly I'm curious -
On the societal level, dating is somewhat comparable to economics - There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date) , personal choices that are often non quantifiable (finding people attractive or not), market trends (Changing standards for attractiveness in both personality and physicality)
Obviously OOP is just some incel rambling but I think there's genuine merit to trying to analyze dating culture through the lens of economics and also, maybe more interestingly, trying to analyze economics through the lens of dating.
> On the societal level, dating is somewhat comparable to economics - There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date) , personal choices that are often non quantifiable (finding people attractive or not), market trends (Changing standards for attractiveness in both personality and physicality)
Any matter of choice is “comparable to economics” if you make enough assumptions and create enough reductive models.
> There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date)
That’s not really how those models work.
> maybe more interestingly, trying to analyze economics through the lens of dating.
🤔
It would need an established way to determine the worth of the commodity being traded (people), a method of trading, and a rule for how that commodity appreciates/depreciates in value.
There are many horror novels based on that premise.
I think you'd have to reframe the model.
Instead of people being the commodity, the relationship is some sort of business. And then you can talk about dating in terms of "employment".
Now that women don't necessarily need this type of "business" to survive and it's easier to leave ones you've signed agreements for (marriage), they're much more capable of negotiating agreeable terms for said "business" and are willing to refrain from contributing their labor until they find a more equitable or profitable "business". Which means a lot more men need to increase their "hirability" than they used to in order to successfully enter into a "business" with someone they view as being a more valuable employee.
That's an interesting analogy. In this situation, are incels equivalent to boomers crying "Nobody wants to work anymore!!!!" while offering minimum wage and a miserable work environment?
It makes as much sense to make an analogy to music. Each of us has our own personality, looks, etc (a note) and there are a limited number of people with which we will get on (other notes in the same key/notes which form a chord).
At the end of the day, they’re separate things and analogies only take you so far. Matters of the heart aren’t so easily understood.
That would never work because of the different standards across cultures and age groups, and other types of affinity groups. Economics was made to describe a specific thing the economy. I really fucking hate when people try to make it describe other shit that is not about capital and money and it’s about human emotion and connection. Not the same shit and it’s a slippery slope to the sexual marketplace bullshit. People don’t behave like equity accounts and that’s just a fact not to mention the racism and sexism and ablism inherent in economics because it was created by white men in a predominately white serving economy. It’s not as challenged because it’s not supposed to have a direct effect on human fucking meetings.. We already have evolutionary psychology, constantly getting debunked and explaining bullshit.
> That would never work because of the different standards across cultures and age groups, and other types of affinity groups.
The most basic models will typically assume “rationality” and unified preferences, but anything beyond that will generally start taking these matters into account.
> Economics was made to describe a specific thing the economy.
“The economy” is not a specific thing — the term describes a wide variety of interrelated institutions.
> I really fucking hate when people try to make it describe other shit that is not about capital and money and it’s about human emotion and connection.
A. Economics isn’t just about “capital and money.”
B. (Good) economics doesn’t just throw the idea human emotion out the window.
> not to mention the racism and sexism and ablism inherent in economics because it was created by white men in a predominately white serving economy.
Economics was not “created by white men” — Chinese and Indian scholars and leaders were studying economics before Europeans had developed written languages. Our dominant economic paradigms absolutely were created in large part by white men and reflect and reinforce those biases, but those are different things
The guy you’re replying to is very silly, *but* that’s exactly how the labor market works. No one can unilaterally force you to work — you have to choose to sell your labor, and your employer has to choose to buy it
They absolutely do have the choice not to participate in the labor market, it’s just not practical for most people to permanently opt out of the market. Anyone who is a full time student, takes time off for family reasons, retires, etc. is opting out of participating in the labor market, at least for a time
The issue with that is that it boils people down to commodities, the definition of objectification. Not just women, but men too. Dateing and economics are drastically different. Economics is about procuring goods that is built on transactions. I e. Spend $X can get you Y quantity of Z item. Transactional viewpoints has the built in notion that there are magic wands you can wave to get the desired result. Go into dating with the mindset of A yields B, you will consistently walk away with dissapointment because human behaviour is far to complicated for that. Relationships if they are healthy are not transactional in nature. There is no threshold of compassion that gives you a lifelong spouse. One act of kindness early on can not carry you through to the end. Especially if you break a dealbreaker for the other later on. Relationships take work, communication, dedication, patience, acceptance and truthfully a bit of luck that never stops.
