First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply "The Beautiful Ones" (Male/Female relationship Topic)
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/17/15
Those savvy gender knowledgeable people have probably heard of "The Beautiful Ones", it is about an experiment that predicted a grim future for our species. Calhoun nicknamed the wall flowers of the collapsing society as "The Beautiful Ones". But we will get back to this experiment in a bit. For the meat of this topic, we are going to objectively examine why the first world nations morale has dipped so low, and how the relationship of male and female humans are becoming more toxic with each new year. So, since you got the gist of this topic, go grab a snack, this will be an entertaining read.

It's worth noting that this topic will not be PC(Politically Correct) and it will not be filtered to restrain from offending women(Because talking about it objectively will always offend women and some men), it will be generally in a disinterested, wikipedia esque tone. So lets start with the erosion of the relationship between the sexes. Everyone has their own interpretation of when men started going "dark", but one that everyone(who's knowledgeable about the sexes relationships) agrees with is the era we typically call second wave feminism.


Feminism from start to current


Female psychology.


Those two things aren't mandatory but they give a little context, now we shall move on.

It's no secret that there is a gender war taking place in first world countries.

North America and Europe > http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/

Japan > http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2009/06/the_herbivores_dilemma.html

This was from 2009, did they have reason to panic? Yes, yes they did.

http://www.techinsider.io/herbivore-men-in-japan-are-not-having-sex-8-15

These are articles that point it out lighter than usual, but you'll be mortified(and heavily offended) if you hear from the herbivores themselves.

China > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2--TJYuxc&index=5&list=LLD8RIPGhkXJUYQNQxEECNAg

There's MGTOW/Herbivore/Red Pill men in Australia too, quote a lot actually. But there seems to be the most in Canada.

Wherever there's feminism, there seems to be a lot of MGTOW. Another thing to note is that feminist and general western woman are interchangeable, according to reports listed by FeminismLOL, GirlWritesWhat, BarBar, Sandman, TurdFlingingMonkey, Kathy Gyngell, Spetnaz and Stardusk, there's very little -- if any difference between a girl and none feminist girl in the western world. It's shown that women reject feminism to look better in the eyes of men, but there mentality is almost identical to that of their feminist counterparts.

Gynocentrism is so rampant in the first worlds, that new terms have been invented for women to distinguish themsevles from their narcissistic and gynocentric peers, terms such as NAWALT, Honey Badger(I use this one), "Cool Girl", Neo Feminist(I use this one as well) and "good girls".

Now lets get on to why this is important.

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-sexodus-anger-needs-to-channelled-before-it-explodes/

There are tons of economic and societal health problems that are stemming from men who gave up playing the game(that is arguably rigged), Japan is hit the hardest with falling populations, economic horror and morale(for females) is as low as it's ever has been. female suicide has risen in the west and the east higher than it ever has been. Males have tampered off and is stabilized past a point, but it appears women are less capable of the lone wolf lifestyle that MGTOW and Herbivores lead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3046350/Why-men-refuse-marry-Women-complain-chaps-today-won-t-settle-Sorry-ladies-s-fault-argues-wickedly-provocative-new-book-Denigration-Men-PETER-LLOYD.html

The destruction of marriage is arguably the biggest death nail in the western coffin. And as the tone of this thread is getting at, it depends on what women will do to fix the relationship between the sexes. There's the possibility that they never will catch on and large amounts of losses will occur after first world society perishes. This is commonly referred to as death by utopia.

It's time to return to the experiment we started with at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4GQV2HkGmY&index=3&list=LLD8RIPGhkXJUYQNQxEECNAg

This marks the end of the main body of content, but many questions emerge from these looming collapses.

However, these questions are perceived by the majority as anti-female so they would definitely be moderated.

You can ask me questions or to elaborate on certain points if you wish, or you could read more about the topic on my various channels, or you could just comment and give your opinion.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/15
http://io9.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-into-a-terrifyin-1687584457



The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, "the beautiful ones." Generally guarded by one male, the females—- and few males — inside the space didn't breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/15/15

lambofgenesis wrote:

http://io9.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-into-a-terrifyin-1687584457



The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, "the beautiful ones." Generally guarded by one male, the females—- and few males — inside the space didn't breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young.


