The Future of American Princesses? Save for later Reblog
“Make use of time, let not advantage slip”
-William Shakespeare, in A.D. 1594
Spoiled young upper middle class spoiled Princesses are so wrong, so dumb about life.
…in my opinion
Here’s why:
A Fatal Flaw in Feminism.
Why Millennial are clueless about money and dating, the thing that is central to their lives, their future. It’s all about the young men. It’s all about finding a future partner for these women. Here is why many young Millennial women, are screwed:
Remember Cassie Jaye? She’s a former feminist who made the movie “The Red Pill”…available online… about why men don’t like feminism. The movie was banned in many places, because toxic feminism controls our society. Feminism is the lens through which young women have been taught to think about their lives, their experience.
And these women have been indoctrinated and told, you can have it all. I’m here to say: No you can’t…..and I’ll tell you why.
I’m speaking in particular about young women who are university-bound, the elite ones, the top 30% of women.
At the University of Toronto, where right now, 33% of students are males, and 67% are female. Feminists have changed universities to favor women, and have pushing for girls to beat boys at school, for decades. And this trend is global. All universities are headed this way. Well, the education war is over, the women won…..but did they win?
There are a lot more women in post-secondary now, than men. Feminists didn’t seem to think, this is a problem. Feminists are deluded. This is causing a big shortage of available men, for women. Here’s why this sort of trend, pushed by feminists, will destroy the lives of many women:
Women all want to marry up and across economic and dominance hierarchies. (Jordan Peterson has explained this, numerous times) Women at university want to marry men from university…they don’t want to marry men who are lower than them in economic status. Most women at university want a boyfriend and eventually a life partner.
But feminism pushed women into a large majority at university, creating a HUGE social problem for women……there are not enough men at school, and feminists naturally are dishonest about it…not even admitting it’s a problem.
Do the math: At the University of Toronto…the most politically correct university around…University Enrollment is now 67% female and 33% male…which means, for every 1,000 students, there are 330 men and 670 women…for the sake of simplicity assume most people will marry or at least pair bond with the opposite sex, at least at some point in their lives…and people generally do so, when they are young and roughly university age.
Assume that every one of those 670 women are looking for a mate…most are. Assume they all find a guy at university. So what happens to the human pair-bonding math…for women and men…once women become the majority at university?…women are hurt…badly. How so? This new feminist paradise we now live in, means a shortage of 340 men for women at university….670-330 = 340 men,…who are not there to marry or pair-bond with these women.
They are the men, that feminists could care less about. Feminists don’t see the gender enrollment gap as a problem for men or women, because they don’t think logically, because they have been brainwashed by feminism, and because most feminists don’t care about men…feminists are very gynocentric. For them, everything is only about women. It’s how they were trained to view the world, in our feminist dominated schools.
And all this callousness gynocentrism leads to social blindness, which ironically ends up creating problems, for women. This female dominance at university is a very new thing, is happening everywhere, and the devastation it will cause for feminism, and for younger women is coming down the train track.
And my numbers are assuming the men at university only date women at university…and that is unlikely because, while women only marry across and up dominance hierarchies, men on the other hand marry across and down dominance hierarchies. Meaning? Meaning the girl taking the sociology or economics degree at university is competing with all the other women in society, for the economically dominant university men.
That cute girl at Safeway, with a hot body, can easily out-compete an average looking woman at university, when it comes to finding an Alpha Male who goes to university. So the situation is even worse than the severe male shortage of 340 men, per thousand women.
A central flaw in feminism has to do with what women want, ironically. The feminist assumption is that we as a society can push towards female financial equality men as a group. Here’s why that won’t work: Money makes men more attractive, but it doesn’t do the same thing for women…that’s what feminists don’t know, or won’t admit, in their quest for “equality”….which won’t work. And people who go to university usually end up making a good living. A men shortage at university means there is a shortage of high earning men, for these women to marry. I’m already seeing this play out, in younger women who in times past, would have easily found a man. Now? Competition is too tough…and they lose.
