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)
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


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
sup

7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


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?


Not writing off. Just noting that the study did not establish a definitive link and the decline in happiness could very well be caused by other factors.

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:


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?


Not writing off. Just noting that the study did not establish a definitive link and the decline in happiness could very well be caused by other factors.



Such as...?
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


Such as...?


The conclusions reached in the study: additional socio-economic factors, changes in societal roles might change how women subjectively measure their happiness, or women could just be more honest about assessing their lives and the numbers from earlier years had been inflated.

I did find this bit interesting since you've been going on about female suicide rates.


And indeed, Figure 7 shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample. As such, from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s the ratio of female-to-male suicide declined.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

That's quite rich coming from a progressive.


Was this a quip intended to imply I'm actually a communist or are you accusing progressives of labeling conservatives who disagree with them as communists?

Anyway, I'm not a Marxist. I disagree with the philosophy and believe that capitalism can function. We might find common ground on issues such as universal healthcare, more regulation, income inequality, and so forth, but the key difference is that Marxists view capitalism as a whole as a harmful system that NEEDS to be replaced. In contrast, I don't believe that capitalism is inherently irredeemable and support the free market.


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!


You cut out the part of my post that elaborates further on what I meant.


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.


The New York Times is a valid source and I never said that it wasn't. The problem is that the author(s) of that blog entry, as stated in the quote above, validated the issue, but not their claims and thoughts on the issue. There's no evidence offered to support the assertions of the author(s) that the reasons they list off are responsible for this.

It fits the format I laid out to a T.

"The New York Times said that births are occurring out of marriage at a greater rate. This is because women are fat sluts and the fucking liberal media keeps giving them a voice. Children being born outside of marriage is a dystopian trend!"


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.


You say whilst building your argument off of opinionated sources which rely off of unproven speculation.


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.


I'm sorry to hear that. Regardless though, rape is an act which typically causes intense psychological scarring.

________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: I meant that I'm sorry to hear you were raped, not that I'm sorry to hear you got over it quickly. Thought I should clarify, since the follow-up sentence could potentially imply the latter. Apologies if it gave off that impression.

________________________________________________________________________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_trauma_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_and_aftermath_of_rape


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.


I wouldn't want to offend Turd Flinging Monkey, now would I?


Those videos aren't my thoughts on the matter,


Then elaborate on your full thoughts here. Why bring up the discussion just to redirect others and I to sources that you openly admit are misogynistic, biased, and fail to reflect your own views? If you aren't willing to discuss the issue, then what are you doing here continuing this conversation?

Don't just think for yourself -- speak for yourself. Because you can represent your views better than anyone else can. I'm not debating your favorite YouTubers, I'm debating you.


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.


You know what, I'll admit it. I was being a bit unfair. I assumed that based off your generalizations and the lack of quality of your blog link, the other sources would repeat a similar pattern. Let's look at the links cited.

http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/291473/why-men-are-slackers-and-women-are-single/suzanne-venker

Not there. Can't make a judgment off of that.

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/category/genderratic?p=1140

Not there either. Can't make a judgment off of that. And the only other source on that video is the blog I criticized for attributing factors to the phenomenon without providing the necessary evidence to back up such claims.

Turd Flinging Monkey's argument that men are inherently more intelligent than females is very disputable.


With the advent of the concept of g or general intelligence some form of empiricism was allowed, but results are often inconsistent with studies showing either no differences or advantages for both sexes, with many showing a slight advantage for males. One study did find some advantage for women in later life, while another found that male advantages on some cognitive tests are minimized when controlling for socioeconomic factors. The differences in average IQ between men and women are small in magnitude and inconsistent in direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

His second video is centered around debunking egalitarianism. His CDC source is missing and nearly all of his other ones relate to differences in physicality and reflexes. This proves nothing that wasn't already known. Men do have inherent biological strengths that women don't due to the different roles that the two sexes had in hunter-gatherer societies, but that's irrelevant to disposing of the idea that men and women should stand on equal ground in society. Just because that's how it was in nature doesn't mean that's how it should or has to be in civilized society. Furthermore, a woman can increase her strength and match her male peers in physical boons through both natural and artificial means. Sex is a factor in one's bodily capabilities, but it isn't the only factor.


