Counter-Currents
Career Opportunities
1,949 words
We’ve all seen sci-fi movies where an attractive woman gets stuck alone with a guy she normally wouldn’t consider, gets to know “the real him,” something threatens her, he rescues or protects her, and they pair up in the end. For example, in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, the scoundrel smuggler Han Solo wins over Princess Leia while they were stuck in outer space together in the Millennium Falcon.
A non-sci-fi movie like this is Career Opportunities, which concerns a night janitor at a 1989 Target retail store and a beautiful rich girl who get locked inside overnight together. He’s there for work, and she’s there to fake running away from home to act out against her overbearing father. The two went to high school together, but of course never dated, let alone spoke to each other. Of course, she gets to know the “real him” as they roller skate around the Target aisles and have dinner together. Little do they know, but thieves are also in the building. They hold the two hostage, but of course, the night janitor fends them off and saves the day, and the film ends with him and the rich girl in a car together, now a couple.
Career Opportunities and Star Wars depict male fantasies of narrowing the playing field down to one and rescuing a damsel in distress. An even more pronounced male fantasy is Vincent Gallo’s Buffalo 66, where a man kidnaps a young woman, and perhaps through some sort of Stockholm syndrome she ends up liking him. Critics, of course, didn’t hesitate to call it a male fantasy, but at least in male fantasy stories the sexual market clears, so to speak, and a man and woman pair up.
Jennifer Connelly, who plays the rich girl in Career Opportunities, didn’t marry a night janitor. She married Paul Bettany, an actor of similar means. The two physically resemble Dissident Right figures Tara and Cory McCarthy. These are cognate relationship phenotypes, I suppose, despite contrasting starkly in political affiliation, Connelly and Bettany being standard Hollywood leftists.
YouTuber Diana Dark Angel took footage from the Target date in Career Opportunities and combined it with electropop music maker Mr.Kitty’s most popular single, After Dark, a retro 1980s synthwave piece which sort of fits the atmosphere of a Target store from 1989. The idea of two young adults transforming an otherwise boring big-box store into a fun first date is heartwarming. It’s proof that what matters is what’s inside rather than one’s position in society. In other words, the real heat comes from within and not from one’s surroundings.
The most popular comment regarding Diana Dark Angel’s video is, “This song makes me feel nostalgic for something that never happened.” A lot of millennials and zoomers who have fallen prey to the Singles Epidemic probably feel the same way. The experiences they should have had, never happened.
The question is, could a night janitor like the one in Career Opportunities ever really get a woman like Jennifer Connelly? He could also win a billion-dollar Power Ball lottery, but the odds aren’t in his favor.
The plot of Career Opportunities is unlikely to happen in real life, but women do marry down; just not in contrasts so extreme. Usually, a woman might opt for a status marker other than money — one which the Night Janitor in Career Opportunities wouldn’t have. I’ve seen this happen in two ways.
The first is when an average-looking rich girl chooses a less wealthy man who is psychopathic. Women tend to be attracted to psychopathic men. One study showed that the more psychopathic traits a man has, the more highly women rate video of him. These psychopathic men also often have genetic ancestry closer to that of the mean of British people, which women interpret as a form of ethnic hypergamy.
The second is when a beautiful rich girl realizes it’s difficult to find a man of similar means and looks for a way to “marry up” in other ways. This can be good because she then chooses a man more for his innate qualities, which in my opinion are a better reflection of a man’s genetic worth than his wealth. For example, Jessica Simpson, who is worth $200 million, married former NFL football player and Yale graduate Eric Johnson, who is only worth $10 million. Johnson is a tall, intelligent, tough, relatively handsome man who she claims is nice to be around. She chose to marry him for his innate qualities rather than his money. Most of the time, these relationships form in high school or college before women start looking at a man’s money, but Simpson and Johnson are proof it can happen after graduation.
In contrast to Simpson, when most female celebrities move up in wealth and status, they dump their boyfriend who shared their previous status level and find men of similar or better means. The relationship histories of Demi Moore, Jennifer Lopez, and Angelina Jolie seem to reflect this trend.
Because women marry up in terms of wealth and income more than they marry down, there will always be leftover poor men and rich women. Women such as Jessica Simpson who bridge the gap by looking at genetic quality rather than wealth are doing the white race a favor.
