Can we take some action against the brigading

odoof12 · 2023-04-03T20:23:45+00:00

this sub is getting hardcore bigraded right now by feminists pretending to be mras its normally pretty obvious and just kinda annoying but its getting...

[–]egalitarianmod[M] [score hidden] 3 years ago stickied comment (6 children) | Copy Link

Apparently, we cannot. I reported a blatant brigading thread in another subreddit targeting a thread here. I cited evidence of slander, harassment, and vote manipulation.

This was the Admin's response -

Important notification about your account

from reddit[A] sent 20 minutes ago

Rule Violation: Warning for Report Abuse

The Reddit admin team has been alerted that you’ve violated Reddit’s rule against report abuse in the following content.

Link to where abuse occurred: (REMOVED TO PREVENT ACCUSATIONS OF HARASSMENT FROM THIS SUBREDDIT.)

Using Reddit’s reporting tools to spam, harass, bully, intimidate, abuse, or create a hostile environment is not allowed.

Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, and a big part of what makes the platform a safe space for people to express themselves and be a part of the conversation is that redditors look out for each other by reporting content and behavior that breaks the rules. Moderators and administrators rely on redditors to accurately report rule-breaking activity, so when someone uses Reddit’s reporting tools to spam or harass mods and admins, it interferes with the normal functioning of the site.

Before participating in Reddit further, make sure you read and understand Reddit’s Content Policy, including what’s considered report abuse.

If you’re reported for any further violations of Reddit’s Content Policy, additional actions including banning may be taken against your account(s).

-Reddit Admin Team

This is an automated message; responses will not be received by Reddit admins.

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt25 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone1117 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt6 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Halafax6 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]odoof125 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles[M] 98 points99 points100 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alarming_Draw 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NameIs-Already-Taken -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 74 points75 points76 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpensiveBumblebee83 32 points33 points34 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammapanda 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]SchwiftedMetal 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 26 points27 points28 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aknabi 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]g1455ofwater 82 points83 points84 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Crab-4063 43 points44 points45 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WarProgenitor 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]KelVarnsenIII 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gymleader_brock 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Crab-4063 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Halafax[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnonJetlag1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NameIs-Already-Taken 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denvercaniac 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanderlust_12 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterestingStation70 22 points23 points24 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanderlust_12 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denvercaniac 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Background_Duck2932 53 points54 points55 points 3 years ago (138 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cecarrilloa 66 points67 points68 points 3 years ago (129 children) | Copy Link

[–]Background_Duck2932 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AvailableCandidate89 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DemandJustice2 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconventionalXY 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pm_me_your_buttbulge 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cecarrilloa 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconventionalXY 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -33 points-32 points-31 points 3 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -20 points-19 points-18 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok-Inspection-5176 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterestingStation70 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Killin4ssault12 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -15 points-14 points-13 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dramatic-Essay-78721 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-78722 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DemandJustice2 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itsdickyv 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Itsdickyv -9 points-8 points-7 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Itsdickyv -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Something that found it’s way through my algorithms is this TED talk by a documentary film maker (who is a feminist) about Mens Rights, and what she learned in the process of creating a documentary (“The Red Pill” - I’ve not seen it though).

No, she has gone on record and stated that after what the movement put her through during promotion of the documentary, she no longer considers herself a feminist.

Try again.

My view is that it’s very easy for both sides of the gender debate to get into positions driven by vitriol and emotion,

I've listed actual, documented examples of feminism's insipid actions and you're still talking about it driven by vitriol and emotion?

Unbeliveable. You claim not to be a defender of feminism yet can't help play the "both sides are bad" argument.

Name one law that Men's Rights fought against that would allow decent mothers time with their fucking children!

Name one method Men's Rights envisioned that silenced female domestic violence victims from coming forward lest they be arrested as the primary aggressor!

Name one Men's Rights researcher that erased female rape victims out of statistics, refusing to label the crime as Rape because it was inappropriate!

Spare me this "Both sides are bad" crapola you are shoving down my throat.

[–]Itsdickyv -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You need to re-examine your understanding of the feminist movement, and the egalitarian movement of our communities generally.

As much as feminist claim responsibility for the egalitarian changes in our laws and communities, these changes have been brought about by men and women with little to no association with feminism at all. Most feminists exhibit extreme anti-male views (KILLALLMEN, SCUM manifesto, decimate males).

Unfortunately, there are very many people like yourself who identify with the feminist brand, without any evidence based knowledge of feminist ideology and violence.

FYI, feminists say much worse things about MRAs, and men/boys generally. There are volumes well documented misandry, promoting violence against men, boys and male embryos, promoting gendercide, promoting the removal of basic human rights from men and boys, obstructing the defense of baby boys from genital mutilation, actively and violently opposing the meetings of men and women to even discuss issues impacting men and boys (i.e. male suicide, education, reproductive rights).

The academic literature and published works of MRAs simply do not include the same volumous evidence of MRAs opposing women's rights, women's health, the meetings of women etc.

[+]Itsdickyv -6 points-5 points-4 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You need to share sources - no point in offering a critique with no suggestion of how to improve…

I’m not entirely sure your summary on egalitarian progress within society is entirely on the money - sure, at the sharp end of the stick, action was achieved by men and women, but it’s a hard argument to suggest that previous feminist movements weren’t the primary catalyst for starting the process. After all, those “men and women with little to no association with feminism” didn’t decide to address voting rights unprompted, to give an example.

I’d also disagree with your “most feminists” point - although I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong, if you have anything beyond anecdotal evidence (and let’s be honest, social media highlights the extremes, egregious movements amplify by virtue of online anonymity, and so on).

“Unfortunately there are very many people like yourself who identify with the feminist brand” - which flies in the face of my earlier statement; I don’t identify with the feminist brand. By that token, I’d question if feminism currently has a brand by any definition - feminists themselves seem to struggle with a consistent approach to what the brand is, so again, I’d query what your perception on it is.

Nothing you’ve mentioned in your FYI is information, it’s opinion. And gendercide isn’t the term you’re looking for, it’s androcide, FYI.

And I’d agree with your point on the literature surrounding Mens rights - mind you, feminism has been a part of global society for over 100 years, men’s rights has not. Equally, hiving out men’s rights from male groups in general (incels, redpill, mgtow) isn’t a complete picture.

All that said, I welcome the broader elucidation. It would be far more helpful if you could provide some recommended reading, or at least cite a source - because without, we’re just sharing opinion, not objective reality.

Edit - stoicism, less confrontational language choices.

[–]a-man-from-earth 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Itsdickyv -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammapanda 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aromatic_Ad5473 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Aromatic_Ad5473 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bunnywithatophat -6 points-5 points-4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -36 points-35 points-34 points 3 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cecarrilloa 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -15 points-14 points-13 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ah I see, well here is what I will say. While an interesting analysis, I am not sure how some of it is related to men's issues. A wage gap for instance, while an interesting point of discourse, isn't really impacting any advocacy for men's issues. If we are talking about more scholarships and programs to help men in higher education, especially in humanities and tracks like becoming a teacher I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't think any position on the wage gap is prerequisite for that kind of advocacy.

I guess as a newcomer here, that is my question now. What is with there be any focus on questions that, while relating to gender are not of high importance as prerequisit to issues that impact men. Why be adversarial against a popular moment (61% of americans self identify as feminist according to Pew) instead of just standing up for the issues we believe.

[–]Cecarrilloa 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -18 points-17 points-16 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ABlindCookie 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Apparently it's "not a man's issue" to be paid less than women for the same type of work.

The wage gap looks are the median earnings from men and women. It doesnt take into account job titles, different positions, etc. And looking at it blankly like that, men earn more on average, yes. They work more dangerous, higher paying jobs, they are usually more competitive and fight for promotions, they dont take maternity leaves, they work extra hard when their wofe is on maternity leave, etc.

These people argue that women's paychecks should look the same as men's. Meaning, women would be paid more than men for the same work done.

Suddenly a secretary, running excel spreadsheets with a 6h per day work schedule will earn the same as a man, sweating his ass off in 90°F on an oil rig, risking serious injury and working 10h daily.

