~ archived since 2018 ~

Progress is hard when you're this willfully blind...they think the yellow text is a serious post by an MRA...

factsangeryou

April 25, 2016

15 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://np.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/4ganqm/why_the_mrm_is_unsuccessful/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Progress is hard when you're this willfully blind...they think the yellow text is a serious post by an MRA...
Author	factsangeryou
Upvotes	15
Comments	96
Date	April 25, 2016 12:17 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4gd1ca/progress_is_hard_when_youre_this_willfully/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/progress-is-hard-when-youre-this-willfully.950957 https://theredarchive.com/post/950957

Comments

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

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BookOfGQuan 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll clarify my question: if men held 55% of suffrage, do you think that the issues affecting men would be addressed?

If men held 55% suffrage at the point we allowed women's suffrage? The issues wouldn't have happened in the first place.

If something happened such that as of tomorrow men held 55% of suffrage? This is a less sure answer, but I believe government would shrink massively and quickly, removing the power that women have over men.

I don't have the data but I would assume that the (income) tax discrepancy is down to factors such as women being more likely to be stay-at-home parents, among other things.

It's due to a number of factors: women, on average, earn less than men because they choose more flexible jobs. Women are more likely to be stay-at-home parents. Child support to women is not calculated as women's earnings. Government services which benefit women reduce women's need to earn.

Would your solution be to disenfranchise people who don't pay tax/pay tax under a certain threshold?

Yes. If you're not contributing money to government, why do you have a say as to how government spends the money it collects?

Without the responsibility, you haven't earned the right.

Or something else entirely?

Preferably, I'd go all the way back to landowner vote, with adjustments to the tax system accordingly. Our government ran on 2-3% of GDP from 1776 till 1920. It can do so again if we stop being the world's police force.

[–]factsangeryou[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (88 children) | Copy Link

[–]factsangeryou[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]zen_affleck 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zen_affleck 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]factsangeryou[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

[–]bumbuff 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Uh except he's right, provide ANY proof that we cop to politically correct speech, we don't in fact most of us find PC shit to be absolutely stupid.

Equality, IS the gold standard, sorry to burst your bubble but we don't want more rights than women, we don't want women to have more rights than us, we want everything to be fucking equal, what is so difficult to understand about equality? are you so fucking braindead that you want to be "more equal than women because feminism"? you sound just like them, sorry, you do. What exactly do you mean by questioning equal rights and suffrage of women? women's suffrage was a good thing, regardless of whether it was on its way regardless of feminism or not, women having the right to vote is a GOOD thing, and this is exactly why we call you MGTOW fuckfaces pimply faced neckbeard manbabies, because you seem to think that the only way to beat feminism is to get more than them, highly infantile.

Once again, how the fuck are we not willing to question equal rights? we know women have a decent chunk of rights that men don't have, but we also understand that true equality is what we are workig for, thus some rights we're both lacking need to be gained.

All you've proven is that you're a literal manbaby, and okay, prove OP wrong then mr "i'm not who he says i am" what's a proposed solution that doesn't have equality but doesn't harm women as well?

[–]GeminiEngine 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine5 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tends toward, yes, but it is not equality.

Simplest way I can describe the difference, yes if any woman wants to be a firefighter they can, but not any woman can be on the live rescue team.

Egalitarian means people deserve the same rights and opportunities, but says nothing of duty and responsibility. Rights and opportunities are negotiable, however, duties and responsibilities are nonnegotiable because they come with title and position that are strived for.

It is the nearly stereotyped feminist logic and application of language is why I will not align with any MRMs. I chose reason and empirical observation over this faith in that emotional reaction can dictate validity. You believe that equality, equal opportunity, and egalitarian are the same things, my fellow warrior in men's masculinity, I assure you that these are not the same thing. Dictionaries, thesauruses, and etymology are the required knowledge of this discussion. The way you attempt to assert your logic of equivalent goals and meanings inclines me to believe you define your philosophy through the terms of feminism, the good and bad of it. Feminism and Masculinity need not be at odds, but neither can be defined by or through the other.

