Thread: The behaviors of the low SMV female. 20 years ago vs. now.

I have made many observations in my endless quest to understand what TH is wrong with this planet.

In the year of our lord 2000, low SMV women had the following options:
1. Settle for whatever comparable SMV man they can get
2. Lesbianism

There are certainly women who are naturally attracted to other women, you will know them because they look like a man without even trying, in fact, they would have a very hard time not looking like a man if they tried. But probably 95% of the "lesbians" I knew growing up were women of low SMV who did not want to settle for a low SMV man. Their "girlfriends" could only be described as room-mates. Their attention seeking behaviors were ridiculous, they would make out with each other (only in front of men, of course), and would try to "turn" a hot straight girl, only because they believed it would raise their own perceived SMV. Many of them eventually became straight and settled for a super low SMV man to pay the bills, after years of whining about their plight as lesbians.

Fast forward 20 years, these are the modern options for low SMV women:
1. Go on Tinder to take advantage of the dumpster diving simps of higher SMV
2. Watch more Youtube makeup tutorials
3. Go on Twitter to demand that men find you attractive
4. Invent a new gender or sexuality to become even more oppressed and entitled

In conclusion: Blame social media.

Originally Posted by LizardPerson

In conclusion: Blame social media.

I will have to disagree, I blame government funding.
Without government funding and support these women would be back where they were 100 years ago.
the only real change to women's options, since the history of man, is free money from the government and backed by government storm troopers, pretending to be police, to enforce compliance.

Originally Posted by MrWalton

I will have to disagree, I blame government funding.

Getting rid of social media would get us back to how shitty things were 20 years ago, when they were still borderline tolerable. Getting rid of government funding would take it back to the 1950s, when women actually cared for their children and were almost (but not quite) trustworthy. Because they had to do these things, or move to a new town if they developed a bad reputation.

I blame female nature.

Whatever influence the government and social media might have, it is just encouraging female nature to be more blatant and confident. Meanwhile male nature is discouraged, and men are becoming more silenced and insecure.

Social media has created an low cost harem of low SMV women for high SMV men.

Social media has also created a no cost harem of low SMV men for all women.

Social media has also given a low SMV woman an exponentially larger "dinner bell" to summon hungry/thirsty simps.

Until this generation, a woman could only advertise her availability to the men she encountered in real life, and that physical space was limited to work, church, neighborhood, social circle. This would be, at most, a few hundred men, with the top 10% apex men numbering a dozen or less. Sure, she could be the secretary at the industrial plant that hired thousands of factory workers, but she was only interested in the white collar guys, and preferred an executive.

But IRL, people had reputations. The internet allowed them anonymity.

This is why the college experience was so important. It would expand her dating prospects to thousands of fit, educated, middle class, upwardly mobile men of her own age. Locking down a professor also a possibility.

Social media has globalized her dating pool. Even a high SMV man with low self esteem is within her grasp.

However, thanks to "girl power," there are more women than men going to university.

When the women outnumber the men, the men can afford to be picky, the competition for them allowed some to build up their own soft harems. Women don't like to compete for men.

This was a favorable situation for men, but as the sexual imbalance continued, and grew, women's frustration with having to compete for the attention of even those men who were at the bottom of the top 40% combined with feminism to criminalize any male who does not make himself the the useful utility of a woman.

So, during the last 15 years, we have had the dumbing down of the meaning of terms like 'r@pe,' 'sexual harassment,' 'sexism,' etc.

20 years ago women were insufferable self centered cunts and I was 4 years into going my own way and being convinced almost daily it was the right choice for me.

Now they're downright toxic hazards needed to be avoided on every level, and I'm 20 years more convinced that I made the right choice!

I see this site and others like it as an oasis for men to get our minds repaired and our hearts cleaned out of all the toxic residue left behind from the most toxic females to ever walk the earth.

Women on the other hand, aren't fairing as well as they continue to consume one another's spiritual toxic swill, poisoning the whole lot of them. Where they gather and have meetings of the mind only hatred and discontentment abounds and psyche meds are eaten like peanuts.

My most unhappy memories in life were placed there by sour vindictive women.

My happiest memories in life there was no woman in sight.

I'm nearing a quarter century of happy times with deep emotional scars to remind me why.

Originally Posted by LizardPerson

In conclusion: Blame social media.

Originally Posted by Manfred

I blame female nature.

I blame female nature combined with modern social media. My Facebook newsfeed is a constant reminder of this with a number of over 35 low SMV single mothers. My pet hates include.......


Endless selfies, one woman (while still attractive) has not dozens but hundreds of near identical selfies going back years, with the same men liking and commenting that she's beautiful.


Fat acceptance, A real man loves a woman with curves, while demanding men who are in the top 1%.