The "wage gap" is perfectly reasonable and there's a ton of variables that turn it into what it is. If feminists want true equality in paychecks, they should go work on oil rigs (and keep up with the productivity of the rest of the guys)

Not to mention that men pay the majority of taxes, but the vast majority of government-funded programs are benefitting exclusively women. So add that onto the pile of why it's not "a men's issue". We are funding things we dont benefit from at all, and now they want to be paid more than us. And im the end refuse to date anyone who doesnt make more money than them, and you're still expected to pay for dates and shit. How is that fair or reasonable in any way you slice it? But feminism is great!

[–]Academic-Complaint12 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanderlust_12 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanderlust_12 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course labels matter. But to me, and I suppose on some scale of impact, the substance of the issues matter much more. If I can avoid using language that causes most people to dismiss me instantly (for instance 61% of Americans self identify as feminist according to pew), I will do it. I think presenting as adversarial to feminism instantly turns away 61% of potential allies to make progress on issues I care about extremely.

Should people dismiss us instantly for using certain language? That is a topic that is clearly up for discussion, as unless I am mistaken, you think people should not dismiss us for speaking that way. But whether they ought to is distinct from whether they actually will, and I think it is undeniable they will and already do.

In more simple terms. I am pushing for progress on social issues that are not currently popular or mainstream at all. I choose to use the language that does not challenge the mainstream because for starters I think it is accurate, and someone who supports women's issues I am feminists, and second it makes it much easier for common people to digest.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 26 points27 points28 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -14 points-13 points-12 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -13 points-12 points-11 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone11 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Substantial_Help46780 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nobleone112 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bro what the heck are even on?

No, punkette, what are YOU on thinking you can blatantly tip-toe around the documented fact that one of the central tenants of feminism is the existence of Patriarchy that privelges all men over women?

I explained very clearly why I used the word feminist to describe myself.

Words and definitions mean NOTHING compared to the actions yoru ideology took and the tenants it still follows. You could be sheltering puppies and mentoring disabled children and it still doesn't excuse your choice of following a documented group that is anti-male.

Which "core tenant" did I miss and where is this objectively written?

I already stated it and you ignored it. Maybe use that feminist brain of yours to read over my post next time instead of regurgitating ideological crapola.

poiler, there is no gospel and feminist is just a word which I said originally and you completely did not read

You're hopeless. Fine then, have fun erasing male victims of rape and domestic violence, which is what your ideology is good at.

[–]Substantial_Help46780 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No response given to anything I said. You think you really did something here, but this is honestly the most ironic post I've read.

You are arguing with me. You know nothing about what I believe. I used a word to describe myself. Because I used a word to describe myself, you ascribed a bunch of ulterior negative beliefs to me that I simply do not believe.

You are unwilling to discuss with me and my beliefs and would rather get stuck up on the language I use to describe myself, and call me mean names. This reply right now will not get through to you. Just hearing the word "feminist" is too much and sets you off so negatively you are unable to have a level discussion with me, the person you are talking you.

Your entire being has no response except displeasure with a world I used. You won't think so, and won't care. See yah bro

[–]Nobleone111 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 -7 points-6 points-5 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TenuousOgre 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KD_Ram 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterestingStation70 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KD_Ram 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

This is the part that made me go "they crey crey". mostly because of the fact that almost anyone can make a spear, even if it is just a pointy stick.

This does however touch on a thought that I pondered. Feminism works off the assumption that men are the violent warmongers, that men will commit violence for the sake of violence. Why the fuck would feminists try playing the game that they themselves claim men are the masters and champions of?

The only way it would make sense is that they get male feminists to be their attack dogs (which I suppose that male feminists are already and have no problems doing it for free). however male feminists are not known for being good with violence either had violence completely beaten out of them or far too quick to use it.

Violence is a tool and you use the correct tool for the correct job. Something feminists (particularly the author) fails to understand

apologies for the ramble

[–]InterestingStation70 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No problem @KD_Ram. I always "love" seeing how Feminist Utopias are supposed to be safe and peaceful after they've violently committed androcide and forcefully subjugating half of the human race. The thought that they'll all be safe after they get rid of all the guns, weapons, etc. inherently assumes that they will be able to find and take all of them. After weapons are destroyed the only ones left will be the ones evil people (including evil women) make to take advantage of the helpless masses. Oh, and their own weapons, because they'll need weapons to take everyone else's weapons and they'll need to keep their own weapons to deal with people (including women) who his weapons of create new ones.

Also, notice how their Feminist utopian plan presupposes that men, "Them", are the root of all evil unlike women, "Us". It's a classic case of activists decrying dividers as despicable people who divide groups into "Us" and "Them". Terrible, terrible people. They're not like Us. We're SO much better than Them. Then, after the Revolution when there are still problems the problem can't be Us! No, it's this new group! They are Them now. They are the problem. Repeat ad nauseam.

🙄🙄🙄

[–]KD_Ram 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I never said any of things things, nor indicated that I would agree with them. You're arguing against a strawman in your own head bro. I never said anything close to any of that. It just simply is not a good look for you (you, the individual person I am talking to).

I don't tell others they aren't "true feminists" because feminism is a word, and clearly I as individual clearly do not speak or gatekeep for it, if such a thing is even possible. And I believe an attempt to try would among other things be a "No true scottsman" logical fallacy, and simply not be a productive discussion.

I find it much more productive to talk about making progress on social issues than the debate or try to gatekeep what a word means.

I would appreciate if you don't ascribe random beliefs to me and put words in my mouth I never said, thanks

[–]KD_Ram 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

why should join the movement that makes excuses for androcide? why should I defend a ideology that sees me as nothing more than a contaminant needing to be cleansed.

and here you are. still playing defence for androcide. I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with the ideas but you certainly don't think reducing men to 10% of the population is misandry, if anything in your opinion it would be misogyny (because according to feminists like you, feminists can't be misandric because only misogyny matters)

FEMINISTS would not of had a problem with the FEMINIST DV shelter (that operated on FEMINISM) not letting my mother, my two sisters and I into the DV shelter simply because I was a boy (I was 10 at the time).

so I will believe you on the whole "I find it much more productive to talk about making progress on social issues" when you can show me the exact consequences for any feminist who does, excuses, defends or downplays what happened to me and/or any other boys who had this happen to AND you agree that I have every reason for me to not trust any feminist at all what-so-ever!

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

you certainly don't think reducing men to 10% of the population is misandry, if anything in your opinion it would be misogyny (because according to feminists like you, feminists can't be misandric because only misogyny matters)

I never said anything like this and don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. Neither did I anything close to indicating I believe any of the other things you wrote.

Listen bro, you are talking to me. If you want just spout of random reasons why you don't like feminists, be my guest. But leave me out of it and leave me alone. If you are going to reply to my comments, at least engage with what I actually say and what I actually believe.

It also just simply an incredibly bad look for you (you, as in the individual person I am talking to). Putting words in other people's mouth and arguing against a strawman in your own head just makes you look goofy.

[–]pearl_harbour1941 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pearl_harbour1941 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am aware of those studies, and have read a number of them. Starting in 1983 with Mary Koss, we see a "definition creep" whereby she intentionally changed the definition of sexual assault and rape to exclude men entirely, and make normal consensual loving sexual relationships "rape" if the woman had consumed any alcohol. The participants of that campus rape survey even stated they didn't feel as if they had been assaulted or raped, but Koss included them as having been raped.

Since then, definition creep has continued, with the broad catergory of "rape AND sexual assault" now including non-completed (i.e. never happened), perceived sexual actions.

This means that to be included, a woman must literally think a guy is making a move on her (whether or not that is true) and that is classified as sexual assault.

And given that men are overwhelmingly the ones to initiate action, where women are almost entirely passive in this regard, it skews the results to a point of incomprehensible gibberish.

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have also actually some of the studies cover to cover, although not recently. I agree entirely that any study which defines sexual assault differently for men and women ought not be taken seriously, at least not in this discussion.

However, all the reports I read (I read a couple on campus sexual violence) did not do that, they make no distinction on the defintion of sexual assault against men and women. They ask survey participants to self identify if they believe they are survivors of sexual assault. And the result of these surveys is that women self report being survivors of sexual assault at a much higher rate then men.

As you rightly note, this result alone tells us nothing about what caused it. For all we know, the types of things people will self identify as sexual assault includes things that aren't super concerning, like getting harmlessly approached and propositioned at a a party, and the disparity we see between men and women may not be as concerning as we initially think. Or alternatively (or in combination), there might be an additional social stigma for women to self identify as survivors of sexual assault causing a statistically significant under-reporting of women, meaning the numbers could be worse than we originally thought.