Women think that money will make them more attractive, as life partners. It won’t. It only raises their standards, and when they raise their standards, they disqualify a large segment of the male population. So success at university will come at a very very steep price: they will be priced out of the marriage market.
We live in the era of the spoiled Princess. Feminism has spent decades catering to women. That will end very quickly, and the women already know it. It will end because all this catering to women unrealistically is ruining their lives. Personally I know quite a few women in their mid to late 30s…a few years past hitting The Wall…hard. In their prime I thought several could have entered beauty pageants. Now? One or two bad relationship choices and these women are looking at a life alone, or paying a man’s bills for decades, as men have fallen behind in many cases. This pattern won’t work, of women looking after men. I see women in public now, paying bills of their boyfriends. The women look miserable. Those relationships won’t work. Feminism is all about creating future cat ladies.
It all starts with feminist cluelessness about biology, and only seeing gender from a female perspective. The life cycle of a woman is far different than the life cycle of a man. What feminists are not telling women is that most of their lives, they will NOT be young and beautiful…they’ll be old. Young women think they will always have choice, always have options, just like they do in their 20s. Not true. Their 20s are a magical time in nature and the height of female power. And female power rests on a very shaky foundation of time, which slips away daily beneath their feet. It’s not a matter of sexism, it’s a matter of how nature evolved. Like yogurt, nature has an expiration date on human females. Most of their lives they can’t bear children, are not desirable and if they don’t find someone when they are young, they are very likely to live alone most of their lives.
That’s brutal, but it’s also the truth, and a wise woman will use her limited power, when it is at her peak and she won’t squander it.
Human pair bonding evolved in evolution to make women their most attractive in their 20s. Feminists tell them to avoid breeding and the most important thing for a young woman, is to stick your nose in a book for ten years. This was perhaps the biggest mistake of feminism. And when women spend their healthiest years competing with other women and men for money, they are doing so against borrowed time, and too much competition. They will lose.
It’s in the cards. Time is not on women’s side. It’s on men’s sides. Men can wait. Women can’t. When I say time is on men’s side, not women’s, when it comes to sex, mating and pair bonding and babies, I don’t mean as a social construct. I mean biology. Sperm LITERALLY evolved in a very different way than eggs. Old sperm from an old man works quite well at getting young eggs pregnant. Old eggs don’t. These are the rules that nature set down….for a reason. We ignore them at our peril. From these biological norms in nature, we need to derive our social norms and patterns. Right now feminists tell women to ignore biological reality, and that we can construct a social reality completely at odds with biological reality. This is foolish beyond belief.
It is not kind, to tell young women, feminist lies about reality. In fact, it’s quite cruel.
We have never in history tried this social experiment of delayed pair bonding and uninhibited sexuality, and female economic dominance. Women under 35 in America, now out-earn men under 35. This overall pattern doesn’t fit the pattern of evolution that has been successful to this point: young pair bonding, restrained sexuality and female economic dependence and inter-dependence, with males.
I wonder why evolution has not tried our pattern before. My guess is, part of the reason is: it won’t work. It’s going to screw up…royally. I doubt very much that humans can sustain a civilization along our new patterns, for very long. For one thing, in this new pattern, human breeding drops dramatically and any society that adopts feminism will quickly disappear from history, based on demographics alone.
Already, we see the real world results starting to come in, and it’s not pleasant for most women. Since opening up with unrestrained human sexuality, pushed by feminists: The math on social media is that 80% of all women compete for roughly 20% of all men…. And this mean about 80% of male are effectively pushed out of evolution and long term mating with females.