Source: “Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status” by Helmuth Nyborg (American Renaissance speaker and psychologist)
Men and women pair up assortatively according to IQ. One study found the correlation to be 0.40. Because the bell curve distribution of men’s IQ is more widely dispersed than that of women, and because men have higher IQ on average (see graph), there are significantly more men who are outliers in having high IQ. As a result, there are about double the number of men in Mensa than women. Contrary to what popular YouTuber psychologist Todd Grande says about Mensa IQ tests being nothing but narcissism tests, since he claims they one can score highly with practice or with the right psychologist as administrator (by the way, narcissism is higher among men), men don’t exhibit any status-seeking surpluses with respect to educational degrees. Women are set to begin receiving 60% of Bachelor’s degrees within several years, so if they seek status in degrees more than men do, they probably don’t take Mensa tests significantly less often than men do per IQ level.
In the graph, Nyborg has triple the number of men at Mensa level or a standard deviation of two (as reflected by the dotted line corresponding to the right-hand axis titled “ratio”), but the real figure is double the number, so either women are likelier to take the Mensa test per their IQ level or Nyborg is understating female intelligence, or it’s a mixture of both. Regardless, a man of 1.5 standard deviations above the male mean has as few as half the number of women at his IQ level that a man who is 0.5 IQ points above the mean, or an IQ of 108 has. While it is a sin to covet thy neighbor’s wife, one must wonder whether it is a sin to covet thy neighbor’s “sexy” mediocre IQ as smarter men get left out in the cold more often, assuming a perfect correlation of assortative mating.
If people pair up assortatively according to IQ, there will always be leftover average IQ women and high IQ men. The good news is that relationship satisfaction is not correlated with IQ similarity, so bridging the IQ gap doesn’t make for worse relationships. Men who insist women share their intellectual interests in, say, quantum physics or philosophy may succeed in finding such women. For example, Jennifer Connelly has a high IQ and likes these things, but there aren’t enough of these women to go around. What’s more, Connelly is half Jewish, and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average and thus more likely to share such interests. It seems common among white men who have a high IQ to get with a Jewish woman because, per capita, they have higher IQ levels. The obverse of this seems to occur when white women marry high-status, rich Jewish men. It’s tough to say whether more gentile women go with Jewish men or Jewish women with gentile men, but it’s probably close to 50/50 since the market is bound to clear — or least used to be, when about 80-90% of the population paired up. The question is whether Jewish women are more tolerant of intelligence than gentile women like to marry rich guys.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
Even if a woman is just as intelligent as a man or even more intelligent than he is, women are somewhat less intellectual than men on average, so she is less likely to have equal enthusiasm for intellectual interests. Men who demand a woman share their intellectual interests need to get over themselves and learn how to communicate with the rest of the race. After all, when he was a child he didn’t have those interests, so it’s self-contradictory to demand that anyone to whom he’s close must have them, including his girlfriend or wife. Intellectual similarity isn’t very important, because most of the time the man will spend with the woman is when she is with their kids, and lectures on dark matter or analytic versus Continental philosophy won’t be in order then.
Plus, men and women have the same proportion of genes associated with high IQ in their gender-specific population-wide genomes. It’s just that men get to capitalize on the phenotype better. In other words, the sexes have the same aggregate IQ but it manifests differently on an individual level. Genetically, women are just as smart as men, but also just as bad in ways that men are bad — they are just as psychopathic, criminal, and so on.
Finally, white people breed best at an IQ of around 100. This is regrettable in my opinion, as I would like to see the average be 120, but unfortunately having an IQ significantly above that level makes it possible to be “too smart for one’s own good,” according to many people and especially the lower half of the current white bell curve. According to one study, average attractiveness allegedly peaks at an IQ of 120 but declines as IQ increases above 120. (Maybe assortative mating has something to do with that.) The reality is that whites have not evolved to reproduce at an IQ significantly above 120, at least not with our current instincts, and when someone with an IQ significantly above 120 marries down in terms of intelligence, it is probably a win for their genes. What’s more, while very intelligent men may be more likely to be single, making that an intellectual status symbol is dysgenic.