Overall, I think the result that women self report a much higher rate of being a survivor of sexual assault is a significant reason for concern, but does not give is enough information alone to determine any cause conclusively. I don't think you can simply write off the result because there could be factors influencing why the women's number might be over-reported while I can also give you reasons why it may be under reported. We would need to review additional studies on the cause of this gender spread in SA data to determine the impact of each inlfuence, if any.

[–]pearl_harbour1941 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And the result of these surveys is that women self report being survivors of sexual assault at a much higher rate then men.

This much I can totally believe. There is a fundamental difference between men (as a group) and women (as a group) towards sexual encounters and whether a perceived sexual encounter is wanted or unwanted.

Women tend to rate 95% of their sexual encounters as "unwanted", but the reasons for that are more complex than "it was sexual assault". It has been shown that women rate identical behaviour towards them differently according to how attractive they find the person in question. Crude, coarse sexual behaviour from an extremely attractive man (to her) is categorized as flirting, whereas the same behaviour from an undesirable man is categorized as sexual assault.

Given that women rate 85% of men as "below average" in terms of physical attractiveness, and a further 80% of the rest as below average in terms of other indicators of attractiveness, it is easy to see how 95% of the interactions an average woman has will be rated as negative.

there might be an additional social stigma for women to self identify as survivors of sexual assault causing a statistically significant under-reporting of women, meaning the numbers could be worse than we originally thought.

I don't think that this is as true as some would like it to be. We see that there are NO social stigmas to reporting rape to the police, and as a result the false allegations run much higher for this category than any other category of crime. A reliable estimate is 4x higher. That's significant, and it is an outlier.

In fact it could be argued that since women have almost unilateral social support systems in place that protect and care for them in such situations, there is actually a net positive to making any sexual assault allegation. There is certainly no social negative.

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Cool. I think it is still unclear to me if women would self report peaceful unwanted sexual advances as sexual assault, and if so to what extent. I think to use that try and dismiss the results of the SA survey, I need more concrete data on that.

Similarly, I would need more data on the perception of social stigma of self report as the victim of sexual assault. While maybe much less prevalent that 100 year ago, I wouldn't be surprised if there was still today a statistically significant percent of women who feel stigmatized enough by SA to not self identify as victims.

Additionally, there may be some third or more factor influencing the outcome of the survey that neither of us has even anticipated. Perhaps there is something completely unexpected that is influencing the reported outcome.

In order to determine the causes of why women self report SA at a much higher rate, and in order to determine how concerned we ought be about that stat, we would need to a much comprehensive causal analysis. And I think that comprehensive casual analysis would be needed before we make any harsh judgments one way or the other.

Based on the self report data alone, I think it is irresponsible to be incredibly concerned about the gender gap here in reported SA. But similarly, I think it is irresponsible to dismiss the result out of hand because there could be other casual factors like reporting peaceful unwanted advances.

My stance is this gender gap in self reported SA is concerning, and merits more research to determine the causes and impact.

[–]Jammapanda 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Never once typed "MRA," that was the first time. Never once made a statement about this movement as a whole. I've been having plenty of friendly and direct conversations with individuals on this thread. I believe every single one of my comments has been a direct reply to the person above, not a single one of my replies has try to stereotype or categorize an entire movement.

I also don't accuse anyone of anything, because I am in fact on your side on all social and policy issues. Perhaps my only constructive feedback, if any, was to individuals who I believe could speak in a way better at the very least from an outside optics perspective. The goals this group advocates like preventing suicide, protecting children, etc. are very popular goals that should be easy to get people on the side of. My comment to individuals was that speaking adversarial to a popular movement is at the very least not an effective rhetorical tactic at generating broad support.

If I am wrong, and I have somehow tried to stereotype all of "MRAs" please point me to where. I do not believe that is the case

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm a feminist. Don't know what you mean by "hardcore," but I definitely take issues like sexual assault seriously and acknowledge that that issue disproportionately impacts women.

I'm also a man, so unless I am mistaken of my own motives, I stand to gain no personal benefit at all, unless I guess I am for instance sexually assaulted which is a non-zero chance.

As for this OP, is this sub saying you can't both be a feminist as support social issues that impact men? Then I guess I deserve a ban despite strongly agreeing with you guys on all the social justice issues you are fighting for. I'm new, or is it saying people are being sneaky and hiding their true intentions and making shitposts "pretending to be MRA"s?

after my explanation do you understand why this post of yours got heavily downvoted?

(hint most feminists who post here do not care about our point of view but demand that we care about theirs)

currently im still talking to you in a civil manner and try to explain...

[–]Substantial_Help46781 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-78721 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Substantial_Help46781 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-78721 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Substantial_Help4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yozora1337 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]denvercaniac 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Background_Duck2932 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]lumpynose 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Background_Duck2932 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dense-Comfortable-47 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammapanda 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tizzle79 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]DTreatz 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]atx191 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]atx191 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]atx191 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

oh okay yeah capitalism is still gonna hurt men the most for sure yeah.

its also important to understand though that the reason it specifically targets men is due to historical misandrists concepts. I mean the number one way men are forced into the work force where most of their earnings are never given too them is by brain washing them into this idea that they must naturally provide for women. and without women their nothing, a lot of women don't have issues with this system since they primarily benefit from it hence bougesie feminism.

also of course your friends are gonna be empathetic towards you their your friends have some friends irl that if I asked would probably tell me their feminist but who are supportive of me. I don't have qualms with my friends either. I don't think any one here would. its the institutions that specifically harm men that lets be real here feminism fights tooth and nail to keep in power.

[–]DTreatz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Eurocentric? Men are men and women are women across the world regardless of race, religion or creed. Their biology is the same no matter where you go at any point in time, so idk what you're insinuating.

I'm talking about civilities toward women, we already know and have a shit ton of data and observations by intellectuals in history about female nature and behavior (ironically by even some of the most power and wealthy women), and in our modern civil arrogance thought ourselves smarter than those before us.

Nope, those civil men failed that test, and this "equality" we granted females facilitated this degenerate and decaying society. Ask yourself, if females weren't considered equal through all of human history, in almost all human societies and especially in the societies that survived and advanced, why do you think that is? Because men just wanted power over females cause "reasons", nah, that's something a feminist would say, but men are far more logical than that.

Caste and class are biologically inherent as well, there's no way around that.

[–]atx191 -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Sure let's pretend that men are biologically more logical.

So, why fight wars? Let's say you're a state being attacked by another, more militarily powerful state. Biologically, the logical thing to do in order to ensure optimum survival is to give in and follow what the other state wants you to do.

Another instance would be economic disparity. What's stopping the army from breaking the rules of the judiciary and government to loot and pillage as much as possible? That's obviously the logical thing to do for self interest.

Again, what's stopping the common worker to go and kill everyone at the top to seize power and economic might for themselves? It's the logical thing to do for ensuring maximum economic interest.

Point is, civil society is based on social agreements that run contrary to biological function. Got a problem with it? Fine. It's your life, you're free to do whatever you want, but in a civil society, expect consequences. The decadence of modern society has way more to do with neoliberal capitalism than feminism. Feminists aren't pushing up housing prices, feminists aren't responsible for rising inflation, feminists aren't the reason it's so difficult to put food on the table and meds in the cupboard. Men at the top are responsible for all of this, social equality aims to take away power from these men and equip the masses.

Posturing in the name of feminism is toxic, but that isn't a problem for anybody except certain 1st world countries. You Americans have the habit of making everything about yourselves. Society is dying for you because of feminism, society for the rest of the world is dying because of first world countrys' exploitation. Who's gonna stand up for men in Sri Lanka for example? Women and men have to work side by side in these countries just as hard as each other. Redpill talking points are severely limited and ignore massive contexts.

[–]DTreatz 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

So, why fight wars? Let's say you're a state being attacked by another, more militarily powerful state. Biologically, the logical thing to do in order to ensure optimum survival is to give in and follow what the other state wants you to do.

Why? Resources, procreation, legacy, wealth, all valid reasons for war. Biology doesn't consider cultural reasons other people engage in a war with you, so there is no "biological" best path, you have no guarantee they won't kill you if you give in, I'm sure there's no shortage of points in history proving the case.

