The young white males being oppressed nowadays are filled with rage. And trust me, these kids and young adults aren’t going to go out with suicide. It’s very sad that young white males are being pushed away from society, but once pushed too far away, they will fight back with extreme violence.

[–]TruthGetsBanned 61 points62 points63 points 7 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quinnalicious21 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I get to paste it again! :D

In the past, CHILDREN WERE MEN'S PROPERTY.

That worked beautifully and was the foundation for Western civilization.

In nature, men laze around without much interest or stake in anything; women do most of the daily menial work while the males would only go hunting once in a while.

The women flock around a few alpha males, ignoring most of the men. Now and then the men form gangs, for a sense of identity. Those gangs will occasionally rape women and kill the occasional alpha. That's good, wholesome nature. Yum.

In patriarchal civilization men made a pact - one woman, one man and HIS children. Every man has a chance at having his very own lady, his very own children. Sure, he still had to compete, but competing among his peers for the best women, not competing against the top few alpha males. This was a fantastic win-win for everyone, as each woman had her own protector and provider, as did HIS children.

Children could afford longer childhoods to learn and understand the world, developing maturity before setting up home for themselves (probably as part of a young couple).

Women could specialize in their stuff, and could relax knowing they had someone to care, provide and protect them and the children, even after her good looks fade away ("The Wall")

Men, who then had a long-term stake and future to care about, could specialize in their stuff. And boy did they ever!

EVERYTHING you see around you, from the chair you're sitting on, the electricty powering your phone or computer, EVERYTHING, from the clean water you drink to the toilet and entire sewage system that whisks it away for you, was invented, developed and built by MEN.

Men who had a stake, men who had families and a reason to get up early, work late, often at a job they hated, often a job that was dangerous, cold, hot, filthy or just mind-numbingly boring, but they did it. For life.

Ask those men why they worked so hard, they'd dig out their wallet and show you pictures of their children, their wife.

This is the absolute FOUNDATION of any civilization. It's a foundation for agriculture, money, religion or anything else. Patriarchy, in the sense of male ownership of children, i.e. the social recognition and legal support for fatherhood, is THE KEY.

Around the time of the Industrial Revolution women started saying kids should be with women, because the woman did NOT want to have to go work in the factories alongside the men. With power and electricity there's no reason they couldn't, as muscle-power was no longer needed. So women, who had previously worked alongside the man in the little homestead or whatever, were now pushing that there should be 'separate spheres', with the 'work sphere' (eww!) for men, and the 'home sphere' (yay!) for women "and their children".

Despite their best efforts, and then the 180 degree turn they took when socialist offered them the vote and they declared themselves "deprived of work" (!) the laws and traditions held things fairly steady, until around the 1970's when the man's ownership and presumed custody of kids after divorce was abolished entirely, and we swung the opposite way, automatically giving the kids to the woman.

That was the moment that Western Civilization truly developed the fatal cancer of feminism.

Note that Islam gives the children to the mother too, but only until the children reach the age of 'discernment', which means old enough to dress themselves and follow directions, such as around 7 years old. Then they must be given back to their rightful guardian, the father.

In the West, we now let the woman never give the man his child or children back.

Of course since the woman gets the kids she now "needs" the man's house, and she "needs" the man's present and future income, even his pension. Which means the only thing she loses from divorce is the man she wants to get rid of. In the past she was free to leave the man's house and his kids if she wanted, but naturally she didn't want to without really good reason.

The man certainly didn't want to be left with the kids and nobody to care for them, so he had strong incentive to make things work too. The result was strong, stable marriages that generally worked well, raising good, well-adjusted kids. This worked well for literally thousands of years.

We only asked 2 things from men and from women:

From men we asked them to not rape or seduce another man's woman, and to take financial and other responsibility for his family. If he could resist sexing any other single women too that'd be great, but if he did and they got pregnant he was responsible. It would also be considered grounds for the wife to divorce him, in which case he had to continue to support her financially, so again a very strong incentive to behave.

From women we asked that before marriage they don't screw around, then remain faithful to their husband after marriage while looking after his home and children.

