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)
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
Yeah, sure...feminism is bad. Let's all go and be sex slaves for men. That will make things so much better.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/16/15


Yeah... No. Sorry, I just can't... and I'm not even going to bother trying. Even I have my limits.

You're on your own buddy. Claims like, "Women are less happy because they aren't being ravaged against their will," and, "There is no discrimination against women at all," are blatant indicators of a lost cause. Addressing every single one of your claims (which are backed up primarily by biased vlogs and blogs) would take way too much of time. I'm not going to be able to change your entire outlook over such a complex, extensive issue over the course of a single thread.


dotsforlife wrote:

Didn't think you were you were insulting anyone. I can read this over and over and you can phrase it any way you like but it still sounds like a bunch of generalizing to me. There's a bit of truth to some of it, but that's about it. At the least it's very funny to read through, so there's that. I get my kicks at least.


My thoughts exactly.
Posted 11/16/15
You could always become a social justice warrior who whines about the social injustice that other social justice warriors cause you.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Yeah, sure...feminism is bad. Let's all go and be sex slaves for men. That will make things so much better.


Those concubines were happier and statistically had better lives than you and I. Besides, what's a better job, giving up some tail a couple times a day or working a dead end managerial position for 40+ years? If you say the manager job is better, female suicide and depression rates(overall happiness as well) would disagree with you.

Nobody suggested a sex slave, but unsurprisingly, even that yielded better results than what we have today.


"Women are less happy because they aren't being ravaged against their will,"


A woman's best strategy for manipulation is deceit. You're a child also, so blatant Marxism is unexpected from you. But I'll reply anyhow.

Despite numerous studies to contrary of what your belief is, you still suggest that vlogs and blogs with sources are biased... Yes they're biased, every man I linked too is a misogynist. But being biased and a misogynist doesn't mean you're wrong. Sandman and TFM would rather women be in subservient positions to men for a healthier society.

Just because this offends you, does not discredit its validity and it's provable history to fare better than our current gynocentrism fueled society. Despite male suffering being a prominent issue, you're convinced that there is no problem and things are better than they were in the past. But you don't understand or willing to concede that female depression and suicide is higher today than during WW2 same goes for men.

Both sexes are more miserable than they've ever been.

Standard PC SJW response: "There's lots of variables, humans are complex."

Well, sure, if you wanna continue to have suicidal thoughts and spend time on forums and social media feeding your own or someone else's narcissism, go right ahead. You can continue and go off a cliff if you'd like, but not everyone wants to follow you off said cliff. Gynocentrism is a problem, men have said so, women have said so, Hilary Clinton even alluded to it with her "progressive" statement. You may not think there's gendered issues because you're likely being taught by a gynocentric female teacher, but once you move past the closed box, most people disagree.

This isn't so much a jab at you, but your indifference to accepting knowledge on the grounds of it offending you or someone else.

@Hradna, there's a definition to Social Justice, you should research it, it only fits one political agenda.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 11/16/15
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how exactly is an experiment about overcrowding/inadequate distribution of resources connected to a gender war?
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how exactly is an experiment about overcrowding/inadequate distribution of resources connected to a gender war?


Distribution of resources? I think maybe you're misrepresenting the experiment and what was studied? It wasn't overpopulation exclusively, it was the behavior of the mice and how social hierarchies changed and how mice interacted with each other afterwards.

The population never stabilized again. So it has more to do than just crowded/inadequate resources(which would be the same problem).

Mice that "opted out" of society only knew self preservation and had no design to continue their legacy of perpetuate the species.

Herbivore men and MGTOW have these qualities, they're more pronounced in MGTOW but the same still remains.

You should watch videos of philosophers connecting the too.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:



1. Those concubines were happier and statistically had better lives than you and I.

Nobody suggested a sex slave, but unsurprisingly, even that yielded better results than what we have today.


2. Yes they're biased, every man I linked too is a misogynist. But being biased and a misogynist doesn't mean you're wrong. Sandman and TFM would rather women be in subservient positions to men for a healthier society.

.


1. Can you back that up?

2. Countries with higher levels of gender equality generally also rank highly in quality of life. There doesn't seem to be any benefit in limiting women's rights.


Magical-Soul wrote:


Distribution of resources? I think maybe you're misrepresenting the experiment and what was studied? It wasn't overpopulation exclusively, it was the behavior of the mice and how social hierarchies changed and how mice interacted with each other afterwards.

The population never stabilized again. So it has more to do than just crowded/inadequate resources(which would be the same problem).

Mice that "opted out" of society only knew self preservation and had no design to continue their legacy of perpetuate the species.

Herbivore men and MGTOW have these qualities, they're more pronounced in MGTOW but the same still remains.

You should watch videos of philosophers connecting the too.


Mice to humans seems like a big leap.

https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/paradox-declining-female-happiness#

Since 1972, women have been getting progressively unhappier, but more than just these studies are evidence of female dissatisfaction.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/paradox-declining-female-happiness#

Now, one could argue that there were no surveys back when concubines were a big hit. But from theory and history, we can piece together that pampered concubines with no worry of death or starvation was probably much happier than they are today.