That article makes no sense. They mention rats but none are present? The author got mixed up.
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/15/15
My problem with that experiment is that trying to compare mice in an unnatural predetermined environment stripped entirely of there natural habitat is a far-cry of what is the human condition and the situation that encompasses the situation that we are in. We can move to a new environment if we choose compared to the mouses that were trapped in a confined space, not to mention the fact that we have vastly diffrent social pattern and tendencies. I also have a problem with controlled studies in regards to the fact that they are controlled and not at all the reality of what is the environment we find ourselves, which is intrinsically cyclic and random. not a constant. Not saying it doesn't have any merit but it definitely shouldn't be viewed in the same light as objective human observations.

My own opinion on your proposed female psychology is that even in a hunter-gatherer situation the society as a whole is more egalitarian than anything. Each member of the society is doing there part to take care of the society as a whole. Males hunting fauna for a brief period of time and women gathering flora for a brief period of there time, one is not greater nor is one by itself always a succession. They worked in unison in a whole each playing there role in the tribe.

All and all we as humans are extremely complex and in my option quite unpredictable.

Edit: Also The extremest feminism we see today is a really small part of the population and is really only highlighted in media and thus over exaggerated to somewhat grandiose proportions.
4027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/15/15
Well, a lot of things have passed in time. Less males in College, more girls. Girls now have higher grades... etc. This doesn't bother me too much, though in time it may become an issue. I do look forward to seeing the world burn if all of this comes to fruition.

Some of those articles hit home for me. I don't feel like getting into a relationship, having sex, or even dealing with girls. I take out stress and anxiety by games and alcohol. I wonder if that is due to the facts that the article stated... or just because I am a fucked up Human.

I remember one time I got tripped and fell on a girl. I then got taken to court on sexual harassment. It got thrown out luckily... but meh. Just petty I guess.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/15/15

The second wave feminism(actually the first) was the movement that started highly misandrist laws, such as No Fault Divorce, Affirmative Action, Abortion on Demand, Primary Aggressor Laws, Alimony and Child Support.




No fault divorce is not misandrist. Both sexes have the option to utilize it and it's a perfectly legitimate request. People have every right to control their marriage -- a factor of great practical and/or symbolic importance in their lives. Human beings are creatures that thrive off change. As time progresses on, we learn new things and become new people. With this in mind, it's only natural that some marriages will not last. No one has any right to force someone to stay married against their will and ruin their happiness.

Affirmative action, if I'm not mistaken, stems mainly from the Civil Rights movement. While it has been extended to women, females are not the sole beneficiary of it. And affirmative action as a whole is a process which aids many minorities greatly. It ensures that members of that minority group, who are greatly outnumbered by the majority, are able to attain a position. In contrast, a lack of affirmative action would harm these specific individuals and their communities as a whole. Minorities would be unlikely to gain the higher education that countless other people have access to based solely off probability. Thereby, an increase in unemployment and an overall decrease in wages for that specific race/sex would emerge. This would inevitably guarantee a system where people of a certain skin color have a far greater chance of prospering than others who are just as qualified or, perhaps even more qualified, than them. And that's not even taking into account that studies have demonstrated that all human beings have an unconscious racial bias.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/

I agree with the point about abortion on demand. I'm pro-life and pro-choice advocates have tried to make this an issue pertaining to women's rights and sexual discrimination. However, you can't condemn all feminists because of it.

There is inevitably going to be some bias based off sex in the case of primary aggressor laws due to how we as species have evolved, our instincts, etc. I think, however, that that's just something we have to accept. We should to strive to find ways to counter this and overcome the bias, but I don't think the whole law is "misandrist" just because of the flaw in it. Furthermore, it can go both ways and can vary based off one's sexuality/sex/gender.

Due to marriage now possessing various economic benefits and the sort, alimony is a system which can do good. And again, it can go both ways. There are flaws within it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally sexist and should be abolished as a whole.

As a parent, it's your responsibility to protect your child and aid in his/her development. That responsibility doesn't fade following a divorce. You still have those obligations and duties, regardless of whether or not you want them. And again, child support can go both ways. It's only because of inherent societal expectations that you assume only women are the ones who benefit off of this system.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/15/15

potentsativa wrote:

My problem with that experiment is that trying to compare mice in an unnatural predetermined environment stripped entirely of there natural habitat is a far-cry of what is the human condition and the situation that encompasses the situation that we are in. We can move to a new environment if we choose compared to the mouses that were trapped in a confined space, not to mention the fact that we have vastly diffrent social pattern and tendencies. I also have a problem with controlled studies in regards to the fact that they are controlled and not at all the reality of what is the environment we find ourselves, which is intrinsically cyclic and random. not a constant. Not saying it doesn't have any merit but it definitely shouldn't be viewed in the same light as objective human observations.