"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 advocate for equal rights and try to view all situations from the standpoint of reason, Believe what you wish about me though.


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.


I'm a Christian, but assume what you wish of me. And as for my political leanings, I wouldn't describe myself as center-left -- at least not in regard to United States politics. I support paid public college tuition, universal healthcare, the discontinuation of trickle-down economics in favor of raising taxes on the rich, action on climate change (which shouldn't be a partisan-issue, but sadly is), federal legalization of marijuana, etc.

As for being a Marxist, I'm not. The key difference between I and a Marxist is that Marxist thinkers believe capitalism as a whole to be the problem. In contrast, I believe capitalism is the most efficient of all current economic systems and that we don't need to get rid of it as a whole. Crony capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are my enemies -- not capitalism as a whole.
30254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Brisbane
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

"_______ 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.


For a person, ostensibly a young woman, making such grandiose statements about the human race, abetted by the results of an experiment concerning the overpopulation and misallocation of resources in a colony of mice and purporting a 'statistically verifiable', and principal correlation between indexations of the inherently human state of 'happiness' in the overwhelmingly complex socioeconomic environment of the USA and that range of movements classified under feminist ideology, this sort of throwaway comment amongst strangers on the forum of an anime site, of modest relevance at best, is what most undermines your legitimacy.

To bring something like that to the table so casually and abruptly is very atypical of a well-adjusted human being who's undergone what is, for people subject to the conventional, natural human experience an extremely traumatic event. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you're exhibiting an objectively abnormal reaction towards rape that is reflected, with lucid distortion, between your experiences and your unusual ideological niche. Whether you are misrepresenting your identity for the sake of augmenting your position in the interests of perceptibly winning an argument or if what you've said really does constitute where you are psychologically as a person is unclear; either way you are evidently beyond my comprehension and although some of your ideas interest me, I can't conscionably humour this thread.

I'd much prefer if the former scenario is the case because I'm honestly saddened and perturbed with concern for your wellbeing. Hopefully at some point you see fit to re-evaluate the world. All the best to you.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

HeadofEraser wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

"_______ 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.


For a person, ostensibly a young woman, making such grandiose statements about the human race, abetted by the results of an experiment concerning the overpopulation and misallocation of resources in a colony of mice and purporting a 'statistically verifiable', and principal correlation between indexations of the inherently human state of 'happiness' in the overwhelmingly complex socioeconomic environment of the USA and that range of movements classified under feminist ideology, this sort of throwaway comment amongst strangers on the forum of an anime site, of modest relevance at best, is what most undermines your legitimacy.

To bring something like that to the table so casually and abruptly is very atypical of a well-adjusted human being who's undergone what is, for people subject to the conventional, natural human experience an extremely traumatic event. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you're exhibiting an objectively abnormal reaction towards rape that is reflected, with lucid distortion, between your experiences and your unusual ideological niche. Whether you are misrepresenting your identity for the sake of augmenting your position in the interests of perceptibly winning an argument or if what you've said really does constitute where you are psychologically as a person is unclear; either way you are evidently beyond my comprehension and although some of your ideas interest me, I can't conscionably humour this thread.

I'd much prefer if the former scenario is the case because I'm honestly saddened and perturbed with concern for your wellbeing. Hopefully at some point you see fit to re-evaluate the world. All the best to you.


I'm not the subject matter here, my words and sources are. If you wish to examine and evaluate me for whatever purpose you have in mind, feel free in PMs or alternatively you could let your interpretations of how you think a rape victim should act lay dormant for a moment so you can collect your thoughts.

You didn't have a coherent argument in your post, but again, you made me personally the subject matter for reason. Which is quite strange given the environment and topic.

Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

@Hradna, there's a definition to Social Justice, you should research it, it only fits one political agenda.


All I found was some random boring whine post on urbandictionary. Has this formerly wonderful site of satire turned into a manual for autistic people since the expansion of the intarwebs or something?
6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
OP Summary: Why won't you womens shut up and git back in the kitchen and make me a sammich so we men can be happy.

