"My Standards Are Higher As a Single Mother," Woman Says Men Should Do More For Her and Her Son

YouTube ^ | February 15, 2025 | Anton Daniels

[grundle]

"My Standards Are Higher As a Single Mother," Woman Says Men Should Do More For Her and Her Son

[alexander_busek]

This is a controversial topic—but my view is that any woman with significant tattoos gets two points deducted from her SMV—so by my previous criteria she rates a solid zero.

I've been a happily married man for 27 years, and so am no longer in the game of assigning points to or "rating" other women.

You are, of course, free to evaluate her SMV all you want.

Indeed, her low "rating" does make her demands all the more ridiculous.

Regards,

[Chickensoup]

Just curious because in our adoption group bio fathers mental health seemed to be strongest determinant of the adoptive child’s mental health.

With difficult at times and sometimes tragic results.

[cgbg]

Happily married for many years as well.

Assigning points to women is helpful—particularly when assisting younger men in their journey through life.

I can think of several analogies—but they would be a bit ah controversial...lol.

[alexander_busek]

Assigning points to women is helpful—particularly when assisting younger men in their journey through life.

I have a 17-year-old son who has already taken his first steps in the dating market, but...

I would not attempt to establish any sort of rating system for his use. Certainly not a rating system which supposedly has any sort of general applicability.

(Personal preferences play too much of a role.)

Rather, I would instead advise my son to keep an eye open for certain "deal-breakers."

Assuming you even have a group of "possibles" from which to choose, it should be a relatively simple task to "winnow" them down by applying a few, generally valid "knock-out" criteria.

The most-important exclusionary criteria would pertain to attributes which are not even visible (e.g., slootiness /illegitimate children, conceitedness, etc.) - and young men are essentially visual creatures (unfortunately).

Visible criteria would include obesity, massive dental braces, severe acne, etc.

But if I were a father advising my son on selecting a wife, physical attributes (as long as they don't preclude fertility) would be of diminished importance. (I know: Good luck trying to convince a strapping young man to "go" for the inconspicuous but serious, principled wall-flower!)

In my early years, I was probably what could be described as "hunky" or "hawt" (though I was socially awkward). Still, I had extremely strict standards concerning physical beauty. As a result, I "dated" only stunningly beautiful women.

I think that I would have "gotten more" out of "dating" and experienced more personal growth and maturation, if I had been less fixated on mere outward beauty.

Rating systems are probably okay for the dance floor, when trying to make a quick estimation from a group of total strangers, but if you are selecting from a group of people with whom you already have some at least slight acquaintanceship*, I would advise approaching the matter differently.

Regards,

*And, ideally, this would be the norm.

[cgbg]

The rating system is a “shorthand” for what our minds do anyway.

We are always evaluating other people even if we are not consciously thinking about it.

There were periods in my life where I was a “creep” in women’s eyes and other periods in my life where I was considered “hot”.

The manosphere taught me that it was a choice—if I made the effort I got the rewards—no short-cuts.

(The funniest thing they did not teach me is that once you become “hot” you have to run away from lower SMV women—they will make total fools of themselves to try to get your attention.)

[alexander_busek]

Just curious because in our adoption group bio fathers mental health seemed to be strongest determinant of the adoptive child’s mental health. With difficult at times and sometimes tragic results.

Indeed! That issue - as a stand-alone topic of discussion - is a genuinely valid one.

It can also have tragic consequences (I have second-hand experience)!

And even if there are no obvious or established genetic markers in play: If the child has already been forced to live in the "care" of his irresponsible biological parents for a mere three or five years, this can result in irrevocable psychological damage - not to mention possible somatic problems due, e.g., to in utero exposure to noxious chemicals.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

The rating system is a “shorthand” for what our minds do anyway.

True!

I am already so old that I probably shouldn't even be participating in a discussion about 0-10 rating systems.

Again, I am happily married - but if, through some cataclysm, I were to be again "thrown" into the dating market (assuming I even wanted to date), I think that I would be at once both extremely "pickier" and "less judgemental."

When I was twenty, an unsightly mole on the face would have been an instant "knock-out" criterion. Smoking would have been given a "pass."

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Agreed—but more importantly men in their late 30s need to exercise using their middle finger—when any authority figure tries to tell them what they “should” do. That is part of what power is.

I learned at an early age - as a schoolboy, actually - to discount what "Society" told me about a lot of things. "Social politics" and the "soft tyranny" of "but we've got to help the less-fortunate" topped the list.

But when it came to "romantic" relationships, concepts of chivalry, deference to female fickleness and whimsicality, etc., it took a long time for me to become "red-pilled."

The final realization was that the female psyche (not the "sexual drive" so much as the manipulativeness of women, their base materialism, their need for social validation, one-upmanship amongst women, their horror at the thought of going against group-think) is every bit as crass as some of the worse aspects of male sexuality.

In the crassest terms: A. The male of the species wants to rut - once that has been accomplished, and there is the prospect of it being regularly fulfilled in the future, men will sit contentedly at the campfire, belch, and scratch their navels. Civilization - incl. war, competition, technological progress, etc. - comes to a standstill.

B. But the female drive is insatiable. And it accomplishes its goals mostly by denying men A. - while dangling the prospect if certain conditions are fulfilled.

Regards,

[Jonty30]

We can’t judge any specific case, true. However, the hypergamic culture exists and many men were victims of it and have chosen to withdrawal into their interests as a result.

Quite often, he’s not getting upset at being rejected. He’s upset because he was abused in the process of getting rejected.

You’re likely from an older culture and aren’t as aware of the realities of the modern culture.

