Us men wont be needed in the future

none of us

You always need disposable workers. Lol at thinking slave worker gender is gonna be ended.

true

but how does this parlay OPs point??

men are willing to provide the infrastructure women thrive off and many of them are overlooked. And no, its not as extreme as OP is suggesting but its hard to deny that hypergamy is a natural female reproductive strategy and that western women are very hypergamous. One thing people dont realize is that anglicized culture is amongst the most gynocentric in the world. Women have always been catered for in the upper classes.

They didn't even receive the right to vote until barely a hundred years ago. Yes, there was chivalry back then, because there was mutual respect between the genders. Women knew how valuable men were, and they respected them. Now, average men are valueless, even though they are the backbone to any functioning civilization.

Birth control, and independence, and mass brainwashing through the media has destroyed the modern western women. They can fuk freely and face no repercussions. They don't need to look for a man to take care of them.

You can very quickly find out the health of a civilization by looking at how the women act. Go out on a Saturday night to any, literally any, college around the United States and you will see the same thing. Women dressed like whores everywhere.

we are living in a dark age, right now. An age of degeneracy and filth.

I realized this years ago. When you have this perspective, it really helps you to understand why a lot of religions subjugate women, why marriage was created, and so on.

Wall of text warning:

Given the complete freedom to choose, women are generally going to go for the top 20 - 30% of males, so something like marriage kept things nice and tidy by giving the majority of males the incentive to work hard to provide for their family, merging resources, joining families together, creating a bloodline for inheritance, etc.

The harsh competitiveness is really only a problem in post-agricultural society. Humans are generally only able to maintain something like 100 - 200 meaningful social relationships (Dunbars number). In a smaller tribal context, especially living nomadically, all one really had to do was hunt and forage, day by day, and the concept of property wasnt really a thing. It was in everybodys best interests to work as a group, to share with one another, etc. So having to guard your chit wasnt a thing, paternity wasnt as important because the child would tend to be raised collectively by the group, etc. Theres even one tribe I heard about where it was believed that a woman hooking up with different males would imbue the offspring with the traits of those different males, lulz.

But once agriculture came into the picture, things changed. Rather than being nomadic, tribes would stay in one place. Agriculture leads to a surplus of food, which means increased fertility and higher population growth. Beyond a few hundred people, the sense of cohesiveness is lost and suddenly things get complicated. For agriculture, you need land, so you need people to work that land. And you need to guard it. And when you need more land, you often have to fight for it. And some people having more food/property than others leads to hierarchies. And now you have to figure out where the line is drawn between your land and your neighbors. Land can now be possessed and passed down generations, so paternity and a distinct lineage become important. See the Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, nor his manservant nor his maidservant, nor his ox or donkey etc. Now sloots gonna sloot becomes an issue because you dont want your wife to get knocked up by ancient Chad, causing you to spend your resources on a child that isnt yours, messing up your lineage, etc.

Anyways, human mate preferences tend to shift slightly in terms of which traits are prioritized, depending on the context. In our modern context, women no longer need to depend on a male breadwinner since they have careers of their own plus the backing of the government for that. So its easy to assume that other traits, like aesthetics, dominance, masculinity, will become more important. And with the freedom to choose, they can act on those impulses with no worry.

That being said, were not going to go back to a tribal context anytime soon because theres way too many of us at this point. And its unlikely that the changes brought upon by feminism will ever go away. I think well continue on the way we are until we start to incorporate chit like VR, advanced AI, gene manipulation, etc. Lonely brahs will have better ways to cope and everyone else will continue to do their thing.

TL;DR: The competitiveness of the dating market is largely a result of the agricultural revolution (and subsequent population boom) creating a situation where certain mate preferences became more prioritized, resulting in more pronounced inequalities

check out the weimer republic, germany pre nazism. its us now

Women in STEM or not, the value of our labour will never disappear.

Hydro
Public infrastructure
Delivery men
Trucking of goods
HVAC fix for AC in summer or heating in winter
Building maintenance
Auto repairs
Computer networks
Telecom

Given a problem in any of these disciplines who is the one to fix it?