I would ask the OP how they are scoring happiness? You mentioned rising suicide rates but according to this website:
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
The suicide rate for men and women has held steady since the 1980s. By the way, this is what Gangsta Madoka meant by citing your sources. You also claim that women are happier when raped daily and not allowed to have careers, despite scientific evidence pointing to the opposite where housewives have twice the depression rates working women had. For example, this study:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/77243866/comparative-analysis-depression-among-housewives-working-women-bilal-colony-kornagi-area-karachi
So I would question your metrics of 'happiness'.

Also, despite your claim that men are smarter than women, according to this study ( http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0036620.pdf ) from the American Psychological Association that studied academic studies as far as 1914, women consistently outscored men, gradewise at least. While men have made most advances in the sciences, women have for centuries been prevented from doing so by a male dominated establishment that is just now being rolled back. One could also say that whites are clearly more intelligent than other races because most scientific advances have been developed by them if this was the metric we were using.

While I will agree that men are becoming more 'feminized', I would question if this is entirely the fault of feminism. Technology has led to a more sedentary lifestyle for western civilization. The average human in western society does not need to hunt, gather, farm, herd, or perform any other physical labor. What is identified by some as feminization may simply be a biological response to leading a less physically strenuous and more intellectual lifestyle which, as the earlier linked study from the APA shows, women are more suited for. As this has occurred across the developed world regardless of gender laws and culture, I would question feminism being the cause of this social shift.

Finally, the conclusions of Calhoun's Universe 25 experiment as reached by Calhoun himself had nothing to do with feminism. Rather it had everything to do with overcrowding and a post-scarcity society...or at least what would qualify for a post-scarcity society for mice. Because they're mice. Also, bear in mind that mice have historically been terrible at building civilizations so another one collapsing in on itself from its own largess is nothing new. If anything the experiment indicates that a socialist post-scarcity economy would be a Dystopian nightmare. Why compete when your needs will be provided for regardless of effort?

As a double finality, I would like to point out the OP has actually typed the words Praygar [sic] University without laughing. Dennis Prager, the person that calls Ron Paul a leftist. For the record, I identify as a libertarian.
30254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Brisbane
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

Magical-Soul wrote: I'm not the subject matter here, my words and sources are. If you wish to examine and evaluate me for whatever purpose you have in mind, feel free in PMs or alternatively you could let your interpretations of how you think a rape victim should act lay dormant for a moment so you can collect your thoughts.

You didn't have a coherent argument in your post, but again, you made me personally the subject matter for reason. Which is quite strange given the environment and topic.



Upon reflection it was wrong of me to make assumptions about you and jump to conclusions. It's unlike me to show a strong reaction like that and I apologise.

I'll just say that we live in a first-world that endures a state of severe confusion about identity issues such as gender/sexuality and by extension there is this a relentless clashing of interpersonal philosophies vying for traction, all which espouse the fundamentally contradictory labels and scripts we've always required to survive in a societal sense. With this unresolved dialogue in mind, many of the things you say do resonate with me; in fact I'm very near to what you would call a MGTOW. I rapidly lost interest in the forced drama and inconsistency underlining relationships in high-school and that interest is yet to return in early adulthood. So I agree that the continued prevalence of supposedly archaic notions in an environment insistent on progression certainly sets a frustratingly uncertain stage for interaction between men and women, the result being that many of both genders are too far above or below of this tacit, wavering cultural curve and as you say, "check out" of the game entirely in despair and impotent rage.

In saying that, I don't buy into the idea that the increased complexity inherent in relationships and family structure is of apocalyptic significance. That perspective is the tempting response to the due resentment of being misled by society; of being instructed how the traditionalist model is intrinsically wrong when elements of it can persist, veiled a single layer beneath those instructions. Of mice and men; we'll reach a solution eventually and should populations diminish in the mean time as a result of cultural transition I expect we may be better off for it frankly. If civilisation really could end as a consequence of something like this then perhaps we'd reached our apex and our collapse into decadence was fated.

Regardless, I'm curious as to where you believe we'd go from here. Would you say we require a 180 degree turn to quell the phenomenon?
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

HeadofEraser wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote: I'm not the subject matter here, my words and sources are. If you wish to examine and evaluate me for whatever purpose you have in mind, feel free in PMs or alternatively you could let your interpretations of how you think a rape victim should act lay dormant for a moment so you can collect your thoughts.

