I can’t force you to the truth. You have to find it on your own. My instincts have proven correct far more then some yahoo writing drivel on the internet…
Considering the difficulties I had at 25 finding work, if this were already law I think I’d have just taken the free bed ‘n breakfast. Better I get the handouts and a no-strings 3-year runway to study than a petty drug dealer as is currently common. Are you sure that policy is sufficient for the stated effect?
Im assuming that a petty drug dealer is a very low tier man, because he is a criminal and because he doesn't even make much money. Possibly in the bottom 1% of all men. Are you saying that you would be unable to get anything better than that? Are you saying you are in the bottom 1% of all women?
Secondly, I understand the economic problems, and the solution I proposed is not to solve the economic problems, only the fertility problems. To solve the economic problems you just ban credit creation and compound interest. Once the economic problems are solved we can go back to 1 income households and you wouldn't need to find work.
There’s an allure regarding criminals though, for some reason even the worst of society do get a following like Manson, Bundy, police officers getting involved with inmates, etc. The latest being that CEO’s shooter.
The strong case of that is called: Hybristophilia.
At the time I suppose I was bottom 1% in net desirability, or near enough. I studied CS hardware design and cognitive science, designed a simple CPU from transistors, ran out of bursary money and the best work I could find was Sales Associate, later Dish Washer, then… nothing, for some years.
Some problems are more localized than others, my home city was already vastly majority non-white, and I’d have done better to move to Alberta long ago… but, at the time, it seemed all risk and little reward.
Now I’m a decade older, working in construction, and doing better on all counts. I didn’t even notice my arms got twice as thick as back then, suddenly I’m treated differently. The benefits of fitness are outsized.
I think JFK’s national fitness program, or equivalent, would do much more for solving the fertility crisis. Under certain circumstances, women suddenly don’t think “protection” is all that necessary.
However, there’s a demoralization problem to address simultaneously, but you’re aware. 👍🏻
In all seriousness, my prospects at the time were seriously poor enough, overall, I’d have been better in prison, even with this pronatal policy… and I’m someone who’s always wanted 10+ kids.
There will always be collateral damage, I accept that. I think in absence of the policies subsidizing non-white families in most western nations this could work, but as things stand I see little benefit.
Ending no-fault divorce and/or rigging divorce settlements against women, would accomplish more, as things stand.
I have an obsolete Asperger’s diagnosis, and a negative ADHD diagnosis, but I do not think my circumstances as outlier high intelligence in the general population are very unique. I am most familiar with other programmers, but there is very much squandered potential, on no great fault of the individuals.
“Try, try again” gets old when necessities are scarce, “safe” choices beat theoretical optimal when the latter is insecure.
A wonderful exception in my cohort is the programmer “Kaze Emanuar”, and certain other demoscene hackers. Europe and other high density populations seem to have better luck with Outsiders finding each other, and lessening mutual burdens.
Aside, I have long been in favour of something resembling the “Genius Subsidy”, but I prefer raw material access (food/energy/metal-stock) over cash for the lower liquidity. Insulates from inflation and promotes direct productivity. Access limited to “working years”, eg 20-40, no subsidy for youth (to promote over several generations people who have greater reproductive instinct; the contentedly selfish would I predict just not reproduce).
Shooting used to be unisex in the Olympics and women even won a few medals. No woman can even qualify, much less win a medal, in men’s track and field.
This article is congruent with the book The Case for Father Custody by Dr. Daniel Amneus. It’s an amazing book you might like considering what you’ve written here.
I do not think men generally have low interest in kids. I do high-investment parenting because I love and am concerned for my kids. Same goes for my friends. Households headed by men have better outcomes than female headed households. Most men aren’t deadbeats.
No need to go after single people just make sex outside marriage illegal and aggressively enforce it. Everyone would work it all out themselves under such a regime.
That was a different culture. If you have a massive culture shift then yeh you don't need many laws. Anyway I just trying to make a point that its not as complicated as some people seem to think, and you'd agree so we are on the same page.
I'd also make the point that there were all kinds of workarounds to the inevitable out of wedlock pregnancies that were below the radar. Everything from "going away to have the child which will then be put up for adoption" to Frank Sinatra's mom performing abortions in Hoboken, or getting married just before the baby starts to show, to misrepresenting the father (and hoping the baby isn't black (if you are white)). We are only 2 generations away from that world. Our belief structure that people were less randy and non-monogamous in the past is a bit naive.
what do you think about potential future reproductive technologies like in vitro gametogenesis or artificial wombs? techno-utopian pipedream or serious tools to tackle a low tfr/dysgenics?