Experience shows that women that do screw around before marriage reduce their own ability to pair-bond, weaken other people's marriage, and tend to get pregnant without any willing husband, thus producing 'bastards', badly-behaved kids and they and those kids become destructive parasites upon society.

The "patriarchy" that feminists hate is simply that - male ownership of the children and the expectation of female chastity, the dreaded "double standard", where we HARNESS and encourage men's horniness to build civilization, and SUPPRESS women's horniness to ensure each man has a chance of his own family.

The feminism cancer means that today around 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men, before settling down for some betabux provider that they will probably divorce, taking his home, kids and income. It is a cancer that is literally killing Western Civilization and the European races, as their birth rate is now far below replacement level.

It is being helped along by Cultural Marxists (political correctness etc) but it doesn't really matter who or why. The point is that we let feminists kill patriarchy, which means they killed Western Civilization itself. The fatal wound was inflicted in the 70's but something so massive takes awhile to notice it's dead.

"Woman is the enemy of civilization." Freud.

The dying civilization is now being replaced at an accelerating rate by a patriarchy, as always happens throughout history.

The patriarchy replacing Western Civilization is obviously Islam.

Now gonna go copy this, as I'm getting real tired of having to keep typing it...

Anyway, in summary, if you bring a kid into this world all you are doing is giving some woman a meal-ticket and validation. YOU will not get to enjoy nurturing, teaching and seeing your child grow into your legacy. In reality the kid will likely be raised to hate you, due to the lies told to it by the mother to justify why she kicked you out of the home you're still paying for.

Most, not some, most, marriages end in divorce, and if you have kids SHE will get them, not you.

Years ago some female comedyc*nt came out with the joke "Is this the man I want to pay me alimony and see my kids every other weekend?"

It's no joke, that's the best-case scenario for most fathers today. Not some, MOST.

When a game is to heavily rigged against you, the only winning move it to walk away and not play.

MGTOW.

[–]Santipower 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Instincts and passions? How on Earth did you face-plant onto that notion?

Fatherhood is not an instinct, at least nothing like as strong as motherhood, which is exactly why it's the weak link that needs social and legal protection. Instead we now put the full weight of the law behind motherhood, because it's "natural".

The point of civilization is that it isn't natural.

Are you familiar with the expression that civilization flourishes when men plant trees, the shade of which they will never sit under? Whom do you think they plant them for? Their family, their children and grandchildren.

Go into any area with a high percentage of single mothers. Are the inhabitants planting trees and looking to the future? Or don't GAF or even trash the place?

That's a LACK of passion. That's a sign of no stake, no interest, no REASON to give a F.

The default is cold, rational and entirely reasonable; "What's in it for me?"

MGTOW is the reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

As men we're still supposed to hold up our end of the social and legal contract of marriage, while women are literally free to do whatever they feel like, with full government support.

When more and more men are taking a long, cool look at the situation, shaking their heads, saying "No." and calmly* walking away, you call that "irrational beings guided only by instincts and passions"??

Are you actually trying to be dense?

*After the 'red pill rage' period, for many

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Richard Spencer I vaguely recall the name but not familiar. White bearded religious tradcon?

It's not so much a theory as an observation.

I've left out the impact of the contraceptive pill, even the potential 'fault' of giving women the vote in the first place (as a libertarian I question giving men the vote too as well...) My point to get across is that so much of this stuff boils down to the real basics.

When feminists decry the patriarchy it is literally patriarchy they hate; fatherhood.

When women decry the Double Standard they are quite correct in that it is real, and at least before the pill it was for some very good reasons.

Yes, we DO push down and suppress woman's sexuality.

Yes we DO raise up men's sexuality and attack any man that doesn't seem sufficiently horny and besotted by women and sex with women.

Yes it's a double standard, yes men do have real feelings beyond their dick, yes women do get horny, no pushing the double standard is NOT really natural.

If you want nature then walk naked into a forest; see how that works out?

I'm no longer an active MRA, more MGTOW, but if you want to make progress you need to stop playing whack-a-mole with the tiny, daily details and address the bigger issues.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Richard Spencer I vaguely recall the name but not familiar. White bearded religious tradcon?

I know who Richard Spencer is. You have no basis for assuming that I don't.

