Fuglies are forgotten and beauty is cheap

Posted on August 25, 2011 by

Fuglies are the new beta

In the Manosphere, there is lots of talk about how “women don’t notice betas”. This is largely true. Most women only notice alphas, and a beta will only catch her eye if he’s behaving like an alpha in her presence. But there’s a flip-side to this phenomenon that goes largely uncommented: men don’t notice ugly women.

They don’t. Just as women’s attentions are drawn to alpha behavior, men’s attentions are drawn to physical beauty. There’s nothing wrong with this, either way, but let us not pretend that men are somehow immune to focusing their attentions on hotness. Even ugly men will tend to ignore ugly women, and for all the talk about involuntary celibacy among beta men because of hypergamy, there’s little recognition of the corresponding effect among ugly women because of pornography and promiscuity. People in their reproductive years tend to concentrate upon finding and keeping their mates. This is completely natural, so complaining about it is rather pointless. You might as well complain that the sun shines, or the earth turns, for all of the good it will do you. It’s a simple fact of life that it sucks to be unattractive to the opposite sex.

The beautylicious Manosphere

One can see the effect that this has on women just by looking around the Manosphere, with its inherent babe-surplus. Not only are physically-attractive women more intelligent on average (curvy figures and facial symmetry are correlated with above-average IQs), they also tend to be more outspoken and forward, are more inclined to join fringe movements and support emerging trends (break away from the herd), they are less likely to view men as oppressors, and are more suspicious of the motives of other women. They are also less bothered by racism or other prejudice (beauty trumps everything else), which is why there are so many black women hanging around men who regularly bitch about black women.

Physically attractive women tend to be more self-confident because they are accustomed to being defended and deferred to. They are less likely to demand government protections because they are used to being protected by the men around them. Unfortunately, they’re also rather ambivalent about “stirring up trouble” and the fact that their presence can sow discord amongst men (they’re used to being fought over), which can make them a bit of a liability in a men’s movement. On the other hand, their status can deflect charges of “de facto homoism” and their presence tends to heighten men’s willingness to engage in risky behavior (i.e. it motivates them to action).

Fuglies and hotties unite!

But the real reason that there’s a surfeit of attractive women in the men’s movement (and conservative movement, for that matter) is something more basic: we’re net-losers in feminism. It’s true. Most women are physically attractive to a significant portion of men, but true physical beauty is relatively rare, especially in the 30+ crowd (where beauty separates from mere youthful prettiness). It used to convey a strong genetic advantage, but feminism changed that.

By demanding the same protections for all women, it actually sucked the meager protections less attractive women had (as they could still marry before, and were less likely to be discarded in old age) and the greater protections ageless-beauties had (as they were cherished and promoted), and redirected them at the middle of the attractiveness scale (young women). Ugly and aging women are now considered completely worthless, and unusually attractive women no longer carry the premium they once did. After all, why invest heavily in a beauty who will fade, when you can just pump-n-dump your way through an ever-renewing population of young women? Landing the ambitious young engineer or doctor is not as much of a benefit, if his paycheck is then drained out through the income-transfer system, and he is regularly tempted by offers of cheap sex from “independent” women (who are being supported by him indirectly).

The idea that feminism is a movement “for every woman”, is a lie. It was a power-grab by the mediocre but ambitious. Just as it has left “husband material” on the shelf and put men at a higher risk of being abandoned in a “trade up”, it has left “wifely material” on the shelf and put women at a higher risk of being abandoned in a “trade up”. There are winners and losers in every movement, and feminism is no exception.

Posted in: Relationships