When men can comprehend the meaning of the social contract we strive for, and when women can comprehend the treatment they desire and communicate it, we will have that which you and I seek.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Edit: sorry this took so long to write. Every time I reread it, my choice of words felt wrong but they technically meant what I wanted.

Will violence be used and how, unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer, and maybe neither are you.

Your belief that violence will not be used, I think, is misguided.

First, you use it in the global sense meaning none at all will be used. The FBI and other organizations have done conclusive research that shows women are typically the aggressor in most domestic disputes.

Secondly both of your examples used violence. They both publicized the results of the violence when used by those in the privileged position. They both used economic violence. MLK Jr attempted to overload many prison systems, with largely no indirect repercussions except for court systems being overloaded with paperwork and thousands of fines that will never be paid. Whereas Gandhi attempted to destroy the salt industry, that if it had gone on in mass even another week or so the salt exporters would have collapsed and those whose ability to survive depended on the salt would have perished, potentially thousands, all mostly British, would have died.

Do not live believing that the Velvet Revolution will be an easy outcome. The only instance in history was by Czechoslovakia where there were almost 2 view points, and any outlier viewpoints were willing to deal within the territory in which they resided. My advice would be do not strike first, but be willing to knock them the fuck out in defense. They chose equal rights, they should get it until they step back.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And once again we are arguing the same point, albiet i'll readily admit you come across as my intellectual superior, my point about violence is that /u/demonspawn is advocating to strike first and on that notion i disagree entirely, but if he is the type of person you wish to advocate for, so be it.

Here are a few lovely tidbits if you think i'm lying:

me: why the flying fuck do you think violence is okay in any form

him: Because it is. Without violence, you have no law.

and again

me: So just to clarify, instead of doing things in a human manner you want violence right? why exactly do you see violence as the answer?

him: Because I know where rights come from: violence. And because I know women have voted the proxy violence of government to take from men to give to women. How else do you defeat that?

and again

me: Discussing removing the system is perfectly fine, but discussing utilizing violence to remove the system is definitely not okay

him: How fucking else do you remove a system?

and again

him: I am not opposed to revolt. In fact, I'm stubborn enough to favor it. The issue is the critical mass of men needed to execute a revolt. Obviously, those who ultimately desire revolt need to choose to turtle so that they are present if the critical mass for revolt happens.

and again

him: Revolt: Yes, I really do mean organizing and overthrowing the current government and replacing it with one without women's suffrage. I don't even really think that the threat of revolution will work, because far too many politicians will be out of a job if women's suffrage is removed.

So tell me again how he is in any form, a person one should be defending or advocating for?

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Eww, intellectual superior. Maybe I have just been unemployed more to put more time in thinking about it.

The social contract we have enjoyed since before we began recorded time had to of been forged from violence, especially if you believe in evolution. This is an accepted theory among many anthropologist based on the evidence of so many cultures being far more violent and yet as time moved forward the social contract evolved reducing violence. Additionally, as the social contract evolved government had to be created to enforce it. Once government has the ability of enforcement and defense of itself, historically, violence is the only way to reduce or remove it.

He asked some valid questions, if a system has the ability of defense of itself from changes it deems inappropriate, how do you change the system without violence? One question I have for you, violence comes in many shades, if the system is already limiting your rights and it has reached a point that is utterly unacceptable in your opinion of a society, is violence acceptable and who has actually struck first?

By what ever deities that actually interfere with our lives, I do hope he is wrong about the requirements and that I am too dumb to see away through. However, if it does go dark, I would rather a brother who will swing back then one who has already chosen to fall down by not accepting that violence maybe necessary.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

IF a time comes when violence is a neccesity, i would gladly raise up arms, but that time is nowhere near, and with the current state of feminism dying out in mainstream society, it will be highly unlikely that it ever will come to pass.

to your question of how do you change a system without violence, you do it internally, over many years. Vote for politicians that care about men's rights, become a politician yourself, step away from the stigma that "voting does nothing", educate young men and women on the fact that both sides face atrocities in various forms, allow the truth to be spread, and work towards bettering our society as a whole.