I think they probably could be serious tools to tackle low tfr and declining genetic quality, but we would need a serious government that is intent on improving the population and not just feeding off it like parasites.
I know a couple who have had 4 kids with IVF. The kids seem more likeable, better looking and slightly smarter than their parents, so maybe IVF is doing the job without any governmental direction, but its expensive and i don't really know much about it.
maybe governments would eventually be forced to allow these technologies when one country starts to legalize them and sets of an arms race; but who knows, thats just speculation.
and do you know if the couple used embryo selection? sounds a little bit like they did.
if you want to find out more about these technologies, i can recommend henry greelys book "the end of sex" as well jonathan anomalys "creating future people".
That's why IVG could be a potential gamechanger, it would drive the cost down, would make the whole procedure way less intrusive and you would have way more embryos to choose from
The idea of embryo selection bothers me. Fertilising an egg only to cancel it later. I have much less issue with sperm selection or the more typical social eugenics.
You hit the nail on the head in many ways. Women ultimately do being in the household and you elaborated well on this fact. However, you much of this is conjecture based probably on personal experience. Yes, in general women get more aroused during menstruation but that’s not the only time they’re interested in men. Of course it varies depending on the man but, lest you intend on giving incel vibes, it’s worth leaving out the certainties and include more citations, or one at the very least, for obvious reasons. Your thinking is very impressive and you convey these
Concepts very well. If you’re willing to constructive criticism, you will become this generations foremost thought leaders, assuming you’re gen z.
Too error-riddled and sadistic to be a Millenial thought leader. Imprisoning people, instead of building Gale-Shapley matchmaking algorithms or anything useful, would be stupidly destructive of human capital. Bonobos are better thought leaders, having solved the problem of chimpy barbarism via paternal dilution and selection against murderers.
A logical conclusion from your premises is that men have to be forced to provide for children. In fact, that's what the Amish do, force males to work from boyhood till death. Instead of working to provide for others, you're using tech the Amish have banned, just to post whiny BS.
It was interesting up until that last paragraph. Some of us have bad genes and do not wish to pass them on, and some of us are opposed to procreation on ethical grounds.
I do not think any man is in a position to dictate how many children a woman is supposed to have, since he will not suffer stretch marks, mutilated abs, incontinence, hair loss, tooth loss, reduced libido, vaginal tearing or a ruptured perineum. Oh, and let's not forget that a percentage of women still die in labour. I know you don't like to hear it, but the fact is that pregnancy and feminism are both utterly ruinous to the female body and mind. Women are caught in an inescapable vise. Hell, even the ones blessed with beauty live in constant dread of losing it with age. Women also have good reason to fear men, who are much stronger and could easily rape or murder them. Men have no such fear of women, though.
Most of the men who are today incels would have been wiped out by disease, famine or war in earlier times. Technically, they aren't meant to reproduce. They are the disposable sex, after all. The welfare state and free healthcare have facilitated dysgenic trends, although that was probably not the intention behind them. I disagree, though, that the reduced fecundity of our people is a problem. The less people there are, the more resources there are to go around, the higher the standard of living. It is other populations, those which breed like bacteria, that are the problem.
"Most of the men who are today incels would have been wiped out by disease, famine or war in earlier times. Technically, they aren't meant to reproduce. "
Hard disagree. In the ape times, sure. But we had this thing called civilisation which was destroyed in the 21st century. These average women belong to you. Consider that the 4/10 woman is considered to be beautiful and worthy, whereas the 4/10 guy is an incel.
Suddenly, because of the cultural shift, a woman's father is no longer good enough for her. Her standards are way above the genes that made her. She wants a gorilla twice her size. They are the problem, not you. Society is the problem, women are the problem, the obnoxious brutes that rule society are the problem, not you.
Don't hate yourself, hate the (((people))) that put you in this predicament. You are a spastic because society ruined you and filled you with neuroticism. Adopt the mindset that nothing is your fault and they are to blame for everything.
The problem isn't the women. These are the same women that your mother and my mother were. They were told to think this way. Women respond to authority. The problem is what they were told and who did the telling.
I wish there were a God to blame, but there isn't. The malevolence of the ruling class can only explain so much. I realised a long time ago that the reason life sucks is because we aren't supposed to be here. Humans are a tragic mistake.