When battles between men were fought, there are few documented parts of history that examine female dissatisfaction with being treated like prizes and valuable jewels. It meant they didn't have to risk death, imprisonment, war, etc. so you'd have a case to argue there are no remnant of such time.

What we can confirm is that women have been getting more and more unhappy since 1972 when they first started evaluating such things. Overall, they got 50,000 respondents over decades to give us a clearer picture.

At no point has female satisfaction risen in the west between 1972 and 2013. That's a long span of time, but 1,500 per year is a small sample for the United States. But even other than just that study, female suicide has risen higher than it ever has been, and career women are more depressed than their male peers for the most part.

It's hard to say for sure if the concubines were definitely happier, but it's hard to imagine they weren't since their biological and psychological needs were met all the time.

So this isn't an air tight case, but I'm confident that over 40 years of decreasing happiness. The daughters of America were probably much happier than your typical gynocentric tyrant posting selfies on FaceBook with duck lips.

No, I'm not hating!
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

A woman's best strategy for manipulation is deceit. You're a child also, so blatant Marxism is unexpected from you.


I always enjoy seeing people like you label anyone who disagrees with you as a Marxist. McCarthyism at its finest.


Despite numerous studies to contrary of what your belief is, you still suggest that vlogs and blogs with sources are biased... Yes they're biased, every man I linked too is a misogynist. But being biased and a misogynist doesn't mean you're wrong. Sandman and TFM would rather women be in subservient positions to men for a healthier society.


https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/its-time-for-women-to-woman-up/

There is not a single study, research paper, or statistic cited in this. It's an opinionated, heavily partisan article that mainly links to other articles featured on its own site. And the first three initial sources you cited (to prove the claim that women were happier when they were tools, had less rights and privileges, etc.) didn't back you up whatsoever. They simply noted that women were more depressed and you immediately attached baseless speculation onto it to further your narrative. The same problem exists with the blog you linked that I displayed above. It links to a reputable source once and then goes off a spiel that isn't backed up whatsoever. It validates the fact that the topic exists, but not any of the claims it's making within its opinion.

"_______ is a reputable source that has noted women are more depressed nowadays. That must be because they aren't getting raped enough. These degenerate liberals are ruining everything for everyone!"

If you have statistical evidence and facts for your claim, link them directly. It's simple, straight-to-the-point, and removes any potential for narrative-twisting. An opinionated video here and there is fine, but they shouldn't be the main backbone for your argument. It implies that you look at the issues solely through shaded lenses.


Just because this offends you, does not discredit its validity and it's provable history to fare better than our current gynocentrism fueled society. Despite male suffering being a prominent issue, you're convinced that there is no problem and things are better than they were in the past. But you don't understand or willing to concede that female depression and suicide is higher today than during WW2 same goes for men.

Both sexes are more miserable than they've ever been.


”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
----Benjamin Franklin

Anyhow, you've yet to prove your claim that the loss of the traditional roles of the sexes is what's causing all this. You'l have to forgive me -- it's hard to take your baseless speculation and projection as serious proof of cause-and-effect.


You may not think there's gendered issues because you're likely being taught by a gynocentric female teacher, but once you move past the closed box, most people disagree.


I live in a red state in a household that almost never discussed politics until my interest in it emerged. I have my influences, but my gateway into political and societal problems was primarily based off me (as a Christian) wondering why homosexuality was considered a sin. I concluded that there was nothing wrong of it, which led to an interest in LGBT rights. My interest in LGBT rights then expanded to social issues as a whole, which then expanded into economic issues as I matured. This resulted in me becoming a progressive Christian and developing a set of mostly liberal viewpoints.

Even if things turned out differently, chances are I'd have similar views. I probably would have just developed them at a later age. But hey, you never know. Maybe if things went a little differently, I'd be just like you. I'd talk about how females would be happier if they were raped more often, accuse people who disagree with me of being communists, etc. Thankfully, that's not what happened within this reality.
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:

Yeah, sure...feminism is bad. Let's all go and be sex slaves for men. That will make things so much better.


hopefully *fingers crossed*
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 11/16/15


Neither of the sources provided were able to definitively link the decline in women's happiness with their increased role in society. In fact, the Huffington Post article even dismisses the notion while Stevenson and Wolfers only suggest it as one of many possibilities.

Your claim of societies functioning better when women have fewer rights simply does not play out in reality.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

I always enjoy seeing people like you label anyone who disagrees with you as a Marxist. McCarthyism at its finest.


That's quite rich coming from a progressive.


There is not a single study, research paper, or statistic cited in this. It's an opinionated, heavily partisan article that mainly links to other articles featured on its own site.


Oh, really? Let's take a look, shall we?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/young-mothers-describe-marriages-fading-allure.html?ref=us&referer=

Sixty three percent of births occur outside of marriage, you say? Oh, I thought it was a biased article written by some misogynist!

