First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Don't hate women for being women
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Well, nature isn't egalitarian. So we can throw out the "different people" argument as we are talking about the species, not individual specimens.

Men are stronger, faster, smarter, more suited for combat and have better healing mechanisms and have higher pain tolerance. Men are physically superior to women. In combat, this in uncontested. This is not about individuals, but the gender itself and what it means biologically. Men are also smarter, as you can see around you, most things you see are made by men, most significant discoveries are by men, most philosophers are men, most software engineers are men, most scientists are men.

This isn't a 55/45 split. This is much more disproportionate than you think.

Men better in every sense of the word, they actually like fighting more than women and are more likely to do it if there's a threat. Men are wired to defend their tribes/family/territory, while females seek out those things already established by men.

This isn't sexist, this is nature. Women weren't and still aren't equipped to deal with as much as men. They are probably proportionately as strong as the female versions of the enemies humanity has fought but they are more likely to flee and less likely to protect than men.

To this day, if someone hears a break in down stairs, females are likely to seek out their mates for protection and makes seek out their mates to protect.

I used this before, but if you were playing an RPG with only men and women units. If men were faster, stronger, had higher stats all around and you could make more men(and women) as long as at least one man was alive. You'd obviously use the men exclusively as they are biologically disposable. Men were wired to fight each other for females, the ones that lost didn't reproduce. Nature isn't fair and it's sexist, that's why women are so "low level".

Women are more valuable -- because men are wired to seek them out and not so much other men. Men see each other as competition before the luxuries we have today, much like any other animal. Females were hotter, the men are wired to get as many as they can and men are easily manipulated by women. But it's supposed to be this way as men and women aren't rivals or competitors, men get sex and are wired to protect women. And women reap all the lucrative benefits of safety and provision of being with an alpha male.

Most men would save women over men. If men could pick one partner to be stranded on a island with, they'd choose a woman more often than not.

So as you can see, I wasn't trying to jab at either.


You are right in saying there isn't as much of a need for men. The birth ratios are similar, yet men do not live as long and are predisposed to do the more dangerous tasks. This probably means some men are supposed to die off but enough will remain to keep the population up. Still, our societies are so powerful now due to our collective strength that I think we've overcome this.

Our primary concern now is not fighting off deadly beasts and weathering the relentless natural elements, but surviving when pitted against one another without causing the group to break apart too much. And we have to do this while also dealing with our more primal instincts.

It's more about roles rather than individual ability. Maybe it's even a balance of both. Sort of like intellect versus instinct. There are benefits and drawbacks of both, and they might interact in undesirable ways, but eliminating either is not an option.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15
If someone is shallow, feel free to dislike them. While there is a general tendency for women to seek out partners who are able to provide for them, that is not a free pass to allow individuals to be just downright awful human beings who only care about someone for their money. There is so much more to individuals, women and normal relationships than just money and boiling it down to something like that just seems like an incredibly reductive and closed-minded way of thinking.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15
A better way to explain my view is that I think we're fighting ourselves more than the rest of the natural world because we've grown so strong. Yes, men are the leaders and go-getters and, therefore, dominate most societies. In doing so, however, the value of women goes up. This creates a lot of problems when instincts are allowed to take free reign in something that was established by intellect.

We have the brains to not do this, though. We're fully able to establish a better system, so I think it's strange that we would choose to continue.

Perhaps change is coming soon. We probably won't be around to see it but I'm pretty sure a time will come eventually that people look back at 2015 and think of us what we think about the cavemen.
5030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/2/15
A women who actually needs a man, doesn't deserve one.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

sundin13 wrote:

If someone is shallow, feel free to dislike them. While there is a general tendency for women to seek out partners who are able to provide for them, that is not a free pass to allow individuals to be just downright awful human beings who only care about someone for their money. There is so much more to individuals, women and normal relationships than just money and boiling it down to something like that just seems like an incredibly reductive and closed-minded way of thinking.


Agreed.


Morbidhanson wrote:

A better way to explain my view is that I think we're fighting ourselves more than the rest of the natural world because we've grown so strong. Yes, men are the leaders and go-getters and, therefore, dominate most societies. In doing so, however, the value of women goes up. This creates a lot of problems when instincts are allowed to take free reign in something that was established by intellect.