Less people = less resources to go around. Continuous economic growth goes hand in hand with population growth, and vice versa. Boom/bust cycles. The Malthusian effect was once similar to what ur describing, but that has been made obsolete come the Industrial Revolution.
Yes giving birth is dangerous but war and violence are too. Men like you would probably not exist if not for modernity and the rapid evolution of our species since the Industrial Revolution. A reason for this phenomena is that a lot of men are not masculine. Many men in 2024 are incredibly feminine. Men have evolved into a formation that is most conducive to individual survival. The obedient, sedentary, non violent, egalitarian modern male archetype is a large reason for women behaving in this way.
Well, you’re an anti-natalist. You’re probably this way because of what modern society had done to you. Everything once has immense meaning. The weather was either blessing or punishment from whatever they worshipped. We’ve stripped meaning from marriage and really relationships in general. What’s the point of monogamy if there’s no consequence? No religion or sense of morality leads one to the conclusion that cheating if fine as long as ur partner is unaware. Because the consequence in modern times is having to contend with your partner’s reaction. People are slowly but surely becoming complete hedonists and actually worshiping the pleasures of sex, for it is enabled by modern science. People don’t associate sex with love. They think of porn. The meaning of everything perpetual progress. The idea that heaven is not some metaphysical concept but something to be built by humankind, utopia. My father is a cardiologist. My uncle an obstetrician. I value science. But respect for human nature and the divine is what allows us to be healthy, mentally and physically. Without it, gluttony and sedentary become norms and of course you wanna die
Your ‘exception’ does not make a rule. Besides, women are supposed to enjoy giving birth. Most say it was the most wonderful experience they ever have in life. But feminists like you are busy trying to denigrate it.
Just stop it already!
A young girl reading your post might actually take you seriously…
It's among the most painful experiences a human can endure, and you need a cocktail of painkillers to get through it even during relatively uncomplicated pregnancies. I don't romanticise childbirth. I accept that it is a horrific process.
I really expected widespread genetic testing to find a lot of anomalies in my family. It didn't happen.
I think the issue is a bit overstated. That said, I do have a biological child running around out there who is clueless about that fact, but that's on her mom and the guy she married, not me. Upshot here is not to date alcoholic women.
The blocking system here works by completely eliminating any trace of any thread you are involved in. You are annoying. You can figure out the rest. Work on being less annoying and you might have more impact on the world.
"Perspective" depends on your life experiences. The article is more of a social analysis of game theory warped to absolve women of any responsibility.
Your own outlook on things is twisted by the fact that you're decently attractive, and have an established place in society (university professor, author). I bet you talk to women too (and listen more to "what they say" rather than observe "what they do") which makes your perceptions more suspectible to the "women-are-wonderful" effect.
Were you not a university professor (or simply just shorter than you are) your views on women would drastically change. Just like men become more liberal once they get a partner. Of course as a sexually frustrated incel, I have my own biases, but none of our opinion are particular "proper" or "correct".
Love how you're willing to take big risks and explore novelty, and think critically, without evident concern for social repercussions
Thanks a lot. I will keep it up.
Respect. You just know things, and people who agree with you won’t ask for “muh sources” because you know they know it is true by instinct.
LOL Maybe you should start asking for source because what you think you know "by instinct" is quite often wrong.
Nuh uh
Your choice. You're welcome to remain a blithering idiot.
*your 😂
The only thing wrong here is your comment…
Yes, people who don't need sources because their gut instinct tells them it's true!
If you believe that then you're an idiot.
I can’t force you to the truth. You have to find it on your own. My instincts have proven correct far more then some yahoo writing drivel on the internet…
Critical thinking was definitely not present in this article. Hogwash, all of it.
Considering the difficulties I had at 25 finding work, if this were already law I think I’d have just taken the free bed ‘n breakfast. Better I get the handouts and a no-strings 3-year runway to study than a petty drug dealer as is currently common. Are you sure that policy is sufficient for the stated effect?
Im assuming that a petty drug dealer is a very low tier man, because he is a criminal and because he doesn't even make much money. Possibly in the bottom 1% of all men. Are you saying that you would be unable to get anything better than that? Are you saying you are in the bottom 1% of all women?
Secondly, I understand the economic problems, and the solution I proposed is not to solve the economic problems, only the fertility problems. To solve the economic problems you just ban credit creation and compound interest. Once the economic problems are solved we can go back to 1 income households and you wouldn't need to find work.