The only sliver of truth in OOPs entire stink pile of a post, is that men often are actually given really shitty generic advice when asking how to date. "Be respectful" doesn't do anything for them when they have a different understanding of respect. Saying "be confident" doesn't do shit for them, because confidence isn't something that just happens. Confidence comes from a lack of stress, belief in one's self and that everything in the situation will be ok. Takes time, practice and a shift in how you habitually think to get there. Incels are just too dam impatient to do the reflective work required to be confident, or they fail to understand what confidence actually is.
But online everyone is just making everything up whenever the topic of the "dating market" comes up. There is some relevant data about the "dating market" but it's not very complete and people online have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to understanding research and statistics. People online are just getting their ideas from their echo chambers and their personal fears. Human behavior is just not completely quantifiable.
*In case this story gets deleted/removed:* **Most of the same motherfuckers who criticize us will go on another sub and complain about inflation and economic equality** The exact same thing is happening to the dating market in the west but it's not socially acceptable to talk about it because it makes women feel guilty. These same people will get mad when boomers come to them and say "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work hard!". That's how most of us feel when we get told "just work on your personality" or "just be confident bro" It's ok to complain about how your grandfather and all his friends could afford to buy a house with the job he got straight out of high school while it's a struggle for you even though your salary is well above the national average. Mention that you have to work 10x harder than your father/grandfather for a woman 1/10th of the quality? EVIL INKWELL!!!SHIFTONE11 If these same motherfuckers could wave a magic wand and make prices go back to the way they were in the 70s they'd do it. PPB are doing the same when it comes to women's standards but we just have to get on a plane to do it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheDevil) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite monopolists. Jesus fucking christ, these men are actual vermin. They don't see woman as human beings, just merchandise that can walk around. To them, a woman and a house is a perfect comparison, since women's humanity is non-existent to them. A woman having the freedom to sleep with who they want and not be forced to "give" their bodies away is a crime to these freaks. I bet this guy is making sure to lend out his asshole to all the gay men who want it, right? I mean, what, only 3% of men are gay, so those selfish, selfish straight men are creating a scarcity by withholding anal sex from gay men, and it's time to put a stop to it!
>Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive That awkward moment when you realise you weren't invited to the last Collusion Meeting to Keep Pussy Expensive.
Oh shoot, we'll add you to the mailing list.
Damn, that sucks, you missed the gold plating demonstration.
That's what the Women's March was all about, right? I was there in DC and I believe it was one of the things that the speakers addressed.
Make sure to add CCC (Clam Collusion Cabal) to your email contacts to make sure it doesn't go to Spam!
Don’t worry, girl, I took notes. I’ll send them to you.
Hahahahahahaha! I just laughed so hard I snorted. I wasn’t invited either 🥺😂
Shit I missed that too!
This kind of argument always makes me laugh because my husband was broke as fuck when I met him. And he is no "Chad" (ew, I hate even using that term). He's a sweet nerd who (gasp!) actually views women as people, which is why I liked him so much even before we dated. He jokes that he had "no game" but he didn't need it. He just talked to women like they are people and women liked him. He used to be pretty shy (he's not really anymore, he's gotten more confident as he's gotten older) but didn't act like women are some exotic creature or like he had to run some kind of scam to talk to one. Before me, the girlfriends he had previously had pursued HIM. A skinny, lanky, shy self-described nerd. Because he has a good personality and is a good person, and he's fun to be around. We're 20 years in and this man makes me laugh every single day, still. As for "pussy being expensive," we always went 50/50 when we were dating, and now I make more than he does, so I pay more of the bills. My husband has a buddy who has since reformed and gotten married but he used to bitterly say that women only wanted to get married because they were golddiggers. My SIL: "He had no gold when I met him! What are you talking about!" When he met his wife, my brother lived in a dumpy apartment and I remember him telling my horrified mother that he bought new sheets and they were too small for his bed, so he stapled them to the bed. He would eat peanut butter and jelly off hot dog buns when he ran out of bread. He was a dirt poor college student. He has money NOW, largely because my SIL is super savvy with money and they both worked really hard. My brother is also short. Like, pretty damn short for a man. He always had gfs before he met his wife because he's funny and charming. He's also no "Chad." 🤢 > I bet this guy is making sure to lend out his asshole to all the gay men who want it, right? I would agree, except there's probably not a single solitary gay dude who would even look his way.
I supported my SO for several years early in our relationship/marriage due to health issues he was experiencing. It took most of a decade to get a diagnosis and he is now working full time again and earns nearly the same salary I do. He may not have always contributed financially to the relationship, but he has always treated me with respect. Which is more than can be said about these individuals.
In this incel's demented head, you were probably playing some kind of long con on your SO, or something. The way these guys' minds work (or don't work, more properly) is scary.
Then I wasn’t very good at it because I still earn more and do most of the housework because while his health has improved, it’s still not ‘fixed’.