Violence does indeed come in many shades, but revolt and "tearing down the government" has clear connotations of legitimate physical violence against one another, which is not the way you go about illiciting healthy change in a democracy, in a dictatorship, you are absolutely correct that it is in fact a neccesity, but we do not live in a dictatorship regardless of what tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists suggest, we have the freedom and right of the vote, and the population of men and women is relatively equal throughout western society, with that in mind it is entirely feasible to suggest a strategy of internal reform. This is the major difference between the options i have provided and he has provided, i advocate for reform, he advocates for revolt. Can you name a single time in modern western society in which revolt has illicited positive change? i cannot, and the last semi-large scale attempt i can think of in western society would have been either the BLM movement(which is largely viewed by the population as a whole as a hate movement), the actions of the black bloc in toronto during the g20 riots(which in the aftermath made the conversation more about the riot itself than the issues being proposed by the peaceful protestors, in which i was a member of, and unjustly thrown in a cell for 72 hours because of the actions of said rioters) and the quebecois seperation movement under pierre elliot trudeau's regime, which is by and large considered the most atrocious terrorist act in modern canadian history.

To your question of who has struck first, it is quite obvious who has struck first already, the people we allow to be voted into positions of power, the key word there being allow, It is widely known that the 55% of women that vote over men doesn't have anything to do with population, or ability to vote, it has to do with how many citizens are actually registered to vote, and how many people enact their right to vote, if every male and well meaning female citizen capable of registering to vote voted in the correct manner, the appropriate social changes could in fact occur, and i believe they would.

[–]Demonspawn2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

which is not the way you go about illiciting healthy change in a democracy

Healthy change is only possible in a healthy democracy.

It is widely known that the 55% of women that vote over men doesn't have anything to do with population

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

Table 2:

138,053,563 total males, 143,368,343 total females.
41,245,211 males 19 or under, 39,228,054 females 19 or under.
96,808,352 males 20 or older, 104,140,289 females 20 or older.
200,948,641 potential voters, women are 51.824%, men are 48.175%

Women are ~52% of the adult population.

Where does 55% come from?

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287

In 2010 an estimated 5.85 million people in the United States (2.5% of the nation's voting age population, excluding DC)

2.5% of the total population, or roughly 5% of men (women make up 16% of felony convictions). ~4.2% of men (.8% of women) are disenfranchised due to felonies.

Christ... that's even worse since the last time I did the math. Women make up over 56% of suffrage today.

if every male and well meaning female citizen capable of registering to vote voted in the correct manner, the appropriate social changes could in fact occur

But they don't. That's the issue. Women vote for more services paid for by mostly men.

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

an extra 5% of the voters does not make it impossible for reform to come through democratic process, especially when if even 10% of the female population agrees that men are in need of some serious help(and by the poll done a year ago by this specific subreddit shows anything, it's that a decent sized chunk of people on this sub are actually women) then the majority vote can go in favor of assistance towards men.

And here we come to the actual issue at hand, men and women not voting, period. I personally know NUMEROUS women who agree that men are currently suffering in our day and age, and believe that there needs to be a reform, out of the women i know that believe this, maybe a third of them actually vote, the rest don't due to the common sentiment that "voting doesn't change anything" (which if that were truly the case, nothing at all would have changed over the past 100 years)

Women and men vote for services paid for mostly by men yes, but men do benifit from some of those services, in fact the law states that if a business or service is tax or government funded, it cannot turn away anyone based on gender, and in any case in which it has happened, the onus is on the person in question to present it to the powers that be, but most don't.

You also cannot claim justifiably that women are in it against men, because that is just not true, it is a lie that has been perpetuated by extremists in the manosphere who have left their tinfoil hats on for too long. If women we're entirely out to get men(as a whole) we wouldn't have people like:

karen straughan
christina hoff sommers
janet bloomfield
Sh0e 0n Head
L0LFeminism

Or any of the other female advocates for men's rights, this in a nutshell is exactly the problem i have with MGTOW as a group, the constant misinformation spreading that all women are out to get men, when it is literally only third wave feminists that are out to get men.