There’s an allure regarding criminals though, for some reason even the worst of society do get a following like Manson, Bundy, police officers getting involved with inmates, etc. The latest being that CEO’s shooter.
The strong case of that is called: Hybristophilia.
At the time I suppose I was bottom 1% in net desirability, or near enough. I studied CS hardware design and cognitive science, designed a simple CPU from transistors, ran out of bursary money and the best work I could find was Sales Associate, later Dish Washer, then… nothing, for some years.
Some problems are more localized than others, my home city was already vastly majority non-white, and I’d have done better to move to Alberta long ago… but, at the time, it seemed all risk and little reward.
Now I’m a decade older, working in construction, and doing better on all counts. I didn’t even notice my arms got twice as thick as back then, suddenly I’m treated differently. The benefits of fitness are outsized.
I think JFK’s national fitness program, or equivalent, would do much more for solving the fertility crisis. Under certain circumstances, women suddenly don’t think “protection” is all that necessary.
However, there’s a demoralization problem to address simultaneously, but you’re aware. 👍🏻
In all seriousness, my prospects at the time were seriously poor enough, overall, I’d have been better in prison, even with this pronatal policy… and I’m someone who’s always wanted 10+ kids.
Sorry to hear about the tough go. Your case is exceptional, are you neurodivergent?
I think in general a law like that would improve the fertility rate, but ideally there would be many other problems getting fixed at the same time.
There will always be collateral damage, I accept that. I think in absence of the policies subsidizing non-white families in most western nations this could work, but as things stand I see little benefit.
Ending no-fault divorce and/or rigging divorce settlements against women, would accomplish more, as things stand.
I have an obsolete Asperger’s diagnosis, and a negative ADHD diagnosis, but I do not think my circumstances as outlier high intelligence in the general population are very unique. I am most familiar with other programmers, but there is very much squandered potential, on no great fault of the individuals.
“Try, try again” gets old when necessities are scarce, “safe” choices beat theoretical optimal when the latter is insecure.
A wonderful exception in my cohort is the programmer “Kaze Emanuar”, and certain other demoscene hackers. Europe and other high density populations seem to have better luck with Outsiders finding each other, and lessening mutual burdens.
Aside, I have long been in favour of something resembling the “Genius Subsidy”, but I prefer raw material access (food/energy/metal-stock) over cash for the lower liquidity. Insulates from inflation and promotes direct productivity. Access limited to “working years”, eg 20-40, no subsidy for youth (to promote over several generations people who have greater reproductive instinct; the contentedly selfish would I predict just not reproduce).
It had to be at least autism
Shooting used to be unisex in the Olympics and women even won a few medals. No woman can even qualify, much less win a medal, in men’s track and field.
This article is congruent with the book The Case for Father Custody by Dr. Daniel Amneus. It’s an amazing book you might like considering what you’ve written here.
I do not think men generally have low interest in kids. I do high-investment parenting because I love and am concerned for my kids. Same goes for my friends. Households headed by men have better outcomes than female headed households. Most men aren’t deadbeats.
Subbed!
So do I, but most men do not. You are just high IQ and K-selected.
Thank you!
This is the wildest article I have ever read.
-woman.
No need to go after single people just make sex outside marriage illegal and aggressively enforce it. Everyone would work it all out themselves under such a regime.
seems a little tricky to allow dating outside marriage but restrict sex outside marriage, but yeh maybe
We did it before and it worked well.
That was a different culture. If you have a massive culture shift then yeh you don't need many laws. Anyway I just trying to make a point that its not as complicated as some people seem to think, and you'd agree so we are on the same page.
Are you sure the difference was that people kept their illicit sex undercover more than they do today? Nowadays, it’s all flaunted….
I'd also make the point that there were all kinds of workarounds to the inevitable out of wedlock pregnancies that were below the radar. Everything from "going away to have the child which will then be put up for adoption" to Frank Sinatra's mom performing abortions in Hoboken, or getting married just before the baby starts to show, to misrepresenting the father (and hoping the baby isn't black (if you are white)). We are only 2 generations away from that world. Our belief structure that people were less randy and non-monogamous in the past is a bit naive.
Indeed.
Well said…
Exactly, just bring back traditional values, no matter what it takes.
Not possible because females absolutely refuse. As long as simps exist, females will dominate sexually.
MGTOW remains the only workable solution.