Men who can’t find the right socially acceptable opening to hit on a girl should hit on her anyway, even if it’s necessary to be awkward. Pretty women often naturally bring out the wit in men, so the main thing is simply to approach her. Don’t worry about offending her less attractive friends, because they have no right to prevent her from getting the guy she deserves. Approaching a woman awkwardly probably won’t succeed, but the odds are better than if one doesn’t approach her at all. It is irrational to believe that indefinite inaction is somehow preferable to immediate action. After all, men in the primitive Hadza hunter-gatherer society cover more ground than women, and thus action seems to benefit men going back deep into human evolutionary history, so one should always err on the side of action over inaction, because fortune favors the bold — even awkward boldness as against the prim and proper wallflower.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
39 comments
Given the coincidence of mental illness as IQ increases, the stability of the tribe might be the reason why White IQ tends to centralize around 100 in mating. There’s enough intelligence to be an advantage but not so much that latent mental illness might adversely affect either mate or their offspring.
But it s better that high IQ men pair up with surplus average IQ women than if low IQ men do because from what I can see in the wiki page below, it’s not a U shaped curve with IQ and sanity but a reverse J, meaning the highly intelligent are saner than the highly stupid, though both are less sane than the average. Plus, the norm today is to support whites being overrun by non-whites, so I don’t know if political sanity follows a U shaped curve.
Also, the only forms of insanity robustly associated with high IQ are bipolar disorders, mania, and possibly OCD. These aren’t good things but at least high IQ people have less incidence of schizophrenia. This is predictable given that schizophrenia correlates with a higher white matter to gray matter ratio just like lower intelligence and basically not being white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_epidemiology
I quite like your phrasing here regarding the overall “stability of the white tribe” and your observation about whites centralising or clustering in the 100 IQ range. It is of course no small source of anguish that a certain hostile minority has been able to dominate us and our social structure by targeting our natural higher IQ white aristocracy and separating us from this cluster or pack. But that’s what they’ve successfully done and the Devil deserves his due. Whites, on average, just aren’t as smart or clever as the hostile parasitic minority that has come to naturally dominate them. Sad, but true. So those of us above the 100 IQ cluster must make it our job to reorganise and reestablish our authority and dominance over it; we accept things as they are and play the hand nature has dealt us. We’ve done it before and this is the next round of the perilous White-Judeo cycle.
There two things to say about the ‘intelligence’ of the ‘hostile minority’ – Jews – being a factor in their so-far-successful race-war on Whites:
(1) They likely not as smart as a whole as they have been made out to be. Never underestimate Jewish deceitfulness or vanity: https://counter-currents.com/2021/07/ashkenazi-iq/
(2) Even if the Jews were – on average – smarter than Whites, we outnumber them to such an extent is that I’d guess there were more Whites with an IQ over 120 than there Jews in the entire world.
The primary reasons Jews have been successful in their race-war on Whites is:
(A) They knew they were running a race-war and Whites did not.
(B) Their racial nepotism allows them to coordinate their war efforts across multiple domains of struggle – finance, academia, media.
(C) Whites have less in-group preference than just about any other race on the earth. I’m not sure there is another race with less in-group preference and low out-group suspicion. It’s part of our biological heritage the Jews exploited by leading Whites to believe they would ‘act White’ when their sole intention was to use their racial nepotistic networking to displace Whites and then exploit White psychology to enable our genocide.
Because of the above, I’m a White Identity Nationalist and oppose Jewish power and influence over White people.
I won’t disagree with anything you’ve said, other than to say that regardless of the ultimate truth about Jewish intelligence, they were smart enough to take the global power they now have and rule our societies; and that’s intelligent enough.
More bone headed genetic determinism. Jews didn’t have a higher iq until the 1950s, after networking for 70 years.
There are multiples if higher iq whites than jews due to our higher population numbers. It’s all hi e mind and nepotism.
Thanks for an entertaining article, and for the film rec of career opportunities. So many great movies out there still left to see!
I don’t have any dating experience, but from what I have observed, in my experience women care about three things primarily: 1 money 2 dinero and 3 bank account.
…in my experience women care about three things primarily: 1 money 2 dinero and 3 bank account.
Haha. I do not laugh at you; only your closing quip about money. I laugh because it’s so often, if not entirely true. You could perhaps broaden “money” to mean greater access to resources or power, certainly in any wealthy Western nation where women are raised to expect a certain high baseline of material comfort and if you can’t provide that or better just like Daddy or Chad, then you might as well not exist. I point to modern women’s (and men’s) inability to do without. Most won’t voluntarily struggle for the love of anyone of lesser means but “greater character.” It’s not human nature, or sadly, white nature.
What does this mean?
Most won’t voluntarily struggle for the love of anyone of lesser means but “greater character.”