It's not so much a theory as an observation.

So in other words, you're saying that it is not just a theory. That it is reality.

I disagree because when you're suggesting that children belong to the father and things like that, I don't see why any of these things are necessary in order to have a functioning society. What evidence do you have that the problems in today's society can only be solved by following the narrative you are suggesting?

It would be like having one of the head lights on your car burn out and then deciding that the most appropriate solution is to get rid of the entire car and buy a brand new one. Why should would have to go back to a society where people are killing each other in the woods and living like savages? Why resort to the most extreme possible choice like that?

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wut? I'm saying I'm not familiar with Richard Spencer. You brought him up, why the heck would I think you don't know him?

Lemme google him.. jeez, a white supremeist? I can't even spell it.. supremacist? Da fuq has anything I've said.. oh, about the white race dying out? That's reality dude; birth rates are below replacement levels.

For your info, I'm happily married to a Malaysian lady who's an Indian, Chinese Malay mix. I left the UK and moved to Malaysia, as it's more civilized, and live in an area where I'm often the only white guy in sight. Back in the UK my 3 best buds are a black guy, a white/black mix and a Pakistani, but hey, knock yourself out and call me racist, ya adorable dolt :)

Moving on...

I said "It's not so much a theory as an observation." and you did a BBC and said "So in other words, you're saying that it is not just a theory. That it is reality"

Er... yeah. No, I said it's an observation OF reality, but somehow you face-planted into this conclusion:

"What evidence do you have that the problems in today's society can only be solved by following the narrative you are suggesting?"

When did I say it's the ONLY way?

It's the only way I know of that works, and now that we've broken it our society is badly broken but maybe there is some other way? That really is the point of my post actually, but I do appreciate that may not be obvious...

And if I gave the impression I'd like to go back in time, to reinstate that? Well no, not really. I don't just believe, I KNOW it's a more practical way to run a society but I don't think it's practical to go back to it now, as too much damage has been done and there would be too much resistance against it. Secondly that traditional-conservative scenario was a raw deal for men anyway; vastly better than what we have now, but still very heavily biased in favor of women.

"Why should would have to go back to a society where people are killing each other in the woods and living like savages? Why resort to the most extreme possible choice like that?"

There I was pointing out that it is counter-productive to glorify "nature", and even worse to use nature as a guide to how a civilized society should be run. Nature is not civilized in the slightest, indeed the entire concept of civilization is to rise ABOVE nature.

Today's problems are precisely because we're reverting back to nature.

A huge problem with that is it destroys men's motivation, which if we're HONEST is the only thing that has made civilization possible.

So for choices, here's some:

MGTOW: Men going their own way. That is the reasonable response to such an unreasonable situation. Simply forget the idea of your own kids or family; just live your life for you, as a single guy, a 'confirmed bachelor ' That's terrible if you wish to maintain your race or society but it is, by far, the most sensible option for the individual guy today. Indeed even under the traditional way, it's the best option for men in most respects.

Do away with "Child" support, vagimony and other punitive measures that were originally to protect women and children from bad men that left them. The REALITY today is that most divorces are instigated by the wife, and why not, seeing as she gets the house, the kids and the man's money?

The big problem with that of course, just as you see now with the abortion debate ("Government should not force women to be parents!" "Government needs to force men to be fathers!") that women use the self-crippled beggar argument ("I need everything, because I has BAYBEE!").

So how to get past that?

Well for a start, why not create a simple defined cost per child? If government welfare says, for example, $60 a week is plenty to raise a baby, and $80 is enough for 2, then there's absolutely no excuse why a man should be paying a penny more unless he wants to. A percentage of income is the total opposite of the incentive we're looking to replace and actually discourages hard work. I know, I went through the same thing myself and quit my job as an regional manager, working 50 to 60 hours a week, taking a job as a clerk for 39 hours a week. My take home pay after tax and "child" support was within a pound the same.

Some could say that removed the incentive to marry a rich man, but no it only removes the incentive to divorce him, so the incentive for men to get rich is still there and the incentive to stay married is still there.