Reddit on the 80/20 Rule:
“Last year, a former management consultant named Susan Walsh tried to dig a little deeper. She applied what economists call the Pareto principle—the idea that for many events, roughly 20 percent of the causes create 80 percent of the effects—to the college dating market, and concluded that only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether. (Surprisingly, a 2007 study commissioned by the Justice Department suggested that male virgins outnumber female virgins on campus.) As Walsh puts it, most of the leftover men are “have nots” in terms of access to sex, and most of the women—both those who are hooking up and those who are not—are “have nots” in terms of access to male attention that leads to commitment. (Of course, plenty of women are perfectly happy with casual, no-strings sex, but they are generally considered to be in the minority.) Yet the myth of everyone having sex all the time is so pervasive that it’s assumed to be true, which distorts how young men and women relate. “I think the 80/20 principle is the key to understanding the situation we find ourselves in—one in which casual sex is the cultural norm, despite the fact that most people would actually prefer something quite different,” Walsh told me.”
“https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1skgiq/80_females_go_for_top_20_of_males/
Question: can society stay stable, with most males having no investment in the genetic future, no investment in family or stable long term pair bonding with females? My guess? No…..we will collapse…..most men now have no reason even to support social stability, and if we are to have social stability and feminism, we will need a fascist state, with technological fascism and control of non-breeding men, by the elites, to keep non-breeders in line, for the safety of the feminist elites…male and female.
That’s long term, but today: In our new feminist society, the men at the top are having a great time because of this, lots of sex, and are highly desired by women, but most men are getting royally screwed by this new math, and women don’t realize it yet, but they are losing, big time, by this feminist math…..because:
Women go to university in part because it puts them around high status men they hope to attract. Trouble is women are now in such large numbers at university, thanks to feminism, that now women must viciously compete against all the other women at university, for the few guys that are there, and women at university must now also compete with all non-university women, for these same men…women supported feminism, so: you asked for it, ladies.
If you go look up marriage rates, we are now at an all time historical low, and marriage is now a quaint relic reserved for the top income performers, and for most people in advanced countries like Sweden, Japan and America, marriage has already stopped being a functional reality, or organizing principle of their lives, thanks to feminists ending normal human pair bonding.
So the way this new feminism will play out is the death of marriage for most women…and men. Since women spend most of their lives essentially old, by nature’s standards of desirability, this will turn into a disaster, I predict. Thanks, feminism. You really screwed up society, screwed up women’s lives. Now they are miserable. Google “female happiness is in decline”…and you will find that, since 2nd Wave Feminism, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, and easy divorce and birth control, women’s happiness has been on a steady 50 years decline…..down….
Executive Summary of the Yale Study:
“By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well‐being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well‐being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well‐being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well‐being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well‐being for men.”
So….why is this happening?
My guess on long term decline on female unhappiness, is that it goes back to evolution; Women evolved to pair bond with men and raise children in their 20s, not stick their nose in a book, or ride the cock carasol for a decade. Even the pink and blue haired SJW freaks are screaming out in their hair color, to be pushed into their natural evolved proclivities, which is being Mothers. Feminism has taught them to smash the patriarchy and be sexually irresponsible for a decade or more. Third Wave Feminism is perhaps the final stage in the feminist cancer infecting society, before people come to their senses. This is not how things were meant to be. It’s unnatural.
However, before we get there, I’m guessing quite a few women will have to suffer, before we clue in as a society, of the toxicity to feminism, how unnatural it is, how out of tune with biology and common sense it is.
And at same time, male happiness has been generally stable….even increasing for men, as we are happier than ever, for most men. A minority of men have severe mental health problems, and should be given a hand, but most men don’t these problems and are doing fine. Lots of data on that available. Lots of studies. These future cat ladies are deluded. I have always thought feminists really hate other women, want to ruin their lives….because the general views of feminism are pretty much guaranteed to make women miserable. I think I’m right about that. Feminists are obsessed by men, particularly rich men, and hate their fellow women. That explains their jealousy of men, their greed. And it explains why they push policies that hurt women. Many of these young spoiled women face a bleak future as cat ladies. My guess? All their spoiled upper middle class Princess dreams will come crashing down…..like a Train Wreck….Go Johnny Cash!
However: I hope it works out for them, but it’s hard to see how this feminist society will be anything other than a train-wreck for women. Sorry ladies, men are already bailing out, of your little feminist paradise, which is counter to evolution:
2 comments on 'The Future of American Princesses?'