.
what do you think about potential future reproductive technologies like in vitro gametogenesis or artificial wombs? techno-utopian pipedream or serious tools to tackle a low tfr/dysgenics?
I think they probably could be serious tools to tackle low tfr and declining genetic quality, but we would need a serious government that is intent on improving the population and not just feeding off it like parasites.
I know a couple who have had 4 kids with IVF. The kids seem more likeable, better looking and slightly smarter than their parents, so maybe IVF is doing the job without any governmental direction, but its expensive and i don't really know much about it.
maybe governments would eventually be forced to allow these technologies when one country starts to legalize them and sets of an arms race; but who knows, thats just speculation.
and do you know if the couple used embryo selection? sounds a little bit like they did.
if you want to find out more about these technologies, i can recommend henry greelys book "the end of sex" as well jonathan anomalys "creating future people".
No im not sure but I would guess so? I know they tried 17 times overall and only 4 of them worked, and its like 10K per attempt or something crazy.
That's why IVG could be a potential gamechanger, it would drive the cost down, would make the whole procedure way less intrusive and you would have way more embryos to choose from
The idea of embryo selection bothers me. Fertilising an egg only to cancel it later. I have much less issue with sperm selection or the more typical social eugenics.
You dont cancel it later, you just fertilize the one egg you have chosen beforehand due to its preferred characteristics
…
A very interesting read old Swannee.
I thoroughly enjoyed it - cheers !
Good to hear thank you mate
You hit the nail on the head in many ways. Women ultimately do being in the household and you elaborated well on this fact. However, you much of this is conjecture based probably on personal experience. Yes, in general women get more aroused during menstruation but that’s not the only time they’re interested in men. Of course it varies depending on the man but, lest you intend on giving incel vibes, it’s worth leaving out the certainties and include more citations, or one at the very least, for obvious reasons. Your thinking is very impressive and you convey these
Concepts very well. If you’re willing to constructive criticism, you will become this generations foremost thought leaders, assuming you’re gen z.
Very kind words thank you, alas im a millenial.
Too error-riddled and sadistic to be a Millenial thought leader. Imprisoning people, instead of building Gale-Shapley matchmaking algorithms or anything useful, would be stupidly destructive of human capital. Bonobos are better thought leaders, having solved the problem of chimpy barbarism via paternal dilution and selection against murderers.
A logical conclusion from your premises is that men have to be forced to provide for children. In fact, that's what the Amish do, force males to work from boyhood till death. Instead of working to provide for others, you're using tech the Amish have banned, just to post whiny BS.
It was interesting up until that last paragraph. Some of us have bad genes and do not wish to pass them on, and some of us are opposed to procreation on ethical grounds.
I do not think any man is in a position to dictate how many children a woman is supposed to have, since he will not suffer stretch marks, mutilated abs, incontinence, hair loss, tooth loss, reduced libido, vaginal tearing or a ruptured perineum. Oh, and let's not forget that a percentage of women still die in labour. I know you don't like to hear it, but the fact is that pregnancy and feminism are both utterly ruinous to the female body and mind. Women are caught in an inescapable vise. Hell, even the ones blessed with beauty live in constant dread of losing it with age. Women also have good reason to fear men, who are much stronger and could easily rape or murder them. Men have no such fear of women, though.
Giving birth is fine if you do it right. Eat properly, be active, use the proper position (dont lie on your back).
If men don't force women to have more kids, then they will be taken over by a country that does.
Most of the men who are today incels would have been wiped out by disease, famine or war in earlier times. Technically, they aren't meant to reproduce. They are the disposable sex, after all. The welfare state and free healthcare have facilitated dysgenic trends, although that was probably not the intention behind them. I disagree, though, that the reduced fecundity of our people is a problem. The less people there are, the more resources there are to go around, the higher the standard of living. It is other populations, those which breed like bacteria, that are the problem.
"Most of the men who are today incels would have been wiped out by disease, famine or war in earlier times. Technically, they aren't meant to reproduce. "
Hard disagree. In the ape times, sure. But we had this thing called civilisation which was destroyed in the 21st century. These average women belong to you. Consider that the 4/10 woman is considered to be beautiful and worthy, whereas the 4/10 guy is an incel.
Suddenly, because of the cultural shift, a woman's father is no longer good enough for her. Her standards are way above the genes that made her. She wants a gorilla twice her size. They are the problem, not you. Society is the problem, women are the problem, the obnoxious brutes that rule society are the problem, not you.
