yeah, i know they were shit, but they helped me and i'm trying to get better about conceptualizing issues. this dood i worked with was great at depicting world problems in like three line charts so i'm trying to train that up.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25465640)

Call it intellectual curiousity. I work a shitjob and want to think about something during an eight hour shift.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25465764)

damn

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25468709)

Isn't the problem that men are shrews as well then? You have plenty of options for women who would make a solid partner that aren't >7. You want women to settle with schlubby betas but aren't willing to do the same yourself. Seeking the hottest girl possible because it makes sex better and she looks good to show off to your friends is the very definition of not thinking about tomorrow. Eventually her shit will sag and she won't be much better looking than the plain girl.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25469365)

1. I think a lot of chicks, more than they are given credit for on xo, really know where they stand in terms of the looks pecking order. You're sort of projecting the yuppie chick experience to all girls, and I'm not sure it totally translates, but w/r/t yuppie chicks it's pretty true.

2. You're focusing almost entirely on looks, which, while important, doesn't tell the whole story. Part of what's in play with these yuppie shrews is the way feminism has pushed them to ever higher levels of education and career attainment. It's been said ad nauseum on xo before, but typically a shrew is going to want a guy as smart or smarter than her and/or as successful or more successful (where success = money), and I don't blame them for that. If I were a smart, successful chick, I'd probably want a guy at least at my level too. The problem, as we all know, is that men and women value different things in a mate. So all the smart, successful guys aren't going for the smart, successful girls (i.e., shrews). Some are going for the cute preschool teacher. Some are going for the nice slender girl who wants to have 4 kids and be a great mom. Some are going for the chick who looks like a playboy bunny. Regardless, for the shrews, it simply becomes a Venn diagram issue. There aren't enough smart, successful men who will have a shrew for all the shrews out there.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25469463)

Where are we most likely to find the traditional family, with a stay-at-home mother? The traditional arrangement is alive and well in America; it's largely limited to high-income households where both parents are educated. These are not socially conservative, anti-feminist households. Outside of birth control and abortion, feminism has little to do with declining rates of marriage and birth.

Income stability has eroded in the western world, and the costs of providing for a household as well as the societal costs associated with taking care of our elders have risen (in some cases astronomically). Despite these challenges, expectations in the western world, especially among the educated, are still high. We all expect to live as well as if not better than our parents. Progress and growth are necessary, and anything less is failure.

Once males began suffering income stagnation and financial instability as a result of globalization, automation, and perhaps various other factors (not to mention the growing costs mentioned above), women were forced to work and contribute more in order to maintain our goals of income growth and progress. Would any of you encourage your daughter, who just graduated college, to avoid work, marry a fellow grad who will make $40k, and start a family? Of course not.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25470469)

Understanding NOWAG & Hypergamy: A Short Summary w/ Visual AIDS

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25510197)

Date: December 18th, 2013 1:40 AM

Author: Diamond Dallas Paige

yeah...take the example of Jill 6.5. As a 6.5 she's probably already in the top quarter of online women since top tier women are constantly hit on IRL and rarely end up online (and being hit on happens passively without any effort on their part other than putting on makeup and being present).

She gets a message from Joe 8.0 asking her out. He's in the top 10% of online men and could pull IRL but is tired of putting in the effort. His only intentions are the P&D. She also gets a message from Jim 7.0. He *might* consider dating her since he has a bit harder time pulling but is also probably planning the P&D. She also gets a message from Jerry 6.5. He's probably too beta to pull random chicks IRL and is someone like Jill might realistically end up with through her social circle. There's a decent chance he'd date her, but again, there's also a decent chance he's shooting for the P&D. She also gets a message from James 5.5. If he was smart he'd try to lock this chick down, but again, there's a non-trivial chance of the P&D.

If you're Jill, and multiple guys from each category above are messaging you, who do you go out with? Do you yield protect the higher tier guys to avoid the P&D when the lower tiers may also be gunning to P&D you? Probably not. Do you start viewing yourself as an 8.0 because you have a steady supply of 8.0 guys asking you out? Probably. Does the 6.5 you could realistically date have much of a chance? No, the few times you deign to go out with him, you have a reasonably nice time, then you go home to refresh your inbox and find it awash with new messages from 8.0s.

(Online dating should be called iHypergamy)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25516678)

SFL?

Only if you're not a shrew.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2554624&forum_id=2#25521735)