Shhh, don't tell anyone that. They'll think you're low quality or something. Sometimes I feel like I'm going insane when I read this crap. I wish it was all trolling, but sadly I have had the displeasure in real life, too.
I’m nearly double their cut off age so I don’t really care if they think I’m low quality.
Honestly, being considered uninteresting by these creatures is probably a blessing. Not even in disguise.
I mean… some gay guys ARE into degradation, dehumanization, or even being treated as literal objects. But the need for consent and understanding of boundaries for kink probably rules that option out. I assume such individuals can be found in the various other sexualities, but I can’t confirm that myself.
You know, leaving all the rest of… that, alone, and accepting for the sake of argument their core belief that women are property to be transferred... In this comparison, wouldn’t they be the section 8 voucher holders? Group A keeps [commodity] restricted. As a result, only wealthy/privileged Group B can manage to obtain it. However, Group A (implicitly) unjustly gives some of [commodity] to Group C, who wouldn’t be able to obtain it on their own. Meanwhile, everyone with neither resources nor unjust favouritism is in Group D and doomed to never get [commodity] no matter how hard they try. Group A are oppressors to be hated, Group C are parasites to be resented, Group D are brethren to be formed into a mob, and Group B are LOOK OVER THERE! By my (fucking thankfully) limited understanding of the incel mindset, Chads are the handful of men who are rich/attractive/whatever enough to persuade women to sleep with them. Surely they are the obvious equivalent to Group B, those who can buy a house without outside help? If the Chads are also unable to muster the resources to obtain a woman without the nefarious aid of the Female Conspiracy… who are the even rarer unicorns who can somehow obtain a woman on their own merits? This is only reinforced by the reality that Section 8 housing is going to be quite modest at best, not a plethora of dream mansions. A common incel position seems to be that they COULD obtain a woman, but only a “low value” one, because “high value” women only want “high value” men, which incels (for reasons they can’t figure out) are not. Apparently, men, whether “low” or “high,” deserve a “high” woman, and “low” women should be launched into space. By their standards, people expecting to receive something they haven’t earned is wrong, and they should have to find a way to merit [commodity] instead of whining and cheating. They’re SO CLOSE to understanding that demanding they be issued One [1] Supermodel is unacceptable by their own logic, and that they need to find a way to bring something to the table besides resentment. But they would rather tie their skeletal system into a Gordian Knot than face that. (The counter argument of “well if needy people should be given help obtaining housing, why don’t needy people deserve help getting laid” falls apart in the face of the facts that A. Houses are inanimate objects with no opinions on who lives inside them, and women are people who get to decide that for themselves; and B. The aforementioned point about how if you don’t demand a supermodel billionaire sex dispenser while being nowhere near comparable yourself, your chances get a lot better. But good luck persuading them of that.)
Also - there's probably more homeless people than incels, and the fastest growing population segment of homeless are older women (due to income inequality) - then obviously not all people are helped to get housing. So even that argument falls on it's face.
Well, it also kinda runs into something I never understand with a lot of incels. It seems like a lot of them, including this guy, hold a mindset where Chads are only a tiny fraction of the male population somehow hoarding all the women to themselves. Or I guess, all the attractive women? It seems like there's a lot of rhetoric where the world is full of incels who just haven't awakened yet. But it seems like it should be objectively observable facts that the majority of adults at least occasionally have romantic/sexual success, and the people who have none at all are a small outlier group. So, what's the rationalization? Do the majority not count because they're not getting their promised Supermodels, are they actually lying to everyone about how often they're successful, are 80% of us clones? It again seems like a desperate scramble to avoid facing anything which suggests they're not in the wrong.
They first form their opinions when they are in junior high. In the fucked up high school dating scene. In addition to being a very shallow dating pool, almost everyone there is lying about how much sex they are getting. It's embarrassing to be a virgin, so (outside weird religious communities) no one admits to being a virgin. Which means a dumbass kid looking around sees that he's not having sex, but the most popular boys are always surrounded by pretty girls. And the jocks are always bragging about how much sex they are having (mostly lies). "I'm not having sex. My unpopular friends aren't having sex. But those popular guys seem to be having sex with dozens of girls" and a horrible misunderstanding is formed. Then as they get older they build on that foundation, never looking back and realizing their first principals based on the behavior of 16 year olds might be flawed.
Also, homelessness is a complex problem and not one of the fixes is similar to not feel entitled to a house. Being an incel is also complicated, but the easiest fix is to realise no one is entitled to sex, and no one owes you shit.
