>>29276263
Nah, he makes legit points. He's resentful and needs to make peace with the world, but he's ultimately correct. And you have to remember that in the past, women needed men's support directly. Today that support comes from men indirectly via taxes, and also from women's jobs, many of which are makework daycare email-sending nonsense. This means they can focus entirely on looks, rather than on other traits, until they get desperate and start looking for the increasingly uncommon "good guy" to "settle for" who is usually the guy she should have taken 10-15 years prior.
Having said all that, in any case it's a fool's errand to care about what women want. Even if you somehow are Chad, guess what? You get women competing with each other to be your burden. Somehow we forgot that women are, especially in an economic sense, a burden for us when we're in a relationship with them, especially a marriage. That's why we used to have dowries, to ease that burden. Marriage and family are burdens to us, and we really do not HAVE to do that shit if we don't want to. We never did. You have no idea how glad I am that I can enjoy a woman on a regular basis without her being a burden. I can truly enjoy their company now that I can "rent" them (it sounds crass but idk how else to say it) and experience their sex and their lightheartedness for an afternoon, and then part ways until next time. If I were a craftsman 400 years ago I'd have to let a woman hitch her wagon to mine if I wanted to fuck.