We have the brains to not do this, though. We're fully able to establish a better system, so I think it's strange that we would choose to continue.

Perhaps change is coming soon. We probably won't be around to see it but I'm pretty sure a time will come eventually that people look back at 2015 and think of us what we think about the cavemen.


Intelligence has combated against nature for a long time. Was it not intellectual inquisition that led us to the very establishment of laws and rules against supposedly 'detrimental' human instincts and characteristics? How long ago had we begun doing that? Perhaps ourselves being the natural obstacle has not always been primary, but it certainly has rapidly become so as intelligence increased.

It's probably been as you have said for quite some time. In the grand scheme of things matters are more complex. Self-consciousness, awareness, understanding, connections, abstract thought processes, and capacity make it so.

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

sundin13 wrote:

If someone is shallow, feel free to dislike them. While there is a general tendency for women to seek out partners who are able to provide for them, that is not a free pass to allow individuals to be just downright awful human beings who only care about someone for their money. There is so much more to individuals, women and normal relationships than just money and boiling it down to something like that just seems like an incredibly reductive and closed-minded way of thinking.


Exactly, I think "controlled" Hypergamy is a good thing. But men shame women WAY too much when comes to her hypergamous desires, when she likes a man, she can't even mention or ask what his job is without the man getting up out of his chair and leaving the interaction.

If women want men that makes more money than themselves and have social proof, that's fine, but uncapped hypergamy is where it gets bad. But capping hypergamy is like asking a man to only go for modestly attractive women. Not gonna happen.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Exactly, I think "controlled" Hypergamy is a good thing. But men shame women WAY too much when comes to her hypergamous desires, when she likes a man, she can't even mention or ask what his job is without the man getting up out of his chair and leaving the interaction.

If women want men that makes more money than themselves and have social proof, that's fine, but uncapped hypergamy is where it gets bad. But capping hypergamy is like asking a man to only go for modestly attractive women. Not gonna happen.


So, let me get this straight, you're against actual gold diggers, correct?

Men have more to be fearful of when a woman is in it for the money. There's a reason men are so cautious of it.



2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

PrinceJudar wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

Exactly, I think "controlled" Hypergamy is a good thing. But men shame women WAY too much when comes to her hypergamous desires, when she likes a man, she can't even mention or ask what his job is without the man getting up out of his chair and leaving the interaction.

If women want men that makes more money than themselves and have social proof, that's fine, but uncapped hypergamy is where it gets bad. But capping hypergamy is like asking a man to only go for modestly attractive women. Not gonna happen.


So, let me get this straight, you're against actual gold diggers, correct?

Men have more to be fearful of when a woman is in it for the money. There's a reason men are so cautious of it.





Actual gold diggers? You mean, unlike myself who wants stability for children and a healthy upbringing.

But the nasty ghetto hoes who get moist at the sight of a sports car without actually seeing the guy inside?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Actual gold diggers? You mean, unlike myself who wants stability for children and a healthy upbringing.

But the nasty ghetto hoes who get moist at the sight of a sports car without actually seeing the guy inside?


Correct. Like women that marry men to get at their life insurance money and shit like that.

13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

If someone is shallow, feel free to dislike them. While there is a general tendency for women to seek out partners who are able to provide for them, that is not a free pass to allow individuals to be just downright awful human beings who only care about someone for their money. There is so much more to individuals, women and normal relationships than just money and boiling it down to something like that just seems like an incredibly reductive and closed-minded way of thinking.


Exactly, I think "controlled" Hypergamy is a good thing. But men shame women WAY too much when comes to her hypergamous desires, when she likes a man, she can't even mention or ask what his job is without the man getting up out of his chair and leaving the interaction.

If women want men that makes more money than themselves and have social proof, that's fine, but uncapped hypergamy is where it gets bad. But capping hypergamy is like asking a man to only go for modestly attractive women. Not gonna happen.


Do men "shame" women for things like that? Is that a thing that actually happens? I've never heard of anything like that actually happening but I'm not exactly overly experienced in the dating scene...