What do you mean by “means”? Is that a veiled reference to looks? Because no one I know has ever cared very much about a woman’s financial means. A couple of my friends even paid off their wives’ school debts. Personality and character are even more important than looks, and unless you’re a gigolo or bounder, men care more about looks than money (in women).
“A man of means” is a phrase used to describe someone with significant wealth and access to resources.
Most won’t voluntarily struggle for the love of anyone of lesser means but “greater character.”
I was referring to how most women born into means (upper middle class or wealthier) will generally not marry men they consider economically beneath them, simply because those men won’t be able to keep them in the style of living to which they are accustomed. Women generally do not volunteer to surrender lives of great comfort to go live with men of great character or otherwise. Perhaps there are cases of impulsiveness and mad indiscretion, but there are just as many instances of mournful regret. Notice I say “marry” because history and the upper classes are replete with lonely and/or bored rich women who will take up with men of lesser status for physical gratification, but whom are still unworthy of official union. There are exceptions to this rule, but hopefully you get the idea.
…no one I know has ever cared very much about a woman’s financial means.
Perhaps men should pay closer attention to any woman’s relationship to money, how they spend it, and what their expectations for it will be in a marriage. Fighting about money, after all, is one of the classic deal breakers in failed marriages along with having children or not, and surprisingly, having pets or not. As far as men paying off their wives’ school debts, I hope they knew what they were doing. Someone being vulnerable and in distress is considered “charming” in women, but loathsome in men, and this decent desire to help, protect, and provide for women can be used against men. Any woman with large outstanding debts, particularly coming into a new relationship, ought to be a massive red flag for any man that he should approach with extreme caution. The same is true of any man in debt looking to score a rich woman and what she should look out for; but a woman in distress, again, is something men fall more readily for than the reverse. Now if a wife racks up agreed upon school debts during a marriage, as an unavoidable fact of life, then perhaps that’s different, and a burden they choose to share.
Women are not attracted to money. They are attracted to looks.
According to F. Roger Devlin’s excellent Sexual Utopia in Power, women are generally attracted to a combination of looks, status, and access to resources; to which I would add the most obvious and greatest attractor of all: power. Women are attracted to powerful men who command the respect (and fear) of the social group. There is no greater guarantor of a large swath of female desire than a man in power.
No. You either are physically attractive to her or you are not. “Power” is not an attractor, it’s just a thing right wing sees as attractive. One of the copes of the right has been “if we had power, then x, y and z”, thus it obviously overlays in dating within the same bubble. Left wing doesn’t publish these kind of articles on their websites every two weeks. Just be good looking, it’s simple as that. Always fascinates me when, withing dating, the right drops the genetic aspect,
Exactly. The right wing is as ‘blue-pilled’ as it gets on the WQ. Shieldmaidens and clanging armor abound where Darwin should. There is nothing a chivalrous man hates more than another man who wakes him from his wet dreams. They are almost childlike when it comes to ‘Muh white babies’ and have no actual solution to even the basics.
Right, because Alan Greenspan and George Soros have groupies lined up outside their office. The 1980s called. They want their cringe Boomer pickup theories back.
In today’s hyperefficient sexual marketplace, there is little doubt that in the eye of the Tinder thot looks are the decisive measure of the man.
However, to be fair, George Soros probably does have a practically endless supply of women who would throw him once-a-month action in exchange for a lifestyle they could never otherwise obtain. That’s, imo, why confusion exists over the role money plays in male attractiveness: It needs to be at a level — and freely spent at that level, not wielded by a miser — where it confers on the woman a lifestyle that she could not realistically expect to otherwise have. We’re talking about 5-star vacations, private jets, mansions with servants, never having to work, instant dinner-party status etc. These women could all be fairly described as gold diggers though the label may encompass a shocking proportion of that sex.
And while even monied nonagenarian creeps may find their reptilian rent-a-slore, this coupling represents the sort of on-the-ground money seeking you actually see among the jet set*.
So, there’s the Money part of the LMS — Looks Money Status — male attractiveness mnemonic. We could arguably break Status into additional factors: Power and Fame. The latter is without doubt the most potent and readily available means for a non-chad male to significantly raise his sexual market value into the playersphere. However, as with money, it tends only to matter beyond thresholds that are vanishingly unlikely for the average man to achieve, something on the level of Henry Kissinger, Larry King, Scotty Pippen or Jonah Hill.