I hate my ex posts, Yes he was a cheating, lying useless man. But you picked him over the hundreds of other men who approached you throughout your 20s.


Relationship quotes, 3am thoughts etc. Always the exact opposite of the relationships she has spent her entire adult life pursuing.


Male Suicide posts, token support for men's issues then immediately reverts back to blaming men for everything a few days later.

The way I see it, 150 years ago, 90% of women wanted to marry and submit to survive. SMV was a minor part of the choice, rather reliable resources. She would submit, otherwise be abandoned. Now they dont want to submit, and still want all the benefits of marriage and thats after riding the CC. I think that started in the 60s. The main difference between 2000, and today, women have more ability to ride the CC.

MGTOW is the only way for a guy to survive. I hate to say it, but maybe their obesity is a good thing. I dont feel like I am missing anything

Originally Posted by FrankS

The way I see it, 150 years ago, 90% of women wanted to marry and submit to survive. SMV was a minor part of the choice, rather reliable resources. She would submit, otherwise be abandoned. Now they dont want to submit, and still want all the benefits of marriage and thats after riding the CC. I think that started in the 60s. The main difference between 2000, and today, women have more ability to ride the CC.

MGTOW is the only way for a guy to survive. I hate to say it, but maybe their obesity is a good thing. I dont feel like I am missing anything

If women knew how I assessed them and my true opinion of them, they, in defense of their cognitive dissidence, would immediately strike out in uncontrollable rage.

I don't tell women what I'm thinking or how deep the distain and degust actually goes, my wall of silent indifference has served me well. Female empowerment and control of the narrative is what governs the world we see and despise today.

Let them wallow in the mud and mire they and they alone create.

Originally Posted by MrWalton

I will have to disagree, I blame government funding.

100%. The way we destroy native societies (american indians, austalian aboriginies) is by giving women free money to raise bastards. It breaks culture.

I think it all depends on economics. Women will go back to the idealised 50s housewife tomorrow if it's necessary to trap a provider.

I can't see that happening any time soon, though. The people ruling this planet want whites in particular to stop breeding, and they have been succeeding for years. So they will keep women artificially propped up which means more shitty female behaviour.

This will continue until the rulers can properly take over the Earth. One government. They will then remove all benefits and the rest of us, those who aren't killed off, will live like outlaws, or slaves. Women will then behave better to get a man's provision and protection.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

I think it all depends on economics. Women will go back to the idealised 50s housewife tomorrow if it's necessary to trap a provider.

I can't see that happening any time soon, though. The people ruling this planet want whites in particular to stop breeding, and they have been succeeding for years. So they will keep women artificially propped up which means more shitty female behaviour.

This will continue until the rulers can properly take over the Earth. One government. They will then remove all benefits and the rest of us, those who aren't killed off, will live like outlaws, or slaves. Women will then behave better to get a man's provision and protection.

I doubt that! As I've said before, on a different timeline in an alternate universe, my bumper-sticker would read "I survived Donner Pass"...

So, to summarize this thread:

- Women are hypergamous by nature, and always have been

- Civilization progressed when it set limits on hypergamy

- Modern governments subvert the progress/maintenance of civilization by subsidizing hypergamy

- Current social media amplifies these trends , reinforces/normalizes women’s hypergamous natures, allows hypergamous women to cast wider nets

- When the social safety net has become a comfy couch, when the poor accumulate more government subsidized possessions than a 19th century sultan and consume more calories than Henry the eighth, the only thing that would undo this is economic insecurity

- The three most most repentant women are the “ career woman” in her 30’s who realizes she doesn’t want to work the rest of her life like a man, the “career woman” about to lose her career, and the woman who is married to the welfare state who is worried her “spouse” has a wandering eye and is being wooed by another, more politically expedient voting block

As MGTOW, as men who understand female nature, we should not ‘feed the beast.’ Hypergamous women need resources and validation.

The government forces us to give them some resources, in the form of taxes, but we shouldn't give them resources voluntarily via the dating/marriage/divorce industry. Recognize that 50 years ago, no good man wanted or married the slut who who had the motorcycle gang’s child (and could not be sure which one was the father), but now society has normalized, even glorified this.

Social media is a validation machine for society’s spiteful mutants. Parts of it are swimming pools where the life guards allow the patrons to use it like a toilet. The ‘come hither’ (slutty) selfies women take that unintentionally include a half-neglected toddler in the background are the floating turds telling you which swimming pools to stay out of.

The Wuhan Flu, has proven to be very deadly...to our freedoms. However, our government’s autocratic responses has had an economic impact. This current recession is unlike the 2008 recession, which impacted men more by eliminating more construction and manufacturing jobs. (It was even called a man-cession, and stimulus plans which were supposed to put men to work actually subsidized female dominated voting blocks like public sector employees and school teachers. Even President Obama chuckled afterwards “I guess those jobs weren’t so shovel ready after all.”)