Another instance would be economic disparity. What's stopping the army from breaking the rules of the judiciary and government to loot and pillage as much as possible? That's obviously the logical thing to do for self interest.

Depends on the ability to get away with such things, this is just risk-benefit analysis per individual, not considering the other people and there beliefs or conviction. If people are/aren't fighting for different things their actions and outcomes will be different, it's an issue of conformity and authority, (see: stanley milgram and standford prison experiments)

Again, what's stopping the common worker to go and kill everyone at the top to seize power and economic might for themselves? It's the logical thing to do for ensuring maximum economic interest.

Again, it's conformity, something well studied in psychology, and practicality of outcome from a risk-benefit analysis. One would have to believe they were extremely less likely to be killed in doing so (read: humans are easy to kill, including yourself). Knowing such, your risk-benefit analysis would lead you to realizing the benefit (and likelihood) of killing everyone isn't worth the risk of getting killed, even if you succeed, people will be less likely to cooperate with you, etcetera, etcetera.

Point is, civil society is based on social agreements that run contrary to biological function. Got a problem with it? Fine. It's your life, you're free to do whatever you want, but in a civil society, expect consequences. The decadence of modern society has way more to do with neoliberal capitalism than feminism. Feminists aren't pushing up housing prices, feminists aren't responsible for rising inflation, feminists aren't the reason it's so difficult to put food on the table and meds in the cupboard. Men at the top are responsible for all of this, social equality aims to take away power from these men and equip the masses.

Not necessarily, cooperation furthers mutual goals. Besides I didn't say feminism was the sole reason for such things, but it was definitely a catalyst of such things, it undermines the incentives for men through sex and reproduction (or lack thereof) because of females inherent unevolved and uncooperative biological mating strategy. If men can't have sex and reproduce, they have no reason to participate in society, low participation (men becoming NEETs, low birth rates) means societal collapse inevitably. Also through political policies females vote for, promiscuity, destruction of the nuclear family, taking away power from the hands of men and leading generations of emasculation of men (see: media emasculation, high rates of depression, suicide, low T rates, etc), devaluing labor force through increased competition (more females working, more workers, more options for employers), etcetera.

I have no doubt those causes would push men to become more violent to change them by force, but in a society that has no structure, order, incentives for men, or power for men bull responsibility, there's no reason to change the structure, you don't stand to benefit for it. You can't fight for Duty, family, honor, country and God, when you have no duty because you have no family, honor is meaningless, your country has betrayed you and nobody cares about God.

More importantly this is where this feminine problem intersects with the intelligence problem of TRP.

Posturing in the name of feminism is toxic, but that isn't a problem for anybody except certain 1st world countries. You Americans have the habit of making everything about yourselves. Society is dying for you because of feminism, society for the rest of the world is dying because of first world countrys' exploitation. Who's gonna stand up for men in Sri Lanka for example? Women and men have to work side by side in these countries just as hard as each other. Redpill talking points are severely limited and ignore massive contexts.

No, everywhere else there is a first world is also dying because of feminism, because you all have the same problems. Nobody is discounting the other problems, but this isn't a sub about the other problems, it's a sub about feminism, gynocentrism and it's destruction of patriarchy and masculinity, that which builds, maintains and innovates society. Nothing else worked, otherwise there would have been another framework by now.

Redpill talking points about feminism are limited in scope because the conversation is about feminism on this front, there's no shortage of other forums that address the redpill of those things you extrapolated on but this sub isn't one of them.

You want to know the other major red pill intersection crux of problems, even as it pertains to Sri Lanka?

That country's average IQ is 87, and this is the other red pill that ties with the feminine problem, IQ is genetic and positively immutable (can't be increased)

And of course females have to work side by side, as I have said in another thread, they only know how to act, when they have no choice, and assuming your evaluation of Sri Lanka, they seem to have very little choice. The worse the environment, the more "cooperative" the females, the reverse is true, and first world countries are indicative of that.

Understanding the feminine problem and the intelligence problem ultimately leads you to realizing how much of society's woes are cause by those to alone, I would attribute pareto distribution of those two together cause 80% of the problems directly or indirectly.

[–]atx191 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that all of your points contradict each other right?

Why? Resources, procreation, legacy, wealth, all valid reasons for war. Biology doesn't consider cultural reasons other people engage in a war with you, so there is no "biological" best path, you have no guarantee they won't kill you if you give in, I'm sure there's no shortage of points in history proving the case.

Again, it's conformity, something well studied in psychology, and practicality of outcome from a risk-benefit analysis. One would have to believe they were extremely less likely to be killed in doing so (read: humans are easy to kill, including yourself). Knowing such, your risk-benefit analysis would lead you to realizing the benefit (and likelihood) of killing everyone isn't worth the risk of getting killed, even if you succeed, people will be less likely to cooperate with you, etcetera, etcetera.

Resources, legacy, procreation, wealth are things the worker stands to benefit from in overthrowing elites, but there really isn't a guarantee that, quote, "they were extremely less likely to be killed in doing so". But men go to war everywhere despite all of this. Both statements are logically inconsistent.

Besides I didn't say feminism was the sole reason for such things, but it was definitely a catalyst of such things, it undermines the incentives for men through sex and reproduction (or lack thereof) because of females inherent unevolved and uncooperative biological mating strategy.

devaluing labor force through increased competition (more females working, more workers, more options for employers), etcetera.

You practically admitted that capitalism, that has empirically been promoted primarily by men, has now turned on men themselves. "Biologically" speaking, survival of the fittest would point towards women slowly gaining this "evolutionary" advantage over men. Remember, all of this is contextualised by your statement of men being "more logical" by nature. Your "evolutionary" advantage argument is starting to look real thin there friend.

I have no doubt those causes would push men to become more violent to change them by force, but in a society that has no structure, order, incentives for men, or power for men bull responsibility, there's no reason to change the structure, you don't stand to benefit for it.

Again, the origins of these structures have been made by men lol. Reap what you sow much? And what'd you even mean by structure? There's an incredible amount of ways a society can be structured, I'm sure you're selectively arguing for a male dominant structure. And why will you be "fighting" anyway? What are you fighting against? If we presuppose that a man has duty, family, honor, country, god in tow with his desires, then there should be no fighting that should exist. If it exists, why should it? If you mean that they're fighting for a place that would better their financial/social capabilities, you're again vying for control over other men. Inclusion of women in the work force would be the optimal thing to do, because any help is better than no help. There's a circular loop that will eventually come back to women having equal social capital as men because it's just better to have a more competent work force.

The worse the environment, the more "cooperative" the females, the reverse is true, and first world countries are indicative of that.

Cooperative for economic and social survival. Putting babies into these women worsen the situation because there's no parity in choice. Women have to take up the flak for the redundancies of men. You're equating it to women in the first world where this cooperation becomes about the family. If the family is non functional, people should be free to leave. Something something false equivalence.

Bottom line is, you don't actually care about men. You're comfortable in dredging along with capitalism. Women are easy to blame because they're highlighted more. And capitalism has 100% to do with men's rights and feminism, because feminism promotes an equal workplace. Am equal workplace means parity, and the whole shtick about male dominance in society runs counter to what works in capitalism. If you want your goals, blame the corporation. If you really care about men's rights, don't favor wars, don't push for a man's right to have a woman because it's only gonna make him more bitter and resentful. Why don't you care about men who don't have partners by normalising the notion of not having a partner as being okay? According to you, women are working against biological reproductive functions so why isn't it okay for men to do so as well? There is much wrong in society towards men's mental health issues. And again the bottom line is, a LOT of women are okay with having children. You can't blame the outliers for the norm. And yes, if you're gonna pretend to care about men's rights, at least know that what you're actually advocating for is male dominance and opportunistic violence.

[–]reverbiscrap 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atx191 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So you seem to have a lot to say for someone that rarely, if ever, posts here.

I just got to know about this sub. Pardon my ignorance.

You complain about a 'euro-centric' bias, then tell us what nation you are from, and we can tell you what your issues are.

No, you cannot. It's not my responsibility to educate you. Nor is it my responsibility to be educated by someone who has no idea about 3rd world countries.

You can complain about capitalism, but all forms of commerce are equally helpful to society and problematic; it is a noisy argument with little substance.