How about you touch on some of the other points i said instead of picking just one to deal with?

I respect that you've shied away from using inflammatory and crass rhetoric and that we can actually debate this in a civil manner now.

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I actually know some of those names, I am not to out of touch of social circles.

Well, something for you to look up, how many domestic abuse shelters are funded by the government and how many men use them, and if possible how many have been turned away. I am domestic abuse survivor, I went to a shelter, I was turned away because women, literally. My presence could trigger the women there. I tried to present it, I called the police, I called the news. At least the news outlet in Arizona explained why they would not cover it, not enough would care. I had no money and a son to take care of, taking time at a government building just was not an option.

No, I am not MGTOW, but I do agree with Red Pill. In my experience, most MGTOW and RP do not believe that all women are out to get them, but their general ambivalence and/or individual lack of agency makes it really hard to trust them. When a woman, who does not identify as a feminist, can say to you she does not care what happens to a survivor of a false rape claim because other women then it is hard not to say that all of them are feminists. Because, as near as I can tell, all women are like that, that in they can refute a complaint on the grounds of but women

One of the tenets of RP is AWALT. It does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean literally every woman that has/is/will exist will do that to extremes. It means that every woman will act that way but you don't know how it will manifest or how strongly, but prepare for the butthurt, remember don't give a fuck, and move on if/when it happens. For RP the unicorn is the woman who has the least amount of these tendencies to the point we no longer discern it in them. RP is also about how to ration your resources to women, to not give your all, like saving, to them because they appear to expect it repeatedly.

Again, I do not believe any MGTOW or RP man believes that all women are against them. It really isn't so and, yes, it would be hard, I think, impossible, to prove it without using feminist logic. The teachings of RP are not that all women are horrible, it is that statistically you will become involved with a woman who is not worth your time and here is how you deal with it. RP is founded on a lot of PUA (pickup artist) skills, but RP and its subset MGTOW are about how to improve yourself first, and many of the lessons do relate to sexual fluency, which is where I think we get the players image. The kind of people you refer to, the hate all women, only good for pump n' dump, are the ones we describe as being in the anger phase. Some stay there. Men in general are taught we should move forward but most are not taught how to handle rejection and when your life's work crumbles around you because a woman whines it is hard to figure it out. RP teaches improve yourself, improve how the opposite gender sees you. Most of us do not care if a woman is in a higher position so long as she meets the same requirements men do, which is she earned it.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with most of what you said, however, i know from experience that a good chunk of women are not how RP or MGTOW describes them, my sister believes false accusers should receive half the sentence of a rape claim for a false accusation, my mother believes they should get a quarter of the sentence, my mother's PSW believes they should get the exact same sentence, several of my ex girlfriends agree they should get some form of sentence, every single woman i have asked about it believe that at bare minimum a false rape accuser should lose their bondability(as it could be construed as a form of fraud), NUMEROUS women i know believe that the recent jian ghomeshi trial should have had the accusers met with at bare minimum a perjury charge, the one thing remains persistent amongst them all however, they believe that they should face legal ramifications for a false accusation as even a single false rape accusation makes anyone who is a victim of an actual rape have a more difficult time being believed(a sentiment i share).

It truely sucks to hear that was your experience, however i would have gone to a state senator, or perhaps gathered more people in your situation and started a class action lawsuit if i was in your shoes. By the very basis of discrimination laws, all victims of domestic abuse deserve some form of shelter, and it is by and large organizations such as NOW that cause such things to happen.

Using men's right's activist logic of switching the genders, the "statistcal average of women not worth your time" could go both ways as well, there are just as many shit relationships and shit men that women have to face, and with that logic it comes across semi-petty that men have a movement that's dedicated to (essentially) saying "fuck it, i got fucked over so i give up". RP have similar issues, and the only principal that they follow that i genuinely agree with is the one about bettering oneself before worrying about relationships, but as far as i was concerned, that is legitimately just common sense, i was taught at a very young age that you cannot be happy with another if you are not capable of being happy alone.