Sure women have more choice. But wouldnt you rather be chosen on want rather than need?

In previous time periods, womenneededmen to provide them with resources for their survival and things that they desired, such as food, shelter, and - in modern times - transportation, and money so that they can engage in recreational activities or buy themselves things that they like. However, with the advent of feminism and the subsequent educational and financial independence that women enjoy today, they no longerneedmen and therefore hookup withonlymen whom theywant(i.e. tall and good-looking), even if such men are deadbeats. Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule as there are to any rule, but for the most part, this is the truth. Hence, the majority of men, who are either short or below-average-to-average in looks - or perhaps both - are left with only women who are very unattractive or morbidly obese.

This does not bode well for the future of humanity, because the time periods in which women chose men whom theyneededassured that they chose men who were intelligent and hardworking. However, now that women are choosing men based mainly on physical traits, they may not necessarily be choosing men who are intelligent or hardworking. Subsequently, because intelligence and discipline (which is necessary to be hardworking) are hereditary traits, humans will gradually become less intelligent and more lazy due to the aforementioned assertion.

It's over, boyos. The species is doomed.

I realized this years ago. When you have this perspective, it really helps you to understand why a lot of religions subjugate women, why marriage was created, and so on.

Wall of text warning:

Given the complete freedom to choose, women are generally going to go for the top 20 - 30% of males, so something like marriage kept things nice and tidy by giving the majority of males the incentive to work hard to provide for their family, merging resources, joining families together, creating a bloodline for inheritance, etc.

The harsh competitiveness is really only a problem in post-agricultural society. Humans are generally only able to maintain something like 100 - 200 meaningful social relationships (Dunbars number). In a smaller tribal context, especially living nomadically, all one really had to do was hunt and forage, day by day, and the concept of property wasnt really a thing. It was in everybodys best interests to work as a group, to share with one another, etc. So having to guard your chit wasnt a thing, paternity wasnt as important because the child would tend to be raised collectively by the group, etc. Theres even one tribe I heard about where it was believed that a woman hooking up with different males would imbue the offspring with the traits of those different males, lulz.

But once agriculture came into the picture, things changed. Rather than being nomadic, tribes would stay in one place. Agriculture leads to a surplus of food, which means increased fertility and higher population growth. Beyond a few hundred people, the sense of cohesiveness is lost and suddenly things get complicated. For agriculture, you need land, so you need people to work that land. And you need to guard it. And when you need more land, you often have to fight for it. And some people having more food/property than others leads to hierarchies. And now you have to figure out where the line is drawn between your land and your neighbors. Land can now be possessed and passed down generations, so paternity and a distinct lineage become important. See the Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, nor his manservant nor his maidservant, nor his ox or donkey etc. Now sloots gonna sloot becomes an issue because you dont want your wife to get knocked up by ancient Chad, causing you to spend your resources on a child that isnt yours, messing up your lineage, etc.

Anyways, human mate preferences tend to shift slightly in terms of which traits are prioritized, depending on the context. In our modern context, women no longer need to depend on a male breadwinner since they have careers of their own plus the backing of the government for that. So its easy to assume that other traits, like aesthetics, dominance, masculinity, will become more important. And with the freedom to choose, they can act on those impulses with no worry.

That being said, were not going to go back to a tribal context anytime soon because theres way too many of us at this point. And its unlikely that the changes brought upon by feminism will ever go away. I think well continue on the way we are until we start to incorporate chit like VR, advanced AI, gene manipulation, etc. Lonely brahs will have better ways to cope and everyone else will continue to do their thing.

TL;DR: The competitiveness of the dating market is largely a result of the agricultural revolution (and subsequent population boom) creating a situation where certain mate preferences became more prioritized, resulting in more pronounced inequalities

No it's not. You're ignoring the fact that these things are only happening in Western countries. If this situation did arise it would leave the West incredibly weak and vulnerable, and it would inevitably be conquered by societies that keep their women in check, thus returning back to normal.

Not sure who has the most FA posts. Its been OP, that bald guy and the snowboard kid lol