This is quite an interesting predicament.
As a Greek guy, I have been brought up to be a responsible man, having a role of wielding power and also accepting the consequences of my actions; applicable on a micro and a macro level.
The predicament arises when society sets a double standard of men having to take responsibility for the immoral in society yet aren't acknowledged for the good.
Regardless, I believe men are responsible for a lot and you can frame it as cuck or whatever you want.
Power is not taken, it is given.
We have given the power and we need to adapt around that.
As a minority of men who are willing to call the shit out, we need to adapt.
It's incomparable, the comparison of women's sexual proclivities without acknowledging that the market has changed.
Higher populations, less death rates.
Contraception allowing for women to have sex freely without the consequence of a child.
Higher hygiene levels allowing for increased sexual frequency.
These societal differences change the decisions available to individuals and thus decision-making affects their moral compass based off the options they have and the ones their peers take. For many people, their habits and ideas of themselves arise from their environment (peers/upbringing etc.).
Generations need to die out and an existential crisis needs to arise to rewind it back to the 'good ol' days'.
We learn game to adapt and sift through the undesirable while increasing our sexual/companionship options.
That's me at least, I ain't trying to save civilization because it's past that point.
As for women being a bigger problem than the other issues of the past?
That's preposterous.
To say that a guy nailing a girl is more luck than game?
That's downright game denialism.
Women and men don't want to have children in first-world societies, because:
- it's increasingly expensive -> less disposable income and assets -> less money to guarantee a child a good life as 1950 - 2000
- more options to have children later, especially with longer life spans
- less pressure from parents and religion to have children
- diversification and specialization of roles in society. You don't need 6 kids like here in Africa to help around the land etc.
- more selfish 'me-culture' to focus their lives on themselves
Sure, you have outliers such as certain benefits in the UK for council housing for people having children.
Certain other benefits too.
Thing is, it's not the best rational decision to make for a lot of couples.
Do I agree with this? No.
Do I understand it? Sure.
People's source of esteem and connection has transgressed from human and social to online and anti-social.
This is replacing pair-bonding.
Men are responsible to an extent but the systemic change is what it is.
Adapt or die.
For God's sake though, don't conflate finding a good, honest, attractive, morally-intact partner with luck.
You attract what you are.
As a Greek guy, I have been brought up to be a responsible man, having a role of wielding power and also accepting the consequences of my actions; applicable on a micro and a macro level.
The predicament arises when society sets a double standard of men having to take responsibility for the immoral in society yet aren't acknowledged for the good.
Regardless, I believe men are responsible for a lot and you can frame it as cuck or whatever you want.
Power is not taken, it is given.
We have given the power and we need to adapt around that.
As a minority of men who are willing to call the shit out, we need to adapt.
It's incomparable, the comparison of women's sexual proclivities without acknowledging that the market has changed.
Higher populations, less death rates.
Contraception allowing for women to have sex freely without the consequence of a child.
Higher hygiene levels allowing for increased sexual frequency.
These societal differences change the decisions available to individuals and thus decision-making affects their moral compass based off the options they have and the ones their peers take. For many people, their habits and ideas of themselves arise from their environment (peers/upbringing etc.).
Generations need to die out and an existential crisis needs to arise to rewind it back to the 'good ol' days'.
We learn game to adapt and sift through the undesirable while increasing our sexual/companionship options.
That's me at least, I ain't trying to save civilization because it's past that point.
As for women being a bigger problem than the other issues of the past?
That's preposterous.
To say that a guy nailing a girl is more luck than game?
That's downright game denialism.
Women and men don't want to have children in first-world societies, because:
- it's increasingly expensive -> less disposable income and assets -> less money to guarantee a child a good life as 1950 - 2000
- more options to have children later, especially with longer life spans
- less pressure from parents and religion to have children
- diversification and specialization of roles in society. You don't need 6 kids like here in Africa to help around the land etc.
- more selfish 'me-culture' to focus their lives on themselves
Sure, you have outliers such as certain benefits in the UK for council housing for people having children.
Certain other benefits too.
Thing is, it's not the best rational decision to make for a lot of couples.
Do I agree with this? No.
Do I understand it? Sure.
People's source of esteem and connection has transgressed from human and social to online and anti-social.
This is replacing pair-bonding.
Men are responsible to an extent but the systemic change is what it is.
Adapt or die.
For God's sake though, don't conflate finding a good, honest, attractive, morally-intact partner with luck.
You attract what you are.