Power is also a potentially real means of increasing one’s sexual market value. This could perhaps be further divided into factors along the lines of violent authority and charismatic dominance. Drug cartel leaders often although not always — Heriberto Lazcano looked like Telenovela Gigachad before getting balaceraed to death — look like the second-string drywall crew but date some of the hottest women in the country. But here again, the bar is high; if you don’t have mass graves next to the pool and men kissing your ring before throwing a rat out of a helicopter, you’ll probably only reel in jail-circuit hybristophiliacs who could never resist the sirens and rap songs.
*If that’s the wife, just imagine what the divorce lawyer looks like.
If that is so, then why do so many white females marry blacks?
Ed Dutton claims women select men for high status and then try to get the best looking of the high status men, whereas men select women for looks and then try to get the highest status good looking woman they can. I’d be interested to look further into studies which could say if this is true into what extent.
It seems to me that women select men for looks, status (including income), and personality. Unless the guy has super high status or a super charismatic personality then looks matter, at least for most women judging him.
Supposedly, straight men and women are attracted to people who resemble their opposite sex parent because their parents are the main people they see when they’re young, and this imprints upon them subconsciously what a man and a woman are. YouTube videos of fathers shaving off their beards and showing their clean shaven face to their infant girls provoke reactions from the girls of confusion, discomfort, pulling away or trying to get away from him, or bawling their eyes out. Their reactions, apart from the bawling of course, seem to resemble the way women act when they’re around a guy they don’t find attractive. I mean, maybe there’s no real connection and they’re just generalized aversion behaviors, but the resemblance is uncanny.
When toddler boys see their newly clean-shaven father, their reactions range from playful chuckling, to confusion and sometimes pouting, whereas when the little toddler girls see their fathers clean shaven for the first time, their reactions are more negative, usually ranging from pouting to intense weeping temper tantrums. From this it seems that on a subconscious level, baby girls derive more information from the way their fathers look, and if a young man happens to look weird and thus not much like any girl’s father, then he’s going to have a tougher time getting a girlfriend other things being equal. However, even within the normal spectrum of looks, women are very partial to one guy or another based on his appearance and to some extent insofar as he resembles her father, and I suspect this preference manifests itself not just in a physical preference but also a behavioral and lifestyle (wealth) preference. In short, she wants someone who’s familiar. Upholding the breed standard.
Before the cultural revolution of the 1960s I get the impression that dance halls were where it was at. Certainly balls were major social lubricants of the bourgeoisie until recently.
Perhaps we need implicitly white partnered dance functions with the men having to recite Robert Frost or solve a puzzle in order to gain entry. The night could start with a parlour game where Robin Hood has to find Marion, Abelard his Eloise. There is a strict social code. Only men are allowed to approach women and each may ask only one yes or no question of each lady until he knows who he is. At which point he may introduce himself to his pair and request a dance. Dancing will be not waltzing but a minuet or similar with simple steps and contact limited to holding hands, with a progression of partners.
This serves many functions, connecting men and women with our incomparable romantic past and training men to be the assertive and cultured husbands which women want. Virtuous women are afraid of dating because of the ‘law of the jungle’ which now obtains and this sort of function which always used to exist has largely vanished. Let’s get playful and try some of these things. It is who we are when we have not been debauched.
Those are great ideas, Antipodean.
Since my divorce last year I’ve been trying to date. Usually older women. It’s quite interesting. On-line basically is full of scams and false ads so it really doesn’t seem to be effective.
It seems that I missed some sort of war in which thousands of single women in the US were killed off. I have a good photo & am (IMO) very competitive in the >50 y/o category but out of 3 dating sites I average one good email per month. When a woman joins one of these dating sites, she gets 300 emails per day! Thus the ratios are highly skewed. Also, the dating sites will send you fake highly tailored matches of beautiful women apparently interested in you during the time you’re thinking of joining.
So I’m trying various meetings and stuff but most of the older women are absolute wrecks. The ones with a modicum of sense who actually exercise, know that they can get guys 25 years younger than themselves. Or else they just list “Yachting” as their hobbies. FYI a yacht is >35 ft and particularly in S. Florida should be considerably bigger. Thus well-off financially doesn’t come close to describing the necessary situation for us guys. Also you need a house with deepwater access for your yacht.
Yes, it’s true they absolutely prefer dumb guys. I think they find them cute or harmless or something. Also, Black guys have supermodel status so many cute white women like to get one as the latest haute fashion accessory.
I know I know, I have to contact that Cheaute Hearst guy and work on “my game”. Will do when I get around to it.