Or how about short-term marriages that only last, say 7 years? No alimony, no "child" support (or maybe the same as welfare if below a certain age), no hard feelings, just a temp' contract.

I don't know, what do you think? I don't have the definite answer but I CAN point to what went wrong and how the damage is terminal.

For the individual, MGTOW is a no-brainer choice, but not the only one.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just don't understand how taking anyone's rights away is a good solution.

Mel Feit, founder of the National Center for Men (NCM), has this idea:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page15.shtml

6.) There are probably very effective ways to collect more child support. For example, upon divorce, the court could establish bank accounts for the children. Both parents would deposit money into that account monthly, and any unusual child care expenses would be paid for with a check. That would build in mutual responsibility and accountability, both lacking now. It would be great for kids, but not so great for moms, so we'll never do it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jmDmcVkDmmE&t=2m30s

And I agree with you there should be reasonable limits set on the size of the payments. Mel Feit says that too somewhere else in the video.

[–]theanchorman05 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterCornswalled 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vxd386 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onlymgtow88 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]antilopes -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]jasperspaw 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You make my point nicely by going back forty years to 1979 for this weak example of a woman who could arguably be described as a mass shooter, in a country where school shootings are so common that there is also a second Cleveland Elementary school which had a famous shooting.

There are two genuine examples of mass shootings by women recorded by the FBI in the history of the universe. As I said, roughly zero.

Here is a Google spreadsheet of 111 mass shootings since 1982 There are 2.5 women shooters.
(4 dead total minimum until about 2012. From then, 3 others dead. Shooter suicides are not counted after 2011).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0

The Cleveland Elementary (San Diego instance) shooting you mentioned doesn't count as a mass shooting by most measures, since only two people excluding the shooter were killed. Calling it a "mass shooting" is Cultural Marxism and an obvious attempt to discredit the 2nd Amendment and attack the Glorious Arms Industry. You are using FEMINIST STATISTICS to claim women do stuff, despite FBI statistics proving they don't.

There are several definitions for various purposes but the thing all officials seem to agree on is that it is important to not count people who are shot but don't die in the definition of a mass shooting. However large a mass of people are shot the incident is not a "mass shooting" unless the required three or four people also die.
The FBI required four deaths excluding the shooter. Recently this has been reduced to three, to match the CRS and some other definitions. Regardless, the "I don't like Mondays" girl still does not make the grade.

Various measures have exclusions for gang killings, parents executing their children, and killings as part of other criminal activity. Only relatively random killings and going postal at work or school are included.

Statista records 109 male and three female mass shooters from 1982 to Feb 2019. The third F would I guess be be the Muslim lady who tagged along with her husband since there was nothing good on TV that afternoon.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/

[–]X1SpaceSquid1X 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]X1SpaceSquid1X 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samisseyth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, don’t say that. We don’t need to be like them. Allow them to say what they will and inform them of their misguided view points.

Boys are more likely to be physically bullied, for example. Which often leads to fear and contempt and hatred. Also, boys generally have more pride. It’s important to a boy to have the, “I’m strong and I need to be strong to be a man.” Perhaps the correct definition of “toxic masculinity.” And what do bullies do? They aim to humiliate you.

Girls are more likely to be psychologically bullied. Girl bullies tend to bully with gossip, words, and ostracism.

These lead to two different mindsets. Deep seated hatred and worthlessness.

There’s many studies you can find online of this. I don’t think I have to point out which one leads to more mass violent actions.

[–]antilopes -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Second paragraph: Citations needed, man hater. GTFO

Citation is not needed since gender difference in internalising vs externalising tendencies is one of the most commonly noted features in the psychology of mood and personality disorders.
But I collected some clips for you from the first page of a Google search:

Using data from over 1,000 male and female twins participating in the Minnesota Twin Family Study, the authors examined developmental change, gender differences, and genetic and environmental contributions to the symptom levels of four externalizing disorders (adult antisocial behavior, alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, and drug dependence) from ages 17 to 24.
Both men and women increased in symptoms for each externalizing disorder, with men increasing at a greater rate than women, such that a modest gender gap at age 17 widened to a large one at age 24.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242627/