You didn't have a coherent argument in your post, but again, you made me personally the subject matter for reason. Which is quite strange given the environment and topic.



Upon reflection it was wrong of me to make assumptions about you and jump to conclusions. It's unlike me to show a strong reaction like that and I apologise.

I'll just say that we live in a first-world that endures a state of severe confusion about identity issues such as gender/sexuality and by extension there is this a relentless clashing of interpersonal philosophies vying for traction, all which espouse the fundamentally contradictory labels and scripts we've always required to survive in a societal sense. With this unresolved dialogue in mind, many of the things you say do resonate with me; in fact I'm very near to what you would call a MGTOW. I rapidly lost interest in the forced drama and inconsistency underlining relationships in high-school and that interest is yet to return in early adulthood. So I agree that the continued prevalence of supposedly archaic notions in an environment insistent on progression certainly sets a frustratingly uncertain stage for interaction between men and women, the result being that many of both genders are too far above or below of this tacit, wavering cultural curve and as you say, "check out" of the game entirely in despair and impotent rage.

In saying that, I don't buy into the idea that the increased complexity inherent in relationships and family structure is of apocalyptic significance. That perspective is the tempting response to the due resentment of being misled by society; of being instructed how the traditionalist model is intrinsically wrong when elements of it can persist, veiled a single layer beneath those instructions. Of mice and men; we'll reach a solution eventually and should populations diminish in the mean time as a result of cultural transition I expect we may be better off for it frankly. If civilisation really could end as a consequence of something like this then perhaps we'd reached our apex and our collapse into decadence was fated.

Regardless, I'm curious as to where you believe we'd go from here. Would you say we require a 180 degree turn to quell the phenomenon?


There are two choices. Traditionalism or extinction.

Rome introduced a similar system to the one we had and they died.

Japan is introducing a system like ours and they're also dying.

China is-... You get the idea, China's growth rate is going in the opposite direction....

Anyway, people seem to think negative birth rates are normal, but they're not. A civilization that is not growing is dying, there is no stabilized gynocentric societies. They all turn out the same way. Calhoun's experiment wasn't for shits and giggles like most people may think. He did that TOO make a prediction.


Gynocentric and hypergamous nations always die. In a nation where men won't keep women around and women are highly hypergamous. The nation will die.

I'm not an advocate for traditionalism, but morale, productivity, marriage and grow rates were much higher and it was indeed a more prosperous society. I think modified traditionalism would work. But it ultimately depends on women to change, not so much government of men could really intervene and make them go a certain direction. Serial monogamy(Hypergamy) is a bad choice for any society.


It's also worth noting that any population that starts to die will continue going in that direction of the situation is realized. The mice didn't start repopulating after space was free and it was no longer crowded. The damage was already done. There was not a single mouse(or rat) that turned back to their normal behavior.


Keep in mind, the destruction of society or a civilization is not the same as the destruction of the human race.

The Morrocan Empire fell, Rome fell, Ancient Japan fell, etc.

It's not saying that humans will go extinct, it's saying these cultural values, this economy, this nation and its virtues will perish -- along with a lot of people. Unlike Diana, Karen, etc. I'm fairly young to be a honey badger, and I might not care to keep fighting this fight since I rather put energy into raising children and a healthy environment for myself and future partner. But I may stop with the YouTube channel stuff, seminars and debates though.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 11/17/15 , edited 11/17/15

Ravenstein wrote: So I would question your metrics of 'happiness'.
Think its more of a special cind of happiness or complete feeling. Dunno how to explain it since most of the older ladies in my familiy (around 60-70) loved how it was before and they knew there was alot needed to do home + kids.

And I hear that alot from older people.

Wish we didn't have to go to a hyper active future, but I guess it can't be helped because of humans mulitply faster then all the ant and now we are so crowded.
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/17/15 , edited 11/17/15


And hopefully men will become slaves instead *fingers crossed*
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

eclair-lumiere wrote: And hopefully men will become slaves instead *fingers crossed*
We are all slaves deep inside XP

10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/17/15


Pretty much. I heard a song once that said "we are all prostitutes, we all have our price". That's probably true.
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.