Well, just act dumb a little. Slur your speech, toss in some vulgarity, tell them you drive a cab. Talk about sports.
Thanks ever so much. I plan to buy “Sports Vernacular for Dummies” as I’m totally ignorant of this field.
I actually get along with some women on those rare occasions that I get to meet such. I’ve seen your stats on the larger # of supposedly single women in my own age group. The question is “where are all these women”?
Whenever I go to any event the odds are actually like 30 guys and one woman. Perhaps they’re all scared or else have taken up with cats or dogs? They’re not at social activities unless they’re all concentrated somewhere that I haven’t discovered as of yet.
Some numbers relevant to your situation:
Percent Single by Age Group and Gender
Women: 18-29: 32%, 30-49 19%, 50-64 29%, 65+ 49%.
Men: 18-29 51%, 30-49 27%, 50-64 27%, 65+ 21%.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/psdt_08-19-20_dating-relationships-015/
Women 30-49 are the least likely to be single of all of them.
One reason fewer women in the 18-29 demographic are single than men is many more women are opting for same-sex relationships than men.
Thanks a lot. Many events actually have very few women. I’m not a big one for going to bars although my ((financial advisor)) tells me it’s a good place to meet them.
The ratios for on-line dating are abysmal.
He also advised me to join a different gym. I work out & am in good shape & I prefer the same. No luck meeting them scuba diving or Roman coin collecting clubs.
I would say to any single guy that he should join groups containing 15-20 similarly aged peers and around a 50/50 gender balance because that’s the dynamic most of our evolutionarily relevant ancestors experienced in small hunter gatherer bands and agricultural settlements. It’s not the extreme narrowing down we see in Career Opportunities but a helluva lot better than online dating when it’s you vs thousands of other guys. It’ll be you vs 5-10 other guys, and you may be the best.
Professor Ed Dutton once offered his opinion about what high-IQ men ought to do if they can’t find a mate. He said, “Give up. And accept that you’ve given up.” Being high-IQ means you’ll probably have an unhappy life, have less people to talk to, and limited or nonexistent dating opportunities and there’s no point in fighting that. Dutton later found his wife when he no longer had any hope of expecting it. I tell this story because it rings true and I’m more inclined to believe this man than the endless parade of would-be experts among men who all seem to say the same thing: “Just have more confidence bro.”
It all depends on one’s aesthetic standards (and also if you live in a blue vs red state area).
I honestly don’t get these types of articles. I admit, I am perhaps the posterboy of Dutton’s quip. I’m 60, straight, never married, and currently single. Due to health matters, I probably never will marry (I certainly won’t be having children), and might never have another girlfriend (or perhaps I will, my medical situation being uncertain at the moment).
But I never had that much trouble getting girlfriends when I was younger. I was tall and above average looking, but not truly handsome, let alone ‘hot’. I am not romantically charismatic in the least (meaning I could get a lot more ‘digits’ and first than second dates). I’m too intelligent for most women, which means I have a hard time making conversation that they (or I!) enjoy. I’m an average nobody in the world, and was never financially successful to the extent this alt-rightist obsession with money’s attraction to females seems to indicate is all-important, though I’ve always been solidly middle-class, presentable, elite educated, well-spoken, etc.
I’ve had countless women throw themselves at me over the decades. The reason I never married was, stupidly, my own: I always thought I could do better. My aesthetic standards were too high, and I kept looking for an ethical, attractive, high-IQ, at least seriously conservative (if not actually white conscious) female who also liked me, but never found one. I waited too long to “settle” (I still won’t settle on character or personality; not worth the future headaches).
But in terms of “just finding someone”, how hard can it really be these days? Maybe it’s a generational thing. I know things have gotten much worse for white men. That’s what happens when you voluntarily demote yourselves collectively, as a race and social group.
Where to begin. First off, I appreciate your candor. I haven’t spoken to a Boomer man in any social capacity for more years than I can remember; such is the level of animosity and depth of rage men of my generation feel towards males of that generation for perceived across-the-board failure. Your simple acknowledgement that things have gotten much worse for white men goes miles towards perhaps salvaging whatever intergenerational good will there may be left to fight for.
I will offer the key distinction, of course, between attracting a woman and holding onto her. But as you so rightly say, younger men seem to place (or have been socialised to place) an intense value on the primacy of money in even attracting women. Dare I say, this is the product of a Jewish-run society? Leadership begins at the top, and any society will reflect the values of its leadership. This is not to say women won’t place great value or a premium on a man’s wallet, but money can also be overrelied on to explain away any difficulties a young man experiences. This is to say nothing about how young women are socialised, in turn, to perhaps place an excessive value on money. It’s absolutely a generational thing. One must remember, we’re now dealing with a Singles Crisis wrapped inside a Divorce Crisis.