This recession is more gender neutral, impacting women equally. Normally, that would be enough to get our governments to address the problem quickly. After all, these are the same governments that prioritize paying for women’s contraception over housing homeless male veterans, but the opportunity to further enslave all of us and recreate a feudal society of landless peasants and techno-barons was much too tempting. Great reset, indeed. "Build back better," indeed, but for whom?

During this economic crisis, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Some women will realize how financially insecure they are, and will redouble their efforts to lock down a beta provider. Now that the make-work office job that’s subsidized her ‘strong and independent’ and ‘I don’t need no man,’ and ‘I’m holding out for a man with the 6 sixes’ position is either gone or threatened, she has become the prodigal woman.

Men have reported that ex girlfriends have contacted them after years of no contact. This is not new, as carousel riders and post-wall women have always repented and have tried to reclaim their relationships with the good men, solid men, that they did not commit to, or sneered at in their 20s. What is new is the economic component. A year ago, you were not good enough for her because she sold real estate and you were 'merely' a plumber.

Don’t be fooled, she still thinks you are not good enough for her. What has changed in the last year, is she realizes she’s not getting promoted, she may be laid off, and she’s not going to be able to catch the eye of that single executive if they are both working remotely, she from her expensive, urban apartment, him from a sunny vacation spot.

Donner Pass? I've never been to Nevada but I sure survived 'Doner Pass' (look up Doner Kebab if the term isn't familiar!!) Ha ha.

Tower you are right. Women won't 'behave better' really. They will just hide their nature enough to trap a not very aware man. When the time comes.

Female nature will never return to a state that pleases MGTOW minded men. We are over their shit because we are too aware. The more aware a man is, the more repellant he is to women.

Exactly Sam. Women will 'come back' when they are out of options.

Where I think we are headed is that eventually, all safety nets will be ripped away. If you want to know what the future looks like, watch Hunger Games. And forget the happy ending brought about by a woman.

You see Feminism was not a naturally occurring thing. It was put in place to destroy white culture and society, which was necessary to take over the world.

Once the 'useful idiots' (Feminists, SJWs etc etc) have done their job, they will be discarded like the rest of us.

The people who plan these things always need useful idiots to carry out their plans. Unfortunately(?) for us, we are the ones that 'see', so we are on the fringe, Mad Max style.

Surviving, planning - living. What men do.

Sam, I dunno where you got you got your mindset but I'm betting it was the same merchant! In the dating world where women "cast their hypergamous nets" I'm an offshore obstacle covered in shredded nets and have no plans of moving, I just wanna tear up all the nets and ruin the egos of the women that cast them!

The only reason I don't hate women is I don't allow them anywhere near me, emotionally, physically, spiritually, psychologically, financially, or actually. The get the fucking boot before they ever get the opportunity!

Let them have the Hunter Biden's of this world, that's more than they ever deserved! I know, 9 yo is a little young for a woman, but that's the beast they voted for bon'a petite!

This is a great thread.

The first shift came when the ability to take pictures and put them online came about. This was very early MSN Messenger days. Back then it was kind of considered geeky or nerdy to be sitting at a computer talking to someone online, so this entitlement never really seeped too much into society. The next big shift came about when the webcams arrived. These girls who are 25-28 years old now were the young generation who experienced webcams at a young age. The simp over exposure has been going on since then.

2012 for me was the tipping point. The introduction of the smart phone. For sure technology has changed the dating scene and has unearthed females true nature. The only thing left was feminism to convince our governments to get rid of the nuclear family. Marriage rates are plummeting which actually increases sexlessness. According to a journal study 1 in 3 men now are sexless in America and western parts of Europe. This figure could actually be much higher due to men who over estimate how many partners they have slept with. Interestingly, the sexlessness is not happening amongst gay men or women at the scale it is happening towards men. So where is all the sex going?...... If we take a look at OKCUPID data, men rated 64% of womens profiles as attractive. Women rated 0% of men most attractive and only 7% of men attractive. What does this tell you about our society?

Women have responded to this with criticisms that this is 'just nature' or darwinism playing out. For sure this is the right assumption - but lets take a closer look here - what does society stand to gain from a very large increasing margin of men who are sexless and angry? Crime rates will continue to climb and from a sociological perspective societys which play out like this are the most violent. This is all bubbling under the surface like knife crime in the UK did 10 years ago due to increasing poverty and culture. The full effects of this will be seen with the collapse of certain important structures and defences in society.