Way easier to change a current form of commerce than it is to integrate a new one. Change =/= replacement. We cannot get rid of capitalism, but we can modify it towards lesser exploitation. That's the point. I'm not advocating for a new set of problems to replace an old set of problems.

You completely ignored in-group/out-group politics (I suggest you read Dr. James Sidanious book on Social Dominance Theory), jingoism, geo politics as a whole, resource acquisition.

Why should I read it? The entire point is to adjust in-group politics. And btw, I'm responding to the OOP based on the flawed logic of his own arguments. The point is to show inconsistencies, not put forward a model for social structure lol. That is beyond my expertise.

Bro, try harder.

Don't have to, you gotta understand that not everything is about you.

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atx191-1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap3 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atx1911 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DTreatz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

...

Part2:

Cooperative for economic and social survival. Putting babies into these women worsen the situation because there's no parity in choice. Women have to take up the flak for the redundancies of men. You're equating it to women in the first world where this cooperation becomes about the family. If the family is non functional, people should be free to leave. Something something false equivalence.

What I was getting at is that worse the environment for survival, the more willing females are to do what they're supposed to do, given those situations they always revert back to their gender roles and submit to men, this was pretty evident in a simulated situation TRP passes around during the island with Bear Grylls season 2 (https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=the+island+with+bear+grylls+man+vs+woman) , Men and women are 2 parts for human survival via reproduction, 1/2 for each, but men are society, we don't need women for society.

And what 'redundancies' are you speaking of, you're speaking vaguely.

And who said anything about parity in choice? Take that up with biology and evolution , because biology and evolution don't give a shit about parity and to be honest, there no reason men should either, that's just a moralistic idealism that we assume to be the "right" way with no real evidence to support it.

And I'm equating the situation to the first world, because in the first world we have given women equality (supremacy really) so they have the choice to do whatever they want and what they're choosing to do is to the denigration of society (promiscuity, reproduction with 20%, reproduction with low IQ, breaking up the nuclear family, choosing work > reproduction, being parasite via social welfare, etc etc).

Families are not functional, because female's under-evolved biological mating strategy doesn't facilitate good choices for reproduction via societal standards and hypergamy (something a lot of TRP gets inaccurate), and social welfare incentivizes them to break up the family. Allowing them to just leave facilitates this problem because single mother households are the undebatable worst households for children to be raised in, creating problematic new generations of men and women.

Bottom line is, you don't actually care about men. You're comfortable in dredging along with capitalism. Women are easy to blame because they're highlighted more. And capitalism has 100% to do with men's rights and feminism, because feminism promotes an equal workplace.

I don't care about men? Of course I do, a smart society would seek to give them the power they had prior to feminism (more so really) in exchange for their work (which was the trade) to keep society not only stable, but thriving, and if it's at the cost of female freedom that's a deal I would take, because clearly this modern freedom they have and "egalitarian" society isn't working, and the one prior did.

I didn't bring up the conversation on capitalism, you did, I stopped being interested on digging or caring a long time ago because I'm a free agent now, a man without a country, so I can do whatever I please while I watch society fall. I'm sure capitalism has it's problems, as ANY, sociopolitical and economic system would, but what alternatives do you suggest to capitalism, barring socialism, to replace it then?

And feminism promoting an equal workplace is laughable, because females (like I stated earlier) aren't working at the same level or better as men, and quite frankly there's no need for an equal workplace, because they don't necessarily provide any benefit simply because females have a vagina, they come with more problems than solutions.

Am equal workplace means parity, and the whole shtick about male dominance in society runs counter to what works in capitalism. If you want your goals, blame the corporation. If you really care about men's rights, don't favor wars, don't push for a man's right to have a woman because it's only gonna make him more bitter and resentful.

Equal on paper, but that's not how workplaces pan out in reality.

Capitalism will still have it's consumers, clearly because it came before feminism did, it just won't be as exploitable if women don't have the economy to participate. Men are harder to sell to than females, this is marketing 101.

Females make up a overwhelming majority of consumer spending, if you want to get quasi-conspiratorial, it's the entire reason corporations and government pushed for feminism, not for 'muh equality', but because females are spontaneous, unintelligent financially, and vain, making for better consumers, so they have direct incentives to want them to make their own money, government short term, corporations short and long term, feminism benefitted those two the most and everyone else suffered the consequences of it, men, children, and ironically on a economic and sociological level (read: nuclear family)

...

[+]atx191 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

they always revert back to their gender roles and submit to men

That situation is pretty suboptimal for men as well. If another person's doing your work for you, you're not getting anywhere. The rich keep exploiting you though, but sure go ahead and blame women. And Bear fucking Grylls seriously?

(promiscuity, reproduction with 20%, reproduction with low IQ, breaking up the nuclear family, choosing work > reproduction, being parasite via social welfare, etc etc).

Lmfao the 20% with low IQ. Way down your comment, you claimed that women are consumers that corporations direct their product towards. People who are rich as fuck generally aren't low IQ. How does a woman, who receives lower wages, become able to afford expensive lifestyles without financial assistance from rich men? Your entire argument is all over the place man. And sure, let's go back to the nuclear family. Traditionally, families have been joint families, at least where I'm from. The nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon. And yeah, it'd be far better to ask for better AA for men because, you know, men's rights.

society would seek to give them the power they had prior to feminism (more so really) in exchange for their work (which was the trade) to keep society not only stable, but thriving, and if it's at the cost of female freedom that's a deal I would take, because clearly this modern freedom they have and "egalitarian" society isn't working, and the one prior did.

Please describe how a lower rate of reproduction is an existential threat. Men can't deal with the fact that suddenly they don't own it. Hell, you can make the exact same argument in favor of slavery. Good luck with that tho.

I'm sure capitalism has it's problems, as ANY, sociopolitical and economic system would, but what alternatives do you suggest to capitalism, barring socialism, to replace it then?

Please read more about economic systems.

females are spontaneous, unintelligent financially, and vain, making for better consumers, so they have direct incentives to want them to make their own money, government short term, corporations short and long term, feminism benefitted those two the most and everyone else suffered the consequences of it, men, children, and ironically on a economic and sociological level (read: nuclear family)

Conspiratorial for a reason then. There's zero data suggesting otherwise. If there's any, it would be highly localised and inapplicable to most of the world.

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

they always revert back to their gender roles and submit to men

That situation is pretty suboptimal for men as well. If another person's doing your work for you, you're not getting anywhere. The rich keep exploiting you though, but sure go ahead and blame women. And Bear fucking Grylls seriously?

Are you being dense or intellectually dishonest, I can't tell. I was referencing bear grylls show "the island" season 2 specifically because it was "informally" referred to as the season of men vs. women. To which it quickly devolved into a showing of gender roles, male superiority and female inferiority due to the circumstances of survival. The short and sweet, the men banded together, and prospered, while the females, had they not had intervention from 3rd parties, would have died several times over.

(promiscuity, reproduction with 20%, reproduction with low IQ, breaking up the nuclear family, choosing work > reproduction, being parasite via social welfare, etc etc).

Lmfao the 20% with low IQ. Way down your comment, you claimed that women are consumers that corporations direct their product towards. People who are rich as fuck generally aren't low IQ. How does a woman, who receives lower wages, become able to afford expensive lifestyles without financial assistance from rich men? Your entire argument is all over the place man. And sure, let's go back to the nuclear family. Traditionally, families have been joint families, at least where I'm from. The nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon. And yeah, it'd be far better to ask for better AA for men because, you know, men's rights.

I separated the two, that's why that comma is there, those were all examples of the problematic types of females society suffer from when free, a list if you will.

TRP often mistakenly cite females chasing the top 20%, but this is incorrect, while they do chase the 20% it's split between the top and the bottom because both of those parties possess traits that female's under-evolved biology finds attractive, save for wealth, which is the differentiating factor between the top/bottom % of men.

My argument is fine, you just don't understand the IQ problem and the nuance between how the feminine problem and the IQ problem relate, but that is not my problem, it's yours, do your research I'm not your mentor.

The nuclear family is recent, and so is stable and modernized society, again we cite J. D. Unwin's Sex and Culture for this. The absolute monogamy and nuclear family works best for society, children and females and the majority of men (those who would not be able to reproduce without).