If I may suggest, when you first began dating (late 1970’s and early ’80s) white men were still not fully cast to the bottom of the postmodern Jewish social hierarchy as they are today. By the rules of total warfare: a conquerer kills and humiliates the men, takes the women, and makes slaves of the children. Once white men were correctly perceived as no longer being the dominant males of their own society, the desire of white women for them began drying up (yes, literally) faster than an Indian call centre fleeces an unsuspecting senior. I will posit that the number one complicating factor for young white men attracting women today is not a perceived lack of money, but a perceived lack of dominance. As the older generations, still living in a bubble of yesterday’s rules, continue to die off, we’re going to see a much more profound revealing of consequences from the fallout of having been conquered.
Yes, take the risk of asking women out! It’s the only way to improve the situation a lot of DR guys are in.
This is an improvement over the usual spergy incel articles.
Having spent years in the manosphere listening to various theories about what women want, none of them seem to come close. But they are certainly closer than what women themselves claim they want and what conservatives say women want.
The biggest myths are that women are attracted to anything related to money (clothes, car, house, career etc), intellect (education), older men, nice guys/simps/male feminists, comedians or muscles.
Female sexuality is a strange combination of populism, thermoregulation and schizophrenia, but there is a clear statistical direction that it defaults to evident across all regions and races when women are given the choice: marrying later, if at all, and giving birth to fewer children, if any at all.
In online dating analytics women select 5% of men based on lookism, heightism, ageism, racialism and social status.
This is creating many chain-reactions, most notably the growing share of incel men, which has no female parallel.
‘Patriarchy’ can be summed up in one word: monogamy. It was a form of socialism that potentially redistributed women from harems of powerful men and franchised them to their fathers, who handpicked their son-in-law.
This is an arrangement women would never choose, including having one lover for life because women are not monogamous, while men are, which is why there is such a contradiction.
I recommend and give weight to a Counter-Currents favourite: F. Roger Devlin’s excellent Sexual Utopia in Power (C-C review by Jef Costello here) which posits that women are attracted to a combination of looks, status, and access to resources; to which I would add the most obvious and greatest attractor of all: power. Devlin also echoes your sentiment that monogamy is a form of sexual socialism for ordinary or lower status men, the likes of which are forming no small part of modern incels, many of whom would have married in a nice white society that boasts a marriage rate over ninety percent.
The biggest myths are that women are attracted to anything related to money…
Well, the term “gold digger” for women who marry men just for their money and resources didn’t exactly appear out of nowhere. And while that may reflect a more extreme behavioural type, its generally accepted that women are concerned about money and matters related to their own material security vis-à-vis any long-term arrangement with a man. More marriages implode into divorce over disagreements about money than just about any other reason.
…women are not monogamous, while men are, which is why there is such a contradiction.
Women are hypergamous, or inclined to “trade up” to higher status men as circumstances allow. One or two men and women would dispute the idea that men are inherently monogamous. The general rule of thumb is that men go for quantity in sexual partners and women go for quality; this corresponds with their physical reproductive capacities with men able to produce far larger quantities of sperm throughout their longer reproductive windows than women’s considerably shorter windows of fertility and finite number of eggs.
Lol this is the exact manosphere gobbledygook I was talking about. You guys are absolutely possessed by this embarrassing bro-science nonsense. So when a middle-aged woman cheats on her billionaire husband with the Hispanic gardener what type of ‘hypergamy’ does this represent? With what unfalsifiable ‘truth’ could you possibly use to rationalize this?
You have zero proof that men are polyandrous. The average woman has way more sex and sex partners in her life than the average man. Why? She has a higher libido. Another inconvenient truth that you LARPing alpha bros refuse to acknowledge.
This is demonstrated by who does the divorcing. Women initiate 75%. This is further proven by fewer women marrying and marrying much later, and having fewer children, much later, and selecting fewer men.
There weren’t incels in the 1960s when the average woman was married with 3.5 children at 20. Now there are when the average woman married at 30 and has 1.5 children.
These are all actual stats registered by the government, not flimsy surveys you parrots use.
