#mathdoesntlie

For years, modern women have been demanding chivalry while simultaneously rejecting every principle that made it exist in the first place. That’s like demanding a six-figure salary while refusing to show up for work.

But don’t worry—I’m not here to argue. I’m here to mathematically prove why chivalry is a dead investment.

📡 Using cold, hard, indisputable SCIENCE™, let’s calculate why modern women don’t qualify for male generosity, protection, or traditional benefits.

📊 Chivalry Used to Be a Fair Trade: The Original Equation

Traditional Contract:

(Male Provision + Protection) = (Female Support + Loyalty + Femininity)

Men provided, women nurtured. Each person gave something the other lacked.

💡 The equation balanced. 💡

Now? Women took their half of the deal, burned it to the ground, and still expect men to keep paying the bill.

Let’s run the numbers.

🛑 Experiment 1: Equality vs. Chivalry – Pick One, You Can’t Have Both

Modern women claim to want "equality" while still expecting men to: ✅ Pay for dates ✅ Open doors ✅ Take all physical risks ✅ Work harder to impress

Sounds good? Let’s test the equation:

📌 The Hypocrisy Equation: (“I’m a strong, independent woman”) ≠ (“But men should still pay for me”)

📌 Mathematical Proof: If: A = Equality and B = Special Treatment, Then: A ≠ B.

🔬 Result: You cannot demand chivalry while screaming “I don’t need no man.” The formula collapses due to a massive logic error.

📉 Experiment 2: The Investment-Risk Formula

Historically, men invested in women because women were low-risk partners. But today? Modern women are a goddamn financial liability.

📌 The Relationship Risk Formula: (Marriage Investment) - (Divorce Risk) = Net Relationship Gain/Loss

Where: 📉 Marriage Investment = Time + Money + Emotional Labor 📉 Divorce Risk = 70-80% (Filed by Women) + Alimony Payments + Child Support Extortion

📌 Data Shows: For the average man, marriage today is like investing in a company with an 80% chance of bankruptcy.

🔬 Result: High risk, low reward. No rational investor would make that bet.

🔢 Experiment 3: The Chivalry ROI Calculation (Return on Investment)

Men provide chivalry when there is a clear return on investment.

📌 Old Formula (Win-Win Situation): (Male Protection + Provision) = (Loyalty + Femininity + Family Stability)

📌 New Formula (Modern Disaster): (Male Protection + Provision) = (Casual Sex + Zero Effort + Divorce Lawyers on Speed Dial)

📌 ROI Calculation:

Chivalry Cost: Paying for dates, physical protection, social responsibility

Chivalry Return: A woman who tells you she doesn’t “owe you sh*t.”

🔬 Result: Net Negative Investment. If chivalry were a stock, you’d be bankrupt.

🧪 Experiment 4: The Attractiveness Entitlement Paradox

Modern women demand 6'2” men with six figures, a six-pack, and perfect manners. Meanwhile, their own attractiveness is “none of your business.”

📌 The Attraction Hypocrisy Formula: (Women’s Standards) > (Men’s Standards)

Where:

Women expect a Top 10% Man

Men are called “shallow” for wanting a fit woman

📌 Mathematical Breakdown: If: (Tall + Fit + Rich) = "Bare Minimum" for a man And: (Overweight + Loud + Career Focused) = "You should love me for who I am!"

Then: 🔬 Result: Equation doesn’t balance. You don’t qualify for chivalry if you refuse to meet men’s standards.

🚨 FINAL VERDICT: Chivalry is an Illogical Dead-End Investment

🔹 You demand equality, but still expect perks. 🔹 You reject traditional roles but demand traditional benefits. 🔹 You don’t provide value, yet expect full effort from men.

So, scientifically speaking… why the f*ck would men participate in this game?

👉 Chivalry is a financial, emotional, and social suicide mission. The math is clear—modern women broke the system, and now they’re mad men stopped playing.

🔥 REBLOG if you see why chivalry is mathematically dead. 🔄 💬 COMMENT if you’ve run the numbers and seen the disaster firsthand. 🚩🚩🚩 🚀 FOLLOW for more brutal, scientific breakdowns of modern reality. 🕵️‍♂️💣

⚖️ LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This post is written for the purpose of artistic expression, cultural commentary, and psychological exploration of social and gender dynamics. It does not condone or encourage violence, harassment, or discrimination of any kind. Any references to power, strength, restraint, or critique are metaphorical, symbolic, and rooted in historical and cultural analysis. This is not a call to action — it’s a cultural mirror. If you feel offended, ask yourself if it’s from actual harm — or from seeing something you hoped no one would say out loud.