My own opinion on your proposed female psychology is that even in a hunter-gatherer situation the society as a whole is more egalitarian than anything. Each member of the society is doing there part to take care of the society as a whole. Males hunting fauna for a brief period of time and women gathering flora for a brief period of there time, one is not greater nor is one by itself always a succession. They worked in unison in a whole each playing there role in the tribe.

All and all we as humans are extremely complex and in my option quite unpredictable.

Edit: Also The extremest feminism we see today is a really small part of the population and is really only highlighted in media and thus over exaggerated to somewhat grandiose proportions.


If Humans and Mice are terribly different. Why are the results going in favor of the experiment?

Egalitarianism is fundamentally law focused. Not what it actually is happening or how the world works. Most MGTOW, Neo Feminists, etc. already discuss the relationship between men and women. Most leftist will err on the side of social justice and imply or explicitly say gender is irrelevant and doesn't play much into psychology(wrong). Center slightly left people will say and acknowledge the differences between men and women, which opens the gate for which sex is superior(objectively) to the other. 100% of the time, people say if the sexes were separated, and they were apart for a short amount of time. Males would do better, and there's scientific evidence and research to back up the claims that males are physically and mentally superior and females somewhat survive on the fact that males are wired to protect and secure their interests.

So being equal under the law is not the same as some fantasy world where everyone is heard from or accounted for. Typically on these discussions, equality is off the table since logically men and women aren't equivalents, they're not equals. Under the law? Well, that's man made, so yes, they can be equal there(but they aren't). But naturally, they're not equals.


"Humans are complex" isn't a detailed argument that can be properly responded too.

Females and Males have different tendencies, social patterns and agendas, so "humans" doesn't work.

There are three parts that people agree on harming society. Hypergamy, hypoagency and female self interests. This isn't to say men are perfect or don't have problems, but you've been drinking the Kool Aid far too long to suggest these problems are on everyone equally and not mostly women.

Now, female predispositions are encouraged in developed worlds, society as of right now is focused on making them feel safe and respected and making them a part of everything, even at the cost of rationality.

On your female psychology thing, women gathered may have gathered, which is the most likely the extent of what they would have done. Which is not necessary for a man, who was typically more than capable of lone wolfing his way through life, very dangerous and high risk, but he could do it. For a woman? That just wasn't an option, especially since females were hardly ever alone, and they never needed to do dangerous tasks like men.

Men are wired to procure women's interests(or as some would say, women are given tools to manipulate men) to ensure their survival, which was necessary for the survival of the species. It made no sense for any woman to do a highly dangerous task since there was always a man around who'd do it for her. You'll have to keep in mind that nature is amoral.

And that created balance, you have female narcissism at an all time high when everything is safe and easy, but if a war were to break out, they would stand behind men to fight for them. It's just how things are, and I can continue to explain the nuances if you'd like.

"Humans are complex"

"There's too many variables" etc can be blown up, as we see in countries where female hypergamy is under control or shamed, the nation does better and females are(somehow) happier. Some men(and women) use modern day examples to say that women should defer to men because if they are the captains, we will hit an ice berg.

As Thinking Ape said: "People would rather have equal slavery than unequal freedom", which is to say chasing some perfect social equality is absolutely retarded since biology and psychology will never allow them to be "equivalents".

Also, you have to start using "feminist" and "women" interchangeably. There's no psychological difference between a feminist and a none identifying feminist woman, women in general are as much the problem as feminists. Kathy Gyngell and Dr. Helen Smith even says so themselves, most educated on this topic actually agrees with them. But proving/saying/implying that women are a problem seems to be a taboo in the developed countries. It's only okay to openly hate men or just white men.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/15/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


The second wave feminism(actually the first) was the movement that started highly misandrist laws, such as No Fault Divorce, Affirmative Action, Abortion on Demand, Primary Aggressor Laws, Alimony and Child Support.




No fault divorce is not misandrist. Both sexes have the option to utilize it and it's a perfectly legitimate request. People have every right to control their marriage -- a factor of great practical and/or symbolic importance in their lives. Human beings are creatures that thrive off change. As time progresses on, we learn new things and become new people. With this in mind, it's only natural that some marriages will not last. No one has any right to force someone to stay married against their will and ruin their happiness.


It would be easy to tell you the history of the marriage contract to let you know why no fault divorce is abhorrent to actual marriage.