Oh wait, looks like someone isn't familiar with Chateau Heartiste, that's unfortunate. But it's best you don't care there, it's not PC and women friendly, it's bound to run you off in mere seconds like it did before you read any articles, or even click any links. Hell, you managed to dodge every study I posted, along with statistic. I imagine this will be like those guys who constantly ask for facts and statistics even though they already have them, and once given to them, they are never referenced again. Let me continue with my hand as I posted more than enough links across my topics that I probably won't even need new ones to dismantle this generic SJW themed argument.


"_______ is a reputable source that has noted women are more depressed nowadays. That must be because they aren't getting raped enough. These degenerate liberals are ruining everything for everyone!


I've been raped a number of times by the same person, but I seem to happier than most women around me. This statement is simply because you're offended and this is a blatant jab at me or my argument. Which is fine, I handle adversity better than most.


If you have statistical evidence and facts for your claim, link them directly. It's simple, straight-to-the-point, and removes any potential for narrative-twisting. An opinionated video here and there is fine, but they shouldn't be the main backbone for your argument. It implies that you look at the issues solely through shaded lenses.


You're not discrediting me with this statement, but Diana Davison, Turd Flinging Monkey, etc. all these people who all have their statistics and studies in their videos and description. Not to mention, they would shred your progressive arguments much more thoroughly than I will, so I'd suggest you not play with fire.

Those videos aren't my thoughts on the matter, I'm not a misogynist(obviously), but they explain things better than I can/will over this forum, along with statistics in the description. You'd have to go full on SJW/Progressive/Feminist to dodge everything in the description of those videos since without anymore links to any of my arguments or statistics, all your claims are already broken. They hold no water other than that you think we are "mean" and being "mean" means we are somehow incorrect in your eyes.

JohnTheOther(another MGTOW) explained the mindset of the SJW/Feminist perfectly.

"Their since of justice is completely dependent on WHO does it." So they're trapped in an looping insane asylum since they don't have real principles to ground their reality in, it's all just what offends them and what makes them happy. Diana Davison and Turd Flinging Monkey just refer to these people as "retarded" and "Manginas", seeing as how these are derogatory, you aren't gonna to call yourself either one of these, even if their definitions fit your ideology to the T.


I live in a red state in a household that almost never discussed politics until my interest in it emerged. I have my influences, but my gateway into political and societal problems was primarily based off me (as a Christian) wondering why homosexuality was considered a sin. I concluded that there was nothing wrong of it, which led to an interest in LGBT rights. My interest in LGBT rights then expanded to social issues as a whole, which then expanded into economic issues as I matured. This resulted in me becoming a progressive Christian and developing a set of mostly liberal viewpoints.

Even if things turned out differently, chances are I'd have similar views. I probably would have just developed them at a later age. But hey, you never know. Maybe if things went a little differently, I'd be just like you. I'd talk about how females would be happier if they were raped more often, accuse people who disagree with me of being communists, etc. Thankfully, that's not what happened within this reality.


You're probably left middle and not a Christian. You don't seem quite extreme left, but you're definitely a Marxist and is willing to misrepresent someone or their argument to fuel your own political agenda.

LGBT is basically the exact same as Social Justice and Feminism at this point, they have been subverted as a community, but their message is still genuine. I should tell you that Social Justice fallacies and Feminist gynocentrism doesn't work on a Honey Badger.

Any leftist or far right isn't gonna engage a Honey Badger on equal footing. Not saying I'm superior to you(I'm not, sir) but you came into this debate armed with feelings and an agenda and not with facts or statistics. You came un prepared, which is normal for your political group and age.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:



Neither of the sources provided were able to definitively link the decline in women's happiness with their increased role in society. In fact, the Huffington Post article even dismisses the notion while Stevenson and Wolfers only suggest it as one of many possibilities.

Your claim of societies functioning better when women have fewer rights simply does not play out in reality.


Huffington post reports on reports. Basically they're a feminist website. But you missed the entire study for "even the huffing ton post..." Type comments.

Since 1972, women's happiness has decreased by 5% in 2013.

Check the paradox link, I have a suspicion you do not know how to interpret data, which is unlikely because all these sources report flat out on "unhappiness".

I could link more studies, but the paradox IS the end all be all but gender morale in the United States. You just written off 40 years of research for.... Nothing substantial?
17179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
I really hope you post more threads like this
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

I really hope you post more threads like this


You don't even need me to do it for you. Simply search "FeminismLOL" "GirlWritesWhat" "Honey Badger Radio"

"Turd Flinging Money" "Stardusk" or "Bar Bar"

They'll cover what I say, but in much more depth and more clearly, if you're female, there's a 0% chance your hypoagency will allow to you research and understand anti-female psychological evaluations or hearing the relationship of men and women explained through biology.

If you're male, you might do this white knight points.

If you're female, your hypoagency is going haywire and you will reject anything that you deem to be an attack on women as a collective....


I tried my best to sound like Sandman just then. Next time I should start my post with:


"Hi everyone, Magical-Soul here, today's topic is brought to you by a female narcissist, and here's what she has to say: "I really hope you post more threads like this."


Actually, this will be great, I should make this a daily series like sandman and post it on my YouTube channel, Red Pill Men and MGTOWs would fucking love that. Lol
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.