Why i have never agreed with AWALT, is because it is literally a reactionary statement to "all men rape" "all men are misogynistic" "all men have privelege" and has no other basis in reality other than being a counter-culture to *feminist rhetoric, I don't mean to sound condescending, but nearly every woman i have met has proven to be an entirely different entity, and shows agency, the "women lack agency" trope, is one that i genuinely find to be the worst of the worst as it's once again a reactionary statement that literally *agrees with third wave feminist logic, and as such should be taken with a heaping pile of salt.

In relation to your personal experience with domestic abuse i feel i should share a story of my own;

When i was 17, i had a girl accuse me(whome i had never slept with) of knocking her up, via rape none the less. When my friends, family, girlfriend, etc, heard this tale, they all instantaneously viewed it as a lie, not because this girl was a pathological liar, but because They knew exactly what type of person i was, they instantly discounted her story, and one friend took it a step further and demanded her to either take a pregnancy test to prove she was pregnant, or take back her statement, or they would file a charge of defamation of character with the police on my behalf. She instantly retracted the statement, and that was that. The friend who had demanded the evidence of the account was a female, an ex girlfriend nonetheless, and an ex girlfriend in which i had a very rocky breakup with.

My genuine ascertation regarding red pill and MGTOW logic of women, is that they have heard far too many horror stories and are legitimately afriad, i cannot blame them, but i genuinely feel that they need to take their head out of the sand for a moment and realize that there is a drastic difference between real life, and the internets.

To end this off, the only people i have ever heard in real life preach any of the things you have currently said women do, have come from the mouths of feminists, and no one else, and until i see the average joe, and not bleeding heart libtard feminist sjw's spewing that rhetoric, i will continue to believe it so. The moment i hear anyone use a stupid sjw/feminist buzzword, they lose any chance at an acquaintanceship in my life, and in my opinion, that is the best defense against such things.

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe I'd have a different opinion if I knew one woman with a similar sentiment.

You are attempting to disprove my anecdotal experience, that is hard, I should not have presented as such. Most of the problems in my life go back to a moment where I chose to commit to a far from perfect woman. Now I am considered misogynist because I expect a woman to prove she can tend a household or something that is more than a cum bucket for me in trade of my labor.

As for my situation, when you have a mouth to feed that is not your own and happen to be male, you are better off squaring your shoulders and moving on. Sad but fact. I had no support, I was about 3,000 miles from the nearest family support, so I did what any man would do, I chose between fight an uphill battle with no support, or buckle down and provide for my son. You?

As far as the RP part goes, your only chance of modifying my opinion is introducing me to women in your life that actually have these qualities you speak of. Every woman in my life blames her male SO or men in general for their problems.

On the other hand, unlike you, I will always take a moment to hear out a SJW once because they might have found legitimate logic. You do not have to agree with me. I search out discussion because I hope my views are wrong, and that I can find someone with facts, or the ability to prove me wrong and does. The problem is that there are facts that support each of our sides. As I stated, AWALT does not declare all women as 100% agent-less hypergamous entities, there is even acknowledgement that men have similar qualities, the discussion quickly went from do we TO ok we do, can we identify how bad. The point of RP is to teach men do not put all your eggs in one basket, do not mix your entire life with one woman, and here are some horror stories to make sure you take care of yourself first.

I have stood by two male friends here in my home state on charges of rape, both innocent, one was with me when the supposed rape took place. All I ask is that you consider the following perspective:

Had you had a life in which nearly every woman acted like what MGTOW/RP portrays, or at least the ones you remember and you have no anecdotal reason to believe otherwise, would you be the man you are now?

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was not attempting to refute your anecdotal evidence, and if it came across that way i apologize, i know several horror stories of people facing the exact same turmoil you had and find it highly disparaging. If anything it makes me understand why you would subscribe to MGTOW/RP beliefs without being one yourself.

In your shoes, i absolutely would have buckled down and provided for my son as well, and the fact that you did is an amazing feat, what i meant when i said that was once i was out of the fire, i would have made sure that that discrimination was dealt with to the furtest extent possible.

