There’s loads of women out there who won’t find a partner. It won’t be because they are too ugly or too ‘weird’, it will be because they simply have no concept of masculinity and have zero respect for any man who displays it.
They want a wife, not a man.
Sadly, that would almost certainly be a sex-free existence.

I tried, but I couldn’t read past the first 4 paragraphs – you just can’t help yourself, can you? You just cannot discuss an issue that women are facing without shitting all over men for several paragraphs first. And that is precisely why men and women are becoming increasingly estranged from each other.
Unherd put out some of the best interviews during covid, but the written “journalism” I’m seeing from them since then is truly AWFUL.

I truly bleed for the involuntarily celibate of both sexes, but to my eye at least much of the problem can be traced to two places: online dating and Western divorce law. Having been stung twice by gynocentric “family courts” in America, I’d never consider marrying again. There is a Very Good Reason, as Pooh might say, that over 80% of American divorces are initiated by the woman: she has no incentive to stay married whenever she gets her knickers in a twist or just gets that well-known hypergamous wandering eye, and every incentive – financial and otherwise – to bail out at any time.
Secondly, it’s instructive to look at online dating data: first, most “dating” nowadays is done online, but most interesting is the “swipe” rate. Eighty percent of women swipe right, meaning approve-of, just 20% of the men; eighty percent of the men are ignored, as nearly all women try to hook-up with the “Chads” – the hot-bodied, chisled-chin studs. Of course, those men are in a target-rich environment, and they use that attention to slice through those silly women like a chainsaw. News flash, girls – they ain’t going to marry you or enter an LTR – long term relationship; you’re just another warm, wet field for them to plow.
No, Western men are wising up, ladies. If you want to get married and have families, I have a few bits of advice for you: first, do it in your ‘twenties; thirty is “The Wall” and too late. Second, advocate for a repeal of the “no-fault divorce” laws; as long as men face the current Family Court system, only the dumb ones will marry. Third, try to get your hypergamy under control; nowadays men see through you like a windowpane.
Otherwise, enjoy your cats. Cheers.

I became a widower a wile ago and as I am the sort of man who does not do well single; I worked hard at dating. What I found is you can have dates with woman you do not want, but not with ones you do.

One of the main issues is I am one of the more eccentric kind of men, my life has been so out of sync with the normal world that I suspect I am like one of those fantastically scarce varieties of lemur running around the forests of Madagascar, which are full of the common kinds….so we look at each other, and I think… no, not really – and the common female looks at me and says, no way, and so we pass on by.

It is not even an attractiveness issue for the main part – I just spent so many decades off living in weird places and unconventional ways, that my reality is not much like the normal person’s reality is – and I see it in them, and they see it in me. It is rather dreadful, this inability to find a mate when it is a genetic imperative I cannot ignore.

I do meet a few women I would love to be with – but they do not feel the same for me, I am just too far beyond the pale I suppose….. it is just life, the Great Wheel…..

I always liked the line in the movie ‘Castle Keep’, a very surreal WWII movie with Peter Falk. Two GIs are talking in a fox hole about women… one tells what the eternal problem between the sexes is as he sees it…paraphrased

”You see a man and a woman, they can never really get along – they want opposite things in life’….and the other solder asks him what he means, and so the first solider explains…
‘See, a man wants a woman, but a woman wants a man – opposites; and so they can never really get along’…..

haha….

life……

Surely the heart of the matter is when Mary Gaitskill writes, above, that “In the past, when most women in most societies would not have sex before marriage, men were in the position of coming hat in hand; this hasn’t been true in America for a very long time. And so there are women who have trouble getting sex and love. At least with the men they want. And not all of them are ugly.” Throughout all our recorded history until the 1960s, most women were members of a trade union called Christian Respectability, and men got sex by obeying the union’s rule: Marriage. Then the 1960s brought independent bargaining, and one could be forgiven for thinking that Mary Gaitskill is right that it hasn’t served women well. The moral seems obvious. But never mind what’s moral; consider what is expedient. Insofar as women (or men) are denied heterosexual sex, their line will tend to die out. They will be buried by the children of the people who have other ways and customs. I suspect they will be buried by the offspring of the women who are still members of the trade union. You can say the names that the trade union goes by now in our lands, if you want to be ethnically or religiously controversial.

“Elle” announced femcels are “reclaiming celibacy.” This logic is redolent of Naomi Wolf, darling of third-wave feminism, who praised the chadoor and niqab as enhancing women’s sexuality by privatising it, and removing it from the degrading experience of male sexual objectification. It is putting necessity in the service of promoting an ideological argument, which is that masculinity is toxic, and so anything that removes women from it is inherently positive.

What was the point of writing all this? This article is the worst I have read yet. One of your paragraphs gave me a complete mind f… and I have no idea what the point of it was. Sorry I wasted my time .

Then why did the not so handsome or very brainy, though he was a prince, the current King Charles iii, reject the idolized pretty Diana for the average looking Camilla. One might assume Diana was hard as a brick, unable to hold an intelligent conversation & a behind doors ‘B’. However despite her outward dumb blond sexuality she seems to be worshiped by feminists and portrayed by bisexual actresses in her bios. There always has been a war between the sexes; now it seems there is a generation choosing not to fight; becoming incel, femcel, homosexual or even transexual or binary.
A relationship between opposite sexes does take a lot of effort. Is there a new laziness afoot ?