So marriage in and of itself is a religious contract in the western world, the point of the contract was sex for the man, wealth and stability of the woman. And it's assumed that they would love each other enough to stay with each other. If you're a rightist. You can easily see why a contract of commitment is disrespected by woman simply getting "bored" of her husband.

The vows EVEN have you say that you'll stay with them and love and cherish and accept all the blah blah blah. Marriage becomes absolutely worthless if you agree to the fact that being bored or wanting a hotter guy is grounds for a divorce. I'm not a rightist, and I think marriage is stupid. But no fault divorce encourages the very behavior marriage is supposed to MOVE PAST.

Why tie a knot that can be easily undone? Dr. Helen is smart, listen to her, marriage shouldn't have an easy escape route, that's the problem. No fault divorce didn't liberate people, morale went down afterwards.

You're looking at this with a leftist/SJW lens and your perception of "frivolous freedom" is clouding your intellectual judgement.


Affirmative action, if I'm not mistaken, stems mainly from the Civil Rights movement. While it has been extended to women, females are not the sole beneficiary of it. And affirmative action as a whole is a process which aids many minorities greatly. It ensures that members of that minority group, who are greatly outnumbered by the majority, are able to attain a position. In contrast, a lack of affirmative action would harm these specific individuals and their communities as a whole. Minorities would be unlikely to gain the higher education that countless other people have access to based solely off probability. Thereby, an increase in unemployment and an overall decrease in wages for that specific race/sex would emerge. This would inevitably guarantee a system where people of a certain skin color have a far greater chance of prospering than others who are just as qualified or, perhaps even more qualified, than them. And that's not even taking into account that studies have demonstrated that all human beings have an unconscious racial bias.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/


That fact that women(more women than men) claimed victim/minority status to get quotas is abhorrent, they have more quotas than colored people, in fact, women basically hijacked affirmative action from blacks.


I agree with the point about abortion on demand. I'm pro-life and pro-choice advocates have tried to make this an issue pertaining to women's rights and sexual discrimination. However, you can't condemn all feminists because of it.

There is inevitably going to be some bias based off sex in the case of primary aggressor laws due to how we as species have evolved, our instincts, etc. I think, however, that that's just something we have to accept. We should to strive to find ways to counter this and overcome the bias, but I don't think the whole law is "misandrist" just because of the flaw in it. Furthermore, it can go both ways and can vary based off one's sexuality/sex/gender.

Due to marriage now possessing various economic benefits and the sort, alimony is a system which can do good. And again, it can go both ways. There are flaws within it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally sexist and should be abolished as a whole.

As a parent, it's your responsibility to protect your child and aid in his/her development. That responsibility doesn't fade following a divorce. You still have those obligations and duties, regardless of whether or not you want them. And again, child support can go both ways. It's only because of inherent societal expectations that you assume only women are the ones who benefit off of this system.


I'd need something more clear to reply to the rest of this, females in general and feminist should not be separated.

Feminism is not judged by its identifiers but by its influence. Women still think a man should treat them like women but have all the "privileges" and prestige of being a man. They want "equality" but don't wanna get slapped back after hitting a man. They do not wanna pay for men's dinners, they don't court, they don't assert. Etc.

If men and women were treated entirely equally, women actually wouldn't like that. And if we look at the west's history as an example, they'd rather be privileged princesses rather than be on equal footing with men.



3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/15/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

It would be easy to tell you the history of the marriage contract to let you know why no fault divorce is abhorrent to actual marriage.

So marriage in and of itself is a religious contract in the western world, the point of the contract was sex for the man, wealth and stability of the woman. And it's assumed that they would love each other enough to stay with each other. If you're a rightist. You can easily see why a contract of commitment is disrespected by woman simply getting "bored" of her husband.

The vows EVEN have you say that you'll stay with them and love and cherish and accept all the blah blah blah. Marriage becomes absolutely worthless if you agree to the fact that being bored or wanting a hotter guy is grounds for a divorce. I'm not a rightist, and I think marriage is stupid. But no fault divorce encourages the very behavior marriage is supposed to MOVE PAST.

Why tie a knot that can be easily undone? Dr. Helen is smart, listen to her, marriage shouldn't have an easy escape route, that's the problem. No fault divorce didn't liberate people, morale went down afterwards.

You're looking at this with a leftist/SJW lens and your perception of "frivolous freedom" is clouding your intellectual judgement.


"Actual marriage."