If you lived in canada, i would gladly introduce you to some of these women, as i feel everyone should have a chance to find a genuine, true, selfless, caring person who can feel for others and be willing to understand and empathize with other peoples viewpoints...idk, maybe that's why i have rarely been in a situation such as that, because i have VERY high standards of whom i let into my life.

I will almost always take a moment to hear out an sjw, but the minute they spew the rhetoric i spoke of, they lose any chance of having any sort of significant position in my life, I'll speak to them, i'll engage them, i'll even be friendly to them, but they will never be a friend of mine.

I'd like to believe you about AWALT, but the fact that it is called AWALT makes it incredibly hard to even consider buying into the philosophy, it's similar to saying all men are rapists, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would instantly call that bullshit, and it's part of the reason why feminists are losing so much credibility, if RP want more people to believe what they're preaching, they shouldn't make broad generalizations like feminists, you can say whatever you like to convince me otherwise, but the minute you use the word "all" you can't turn back around and say "you know what i mean" saying "all" is disingenuous.

As i've already said, i can agree with the focusing on oneself before worrying about having a SO, and i can agree with the not putting all your eggs in one basket, but everything else in my honest opinion comes across as purely reactionary.

If i had a life full of women similar to how MGTOW/RP portrays them, i'd have more of a belief that i am surrounded by the worst type of people, and be more concerned with my choice of friends/girlfriends and my decision making ability to be perfectly frank, i'd own up to the fact that i more than likely make very poor decisions when it comes to women, and friends, instead of blaming it on other people, as if i were some sort of spoilt millenial.(no offense meant to you or any others)

[–]GeminiEngine1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is a PSW, your mother's?

A part of getting my life together I returned to my home state. Does not mean I could not have done something but by the time the dust settled I had more on my day to day plate with myself and my son it did not come to mind.

On an odd note, before my son and ex, I had looked into emmigrate to Canada. They wouldn't touch me.

And I agree you were not attempting to refute my anecdotal experiences, at "worst" broaden my perspectives.

I agree that life often has to many low quality people around me, and is something I am making all effort to fix. But I would like to try another way to explain RP. First why I am, another level headed quality theory crafter in RP is always useful compared to all those in the anger phase that we have.

I believe we both agree that the current legal and financial landscape greatly favors women to such an extent that it can be dangerous to pursue relations. Now the comparison(s) I am about to make is a bit of a leap, apples and oranges, but they are both fruit, in this case dangerous.

We teach soldiers to treat every moment on the battlefield as if you could be killed because you don't know where every munition is going to come from, yet not every munition will kill a given soldier. I don't know about Canada, but relationships here in the States can have life long altering effects, good and bad, that you did not cause. RP is about remembering that the bad ones put on game faces that could convince you otherwise and then leave you when it suits them. By teaching that "AWALT" (duck in every foxhole) it is also encouragement to remember that you don't know all there is about them, don't be deceived by the "virtue" of womanhood.

American education is far less than what it should/could be, I think, but their are numerous examples of how people are taught this way here, and the corollary, it make sense we would teach relationship to adults the same way. From our history the battle of bunker/breeds hill (supposedly a defining moment in our war of independence), or the Charles Bohr's model of the atom because it is easier to parse for beginners.

If you had to crash course random internet strangers on the unknown/hidden dangers would you rather tell them the field has some mines or the field is full of mines to ensure their safety?

PS, In my RES I you are now dubbed the "Intelligent MRA"

EDIT: I suppose it should be A*MBT All Wo/men Might Be That

EDIT: To address the points you made about some of the teachings of Feminists, I agree with some. It is sad that any person should have to suffer from violence, sexual or not, but by teaching that any man could be like that, it is more likely to get women to think about their safety. Take control of your safety by acting as if others are out to get you, corrollary, only you have direct influence over your safety.

[–]BlightedArrow912 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A PSW is a Personal Support worker, essentially a nurse without nursing training meant to provide support and assistance towards people with disabilities, or the elderly(my mother is the former)

I completely understand why you didn't, No need to explain any further, i'll readily admit i'm more vindictive to most, and that would of had a lot to do with me not letting it go until i saw justice if i was in your shoes.