... to explore the moderating inﬂuence of gender on the relationship between child maltreatment and internalizing symptoms(e.g., affective and somatic problems) and externalizing behavior (e.g., rulebreaking behavior and aggression) among children aged 7–12 years old. Using a longitudinal comparison group design and a sample of 300 youth of which 56% had substantiated cases of child maltreatment, ... revealed that internalizing symptoms exerted a mediating inﬂuence that was conditioned by gender. Only girls’ internalizing symptoms were found to mediate the link between child maltreatment and externalizing behavior while a direct relationship between maltreatment and externalizing behavior was found among boys.

https://www.academia.edu/3796403/Exploring_Gender_Differences_on_Internalizing_and_Externalizing_Behavior_Among_Maltreated_Youth

externalizing disorders consist of disruptive, hyperactive, and aggressive behaviors (Hinshaw, 1987). In the context of this paper, three key behavior problems similarly make up this construct: aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity. Other terms used to describe externalizing behavior problems include “conduct problems,” “antisocial,” and “undercontrolled” (Hinshaw).

In contrast, children may develop internalizing behavior problems such as withdrawn, anxious, inhibited, and depressed behaviors, problems that more centrally affect the child’s internal psychological environment rather than the external world. Other terms for this cluster of behavior problems include “neurotic” and “overcontrolled”. ...
Like aggression and delinquency, hyperactivity is found to be more common in boys than girls ... hyperactive children have an increased likelihood of becoming criminal in adulthood (Mannuzza et al., 1989).
...
Of children with hyperactivity, the subgroup that also has conduct disorder has the worst social adjustment in later life (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990). ...
Lynam (1998) has argued that children with both conduct problems and problems with hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attention are most likely to be what he terms “fledgling psychopaths.” In support of this argument, he found that boys with both these externalizing problems most closely resemble psychopathic offenders on neuropsychological measures.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617081/

.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=0GjmBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=males+externalize&source=bl&ots=TPS21wAIZP&sig=ACfU3U3Xp4PxShdxWaSKBPWnJ65MG1ecdA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju0bXR5qTiAhXq8HMBHTD4BZgQ6AEwEXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=males%20externalize&f=false

[–]TruthGetsBanned 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The link you posted does not contradict my comments, nor is it wrong so far as I can tell. Your choice of an article form a news site that would title it "America's Most Shocking X" does not inspire confidence though.

I just picked a few quotes out of the first page of Google results.
I got 174 results for this Google search, you can choose your own favourite:

 "men externalizing" AND "women internalizing"

[–]TruthGetsBanned -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your emotions are dripping from every comment you make, no psychic power required.

My quotes are not cherry picked except that they are all research papers, plus a book which cites all its research. They are all from the first page of results. The others said similar things. Do the search yourself, I gave it to you.

news sites aren't science

That is why I carefully didn't quote any news sites, despite them being easy to read. But wait, there was a steaming bozo who quoted a news site, and that is all he quoted in the whole thread. Not a reputable site either.

The post your responding to doesn't contain a link, incompetent boob.

So here's your news link again, in all its glorious irrelevance. You really should go back and read my first comment carefully.

https://www.insideedition.com/women-who-kill-americas-most-shocking-female-mass-shooters-42142

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you point to a single comment of yours which doesn't reveal a weird loss of emotional control?

Citation is not needed since gender difference in internalising vs externalising tendencies is one of the most commonly noted features in the psychology of mood and personality disorders. But I collected some clips for you from the first page of a Google search:

Can you point to a single reference which doesn't support my statement "gender difference in internalising vs externalising tendencies is one of the most commonly noted features in the psychology of mood and personality disorders."?

Well, one link was collated by a news site, the last one listing 108.5 male mass shootings and I think 2.5 female ones. (Did you find more?). I'll allow that as "news sites" since people use "they" as a singular sometimes. Fair and reasonable?
And Statista is of unknown provenance unless you have an institutional login to check the source.

