1. Humanitarianism covering their back. Let's start with one of the most important reasons. Gender Hormones. We are the seeders of sex, and women are the receivers. The motion of sex is us going forward to them, and that means that there's the potential for them to be a moving target that we're biologically prone to follow. And now humanitarianism has risen, and civilization is the ultimate mazemaker of the human race. A broken system in favor of women. Where women are the target and we must follow it by hormonal
2. The utility of men is no more, but there's nothing that can deny a female's worthiness. We still have dicks, but women now have security. No need for providers. No need for earth-tamers, now the new craze in a society where the value essence is predicated around things like refinement. Maslow's hierarchy of needs/ primality value predication is now mostly caught up to aesthetic needs. The world is mostly tamed, there aren't threats in the wild, and now aesthetics/ being able to show for yourself ina world mostly govertned by the human visualization of perfection is what is desired now. Women can now attain whomever they want with Chad being available from outlets like tinder and facebook. They have a wider range of things in their criteria ultimately than men.
3.Women only fall for top 1-10% (and leaning towards 1) of men because their predication is based on hierarhcical supremacy on the primal scales. This doesn't meant there's a power division that favors the winners who get laid greater than women. Women will get more power because they are the moving targets. And humanitarianism/ frminism makes it so you can't stop them from moving, they are more air-bound in the sexual hierarchy, and we are more groundbound. We can't move as free or briskly. S oessentially hre selectivity pool is higher for a 7/10 who puts herself out than a 10 (who are far more rarer for men than a 7/10 by far). But that's thing about chads. Even hot chads don't have a s much sway than the more common girls. Women are finicky, and are walled off generally from the outside.
4. They're built for beauty. Men are not. This means that have provisional value will do less. And men of a more substantial capital of primality will do far better. Intractable, obscure, no foreseeable weaknesses building to the impression of status superiority rather than being a loving person.
5.Relational superiority is not a part of male attraction as it much is for women. It's an active thing. For men it ends when he gets with the girl because he knows he's swimming on land most of the time, but every woman is more fickle and easy to leave than a man is. It's not that a women is competitively superior, but that she is just hotter. Or hot enough to enjoy. For women there is no enough unless he is top dog chad. There's a distinct difference. It's all predicated on the body for men. But for women it's primarily on every facet possible.
6. Women see everything in relation to evolutionary indication and significance. Men are more rational. And not able to flamboyantly flake out. Women are passionate on phenomenology behind visuality/ appearance/ impressions. That's why they finick about genetics/ and appearance. Men are also this way but it's more logical, and women are fickle flighty feelists not rational responsible realists.
7. Women female roles give them more leeway. To be flighty and evasive. What's acceptable for htem is to be individualistic to compensate for being the weaker sex. Humanitarian headway.
It's an evolutionary incentive for men to want to fuck. But women have a broader range of factors that decide whether or not the guy is fuckable. Women are more flustered by flaws in factors, even one's not even prominent or important like LMS, Primality factors. Women are flustered by any flaws, and in this humanitarian obligation shitshow of a world today, women can get by even with being shirky/ flakey towards men.
Women are more selective, their attraction goes only towards alpha/ higher prominence men, which is why whites get laid. While male attraction goes towards most females who have good body proportions. The attraciton link is rarer for girls, so men end up having a greater proportion of girls like them. But women get more on average than every chad. Why? Because even though more girls may find the guy of high prominence, that is still a slippery slope, and women are very finicky/ locked in on any guy with value. It's the precariousness of their libido. And the urge of men to get with any girl. A chad will get approached by girls/ actively invested. But any girl who instantly goes out of her ways will make men go over their anxieties and charge at her like a bull. Women are less afraid of aloofness from a guy because it's a potential alpha trait they project on high value men. Men are more afraid of aloofness from girls.
Women innately reach for a higher set of primality. If not for that, then for provision. Then beta people can get liked for provision. Like getting a free ticket to America for the ethnic bitch if you're going to a non white part of the world. There will never be a point though where provision is so scarce that they will pick every beta. There will still be a point where a vast medium girl will be well off enough to wanna fuck upwards. And most girl would rather die childless or relationless than be with a beta incel.
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin
"A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over the period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable."
― Adolf Hitler
"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
― H. G. Wells
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927