RE: Feminist in letter exchange wiki with a guy admits the winner in the dating scene is Chad.

The dating market is highly competitive, hierarchical, and often cruel. This fact is uncomfortable for anyone who values egalitarianism, so a more appealing – albeit dishonest – option is to instead blame Incels for their plight by suggesting that their unpleasant personalities must be the problem. The truth is that sexual attractiveness is a profound form of inequality, affecting not only relationship prospects, but also e.g. income and popularity.

[...]

So here’s the deal for a ‘Stacy’ in the modern dating economy, or indeed for a ‘Becky’ (a woman of average looks). She’s bombarded with male sexual attention, offline and online, most of which she doesn’t welcome, and some of which she feels harassed or frightened by. The ‘Chads’ she dates may be reluctant to commit to her exclusively, since there’s no longer social pressure on them to do so, meaning that she may end up as part of an informal harem, having plenty of sex, but without the kind of monogamous commitment that most women say they want. In our porn-saturated culture, the sexual script prioritises male pleasure over female, meaning that most women don’t orgasm during hook ups, and commonly experience unwanted acts of aggression like spitting and choking. Then there’s always the risk that she might go home with a man who turns out to be really dangerous. Of course there is a certain thrill in feeling attractive, which provides some compensation, but it’s time-limited; after a certain age, a woman can no longer rely on her looks as a source of self-esteem.

All of which is to say that ‘Stacys’/‘Beckys’ and Incels are all losers in the modern dating economy, and that as far as I can tell there is really only one group of winners: ‘Chads’. Which is why, although I don’t think we should ‘re-impose moth-eaten and oppressive sexual mores on women’ [note from me: she refers to enforced monogamy], I also see our current sexual mores as harmful to women, just in a different way.

Following a link on an article @FrailPaleStaleMale shared, I came across this, which happens to be written by a feminist (Louise Perry). What are your thoughts about this, supreme gentlemen?

Interesting.

Though I value a feminist's opinion on male problems, especially sexual inequality, about as much I value a wet fart, it's a peculiar thing to see that the degree to which the mental gymnastics can be performed is severely restricted in the undeniable face of the black pill.

She still found a way, however, to do some mental gymnastics. She had to lump in the stacies and beckies as losers in the sexual market along with us, only because chad doesn't commit, thanks to the abundance mentality that they've been conditioned to by women's very own choices.

When you act like a disposable slut for chad you're going to get treated like a disposable slut by chad. Amazing, isn't it? Who would have thought?

Women play a game where they come out losing and then have the stone-faced audacity to say they are just like the losers who were never given the opportunity to play the game at all.

Nuke this gay earth.