I’ve read and listened to Devlin. I’ve heard all of it. Every theory you are regurgitating I’ve heard before you did. Women are not attracted to money. They would rather work a menial job than be married. That is how ‘attracted to resources’ women are.
It’s looks and ‘status,’ which is just how other women perceive certain men.
The hypergamy angle for the billionaire’s wife becoming the gardener’s ho is obvious: He’s hot, and the billionaire’s an arterial clot.
Yes, surveys, especially when involving status-making things that men like to brag about, are deeply suspect. But do you have a link to a credible study regarding female sex-partner count being much higher than males’. BTW, I would a priori assume that result but have never seen anything convincing. Nearly all surveys point the other way.
Women having the higher libido is the most dubious of your claims. If this were true, wouldn’t we see parity among online-dating-site user counts and users’ engagement patterns? Wouldn’t things like ladies’ night never exist because women would be equally invested in the sexual chase as men?
«across all regions and races when women are given the choice: marrying later, if at all, and giving birth to fewer children, if any at all.»
True. In a society where you have easy access to contraceptives and most men are government appointed cucks that supports older single women mostly via the tax bill. But neither the female behaviour nor the the society is something you would call natural.
The most exploited sentiment in this world is the white mans desire to serve women, and as a consequence, the welfare environment that women want (the state – in a way the ultimate alpha). And why should she not exploit him? He even accept her demand of fat chicks as models. In the US the divorce laws implies a country with i higher density of cucks than anywhere else.
Without it being an absolute solution, many men (myself included) have experienced a lot more respect and a lot healthier relationship with a women when we clearly state that we do not give a damn if she leaves. Getting to that state require discipline amd hard work, but what are we here for anyways?
Devlin’s article may not be the end all opus, but it has stood the test of time. Having had a number of multiple year relationships and marriage, I’m thoroughly convinced women are attracted to money and status, within reason. Younger women and teens notoriously are willing to date sociopaths and hot looking bros but this starts shifting when they are more educated and closer to childbearing age. Sure they are plenty of teen and 20something baby mommas who didn’t hold out. It’s amazing to be able to cite such austere examples without using words like ‘hypergamous’.
But claiming women have more libido and more sex partners? No way! And that is not even factoring what happens to a woman’s libido after kids, menopause, weight gain. Fewer women incels is expected when they have lower sex drive and feminist role models telling them a great spinster life is fine to aspire to (see NPR link below for the kind of story that is a dime a dozen among feminists).
Women certainly initiate more divorces, but a temperament of many prone to dissatisfaction, idealism, and entitlement is way more the issue than them wanting to get out there to bang other guys. Many feminist women are fine with a low paid job… not a menial job. But a job that boosts her self esteem. Then find a guy who makes more than them. Even female doctors tend to be married to another doctor in a higher paid specialty. Of course, money is not everything. A hot 20 year old is not going to settle for a 60 year old successful lawyer. But a hot 35 year old with a 45 year old reasonably handsome lawyer with a house?
Also, there is no universal man or woman that represent everyone and pointing to an unusual exception or two proves nothing.
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/the-ideal-number-of-sexual-partners-for-men-women
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/12/1104418203/npr-host-linda-holmes-latest-novel-is-a-mystery-centered-on-a-left-behind-duck-d
Men demanding that women share their intellectual interests isn’t just wankery, it’s to make sure that their children aren’t lower in IQ than themselves. High IQ men in particular tend to have contempt for lower IQ people (it shouldn’t be like that, but it is), and no man should be put in a position where he has contempt for his son.
‘Men who insist women share their intellectual interests in, say, quantum physics or philosophy may succeed in finding such women. . . . but there aren’t enough of these women to go around.‘
We literally want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, because if they are allowed anywhere else, they will begin gnawing away at the foundations of civilization like rats gnawing away at the foundations of a house.
Similar female relationship fantasies have been portrayed in films as well. If the handsome jock would just get to know the shy wallflower, he would fall in love with her and date her. She might not be as attractive as the cheerleaders or the popular girls, but she is easy to get along with and she doesn’t cause any unnecessary drama. The film that depicts this is “Sixteen Candles” with Molly Ringwald. The jock breaks up with the attractive girl because she is just to much trouble. F Roger Devlin mentioned this mindset in “Sexual Utopia in Power”. The few, handsome, socially dominant men have sex with all the women in the society, including the unattractive women. The majority of the men, who are beta males, get left out. It’s the complete opposite of the monagamy principle of one man for one woman.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment