To all the single, lonely 30-something women with ridiculously high standards: you were warned.

submitted by christnmusicreleases from i.imgur.com

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HiddenFox 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The response is perfect! Someone call 911 for that burn!

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Agreed that it looks fake.

    Strongly disagree that the likely fake questioner isn't out of her mind. Just because she "wants to settle in NYC" doesn't change the fact that she's expecting to marry a very rich person. Like, you can't just say "well I plan to live in Beverly Hills" therefore my expectation to marry a rich person doesn't sound ridiculous. She's also not saying "live in NYC" she's explicitly going for central park west. So basically a neighborhood reserved for the richest of the richest elites in the world. Like Hillary Clinton and John Lennon. (which frankly, makes the thing seem more fake)

    And if she's going to have to take on the majority of the housework and childcare anyway, she might as well marry someone who can afford to hire cleaning staff and let her drop out of the workforce for a few years.

    Not seeing how this doesn't still make her sound ridiculous.

    Whatever the case, guys making $500k+ a year probably aren't scrambling to marry a 25 year old. They're going to be drowning in pussy, until they're old enough they want to get serious about having kids (probably around 40), and at that point they're not going for young pretty and dumb, they're probably going for just young enough they can still have kids, but otherwise is mature, has some minimal accomplishments of her own, and isn't explicitly looking for rich men.

    First of all, anyone explicitly looking to marry rich is NOT going to stick around as soon as they have the option of leaving while taking some of that money with them. That's probably the ultimate red flag in dating for a guy, even poor guys, is how much the woman is concerned about your wallet.

    [–]binrobinro 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Right. Or work hard at bettering herself - and have a career.

    [–]binrobinro 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    warned against what?

    Warned about their decreasing value.

    [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    I don't think women who are chasing millionaires are relevant to society as a whole because they are rare. Not all "gold diggers" expect that much. The same way guys who are ruthless in their pursuit of becoming millionaires are representatives of all men, even though almost all men want to earn as much as possible.

    The real problem is that most average women have been brainwashed by feminism to think that all the things women traditionally brought to the table: child care, taking care of the house, not fighting for dominance with their husband; are all unreasonable. So women have rejected having anything besides looks to bring to the table but still expect just their looks to fetch the same man as the whole package.

    [–][deleted]  (7 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      There are definitely low quality men out there, but they aren't being taught to be low quality men by a social movement. Although the left does attack those institutions that seek to teach men to be high quality, like the boy scouts, and the church.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Second wave feminism, on the other hand, just teaches women how to ask "why?"

        No, it also provides the answers which are always anti Male psuedo intellectual garbage. It tells women to ask why men have numbers 6-10, gives them a bullshit answer that claims oppression and tells them to take half. It then tells them to attack anyone who questions why women have numbers 1-5 and misogynistic.

        Female privileges dwarf Male privileges, yet feminism claims the opposite. It exists solely to sow division between men and women.

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        As far as the degenerate acceptance stuff, that is messed up too but you are wrong to blame men for it. It is not in men's interest for women to be sluts. The point of the degeneracy is to degrade our society, destroy the nuclear family and make people more controllable and having fewer well adjusted kids.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          They are readily and greedily eating it up as they alway have

          Fair enough, but girls are also flocking to watch shirtless boys do shitty 6 second dances on tik tok. Sexuality is part of the human condition. The solution is modesty, which is a right wing ideal. It is based in personal responsibility, from which gender roles arise. So when feminism attacks personal responsibility and expectations the natural result is degeneracy.

          What?

          It's an abstraction of how social justice arguments work. You start off with an equal system that has complexity such that instead of everyone having exactly the same things they instead have the same number or value of different things.

          For example a farmer and his wife have a corn field and an apple orchard which both produce the same income. They divorce and split the farm, but it doesn't make sense for each to take half of each field so the husband gets the corn field and the wife gets the orchard.

          To a rational person this is fair and even. But a social justice warrior would tell the wife that it is not fair that the husband got the corn field. He has white privilege and that is why he got the whole corn field and she has to fight him for it.

          That is the essence of all "priviledge" arguments. You laser in on something minute, specifically excluding relevant facts in order to fabricate an inequality argument.

          caregiver obligation

          Fuck off, men are begging to have equal custody and the courts routinely screw them over. Women TAKE the kids often just as leverage to demand more money. Family court is horrifically corrupt and biased towards women.

          I mean, you can't be in control of damn near everything for millennia and not expect some of it to bite you in the ass.

          This mentality is retarded as fuck. No one has ever had the kind of control that you are alleging. Until extremely recently people were barely staying fed, let alone orchestrating God like control over humanity. The absurdity!

          You have this huge list of female privileges that you scoff at and try to had wave away as if that constitutes an argument. It doesn't. One could do the same childish dance with every claim of male privilege.

          Women don't get paid less, they do jobs that pay less and they work less. And it has nothing to do with obligations, they are simply less qualified on average. They grow up with the expectation that they will find a provider and so they don't put as much work into education and careers as men. Which is proven by the fact that even women who never find that provider or have kids still work lower paid jobs and work shorter hours.

          [–]akkordeonplayer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          That looks like a joke