But still, look at the huge mound of my science references you have to climb over to get to that super informative spreadsheet. A guy who can only offer one puny news article that doesn't support his point is not really in a position to criticise I reckon. Oh well, I've come across some interesting stuff.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242627/

https://www.academia.edu/3796403/Exploring_Gender_Differences_on_Internalizing_and_Externalizing_Behavior_Among_Maltreated_Youth

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617081/

.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=0GjmBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=males+externalize&source=bl&ots=TPS21wAIZP&sig=ACfU3U3Xp4PxShdxWaSKBPWnJ65MG1ecdA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju0bXR5qTiAhXq8HMBHTD4BZgQ6AEwEXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=males%20externalize&f=false

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Hormones_estradiol%2C_progesterone%2C_LH_and_FSH_during_menstrual_cycle.png

Cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0

[–]antilopes -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reptilian_Brain_420 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]X1SpaceSquid1X 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Consciously insincere arguments for point scoring on gender issues has been a conspicuously male thing to do in some circles over the last five years but that is a gendered cultural movement, not necessarily a gendered way of thinking.

Stop being a dick. You should already know about gendered internalising / externalising tendencies in mood and personality disorders, and if you don't you can learn very quickly. The links I posted are just what came up first. Do your own search:

 "men externalizing" AND "women internalizing"

[–]4chams 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are female mass murderers out there, and even shooters.

I should start noting when I see them, but just watched a special report on crime. In it there is new suspicion that, like DV, like Female on male rape, harassment, child abuse, sexual abuse, we are just scratching the surface, and realizing that female mass murders have been among us for quite some time.

They stated that there are a myriad of unsolved murders, multiple murders, that may be unsolved because of the assumption that women would not commit such a crime, and were therefore not investigated.

The other reality is that women are the fastest growing prison population in the country.

There is a great deal of misinformation coming out of feminist camps, women's studies programs, the most heinous is the "sugar and space" argument. That's not an indictment of women, most are good people, just like men, but it is an indictment of feminist misinformation, accusation, tactics, and their hate for men.

[–]mgtowolf 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vxd386 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antifeminist3 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodRedCobra 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reptilian_Brain_420 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BloodRedCobra 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodRedCobra 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodRedCobra 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roosty_Breadman 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

It's really Hell even as a teenager (16, heyo). The girls make a big deal out of something like Alabama's Abortion law ...

The heartbeat limit of around 6 weeks has been blasted out to literally the whole world, it is not "fine print".

As with everything involving catastrophic risk, the relevant measurements concern the avoidance of risk not the typical case (6 weeks and zero days),
and not the point where it is inevitable the bad thing will happen (your eight weeks).
Pretending the relevant duration is the longer one will get you called an asshole.
Also the time to detect fetal heartbeat can only reduce as technology gets better.

Pregnancy does not start at the beginnning menstuation BTW, it starts at fertilisation.

Ovulation usually occurs 8-20 days after the last period starts. This chart shows inter-cycle and inter-woman variability which have a SD of about 3 days each:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Hormones_estradiol%2C_progesterone%2C_LH_and_FSH_during_menstrual_cycle.png

Cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle

The so-called six week limit is in biological reality more like four weeks after fertilisation. But that's just an average.
Also fertilisation can happen five days after having sex, to make it more confusing.

The average cycle length varies from 21 days to 36 days, and on top of that there is a variable amount of variation for each cycle. Some women are regular to within a day or two most of the time but there will be exceptions. Most women are routinely variable by a few days. Some have extensively chaotic periods. Some seldom have periods. THIS IS ALL THEIR FAULT AND GOD WILL RIGHTEOUSLY SMITE THEIR SINFUL GIRLYBITS.

Anyway the heartbeat delay is not necessarily enough time to reliably realise their period is significantly late, pay for a test, then start the process to get through all the delays which are increasingly beeing put in the way. Like arranging time off work and money to travel to the only clinic left in the state, including a forced stay overnight. I know someone who lost a great job recently because of this sort of thing.

In other words, the "hell" you are living through is merely that the girls around you are better informed than you, and are correctly telling you that you're a sexist and total asshole to the whole population.

[–]Realistic_Food 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men have, for as long as I've been around, faced the "Shoulda kept it in ya pants, best interests of the child blah blah' scenario.

Yes, this takes away abortion-as-contraception option. Good.

Yes, good.