As for your assertion that women cannot cap hypergamy and men cannot cap their attraction to physical attributes, that assertion seems a bit unfounded. Reality shows that most individuals are able to go for individuals who are in their league (so to speak). Most women are fine with going out with a man who isn't rich and most men are fine with going out with a woman who isn't a perfect ten...
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15
red pill this, red pill that.....

this red pill makes me think about the matrix.



what are these red pill social justice warriors even about, the entire reddit page is a freaking mess, I wouldn't waste my time there.....
33345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

PrinceJudar wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

Exactly, I think "controlled" Hypergamy is a good thing. But men shame women WAY too much when comes to her hypergamous desires, when she likes a man, she can't even mention or ask what his job is without the man getting up out of his chair and leaving the interaction.

If women want men that makes more money than themselves and have social proof, that's fine, but uncapped hypergamy is where it gets bad. But capping hypergamy is like asking a man to only go for modestly attractive women. Not gonna happen.


So, let me get this straight, you're against actual gold diggers, correct?

Men have more to be fearful of when a woman is in it for the money. There's a reason men are so cautious of it.





Yeah she pretty much is for gold diggers, and is saying, you should be more accepting of gold diggers, it's in their nature.

Well it's in my nurture to stand up for myself and leave.

Nature vs Nurture, which is stronger.

Also


I still hate mosquitoes




14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Alright, so probably the most interesting red pill topic in awhile.

Here we go



Don't hate Ejanss for being Ejanss, BUT:
You were the one who brought "Diagnosed schizophrenia" into the discussion, if I remember correctly.

And now you'll forgive the rest of us if we start wondering whether all the "Red Pill(registered trademark)" threads all along were rambling without a bit much of coherent sense, and kept harping upon imaginary feminism/gender-based persecution complexes and paranoid conspiracy theories.

Just because you feel you're not as completely crazy as other posters doesn't rule out "Partly crazy".
And Partly-crazy's not really that interesting, because it's like reading a Psychology textbook every thread and I already had enough of that in Freshman year--Yeah, yeah, self-loathing persecution complexes, yada-yada, rambling random-linked conspiracies, "trademarks" that only make sense to the poster who thinks the rest of the world know what's going on in side their head, etc., etc...So, they just go on like this, do they, until someone literally remembers to take their meds?
(Ooh, wait, that would be like taking an evil pill, wouldn't it? What a useful METAPHOR, for the evil deception of our modern society, and nasty fascistic authority figures like doctors, telling us how to think! )

Frankly, it was more interesting when we thought you really were just a plain old garden-variety attention hog.
Now, as Alice once said, we don't want to go among mad people.

(Although, have to admit, now that we have a little backstory understanding what all that "Red pill" nonsense may have been, quote-fingers, "really" about all along, it does start to put the Wachowski movies into a little more context, now that they've been going off the deep end too, lately. I mean, Jupiter Ascending.....WOW. )
Maybe they were already nuts when they made the first Matrix movie, and we just didn't notice because the effects were too kewl.)
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

sundin13 wrote:

Do men "shame" women for things like that? Is that a thing that actually happens? I've never heard of anything like that actually happening but I'm not exactly overly experienced in the dating scene...

As for your assertion that women cannot cap hypergamy and men cannot cap their attraction to physical attributes, that assertion seems a bit unfounded. Reality shows that most individuals are able to go for individuals who are in their league (so to speak). Most women are fine with going out with a man who isn't rich and most men are fine with going out with a woman who isn't a perfect ten...


Yeah I actually never seen that happen myself, but I'm not overly experienced in the whole dating thing either. We're awesome.

The research points towards people doing exactly that, finding someone on their 'level'--so to speak--for a relationship. Although what the criteria is for that level exactly is entirely subjective and depends on the individual. Although trends are inevitable discounting...some correlations negate some of the causation. Not sure if you read that Atlantic article I've linked in a previous topic on the matter.


2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

PrinceJudar wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

Actual gold diggers? You mean, unlike myself who wants stability for children and a healthy upbringing.

But the nasty ghetto hoes who get moist at the sight of a sports car without actually seeing the guy inside?


Correct. Like women that marry men to get at their life insurance money and shit like that.



Objectively speaking, I don't have a problem with gold diggers if they are up front about it(I know, they aren't) like I'm okay with PUAs since they're up front.

But if you were asking about that disgusting thing called my personal opinion, then I'll put it in a spoiler because I hate my opinion very much.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.