No True Scotsman fallacy. Your arbitrary definition of what is and isn't an "actual" marriage is irrelevant. Did marriage (as we know it) have its roots in religion? Yes. I was never under the impression that it didn't. But marriage as an institution has changed and evolved since its original purpose. Even before the modern era it had various secular reasons behind it. Moving one's bloodline up the social ladder was the most prominent purpose among royals, aristocrats, the influential, the wealthy, etc.

Its extension didn't stop there though. In the 21st century, we have a drastically different marriage system than we did in ye olden days. Marriage has become a socio-economic institution that's overseen by a secular, irreligious government. While it's common for lovers to marry one another, there's nothing that requires it other than the expectations of modern-day society -- rooted primarily in marriage's origin and traditional purpose. Even when it's by lovers though, the government offers privileges to them that are not of a spiritual nature whatsoever. And those lovers who are marrying? They could be of any faith. They could be Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Pastafarian, etc. Perhaps they lack a faith entirely as agnostics/atheists/irreligious individuals, or each of the spouses has a different religion.

Marriage's definition and role in society has evolved. Its roots don't matter to anyone except those trying to cling to its past and look for justifications to push their own standards for it onto others.

Human beings are prone to mistakes. They have errors of judgment. We shouldn't punish people and force them to be unhappy for the rest of their life because they dared to be flawed in their thought process. The very idea of doing that is absurd. And as I mentioned before, human beings change. Personalities that were compatible at the time of union may eventually change and grow apart. That's a natural part of life. There's far more complexity and nuance to these situations than, "That guy had nice abs," or, "That girl had a nice ass."


That fact that women(more women than men) claimed victim/minority status to get quotas is abhorrent, they have more quotas than colored people, in fact, women basically hijacked affirmative action from blacks.


Women are a minority in comparison to men. Furthermore, we have unconscious biases pertaining to sex as well. Societal roles, upbringing, and instinctual biases could easily influence the process of who and who doesn't get an education. So I can see why women were included as a beneficiary of affirmative action.

Also, could you please cite your source for making the claim that it was hijacked. Colored people are still benefiting from affirmative action, as far as I'm aware.


I'd need something more clear to reply to the rest of this, females in general and feminist should not be separated.

Feminism is not judged by its identifiers but by its influence. Women still think a man should treat them like women but have all the "privileges" and prestige of being a man. They want "equality" but don't wanna get slapped back after hitting a man. They do not wanna pay for men's dinners, they don't court, they don't assert. Etc.

If men and women were treated entirely equally, women actually wouldn't like that. And if we look at the west's history as an example, they'd rather be privileged princesses rather than be on equal footing with men.


If women only care about their sex being placed on a pedestal, why are they seeking to allow females to fight in military combat? Why is there such a push for that if all they want is to be treated like princesses? Do you think that going into intense combat situations where one is at constant risk of death is the same as fearing danger and wanting men to protect and shield them? How about women's suffrage? If all they care about is being taken care of by the "big, strong, burly man" of the household, why did so many of them seek to make their voice heard in the complex and nuanced system that was (and is) politics? That doesn't really have anything to do with them on a personal level, at least not within the traditional families of the time.

And even if what you were saying was true, you wanna know what would happen if women didn't like a society that treated sexes the same? The culture would change. People would adjust to their new environment and the majority would prefer/tolerate the system for what it is. Traditional mindsets crumble and fade away when traditions die. They're dependent on one another. While some would protest against the system, they would be few in number and would decrease as time marched ever onward. Then the majority of females would be fine with this treatment.

It's as simple as that really.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
Never thought I'd see this study over here.

11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

VZ68 wrote:

Never thought I'd see this study over here.



lol.... I'm actually laughing so hard because I quoted the study knowing that it had nothing to do with the OP, but could loosely be tied in if you sorta view the quote as some intellectual metaphor/analogy. AND PEOPLE QUOTED IT AND ELABORATED ON IT AND LITERALLY INCORPORATED IT INTO THE TOPIC OMGOSH IT'S SO AWESOME IM STARING AT THE PURE GENIUS OF THE TROLL! :D

no but seriously, when I saw the thread's title, I immediately thought back to that famous experiment when it was in the news, and I was like so into looking up "the beautiful ones" and then half-assed a connection to feminism with: "oh yeah I guess sometimes feminists want women to be treated as 'the beautiful ones'"

Posted 11/16/15
I see no reason to keep two people together by force of will and law instead of choice. Getting into marriage is a choice, and getting out should be a choice.
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:
If Humans and Mice are terribly different. Why are the results going in favor of the experiment?
Well I'm not knocking the validity of the experiment I just have problems with saying that it's an accurate prediction of where were heading, since that's yet to be seen since it's only happening and in a small percentage of the world.