Yes, I say that as a man stung by "child" support that effectively made it pointless for me to go to work and nearly ruined my life, but it's still good. Lemme splain...

Many men, bless em, myself included in this, WRONGLY and FALSELY presumed we could rely upon the woman to be sane and sensible IF, big IF, the condoms, claims of being on the pill etc etc etc, didn't work.

It was the fall-back option. Worst-case scenario, she gets pregnant, but hey, she's not a raving lunatic and she'd abort, right?

WRONG!!!

Once hit with the hormones and reality, the babies-rabies kicks in and hey, being a mother seems fun, right? Like muh destinies!

And that's presuming pregnancy wasn't her plan in the first place, which for very very many women it is, especially those with no real career prospects. 'I was gonna be a brain surgeon, but this nasty male patriarchal figure made me muh pregancy!'

So now, in this one state anyway, that worst-case scenario does NOT have an escape clause. For either sex.

I consider that a good thing, over the longer term, as it forces both sexes to be more accountable, to take fewer risks and it even means less anger and resentment from the men.

Don't get me wrong; you raise a valid point and it's the viewpoint I held myself for a long time. Yes, in the shorter term if I and some woman created a pregnancy by mistake I would love for her to have the option to get rid of it. Yes. BUT THAT IS NOT MY OPTION AND NEVER WAS. And the reality is an awful lot of 'accidents' among the lower class, while the upper class are barely breeding at all.

That is not a good long-term strategy.

Time for a re-set?

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, I understand all of that. And I sympathise with your betrayal.

When I was wondering whether I would end up wanting a child, at 35, I scooted around my childless ex's funeral. (In the yuppie years her dirty secret was she wanted to be a mother not a corporate raider) and asked everybody about their children. It was quite common for the pregnancy to be an unwelcome accident, sometimes highly inconvenient, but many decided to keep it anyway. Sometimes this change of mind was a big surprise for both of them.

This sample is fully biased of course. Most of these were already couples, some did not expect to settle down together though.
Few were single or reconstituted couples, it was relatively rare for the pregnancy to have gone ahead without the approval of the bio father. These were middle and upper class, farming families etc.

As you say, a different story among the lower class. I know a young woman, she describes her friends as all on benefits and with rampant infidelity, fatherlessness, drama certainly including baby-trapping and endless scumbaggery. She's even recently married, hubby overseas for a few months and she can't keep her pussy in her pants. I was super pleased when she miscarried, it was hard to hide but she is nowhere near ready to be a mother. LDS church so no abortion, cruelly.

Yes those people will be more careful. Using condoms plus another method together will become more common, and when they do it usually that will work. But overall they will still have a lot of accidents and traps because that's just how it is with binge drinking and drugs and no vision of the future and low morals. Guys are taking condoms off for fun, it has a name so they figure it is a thing.

We know how it will end up because we have examples from history and from different jurisdictions. We know from looking at maps of the USA showing the policies in red vs blue states. I saw them years ago, the red states were strongly associated with higher teen pregnancy, more abortions, and more teen births. Despite all that has been done to sabotage science, it has been shown that teaching abstinence instead of proper sex education does not work. It got so bad I heard the CDC was banned from using the phrase "evidence based" because it upsets the Christians too much to be faced with reality.

So although there would be some positives in making people take responsibity for themselves more, I don't agree it would be a good thing overall. I think it would be a disaster and would drag Alabama down into deep social disfunction. We already know what kind of mothers get abortions most. Poor, unskilled, uneducated, black and Hispanic. Lots of drug problems, lots of criminal associations. Disorganised people. Their children will be a slow-moving disaster that will take many decades to abate, and will be a drain on the taxpayer via prisons, crime etc.

But it is not just them. All sorts of people get abortions, a lot are in stable relationships because that's where the sex is happening. And boom, you have smashed a career that already had a five year gap in it. (That's where the gender earnings gap comes from, mainly). So a family with kids that was just getting onto its feet and able to pay for a decent living or to scrape by tolerably, has been thrown into poverty.

And then you have the abusers raping their wife or partner to baby trap them. That already happens but it is so much worse when abortion is not available as a safety valve.