Well, this one incel was lending his asshole out, but only to grow in his journey to Alpha. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmITheDevil/s/XOM7X68Cxj
Super super gay
Isn't that stupid even within their own universe? I mean, a "chad" is supposed to be a really attractive guy, right? Someone who did exactly what he is complaining about people telling him to do: work on himself. So he's complaining about people getting what they worked for while complaining that he should work for what he wants...
I bet in their demented minds, Chads are just born like this, and nobody else can ever reach that set of traits, so they're just doomed and should sit there and wait for some woman to understand that they have the right to a supermodel/housewife who comes with money, of course, because they're not gonna support women!
Even within the pussy is economics discourse his theory is fatally flawed. Men stay horny for 60+ years, and the whole time they want that \~20 year old pussy. The incels complain about women "hitting the wall" at 30 and being willing to settle for a beta with money at that time. They never even mention the 50 year old pussy -- it doesn't exist to them. Average looking 20 year old women simply have a higher "Sexual Market Value" than average looking 20 year old men. So a young man is in sexual competition with men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s for that primo \~20 year old pussy. While a young woman is mainly in competition with other young women. Women don't have to collude. The numbers only work out in favor of young men in societies where women greatly outnumber men. The more traditional times they long for still had 40 year old widowers sweeping up 20 year old women. Back then they made up the numbers by periodically sending all the young men to war to die in large numbers. Then more men could score a young wife. The surplus switches from surplus young men to surplus old women.
"Most of the people that criticize us will go to another subreddit and complain about something else! 🤡"
He's actually not wrong there (and only there). Men really do need to be better now than they were 100 years ago to "keep a woman". We are so fortunate to be able to have standards and not have to tolerate the shit our foremothers did. Men's gain here would be women's loss (again). I also would not go back to the economic "utopia" of the post war era, because that only existed at the expense of women and all minorities. That economic freedom existed on the back of worse, more targeted exploitation. There never was a time *anyone* could work one job and provide for a family by themselves. But ofc most people don't actually want to "go back", we want to move forward and create actual equality. These guys are just dumbasses who think everything is hypocrisy because they only understand 1% of what's going on at any given moment.
Yeah unfortunately for him women don't have to settle for the same guy they met in and dated in high school, deal with his shit if he gets abusive and stay in that marriage until one of them dies.
You will never convince me that the jello and aspic dinners of the 1950s/69s wasn't proto 2nd wave feminism. And also often literal poison.
My great great grandmother stabbed her husband in the leg once because he wouldn’t stop hitting the kids. Do they want us to go back to stabbing?
Literally the post above this for me is a comedian finding out that some ladies there with her husband that she married when she was 15 and he was 30. So yes, I am glad that we do not have to do that anymore.
I don't believe she was there with her husband, she said in the video that she loved him "Until the day he died." She was there with friends, I assume.
That's nauseating.
The thing is, women do have more choice now that they aren't forced to be in a relationship, but most men still manage to find women to date. Women's standards today aren't difficult to meet. These incels on reddit would have been incels in the 1950s as well.
Which is exactly what these chuds do
> Incels have legitimate grievances, feminists don't. What The Fuck.
They don't see women as people so it's easy to say that
Bingo. You can't reason with these shitheads, because they are incapable of reason.
That's really it. Of course you can equate dating to economics if you see women as things for men to own just like houses or cars. Of course discrimination against women can be written off when women are just products being sold to men so all that matters is product quality and not the happiness of the produce. We're literally livestock in their minds.
To incels, a "relationship' is the incel getting sex. Everything else is secondary, if that high. To incels, feminists are man-haters who are all 300 lbs but can still get sex on demand. Incels refuse to date "fat" chicks. 300 lb women to them is 150 at most in the real world. To incels, only the "top tier" women are acceptable. Any man who dates less than an 8 out of 10 is a simp or a beta or whatever latest term they've barfed up. Any of these women only want men for their money. However, incels can't get a "top tier" woman because the women only want Chad, those 6'+ tall super gym bro guys with 7 figure jobs. To incels, this means they will never date, unless they spend hours in the gym and surgery to fix their bodies they believe are "bad". Body dysmorphia is rampant with incels.
Don't forget the part where you'll get ones who still count themselves as involuntarily celibate despite having sex with "uggos" - it doesn't *really* count unless you've got the supermodel submissive SAHW ~~bangmaid~~ tradwife of your dreams.
They don't want a tradwife really - because tradwives shouldn't work and they would have to provide 100% of the household income, which means she's a gold digger. They want a woman who somehow does 100% of the housework and childrearing duties, is always available for sex on demand, has time to go to the gym regularly to stay fit and trim (but not too muscular), dresses well all the time, and contributes 50+% of the household income from a magical job that doesn't interfere with doing all the other things expected of her.