Don't hate yourself, hate the (((people))) that put you in this predicament. You are a spastic because society ruined you and filled you with neuroticism. Adopt the mindset that nothing is your fault and they are to blame for everything.
The problem isn't the women. These are the same women that your mother and my mother were. They were told to think this way. Women respond to authority. The problem is what they were told and who did the telling.
I wish there were a God to blame, but there isn't. The malevolence of the ruling class can only explain so much. I realised a long time ago that the reason life sucks is because we aren't supposed to be here. Humans are a tragic mistake.
Less people = less resources to go around. Continuous economic growth goes hand in hand with population growth, and vice versa. Boom/bust cycles. The Malthusian effect was once similar to what ur describing, but that has been made obsolete come the Industrial Revolution.
Yes giving birth is dangerous but war and violence are too. Men like you would probably not exist if not for modernity and the rapid evolution of our species since the Industrial Revolution. A reason for this phenomena is that a lot of men are not masculine. Many men in 2024 are incredibly feminine. Men have evolved into a formation that is most conducive to individual survival. The obedient, sedentary, non violent, egalitarian modern male archetype is a large reason for women behaving in this way.
That I came to exist is my greatest regret.
Well, you’re an anti-natalist. You’re probably this way because of what modern society had done to you. Everything once has immense meaning. The weather was either blessing or punishment from whatever they worshipped. We’ve stripped meaning from marriage and really relationships in general. What’s the point of monogamy if there’s no consequence? No religion or sense of morality leads one to the conclusion that cheating if fine as long as ur partner is unaware. Because the consequence in modern times is having to contend with your partner’s reaction. People are slowly but surely becoming complete hedonists and actually worshiping the pleasures of sex, for it is enabled by modern science. People don’t associate sex with love. They think of porn. The meaning of everything perpetual progress. The idea that heaven is not some metaphysical concept but something to be built by humankind, utopia. My father is a cardiologist. My uncle an obstetrician. I value science. But respect for human nature and the divine is what allows us to be healthy, mentally and physically. Without it, gluttony and sedentary become norms and of course you wanna die
"Giving birth is fine if you do it right" 😂
Never heard of eclampsia? Breech birth? Gestational diabetes? Anemia? Didn't realise you had a degree in midwifery.
Your ‘exception’ does not make a rule. Besides, women are supposed to enjoy giving birth. Most say it was the most wonderful experience they ever have in life. But feminists like you are busy trying to denigrate it.
Just stop it already!
A young girl reading your post might actually take you seriously…
It's among the most painful experiences a human can endure, and you need a cocktail of painkillers to get through it even during relatively uncomplicated pregnancies. I don't romanticise childbirth. I accept that it is a horrific process.
Well, you are the exception. If it’s so bad, Why is it that women do it again? And again? And again?
Make genetic tests of all children mandatory upon divorce. Watch women stop divorcing.
I really expected widespread genetic testing to find a lot of anomalies in my family. It didn't happen.
I think the issue is a bit overstated. That said, I do have a biological child running around out there who is clueless about that fact, but that's on her mom and the guy she married, not me. Upshot here is not to date alcoholic women.
The vote. Woman right to vote will kill any logical reform.
You have a much bigger issue- the moron problem. Gosh you're an idiot.
Oh yeah? Well you're just letters on a screen.
The blocking system here works by completely eliminating any trace of any thread you are involved in. You are annoying. You can figure out the rest. Work on being less annoying and you might have more impact on the world.
You talk the talk and walk the walk. A very honest and feminist triggering article.
Great work.
Is it satire? The content of this post interspersed some known facts with wild generalisations/conjectures. For a proper evolutionary perspective on the same questions: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/the-game-theory-of-seduction-and
I dont have time to read all that crap. Just say what is wrong with the article and why. Bullet points preferable.
"Perspective" depends on your life experiences. The article is more of a social analysis of game theory warped to absolve women of any responsibility.
Your own outlook on things is twisted by the fact that you're decently attractive, and have an established place in society (university professor, author). I bet you talk to women too (and listen more to "what they say" rather than observe "what they do") which makes your perceptions more suspectible to the "women-are-wonderful" effect.
Were you not a university professor (or simply just shorter than you are) your views on women would drastically change. Just like men become more liberal once they get a partner. Of course as a sexually frustrated incel, I have my own biases, but none of our opinion are particular "proper" or "correct".