Idk/remember what AA you're referencing but I'm not going to go back several replies to find out.

society would seek to give them the power they had prior to feminism (more so really) in exchange for their work (which was the trade) to keep society not only stable, but thriving, and if it's at the cost of female freedom that's a deal I would take, because clearly this modern freedom they have and "egalitarian" society isn't working, and the one prior did.

Please describe how a lower rate of reproduction is an existential threat. Men can't deal with the fact that suddenly they don't own it. Hell, you can make the exact same argument in favor of slavery. Good luck with that tho.

I put this as simply as possible: IQ is genetic, levels of IQ are finite, lower rate of reproduction means birth rate is low, birth rate low means people arent replacing themselves, people with x IQ not replacing themselves with x IQ means you lose people with x IQ. Those jobs that are needed are not being replaced, they will cease to function.

To amplify that problem, low IQ people reproduce more than high IQ people, if high IQ people reproduce at all. Reproduction is pretty exponential (you have 2 kids, they have 2 kids, those grandkids have 2 kids, that's 8 progeny).

Dumb people cannot make or run a society that's stable and thriving (read my earlier response to your 'patents' innovation, Uganda, IQ of your country, etc)

Men not owning the reproduction means it was recentralized (not decentralized as men mistakenly think) to female's under-evolved biological programming, which as I've stated is counterintuitive to functioning societies. Females are inherently polygynous , you cannot build a stable and thriving society on polygyny where only a handful of men are having all the sex and reproduction, I've explained this earlier.

Slavery is cultural problem, the IQ and feminine problems are biological, therein lies the difference, fundamentally.

I'm sure capitalism has it's problems, as ANY, sociopolitical and economic system would, but what alternatives do you suggest to capitalism, barring socialism, to replace it then?

Please read more about economic systems.

When I have time I'll read any and everything I'm interested in, but not only did you not disprove what I said (about capitalism having it's problems like ANY system), you didn't provide a solution, surely if you knew what was better, you would have?

females are spontaneous, unintelligent financially, and vain, making for better consumers, so they have direct incentives to want them to make their own money, government short term, corporations short and long term, feminism benefitted those two the most and everyone else suffered the consequences of it, men, children, and ironically on a economic and sociological level (read: nuclear family)

Conspiratorial for a reason then. There's zero data suggesting otherwise. If there's any, it would be highly localised and inapplicable to most of the world.

What are you getting at? Last I checked most of the world is globalized and with the advent of the WEF (World Economic Forum) and the 'elites' you so willfully suggested were the problem, there's nothing localized or inapplicable of it by your own admission.

Assuming you're indian, and I would say no offense but idc, it's no secret amongst TRP that your country and your men are some of the most cucked men on the planet. Your pedestalizing of females knows no bounds over there and so many of your everymen are suffering from the effects of it. I've perused enough RP forums to know by observation and admittance by your own everymen of such.

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

Part1:

Not really, you asked questions that weren't particularly relevant to what I said, and I explained the reasoning behind the answers.

Resources, legacy, procreation, wealth are things the worker stands to benefit from in overthrowing elites, but there really isn't a guarantee that, quote, "they were extremely less likely to be killed in doing so". But men go to war everywhere despite all of this. Both statements are logically inconsistent.

So, why fight wars? Let's say you're a state being attacked by another, more militarily powerful state. Biologically, the logical thing to do in order to ensure optimum survival is to give in and follow what the other state wants you to do.

You said why fight wars, I gave you the reasons why people fight wars, and I told you why there's no "biological" right thing to do because war is not a biological machination, it's a cultural one, you have a chance of dying not fighting, and fighting depending on the culture. Maybe your king will kill you if you don't fight so the chance is better to fight, maybe you think your military is stronger so you do, maybe you think your culture is better equipped, maybe you don't because the oppositions military is stronger, maybe you give up an switch sides because they're better and promised you survival it's a multivariable situations and factors that influences your chances of survival.

The entire question is irrelevant anyway because I made an obvious observational statement about men being more logical and you chose to ask a specific question about men's logic in defense of women, specifically regarding war, when also, unironically, females are more likely to start wars anyway .

You practically admitted that capitalism, that has empirically been promoted primarily by men, has now turned on men themselves. "Biologically" speaking, survival of the fittest would point towards women slowly gaining this "evolutionary" advantage over men. Remember, all of this is contextualised by your statement of men being "more logical" by nature. Your "evolutionary" advantage argument is starting to look real thin there friend.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now, and capitalism isn't responsible for turning on men, weak men who allowed female rights, turned on society, using capitalism to their advantage.

What's interesting is that you haven't proven why men aren't evolutionarily more logical than women. Men created practically any and everything in society by majority, we built it (still do, bureau of labor statistics), we maintain it (bureau of labor statistics) and we innovate it overwhelmingly (STEM graduates, bureau of labor statistics, labor participation, EARNINGS gap, etc.) I've provided more than enough ways to back my claims, bout time you do the same or stop replying to me.

Again, the origins of these structures have been made by men lol. Reap what you sow much? And what'd you even mean by structure? There's an incredible amount of ways a society can be structured, I'm sure you're selectively arguing for a male dominant structure. And why will you be "fighting" anyway? What are you fighting against? If we presuppose that a man has duty, family, honor, country, god in tow with his desires, then there should be no fighting that should exist. If it exists, why should it? If you mean that they're fighting for a place that would better their financial/social capabilities, you're again vying for control over other men. Inclusion of women in the work force would be the optimal thing to do, because any help is better than no help. There's a circular loop that will eventually come back to women having equal social capital as men because it's just better to have a more competent work force.

Our only bad sow that matters in this conversation, is that we reaped for women's rights. By structure I mean incentives for men to participate in society through politics, economics and legacy (sex/children) because the family unit is the fundamental unit to a society, men of the past understood this, if you have no monogamy, men don't have incentive to cooperate to build/maintain/innovate a society for an increased likelihood of survival, because men will not only not replace themselves (work/IQ) they will fail to participate in it at best, or at worst, actively fight against it (i.e. become more aggressive, violent, and more prone to taking risk) and that societal energy will stagnate (see: J. D. Unwin's 'Sex and Culture' )

Yes a male dominant structure, because it's proven to be the only thing that has worked successfully and gotten us to this point. Our history is all the data we need, we made it all the way to 1950s without female rights and equality, so clearly it wasn't necessary that they be.

" If we presuppose that a man has duty, family, honor, country, god in tow with his desires, then there should be no fighting that should exist."

That assumes other countries surrounding you aren't hostile and have similar faculties and abilities for competence and peace, which is not the case, also it does not change the desire of war for resources or legacy.

"Inclusion of women in the work force would be the optimal thing to do, because any help is better than no help."

Not necessarily true, inclusion in the workforce makes men have to compete with women, while simultaneously devaluing the labor because we added more workers, but didn't increase the amount of jobs, amplified by affirmative action (primarily benefits women). Employers now have no reason to compete (or as harshly) because you effectively given them more leverage by creating more competition for their jobs. This isn't even factoring female IQ, job/career choice (they choose people>things), and how much they work (read: earnings gap)

"There's a circular loop that will eventually come back to women having equal social capital as men because it's just better to have a more competent work force."

It assumes females are competent workers to begin with. Given the earnings gap, it's clear they are, overall, less efficient workers short and long term, it's a major part of the reason the earnings gap even exists. They work less hours, work more part-time than full time, choose fields that are lower paying, take more sick days, more holidays, work less overtime, and if they have kids are less likely to return to work, etc. So if you're asking for competency in workers, you would almost always hire men.

...

[+]atx191 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I'll bite.

war is not a biological machination, it's a cultural one

You're picking and choosing what's cultural and what's not. Besides, kings are not women. Militaries aren't made up of women. The first wave that gets killed is men, at the behest of other men. Women get raped and killed later which I'd argue is worse than just getting murdered. But I digress. Do you see that the culture of war punishes men? Do you see that the "bull" nature of men punishes other men too?

unironically, females are more likely to start wars anyway .

Funny because it only talks about European monarchies while thousands of years of history across the world have wars waged by men. The worst genocides in known history have all been enforced by men lol.

weak men who allowed female rights, turned on society, using capitalism to their advantage.

And now they're dominating "strong" men financially. Brawn over brains much? And besides, they are also men, weak or not. Then again, I wouldn't say people running Black Rock give two shits about masculinity or femininity.