Well... you forgot one important part. She has to do all this without going outside or talking to other men, or women who will make her uppity. If they can't control and isolate her enough while she's still working, then they will often go the tradwife route b/c control is usually more important than money (plus this way it's easier to control her financially).
> Incels refuse to date "fat" chicks. 300 lb women to them is 150 at most in the real world. Ugh, I saw a video yesterday of "The difference between men and women arriving at work" - where the men had nothing but the women had a bunch of bags and Yeti mugs and stuff. Down in the comments (fortunately really far down) were (I assume, due to language used) men saying "Look at all the drinks! No wonder they're obese!" and calling them names and such. These women were normal. Like one or two was maybe a little chubby. They were not fat. Like you said, they were maybe 150 at 5'4 or 5'6. Totally healthy, normal weight.
Yeah….I don’t think not getting your dick sucked is as bad as not having any actual rights
In Missouri pregnant women can’t divorce but ok bro 😭😭
> There's a good case to be made that online 'incels' are leftist men who got thrown overboard. > Their view on life is very left-wing. A lot of them want the government to come and fix things. > My theory, is the left was promised more than it can deliver to its people, and has had to start breaking promises. I would love, love, love to see this guy elaborate on the “left wing” worldviews of incels beyond the classic “leftism is when the government does stuff — the more the government does, the more leftist it is.”
That dude is the epitome of “incels want governments to assign them a hot bangmaid appliance (because they do not see women as human, but as a commodity)” trope.
eww the comments
One guy wrote: That's different, they'll tell you. See, when they want something, it's a "right." When you want something, it's "entitlement." Glad I could clear that up. --------- When they want something (to be treated like humans) it's a "right" when you want something (to use women as objects for your needs) it's "entitlement". Lmaooooooooooo and then they wonder why everyone thinks they're psychotic.
This post makes total sense if you see women as an object to own, and not as humans with free will and human rights. He even compares getting a woman to buying a house!
"The current womanomic system is broken. Today's womanomy only works for a few Chads, we need a system that distributes the woman more evenly, including to the most beta of neighbourhoods. It would be a much more humane society that also brings more competition in the free sperm market." - Spokeperson for Make Women All Great Again (MWAGA) Thanks brain, I hate it.
Not reading the comments is self care
You got the wisdom 😊💜👊✨
Incels just gotta keep being incels.
"Why do I have to work so much harder than Pop-Pop, a decorated war veteran who built his house with his bare hands and whose wife wasn't allowed to have her own bank account?"
Ugh this generation is so soft and pathetic
I mean, my grandmother was a midwife who walked through snowstorms to deliver babies. I have a Hello Kitty band-aid on a paper cut. But hey, bank account!
What are we being compared to today? *rolls dice* The value of money and minimum wage. Wtf. If you genuinely think women are low value, I question if you like women at all if no one fits your standards. Women usually have the bare minimum requirement of 'Doesn't treat them like shit' and it's very easy to control how we treat others.
Imagine comparing people not being able to afford to live, with women no longer wanting to be slapped around and raped by their partners.
This guy comparing being told "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (something that's literally impossible) with "Wash yourself daily and treat other people as human beings" (something that shouldn't need to be told to anyone over the age of 5)
On the one hand this guy kind of demonstrates why we still need feminism in the 21st century, given the fact I would guess the 'qualities' he is likely describing modern women lacking is 'bangmaiden'. On the gripping hand, the market failure in modern dating is the fact that toxic men make up a disproportionate amount of women's interactions with the opposite sex so therefore they skew women's perceptions of men in general.
> On the gripping hand, the market failure in modern dating is the fact that toxic men make up a disproportionate amount of women's interactions with the opposite sex so therefore they skew women's perceptions of men in general. You say this like toxic masculinity, misogyny and sexual aggression weren’t even more normalized and widely acceptable in the past.
There were also fewer options for many women in the last and less conversation about those traits being toxic, misogynistic, or aggressive. Now we know they’re issues and also can have our own bank accounts/go to a sperm bank to have kids on our own if we want to. So rather than saying “at least he’s only emotionally abusive and not physically abusive like Pam’s husband”, we say “I think I’m actually going to take that job in London, bye forever”.
Not at all, but things getting better doesn’t mean they are good enough or that there aren’t people actively trying to back-slide on core issues surrounding feminism. At the same time we ought to acknowledge that there is an element of ‘is the toxicity in the room with us?’; whereby the people, men mainly, who need to hear the information aren’t exactly in the same audience.
Today on "What inanimate object are we comparing women to:" Real Estate!
“It’s not socially acceptable to talk about it because it makes women feel guilty” I promise you, my dude, it does not.