[KC_Conspirator]

Seems we have the same playlist.

Dating Delusions is absolutely hilarious. "One hundred Billion Dollars!"

I go back with Rollo to his blog and book years (also Chateau Heartiste, RoK, etc). He can be too whiny and was trying to gate keep for years.

Listen to HL Talk that Thought and Modern King too.

[alexander_busek]

I go back with Rollo to his blog and book years (also Chateau Heartiste, RoK, etc). He can be too whiny and was trying to gate keep for years.

They all have their weakness and foibles. Since he was a trailblazer, he thinks that he "owns" the manosphere, or at least that the manosphere "owes" him something.

Rollo is a little too "in love with himself." He also wastes time "demolishing" (debunking) some female content creators who are probably just trolling, and thus don't deserve attention.

Kevin Samuels exaggerated the cost of providing for a family in comfort, routinely saying that the man would have to make $300k or $400k per year to ensure that a family of, say, four could still vacation internationally, etc. Those numbers are, in my estimation, inflated.

What I admire most about Mr. Samuels is that he understood how to "wrestle with pigs" without himself getting dirty. He knew that scrupulously listing the Latin names of the fallacies his arrogant Black female guests were committing wouldn't lead to him winning the argument. So employed "guerilla" tactics - with considerable aplomb and remarkable success!

I most admired his ability to "coax" women into divulging self-incriminating evidence by masking it as flattery - like "negging" on them until they finally burst out with, "But I have a LOT of male suitors! There are FOUR high-value men right now proposing to me!" And then deftly pointing out that they had earlier complained that there "aren't any good men left in the dating market!"

There was one guy - I think that he must have been British - with a name like "Sandman" (but NOT the American "Sandman" with the annoying "sing-songy" vocal inflection).

The "Sandman" I'm thinking of was dressed entirely in black, like in a cape, and his face was partially obscured, and he spoke mostly in a monotone, except when introducing today's clip with "I have another story for you TO-day!"

Any idea how I can find him again? He seems to have disappeared - or maybe have been "shadow-banned."

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Beautiful women are only a tiny percentage of the population. I knew some women in that tiny percentage. Men asked them out all the time, so they had to turn many men down. I remember one in particular who was very kind. Now and then, a man would sweep her off her feet, only to break her heart later. How many men should she say ‘yes’ to?

You are committing the "Apex Fallacy,"

The informal fallacy of evaluating a population based only on its apex, its best (top-tier) members or other extreme / outlying members.

A small percentage of men are cads who repeatedly pester and maybe even harass female coworkers and the like. Many women then generalize that (all) men are like that. (NOTE: It might be sensible to adopt a correspondingly cautious posture based upon that premise - e.g., when entering elevators - even while NOT accepting it as factually true and NOT propagating throughout mainstream culture that "all men are pigs!")

Likewise, the "beautiful women" who you admit are only a "tiny percentage of the population" are also especially prone to certain unpleasant experiences (excessive "come ons" - is that really so terrible?).

The suboptimal life experiences of a "tiny percentage of the population" really shouldn't be used as a basis for discussion. It is namely impossible to derive generalized, broadly useful conclusions on their basis.

Some men complain about rejection, but they are complaining that the most attractive women rejected them.

I call B.S. on that observation! Most men tend to "stay in their lane," i.e., "shoot their shot" within their league. Also: Men tend to not complain about being rejected, but rather about the MANNER in which they are rejected. Studies have shown that - esp. in social settings where the women are being observed by their peers - the rejections tend to be more devastating, because females actually believe that that will burnish their reputations among their peers!

The female estimation of the (physical) attractiveness of men is DEMONSTRABLY skewed: Statistics show that women rate about 75% of all men as "below average" (which is mathematically impossible). The majority of men are thus "invisible" to most women. Hence the commonplace lament of "Where are all the good men?"

At the same time, men's assessment of female beauty is an almost perfect Gaussian Curve (also known as a "Bell Curve").

Regards,

[Jonty30]

These women are also orbiters of the high value men, so they get mistreated and because the only men they associate themselves with are high value men they get the impression that all men are like this.

[MinorityRepublican]

These women are also orbiters of the high value men, so they get mistreated and because the only men they associate themselves with are high value men they get the impression that all men are like this.

Eventually, we will have a revolution. Or a "Great Awakening", you'll see people convert to Mormonism, Islam, etc.

[alexander_busek]

Eventually, we will have a revolution. Or a "Great Awakening", you'll see people convert to Mormonism, Islam, etc.

Why? What makes you say that?

I believe that, instead of openly and honestly converting to, e.g., Islam or Fundamentalist Mormonism, where polygyny is part of doctrine - the women will instead covertly resign themselves to polygyny, while simultaneously and vocally denying it.

Because women are experts in doing things like that.

Regards,

[Chickensoup]

His entire presentation and conceptualization is toxic.

[Chickensoup]

The book of responses you wrote clearly shows who was TRIGGERED.

Whoa Trigger!

[heavy metal]

joseph didn’t impregnate mary...

regards...

[Tired of Taxes]

I’m very much aware of what’s happening today. As I said, all my sons are in their 20s.

[Tired of Taxes]

Try ignoring the man’s commentary and listen only to what she says. My opinion is based on what she alone said without the added commentary.

When she said her standards are high, she didn’t mention income or physical attributes. She said that, as a single mom, she must be serious when she dates. So, by ‘high standards,’ she means she does not mess around with players. That’s all.

When she said no one is necessarily at fault when a relationship doesn’t work, all she was saying is that sometimes relationships don’t work, that’s all.

You’re all flipping out over nothing.