Men created practically any and everything in society by majority, we built it (still do, bureau of labor statistics), we maintain it (bureau of labor statistics) and we innovate it overwhelmingly (STEM graduates, bureau of labor statistics, labor participation, EARNINGS gap, etc.)

You do realize that men did all of that for a reason right? It's not a competition dude, yes we did all of that but what now? Women have entered the work force and now they're contributing too. It's like saying that hey, my dad built this school so I should get better grades. Manual labour is dominated by men but again, women have fulfilled the roles of maids, nurses, teachers, and in my country (India) a LOT of women carry their family's finances because the men are too lazy to get off their asses. If this woman who is working extra time to provide for her family gets an opportunity to be with someone who would share equal responsibility, why shouldn't she do so? It's the logical thing to do.

family unit is the fundamental unit to a society, men of the past understood this, if you have no monogamy, men don't have incentive to cooperate to build/maintain/innovate a society for an increased likelihood of survival, because men will not only not replace themselves (work/IQ) they will fail to participate in it at best, or at worst, actively fight against it

Oh come on, family is not at threat. 4% of people practice polyamory. You have the rest of the 96% to choose from. Whatever will you do lol. And do you get the sense that innovation is...slowing down? That the gap between third world and first world countries is non existent? Most 3rd world countries practice patriarchy, do you sense that Uganda is catching up to the US of A? In the list of patents filed in 2013, 8 out of 10 countries are European countries, the other two being US and China. Meanwhile the shining jewel of the overwhelmingly male dominated workforce, Saudi Arabia, is at...29.

it's proven to be the only thing that has worked successfully and gotten us to this point

It's the only thing that has ever existed my guy.

That assumes other countries surrounding you aren't hostile and have similar faculties and abilities for competence and peace, which is not the case

But but aren't men supposed to be logical? If men go to war because of culture, then the culture itself is flawed. Start holding people in power accountable, male or female. But since it's overwhelmingly male, it makes sense to use men as the common denominator.

Employers now have no reason to compete (or as harshly) because you effectively given them more leverage by creating more competition for their jobs. This isn't even factoring female IQ, job/career choice (they choose people>things), and how much they work (read: earnings gap)

Outdated argument, replace women with black people and suddenly it all falls apart doesn't it?

It assumes females are competent workers to begin with. Given the earnings gap, it's clear they are, overall, less efficient workers short and long term, it's a major part of the reason the earnings gap even exists. They work less hours, work more part-time than full time, choose fields that are lower paying, take more sick days, more holidays, work less overtime, and if they have kids are less likely to return to work, etc. So if you're asking for competency in workers, you would almost always hire men.

And yet, they end up hiring women as well. Gee, I wonder why corporations would employ women at all when they hamper profits. Surely they're simps who just want to see women strutting about /s. They work for profits, not charity. Your argument is that they get slack for lagging behind, while men make up for their deficiencies. What a strange thing to say when they keep recording record profits year after year. By that logic, companies like Apple that have significant presence of women should be slowing down, but is that happening tho. Fields that pay less are fields that have to be filled nonetheless. Let's assume you're in a STEM field where you're working in a lab all day. You come home and you have nothing to watch on the TV other than what some dudes think up. There are no women because women are incompetent. You go to the PC to play video games and all of them are dudes. You go to the gym, more dudes. Then you get into an arranged marriage, and now you come home, have sex, and sleep. Such a beautiful life /s.

In actuality, women are immensely valuable parts of society who should be included. Conversation with an intelligent, educated woman is far more stimulating than conversation with a sex doll.

[–]DTreatz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Part1 (reddit wont allow long posts)

You're picking and choosing what's cultural and what's not. Besides, kings are not women. Militaries aren't made up of women. The first wave that gets killed is men, at the behest of other men. Women get raped and killed later which I'd argue is worse than just getting murdered. But I digress. Do you see that the culture of war punishes men? Do you see that the "bull" nature of men punishes other men too?

What are you talking about? War is cultural. We weren't speaking of kings, we were speaking of war, to which both parties are guilty of creating. Women aren't necessarily killed, because that is wasteful in sexual economics so I disagree, you kill the men, kill or enslave the boys, and you keep the women and girls for later as rewards for your victory; besides given female nature and their biological propensity for attraction to dark triad characteristics, they actually stand to benefit from war because it provides them with their biological mating strategy of who the "alpha" is, as far as their reproduction goes.

War punishes everyone, which is why, by and large, men have ceased doing it. What's your point?

Funny because it only talks about European monarchies while thousands of years of history across the world have wars waged by men. The worst genocides in known history have all been enforced by men lol.

Because they only studied Europeans monarchies? I'm sure if they bothered studying african, middle eastern, native american, etc etc, you'd find the same results because while different cultures had different structures, the biology of men and women hasn't changed. And if you're going to point at the atrocities, you must also point the fact that the best creations and inventions have been made by men too. You take the good with the bad, this is a typical feminist talking point, by trying to attribute bad things only to men, not realizing your entire modern existence and everything you benefit from is created, maintained and innovated on by men

And now they're dominating "strong" men financially. Brawn over brains much? And besides, they are also men, weak or not. Then again, I wouldn't say people running Black Rock give two shits about masculinity or femininity.

There's a distinction to be made by 'weak' men: the men who were weak-but-intelligent to prioritize wealth and power, and the weak-useful idiots who facilitated feminisms growth by supporting it, though having no power or wealth to gain from it. The latter is the majority of men, the former is the minority, aka the 'black rock' CEOs or what have you. Of course they give a shit about masculinity/femininity, because such "regression" from their perspective as a society would cut into their wealth and power bottom line.

Meaning if suddenly females stopped voting, starting mating properly, kept families together, mass exodus from education and workforce, the power shifts back into men's hands, putting such biological/existential purpose back into men's lives, compelling them to fix society at the cost of such corporations and government. There's a reason government and corporations don't want nuclear families, divide and conquer, same as it ever was.

You do realize that men did all of that for a reason right? It's not a competition dude, yes we did all of that but what now? Women have entered the work force and now they're contributing too. It's like saying that hey, my dad built this school so I should get better grades. Manual labour is dominated by men but again, women have fulfilled the roles of maids, nurses, teachers, ...

"Workforce" is vague, they are not in the industrial foundations that matter (water, gas, electricity, construction, transportation, logistics etc.) and if the earnings gap is similar in India, they still don't work as hard as men, their contributions are a moot point.

The reason men built society was because they are intelligent and biologically interested in things over people and females not in workforce/education + sexual satiation of men allow men to channel their energy into doing such, which is why I reference J. D. Unwin's Sex and Culture.

"..., and in my country (India) a LOT of women carry their family's finances because the men are too lazy to get off their asses..."

So either your country is ran by women, or anecdotally the women you're talking about made the same mistake of choosing insufficient men to reproduce with (that they have a biological predisposition to)? I mean clearly your infrastructure is working because you're on the internet right now, so men are clearly keeping it going.

"...If this woman who is working extra time to provide for her family gets an opportunity to be with someone who would share equal responsibility, why shouldn't she do so? It's the logical thing to do."

Problem is, most females do not want to share equal responsibility, they want to be taken care of. We know that from the data and their biological hypergamy. It's the same reason they chase the top % of men, it's the same reason that with education they raise the expectations of what men make, female hypergamy is to always have above 'where you are' (of course they over evaluate and artificially inflate, but another topic). Females hate providing.

So best they want to be taken care of, neutral bad, they want someone to help while still providing more than them, worst they want to provide, to which they will just choose to be alone. Which is weird because men are the opposite in that regard.

Here's a video by some canadian purples that addressing an interesting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKGS7Qv41lc&ab\_channel=AbaNPreach

....

[–]DTreatz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...

Part2 (reddit wont allow long posts)

Oh come on, family is not at threat. 4% of people practice polyamory. You have the rest of the 96% to choose from. Whatever will you do lol. And do you get the sense that innovation is...slowing down? That the gap between third world and first world countries is non existent? Most 3rd world countries practice patriarchy, do you sense that Uganda is catching up to the US of A? In the list of patents filed in 2013, 8 out of 10 countries are European countries, the other two being US and China. Meanwhile the shining jewel of the overwhelmingly male dominated workforce, Saudi Arabia, is at...29.