Magical-Soul wrote:
Egalitarianism is fundamentally law focused. Not what it actually is happening or how the world works. Most MGTOW, Neo Feminists, etc. already discuss the relationship between men and women. Most leftist will err on the side of social justice and imply or explicitly say gender is irrelevant and doesn't play much into psychology(wrong). Center slightly left people will say and acknowledge the differences between men and women, which opens the gate for which sex is superior(objectively) to the other. 100% of the time, people say if the sexes were separated, and they were apart for a short amount of time. Males would do better, and there's scientific evidence and research to back up the claims that males are physically and mentally superior and females somewhat survive on the fact that males are wired to protect and secure their interests.
I would like to clarify by egalitarianism I'm not asserting that people are to be treated equally in the sense that they should be treated the exact same but that it's an ever changing dynamic that adapts it's self to what is needed as a whole dependent on the situation and context. Not purely in favor of men or women but the tribe as a whole. in regards to males being superior both psychically and mentally, please provide actual studies and empirical evidence to prove your point on that matter if you wish to persuade me.

Magical-Soul wrote:"Humans are complex" isn't a detailed argument that can be properly responded too.
Let me elaborate what set's us apart from other animals is that were are conscious and can be conscious of our unconscious actions if we so choose to reflect and question are actions, which adds a whole other level to the complexity in comparison to mice. were not subject to just our biological actions we can be influenced but that doesn't necessarily mean that were gonna follow them, though sometimes we do, thus is the beauty of consciousness.



Magical-Soul wrote:There are three parts that people agree on harming society. Hypergamy, hypoagency and female self interests. This isn't to say men are perfect or don't have problems, but you've been drinking the Kool Aid far too long to suggest these problems are on everyone equally and not mostly women.
Way to assume this is what I believe since I used the word egalitarianism, smh . I don't think you can really ascribe the assertion of everyone being equally at fault or it even being the fault of women, that's just myopic. The fault is on everyone but to varying degrees, to attempt to quantify it and place the majority of the blame on women is just retarded.

You seem to have a very fragmented view of male and female sex and gender wise. Superior and inferior only make sense in regards to what were comparing things to so by nature it's subjective. You seem to have a superiority complex view of men that is masked by your "scientific" view of the sexes, how deplorable.

Could you explain to me what is the root cause of this problem that were facing today? Any solutions?
Posted 11/16/15
I see myself as more purplepill.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / "10/10" - IGN
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
Well it certainly is true that men and women are different. The thing is just that most men and women want to be treated the same (as each other), which is totally reasonable; it also wouldn't be the first thing that humans have done that wasn't in line with our instincts. As not just sentient, but intelligent beings, we can do things that do not necessarily make sense when measured in reality, or considered "smart" over a long period of time; rather, our intelligence only really allows us to adapt from the past.

"Adaptation" is the key word here, and is also key to the evolutionary process, and therefore survival. Despite many theories as to the psychological differences between male and female, the key aspects of the human psyche are always the same, unless that person has a mental illness. Men and women have the same goals in mind, and that's the whole point. Women do think the same way as men at a fundamental level, which is why they want equal treatment to men, and why they felt unhappy when men were "in charge" of the status quo. Men would have started to feel oppressed under extremist feminism if it had continued and achieved its goal of empowering women to be completely dominant in society to men, and the roles would have been reversed. Women can adapt to behave exactly as men, and vice versa; if a women did not know it was a "her". then mentally, it could believe itself to be male (hypothetically), and vice versa.

Personally, even as a young man, I have never been interested in girls sexually or romantically. I was not shy around them in high school, and I loved having friends (both genders), but I was never interested in them, and never found them physically attractive (I never found men attractive either). This started at a young age; I'd never had a wet dream, and I'd certainly never even heard of feminism. I wouldn't mind a romantic relationship, but it basically means nothing to me; I don't care if I'm the dominant one in the relationship or not. Since I've had no motivation to begin with, all this disturbance about how men are treating women was just the last nail, so to speak. I also thought that girls hated boys until high school, because they were never nice to me in middle school. I've grown now, and I've accepted the fact that I'm going to die alone, and I'm okay with that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.