>>26532
There's a small kernel of truth in your post buried under shit tons of incel rage.

"Nice guys" supposedly made up the backbone of society, but I don't know a single woman who ever liked them. A woman tolerated a nice guy if his career prospects were promising or if her woman's parents like him, but women always preferred men they were more in awe of. The fantasy has always been Prince Charming, not some clodhopping farm boy or a stuffy manager with a steady office job. Women also weren't given a choice in those days, so they put up with the charmless dorks to avoid being disinherited.

To be honest, I don't blame the ladies. It may seem that these women exercise more rational thought picking shoes than they do men, but there's always a primitive part of the brain that instinctively knows charming bad boys trump nice guys when hard times hit. They're likelier to survive a nuclear holocaust than any slovenly obese neckbeard or testosterone-drained, small souled bugman. In fact, some of these self-described nice guys are devious and abusive in ways Colonel Chad could never even fathom. Even a rich CEO or successful lawyer / doctor doesn't have the same charm as a hardened criminal or a soldier who killed fitty men.

Anecdote: I went to school with a guy who showed off his mid-semester report card scoring a 0.85 GPA during his freshman year. He couldn't have been a worse student if he tried, and he prided himself on his lack of scholarly ambition, but he was very much in shape and athletically inclined. He was also quickwitted and possessed a solid set of street smarts. I doubt he was truly stupid, but he was certainly not interested in learning. After graduating, he went into the military and spent a few years overseas before becoming a project manager at some company. Meanwhile, he married a very gorgeous looking girl and had two kids with her. She even acknowledged he was (and still is) a bit of a punk ass, but she's convinced he's changed for the better.

Women don't want to be abused, but they don't want some characterless "nice guy."

>>25943

>Because I know the deficit that this has caused, I'm going to teach these things to my kids.

I hear ya, I've bought quite a few books on tracking, hunting, skinning and survival - along with a bow and a bunch of tools that can be used without electricity. I am already teaching my kids the basics of bows, tools and how things work because my own parents basically taught me nothing - in fact they were barely literate and completely uneducated yet walked into careers in the 70s and 80s and had their mortgage paid off within 10 years. by the way you should try explaining to a 5 year old how an airbag works sometime, that's a fucking minefield of endless questions right there. Same with things like clouds

>>25945

>My boomer parents let the one house go completely to shit and I've been on their case about how fucking stupid it is to sell it and the land we own after they paid off the mortgage. It's in a location that'll only increase in value with global warming too.

boomers have no concept of value, they were basically handed security in a high trust society, they had family, they had inheritance and they probably had a lot more siblings than our generation, and they lived under far more lenient laws and less draconian shit so they did have so many safety nets compared to us. What do they do with all this security? they squander it on absolute bullshit and frivolity when they're in their 60s and 70s.

You know what I'll be doing when I'm 60 or 70? I'll be glad to have a box room in one of my kids houses or a small flat from my measly pension, I'll try not to be a bother, I'll try to pull my weight if I can. If I own property or money I'll be passing that on with a heap of life lessons instead of bitching constantly and squandering everything.