Family isn't a threat to....? It most certainly is, because like I said, IQ is genetic, females don't choose based off intelligence and good behavior, and they don't mate according to what society needs they mate according to what they want. which is why you have the birth rate problems and low participation and other things amongst men right now.

And again, you're not accounting for the second biggest factor of those countries: INTELLIGENCE, all those countries have sub-optimal average IQs, so it makes sense they wouldn't hold patents. My concerns are not with first and third world countries when talking about feminism and it's problems, its between first and first world countries, apples and oranges comparing the two, because the intellectual difference between the two are too great. Third world countries problems is the lack of IQ then feminism, not feminism then IQ.

You're looking at the wrong metrics.

it's proven to be the only thing that has worked successfully and gotten us to this point

It's the only thing that has ever existed my guy.

Because it works, nothing else does, otherwise it would have.

But but aren't men supposed to be logical? If men go to war because of culture, then the culture itself is flawed. Start holding people in power accountable, male or female. But since it's overwhelmingly male, it makes sense to use men as the common denominator.

Biology shapes culture, not the other way around, so if the other men have lower IQs their culture will reflect it, lower IQ people are more prone to impulse, lack of self control, violence, etc. That and power corrupts, so people who have power and wealth are more likely to have certain psychological traits to want more (as Mr. Peterson states frequently), Thomas Sowell wrote a book on such people too called The Vision of the Anointed . You need a decently intellectual distributed society to forgo these certain problems.

You keep missing the mark for the full picture, you need both red pills for it to make sense, the feminine problem and the intelligence problem.

Employers now have no reason to compete (or as harshly) because you effectively given them more leverage by creating more competition for their jobs. This isn't even factoring female IQ, job/career choice (they choose people>things), and how much they work (read: earnings gap)

Outdated argument, replace women with black people and suddenly it all falls apart doesn't it?

Explain why it's outdated or I'll disregard your statement, stop being vague or I will end this conversation. This is a factual case unless proven otherwise regardless of the time frame. If you're talking black IQ, then no, it's still the same.

It assumes females are competent workers to begin with. Given the earnings gap, it's clear they are, overall, less efficient workers short and long term, it's a major part of the reason the earnings gap even exists. They work less hours, work more part-time than full time, choose fields that are lower paying, take more sick days, more holidays, work less overtime, and if they have kids are less likely to return to work, etc. So if you're asking for competency in workers, you would almost always hire men.

And yet, they end up hiring women as well. Gee, I wonder why corporations would employ women at all when they hamper profits. Surely they're simps who just want to see women strutting about /s. They work for profits, not charity. Your argument is that they get slack for lagging behind, while men make up for their deficiencies. What a strange thing to say when they keep recording record profits year after year. By that logic, companies like Apple that have significant presence of women should be slowing down, but is that happening tho. Fields that pay less are fields that have to be filled nonetheless. Let's assume you're in a STEM field where you're working in a lab all day. You come home and you have nothing to watch on the TV other than what some dudes think up. There are no women because women are incompetent. You go to the PC to play video games and all of them are dudes. You go to the gym, more dudes. Then you get into an arranged marriage, and now you come home, have sex, and sleep. Such a beautiful life /s.

In actuality, women are immensely valuable parts of society who should be included. Conversation with an intelligent, educated woman is far more stimulating than conversation with a sex doll.

Well for one they have no choice because of laws, diversity quotas and affirmative action, leaving them open to lawsuits but the females they hire are almost never in positions where men are and need to be, i.e. females may be managerial in construction, but they're not doing construction.

Meaning there's a difference between the people who actually do the work needed and the females who are peripheral to that. Similar to that black hole coding fiasco with the woman who claimed (or was accused at claiming) credit for when dudes found out 90% of the work was done by men.

Yes they do indeed get slack for lagging behind and men make up their work, this has been posted countless times across forums, particularly in the military, lowering military standards for women anyone? As for apple, again, look at the people actually doing the work, not in marketing, or sales, but engineering and R&D. That's the great thing about STEM, if you're incompetent, it shows

FIELDS that pay less don't necessarily have to exist.

Conversation with intellectual people is stimulating, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be a woman and given the IQ distribution, it's less likely to be a woman.

I never said females aren't valuable to society, I'm not even saying some aren't competent, what I'm saying is their freedom to do as they please, more particularly when it comes to mating, comes at a cost that's not worth paying and is degenerate to society. And again, the first worlds at the forefront are suffering from this.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DTreatz 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DTreatz2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

...

Part3:

Why don't you care about men who don't have partners by normalising the notion of not having a partner as being okay? According to you, women are working against biological reproductive functions so why isn't it okay for men to do so as well?

I'm not against men not having partners being okay, I'm actually for it in a society where women are free, but this doesn't address most men, since most men have the biological/existential desire to have sex and reproduce. Men not having and wanting partners are the exceptions, not the rule.

All normalizing will do is accelerate the inevitable collapse of society, which is why feminists, MRAs and TradCons are contemptuous towards MGTs and modern men (misplaced of course) because they won't be replacing themselves with progeny, and will only work for themselves to survive (see: declining birth rates, lowering participation in society, increased NEETs, etc.)

Yes females are in fact working against their biological functions with their mating choices and their sociological choices, and those are facilitating a degenerating society.

Again, I never said it wasn't okay for men not to also, but they're the exception, and all of this begs the question of, what kind of future are you trying to achieve for society.

There is much wrong in society towards men's mental health issues. And again the bottom line is, a LOT of women are okay with having children. You can't blame the outliers for the norm.

An overwhelming majority of men's mental health issues are attributed to feminism. Idc about a LOT of women being okay with having children, but their choices and participations are at odds with stable families, facilitating this breakdown of society. What outliers and what norm are you talking about?

And yes, if you're gonna pretend to care about men's rights, at least know that what you're actually advocating for is male dominance and opportunistic violence.

I never said I wasn't advocating for male dominance, if not one thing you take away from this conversation, it's that patriarchy works. Opportunistic violence isn't guaranteed so it's irrelevant.

I don't care about feminism, or female rights, I care more about society stability, society progressing and technological innovation, neither of which can be attributed to egalitarian nonsense, and all of which is being halted by this notion of egalitarianism. Life is inherently unequal and there's no reason other than some moralistic fallacy about why we should equalize it, least of all by gendered standards.

To be honest, you sound like you're talking out of your ass, proving no points, and being contrarian either for the sake of being contrarian or in some emotional pro-women bias for the sake of "protecting" women, there's no shortage of information in TRP including this sub about not only the difference between men and women (neutral) but the clearly superiority of men > women, Whether it's here, TRP sub/forums, TRP videos by content creators, blackpill reddit/forums etc. I hardly have the time to pass you any and every bookmark and TRP archive I have.

You need to extrapolate more in your questions and replies or don't bother replying, you're being intentionally vague.

I might have missed something, but you're dragging this conversation on and into a direction that isn't relevant to this sub, there are other subs for your anti-capitalist fetish I'm sure.

Maybe you should go watch some Colttaine videos to get you started, because you seem to have quite a ways to go.

Reposted because apparently this sub doesn't like BitChute lmao

[–]RoryTate 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nihi1986 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ERiC_693 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asplorer 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AspirationsOfFreedom 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MathematicianSad1915 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ButteryBman 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CCT-556 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Falchion_Alpha 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Traditional_life98 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]titanicboi1 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DTreatz -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Appropriate-Elk3686 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moradalgeria 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HyakuBikki -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Waratah888 -19 points-18 points-17 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Waratah888 -7 points-6 points-5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SteveBlakesButtPlug 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Waratah888 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]G0d_of_r_teenagers 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Waratah888 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BlackBeard30 -33 points-32 points-31 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]BlackBeard30 -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackBeard301 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackBeard301 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackBeard30 -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dramatic-Essay-7872 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Titu3 -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Titu3 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Titu3 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Titu3 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Digitaldreamer7 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]odoof12[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]Titu3 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Titu3 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Glittering_Car_9282 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Can we take some action against the brigading
Author	odoof12
Upvotes	296
Comments	260
Date	April 3, 2023 8:23 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12awla2/can_we_take_some_action_against_the_brigading/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/can-we-take-some-action-against-the-brigading.1206948 https://theredarchive.com/post/1206948

Comments