And the horrors of other women having to bring up their rapist's baby and stay in contact for shared parenting, all that sort of nightmare stuff has to be done or else false accusation is actively encouraged.
Incels think it is great they can catch a wife and the state can make it too hard for her to leave them, but it is horrible for the wife and the children.

I can see those states just ending up with a shortage of women as they migrate to blue states.

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're throwing apples into my orange punch.

"...teaching abstinence instead of proper sex education does not work"

How about teaching proper sex education, inc. the fact that abortions aren't an option?

Booya! Job done.

As for the rape exemption, NO.

It's not the kid's fault.
Banning abortion is in the best interests of the child...
Male victims of rape are still expected to pay child support, so rape is not an issue when it comes to reproductive rights anyway
Fink of da chilreen!
The way it forces people to acknowledge men's post-sex reproductive choice, or the total and heartless LACK of any, is just too fucking delicious to give up :P
Chilreen!
Western countries are facing mass immigration as the birth rate is now too low and governments falsely wring their hands and shake their heads, while shoving hundreds of thousands more immigrants in. Letting women murder babies under such conditions is just retarded.

Did I mention the chilreen?

Why won't anyone fink of da chilreen?

It's not about you or your choices, it's about the child.

[–]RaptorsCdwoods 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just can’t stand their fucking arguments. I’ve been told way too many times that I need to shut up because I don’t know what it feels like to have someone else/ government tell me what I can and can’t do with my body?

Excuse me entitled bitch, I was circumcised at birth. I didn’t have a damn say about whether or not I wanted my penis mutilated or not but it didn’t matter. I’ll only deal with the consequences for the rest of my damn life. And if that’s not enough the government can call my ass up and draft me anytime they want. And if I don’t sign up for selective service allowing them to do that then I can’t get a job, go to college, drive a car, etc... so stop your whining and bitching because the law doesn’t even put your entitled, sorry ass in jail, it would put the doctor.

Sorry, I have a lot of pent up anger right now. But hey, let’s blame the patriarchy for me being pissed off because some entitled whores are throwing a temper tantrum because they have to deal with the consequences of being sluts. I can see how great Alabama’s education system is, they really focus on that uncritical thinking.

[–]Onlymgtow88 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

will set the village ablaze just to feel it's warmth.

It's really Hell even as a teenager (16, heyo). The girls make a big deal out of something like Alabama's Abortion law ...

Holy crap, that is an impressive feat of self-centred victimhood on your part.

The heartbeat limit of around 6 weeks has been blasted out to literally the whole world, it is not "fine print" that you alone are acute enough to read.

Pretending the heartbeat limit is 8 weeks not the typical 6 weeks identifies as you as an asshole.

Pregnancy does not start at the beginnning menstuation BTW, it starts at fertilisation. Review your sex education notes to find out how much later that is, if you are fortunate enough to live in a state which actually does usable sex education. Ovulation occurs 10-20 days after the last period starts, typically about 14 days. Here is an excellent chart showing inter-cycle and inter-woman variability:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Hormones_estradiol%2C_progesterone%2C_LH_and_FSH_during_menstrual_cycle.png

As with everything involving catastrophic risk, the relevant measurements concern the avoidance of risk not the typical case (6 weeks and zero days),
and not the point where it is inevitable the bad thing will happen (your eight weeks).
Your choice to pretend the relevant duration is the longer one is one of your qualifications for being called an asshole.

To repeat, the so-called six week limit is in biological reality more like four weeks after fertilisation. Fertilisation can happen five days after having sex.

The average cycle length varies from 21 days to 36 days, and on top of that there is a variable amount of variation for each cycle. Some women are regular to within a day or two most of the time but there will be exceptions. Most women are routinely variable by a few days. Some have extensively chaotic periods.

So the delay is not necessarily enough time to realise their period is significantly late, pay for a test, then start the process to get through all the delays which are increasingly beeing put in the way. Like arranging time off work and money to travel to the only clinic left in the state, including a forced stay overnight.

The time to detect fetal heartbeat can only reduce as technology gets better.
Will technology get better? Good question. Has technology ever got better in the past?
If people were of the opinion that technology does tend to get better, can you understand why that would make them call you more of an asshole than they would otherwise?