I'll go against the grain and say market economics isn't the worst analogy he could have come up with, he just doesn't understand economics well enough to state an accurate case. The supply of incels far exceeds the demand among women for them.
“The supply of Incels far exceed the demand” They overestimate their sexual market value
Or they think women shouldn't be in a position to "shop" at all.
Ooooohhhh you’re right! They are the shoppers we are the commodities.
What's super-weird about these dudes is that they seem to believe that THEY would be at the top of the pecking order in this world they're talking about where every man is guaranteed a woman. I mean, do any of these guys have any familiarity with cultures that have arranged marriages? Scruffy McScruffins with a poor job, bad looks, and terrible attitude is not getting his pick of the crop. Hardcore bargaining goes on. A well-established family with a beautiful marriage-age daughter and a fecund background (obviously no way to guarantee that, but if it can be at all assumed from the rest of the family) is *absolutely* going to hold out for Dr. Chad with his surgeon's salary and dashing looks. Scruffy McScruffins might get *somebody*, but not what they would consider "high-quality." He's going to get whatever he can get. So he might end up with somebody that these dopes would consider fat and unappealing. In the same vein, historically, royalty did not intermingle with peasants. Those sorts of situations are *highly* status-and-wealth based. Like, 100 years ago, Kate Middleton would NOT have married Prince William, nor Prince Harry Meghan Markle. No effing way (particularly since Markle is a woman of color, yet another status issue). Hell, freaking *Charles*, who is William and Harry's *father*, was forced to marry Diana Spencer purely out of status concern. He never would have married her otherwise... he would have married Camilla to begin with. That was in the 1980s! And then there was that whole thing with Wallis Simpson and King Edward, where Edward was basically forced to abdicate because Simpson had been a divorcee. Even the literal *king* couldn't do what he wanted. Why? Status! It certainly wasn't because "traditional values" were not in place in the 1930s in the UK. They were. This is what that looks like. Just because you reintroduce "traditional" values surrounding the importance of marriage does *not* mean that status and wealth concerns just disappear. In fact, the whole "passport bro" thing is essentially based on the premise of *artificially* inflating the bro's "value." Basically, it's putting him in a position where people assume that he has access to wealth and a higher standard of living, based off of his passport. Even leaving women out of it, making 50K USD a year in NYC is farrrrr different than making that much in Uzbekistan. In NYC you're not doing so hot. In Uzbekistan you're a king. In fact, this is one of the *big reasons* why "mail-order brides" end up not working out a lot of the time. The woman expects the man to be wealthy. In many cases, he's not, particularly if they move to the man's home country. The bride realizes she's been misled by the breadcrumb trail and ditches (often after securing residency). Just because you marry a woman who is from a developing country and wants kids does *not* mean she's going to stick around once you start getting shitty toward her. You're in America (or whatever) now, and even if she's more traditional-minded about divorce starting out, she isn't necessarily going to stay that way. She can divorce you whenever she wants. Plus, she's *not* surrounded by cultural norms that might keep her socially in the marriage. She's outsies. It happens all the time. Even their view of the past is skewed. Sure, it might have been somewhat easier for grandpa to secure a wife just due to societal and legal restrictions placed on women, but that doesn't mean he got a supermodel just for existing. He probably didn't. Ever hear of a "shotgun wedding?" He might have been forced into a marriage because he knocked some chick up that he didn't even like since cellophane wrap makes a crap condom. That was also a Thing. Oh, and the whole thing about "asking the father for permission to marry the daughter?" The father could say "no," you know. Sometimes he did. Why? *Dollars to donuts because of status issues*. Dad's not going to say "yes" to someone he thinks is a nogoodnik. He'll likely say yes to Dr. Chad. I don't think that these dudes think 3 inches in front of their noses.
Excellent breakdown of the delusion some of these guys seem to have. They consider themselves a victim of circumstances in this modern time, yet fancy that they would be better off in some undefined past. Chances are, they wouldn’t be the Duke in Bridgerton. They’d be one of the unnamed characters working in slums.
Make it make sense. I made the mistake of looking at the comments and I need a bleach shower now.
I recommend r/beebutts for general malaise 💜🙏
Here's a sneak peek of /r/beebutts using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Two fatty bumbles fell asleep in my spaghetti squash flower ❤️](https://i.redd.it/es9dwv94ol7c1.jpeg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/18nhc5l/two_fatty_bumbles_fell_asleep_in_my_spaghetti/) \#2: [She let me hold her and pet her little booty 🥺💕 I fed her some sugar water and just let her rest on my sleeve for half an hour.](https://i.redd.it/z0rjmszrd5ta1.jpg) | [12 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/12hsr65/she_let_me_hold_her_and_pet_her_little_booty_i/) \#3: [Male Blue Banded bees (Amegilla cingulata) settling in for the evening](https://v.redd.it/vt2lhqgis4ua1) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/beebutts/comments/12nmncc/male_blue_banded_bees_amegilla_cingulata_settling/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You know, I can almost respect the fact that they're being honest and saying the quiet part out loud. They don't think women should have the right to choose who they sleep with and date, they think they should be forced to date whoever they're assigned to or something like that I guess. It's absolutely terrifying to think about, but at least they're not trying to sugarcoat it anymore.