So technology has changed the dating scene. What was attractive in the past is not so attractive now. Women do not need to marry for resources as much (although they still do) it is just your resources should be better than what she has to offer, since women have shed their gender norms but men are still expected to keep theirs. As we have seen with Covid and lockdown, it has shined holes in the entire system. Many men saw the phenomena of old ex girlfriends contacting them out of the blue. Guys were afraid of covid so simp levels decreased. Let me tell you if there was world war 3, things would quickly go back to where they were before. When society is in danger, its women look for survivability, when society is comfortable, women look for diamonds and things which look nice.

I’m sorry, but I’m sick of this shit.

People talking about SMVs etc. Understand that this is all coming from the internet.

Sources tell us that women want this, or men want that. It’s ALL bollox!

So you go on Tinder or some such. You flip through potential mates until you find someone that fits the bill. Well why wouldn’t you if you think you can pick and choose. Too fat, too thin, not enough wealth, not enough feelz. You get to pick and choose like a cattle mart.

Except, people lie.

You don’t know who these people really are.

The stats are skewed because in this day and age people can look for their “ideal” mate. It’s just another form of looking for your unicorn.

So men over 6 foot tall or have high wealth, well why wouldn’t all women look for that given the fact that they have sooo many to choose from: Loser, loser, loser, oh wait here’s one. Maybe I can ensnare him.

Makes perfect sense to me.

But understand that these are misleading figures. Women (and men) will pick and choose from the options they are given. So they go on Tinder or Fuckbook or whatever and try to choose from a horde of potential mates. Of course they will zone in on those they see as worthy.

Given the choice. Why wouldn’t they?

But in real life I see beautiful women with trolls. I see decent guys with hags. People team up for a variety of reasons, but on-line it seems so cold and calculated and this (in my opinion) is down to too much choice.

Why wouldn’t you pick the best of the bunch?

Of course, given the choice, people will seek higher SMVs. But when you look at it, what is a high SMV? Someone that you can boast about to your friends because he’s a stud or she’s gorgeous? Someone that can afford to raise you up financially?

It’s all bollox because these things are material. And material things can bring you together, but ultimately they will drive you apart.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I’m sorry, but I’m sick of this shit.

People talking about SMVs etc. Understand that this is all coming from the internet.

Sources tell us that women want this, or men want that. It’s ALL bollox!

So you go on Tinder or some such. You flip through potential mates until you find someone that fits the bill. Well why wouldn’t you if you think you can pick and choose. Too fat, too thin, not enough wealth, not enough feelz. You get to pick and choose like a cattle mart.

Except, people lie.

You don’t know who these people really are.

The stats are skewed because in this day and age people can look for their “ideal” mate. It’s just another form of looking for your unicorn.

So men over 6 foot tall or have high wealth, well why wouldn’t all women look for that given the fact that they have sooo many to choose from: Loser, loser, loser, oh wait here’s one. Maybe I can ensnare him.

Makes perfect sense to me.

But understand that these are misleading figures. Women (and men) will pick and choose from the options they are given. So they go on Tinder or Fuckbook or whatever and try to choose from a horde of potential mates. Of course they will zone in on those they see as worthy.

Given the choice. Why wouldn’t they?

But in real life I see beautiful women with trolls. I see decent guys with hags. People team up for a variety of reasons, but on-line it seems so cold and calculated and this (in my opinion) is down to too much choice.

Why wouldn’t you pick the best of the bunch?

Of course, given the choice, people will seek higher SMVs. But when you look at it, what is a high SMV? Someone that you can boast about to your friends because he’s a stud or she’s gorgeous? Someone that can afford to raise you up financially?

It’s all bollox because these things are material. And material things can bring you together, but ultimately they will drive you apart.

I am not in agreement with the 'its only nature' argument. We have the law to protect the vulnerable, we have schemes to protect the unknowledgeable/weary, yet when it comes to being disadvantaged at life due to appearence, many people have nothing. The protected characteristics law in the UK does not extend to appearence, given the super high disadvantages it presents. It seems if we are allowed to fall back into 'natural law' then natural law will simply take over, in its most dark gritty character. I believe in the future we may see 'viking' type clans of men who raid parts of a culture or segment of society for the women.

That being said low SMV women have never had it better. I know people who have done experiments on Tinder, even the ugliest most morally repulsive women are now dating like celebrities, which breeds further egotistic tendencies, and further fractures our society as a whole.

As a Mgtow it is fun watching society collapse with some popcorn.

Yes it is basically the rules which allow them a leg up when they are below par (by destroying men's achievements and demonising our failures), and at the same time rules which trumpet their successes and do not even mention their many failures. One rule for one, one rule for another. As it always is with any 'ruling class'.

As a man I just want equal rights under the law, I could give a fuck about 'society' at large thinks. But of course 'society' deems men to be 'privileged', which is a lie to artificially elevate women which necessarily means stealing wealth and freedom from men.