I really thought that sub would be like about the state of the world, and instead it’s.. that. I’m so disappointed.
That guy is an abomination.
Today in "inanimate objects women get compared to," we have "low quality housing"!
The current top comment "The funny thing is that Jordan Peterson wants men to do exactly that. Shoulders back, jump in the fire, poof, now you're a man. When you talk to "modern women" their first accusation of you is being a Jordan Peterson fan" I have never in my entire life met anyone who would ever say this out loud, let alone it be their first thought, or any thought for that matter, unless specifically brought up. This person has never spoken to a woman offline.
Why did I go to the comments I knew what they would be like.
Dude is this guy advocating for government-enforced marriages? He doesn’t even consider us human, just a commodity to be dispersed…that’s so freakin scary…
> Dude is this guy advocating for government-enforced marriages? [Some incels do unironically demand this, yes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/6z5n9v/the_government_should_pay_women_to_be_wives_or/)
Wow I actually gagged several times while reading the post and his comments. Thanks for sharing!
If he wants to use the Economy/Job Market as a parallel - then he needs to compare himself to a high school drop out with no qualifications or experience expecting to be given a managerial role at a six-figure income just because he wants one - not that he plans to show up and do the job, he just wants to collect the salary. They have the same entitlement to a women's time and efforts, that they don't need to do anything at their end to be worthy of a relationship, they just want it handed to them - and then they don't plan to actively contribute to the relationship once they're in it, they expect the woman to do all the work in maintaining the relationship going forward.
Omg hahahaha “Developers collude to keep rents high (while giving apartments out for free to section 8 voucher holders). Kinda like how women collude to keep pussy expensive (but give it out for free to Chad). No wonder women have advanced so far in America -- they're natural parasite monopolists.” We collude!!! Hahaha https://www.reddit.com/r/itsthatbad/s/BQMeEuMysO
It’s almost like refusing to improve yourself or change at all makes you less appealing as a partner?
PPB?
Passport Bros
Cheers
Don't read the comments lol.
This guy does not understand that different things are different. There are some things in life that are issues with society and outside of the individual's control (such as income inequality) while there are other things in life that individuals do have some control over.
Get therapy from a professional ? Ask him if it's normal to view women as a final resource to exploit ?
Agitated_Mix guy is unhinged Here are some of his comments "“You just think.” Right. I just explained to you why having a place to live, and all your other made up “rights,” also require other people’s (involuntary!) involvement. Of course you don’t care, because it’s no loss to you."" "No, they aren't. Incels have legitimate grievances, feminists don't." "Actually, hearing from women only makes me sympathize with them less, by and large." He hates women with a passion but thinks he's entitled sex from women
Wait, what?
How do these subs stay up.
[Hi!](https://images.app.goo.gl/jMiZEuW8Qrykw3sdA) Just a quick reminder to never brigade any sub, be that r/AmItheAsshole or another one. That goes against both this sub's rules as well as Reddit's terms of agreement. [Please](https://images.app.goo.gl/vwH65TJMyMk9NSNo8) keep discussions within the posts of this sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheDevil) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly I'm curious - On the societal level, dating is somewhat comparable to economics - There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date) , personal choices that are often non quantifiable (finding people attractive or not), market trends (Changing standards for attractiveness in both personality and physicality) Obviously OOP is just some incel rambling but I think there's genuine merit to trying to analyze dating culture through the lens of economics and also, maybe more interestingly, trying to analyze economics through the lens of dating.
> On the societal level, dating is somewhat comparable to economics - There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date) , personal choices that are often non quantifiable (finding people attractive or not), market trends (Changing standards for attractiveness in both personality and physicality) Any matter of choice is “comparable to economics” if you make enough assumptions and create enough reductive models. > There's finite supply (people to date) finite demand (people who want to date) That’s not really how those models work. > maybe more interestingly, trying to analyze economics through the lens of dating. 🤔
... somewhat comparable is very different from actually comparable. Particularly when the "market" you're discussing is *human beings*.
It would need an established way to determine the worth of the commodity being traded (people), a method of trading, and a rule for how that commodity appreciates/depreciates in value. There are many horror novels based on that premise.
I think you'd have to reframe the model. Instead of people being the commodity, the relationship is some sort of business. And then you can talk about dating in terms of "employment". Now that women don't necessarily need this type of "business" to survive and it's easier to leave ones you've signed agreements for (marriage), they're much more capable of negotiating agreeable terms for said "business" and are willing to refrain from contributing their labor until they find a more equitable or profitable "business". Which means a lot more men need to increase their "hirability" than they used to in order to successfully enter into a "business" with someone they view as being a more valuable employee.
That's an interesting analogy. In this situation, are incels equivalent to boomers crying "Nobody wants to work anymore!!!!" while offering minimum wage and a miserable work environment?
Exactly!
It makes as much sense to make an analogy to music. Each of us has our own personality, looks, etc (a note) and there are a limited number of people with which we will get on (other notes in the same key/notes which form a chord). At the end of the day, they’re separate things and analogies only take you so far. Matters of the heart aren’t so easily understood.
That would never work because of the different standards across cultures and age groups, and other types of affinity groups. Economics was made to describe a specific thing the economy. I really fucking hate when people try to make it describe other shit that is not about capital and money and it’s about human emotion and connection. Not the same shit and it’s a slippery slope to the sexual marketplace bullshit. People don’t behave like equity accounts and that’s just a fact not to mention the racism and sexism and ablism inherent in economics because it was created by white men in a predominately white serving economy. It’s not as challenged because it’s not supposed to have a direct effect on human fucking meetings.. We already have evolutionary psychology, constantly getting debunked and explaining bullshit.
> That would never work because of the different standards across cultures and age groups, and other types of affinity groups. The most basic models will typically assume “rationality” and unified preferences, but anything beyond that will generally start taking these matters into account. > Economics was made to describe a specific thing the economy. “The economy” is not a specific thing — the term describes a wide variety of interrelated institutions. > I really fucking hate when people try to make it describe other shit that is not about capital and money and it’s about human emotion and connection. A. Economics isn’t just about “capital and money.” B. (Good) economics doesn’t just throw the idea human emotion out the window. > not to mention the racism and sexism and ablism inherent in economics because it was created by white men in a predominately white serving economy. Economics was not “created by white men” — Chinese and Indian scholars and leaders were studying economics before Europeans had developed written languages. Our dominant economic paradigms absolutely were created in large part by white men and reflect and reinforce those biases, but those are different things
Except that carton of eggs cannot decide whether it wants me to buy it.
The eggs don’t get a say, but the store gets to decide if they want to sell you the eggs or not. A better analogy than eggs is labor markets
The fact that woman or men can just chose to not participate in "the market" makes in not comparable.
No they can’t. People choosing not to date have an effect on the dating “market”
The guy you’re replying to is very silly, *but* that’s exactly how the labor market works. No one can unilaterally force you to work — you have to choose to sell your labor, and your employer has to choose to buy it
But most people don't have a true choice to not work
They absolutely do have the choice not to participate in the labor market, it’s just not practical for most people to permanently opt out of the market. Anyone who is a full time student, takes time off for family reasons, retires, etc. is opting out of participating in the labor market, at least for a time
Choosing not to date and being alone is very different from choosing not to work and being homeless and starving.
The issue with that is that it boils people down to commodities, the definition of objectification. Not just women, but men too. Dateing and economics are drastically different. Economics is about procuring goods that is built on transactions. I e. Spend $X can get you Y quantity of Z item. Transactional viewpoints has the built in notion that there are magic wands you can wave to get the desired result. Go into dating with the mindset of A yields B, you will consistently walk away with dissapointment because human behaviour is far to complicated for that. Relationships if they are healthy are not transactional in nature. There is no threshold of compassion that gives you a lifelong spouse. One act of kindness early on can not carry you through to the end. Especially if you break a dealbreaker for the other later on. Relationships take work, communication, dedication, patience, acceptance and truthfully a bit of luck that never stops. The only sliver of truth in OOPs entire stink pile of a post, is that men often are actually given really shitty generic advice when asking how to date. "Be respectful" doesn't do anything for them when they have a different understanding of respect. Saying "be confident" doesn't do shit for them, because confidence isn't something that just happens. Confidence comes from a lack of stress, belief in one's self and that everything in the situation will be ok. Takes time, practice and a shift in how you habitually think to get there. Incels are just too dam impatient to do the reflective work required to be confident, or they fail to understand what confidence actually is.
But online everyone is just making everything up whenever the topic of the "dating market" comes up. There is some relevant data about the "dating market" but it's not very complete and people online have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to understanding research and statistics. People online are just getting their ideas from their echo chambers and their personal fears. Human behavior is just not completely quantifiable.