In canada it is most certainly the same(in fact worst, considering were a shitstain liberal feminazi haven, that caters to women so much that they are considered a protected class, thus meaning that discriminatory acts such as women's only shelters, and DM shelters being legally allowed to do what they did to you), and have almost always kept my gaurd up whenever i have met someone unless they can prove irrefutably(over quite a long time) that i can trust them, and even then i will never give a single person in my life every bit of myself(Some may consider this an RP trait, but i see it more as protecting oneself from absolute harm from just about anyone, not just women) I can 100% respect what the RP states in those sort of means, where it becomes an issue is to specify it to anyone one gender. This may sound paranoid, but i take the AWALT approach to ALL people of all genders, but i don't ever call it something that "all" people do, If i were to brand name my viewpoint/ideology on the matter it would be "PYAAC"(protect yourself at all costs) or "NTAC" (never trust anyone completely)

If i were to crash course random strangers, i would most certainly tell them the field is full of mines, but i would make sure to utilize specific language as to avoid shitstain trolls, feminists, sjw's etc, calling me a bigot or whatnot. If they have nothing to complain about, they have to make something up, and making something up makes them look incredibly petty and stupid, If any of the above were to hear the AWALT statement, they'd have a pretty easy time justifying to random internet strangers, and people in real life that it is a bigoted movement, know what i mean?

Response to 1st edit: see! now you're getting what i'm saying, that is a statement i could legitimately get behind and agree with.

Edit 2 response: I agree with some as well, because the things that don't pander to pure hatred of men, and getting a leg up on men, can legitimately be benificial to women.

But that is the inherent issue with the statement though, statements that make broad generalizations (eg: "all women are like that", "all men are rapists") pander to peoples fears and insecurities, and can legitimately lead to unwarrented panic, and that is the issue that i take with either statement, to the uninitiated, it could be viewed as 100% fact, and if it is viewed as 100% fact, then it could lead to it becoming a legitimate view that literally ALL women are like that, or ALL men are rapists, me, you, RP'ers, and Feminazi's, know that it isn't true that ALL do or are either, but some random person might be influenced enough to believe it actually is all

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

an extra 5% of the voters does not make it impossible

It makes for a 14% difference in voting power. That combined with group preference for women's concerns in men (weakly) and women (strongly) make it impossible.

then the majority vote can go in favor of assistance towards men.

Do you remember the "war on women"? The "war" which was having women pay for their on contraceptives under Obamacare.... the standard that would apply to men under the very same law?

They can, but they won't. A whole giant kerfuffle over women not being treated better than men should be clear as a bell.

Women and men vote for services paid for mostly by men yes, but men do benifit from some of those services

Which is why I want you to look up the ratios. Percentage of taxes paid by men vs percentage of government service dollars granted to women.

When you do, you'll be shocked.

And then remember that government has increased 2000% (relative to GDP, and not a typo) since women's suffrage. 2% (1776 to 1920) to near 40% today.

Want a 50% effective pay raise? Repeal women's suffrage. Government is taking 1/3 of your income to bribe women voters... and they're taking the bait at your expense.

the constant misinformation spreading that all women are out to get men

Men understand that generalizations have exceptions.

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If women are 55% percent of the voting population, how do you get 14% discrepency in voting power? your math seems off there, and what group exactly are you talking about, you seem to be ignoring anything i have stated about working towards educating the poulation on the needs and worries of men as a whole.

You mean the "war on women" propagandized by mainstream media? that anyone with a sound logical brain dismissed as pure stupidity? and that the only reason that people were offended by it in the first place is due to the significant lack of male contraceptives? which is in fact a men's rights issue?

How exactly can you state they can but they won't without any valid evidence to support such a claim, the only only organization i see preaching "some are more equal than others" are third wave feminists, of which the number of people identifying as feminists has dropped by 10% in a single year(from 28% to 18%) the average citizen does not want one gender to be treated better than the other, they want both to be treated the same, and any person, man or woman, with a sound head on their shoulders would dismiss any belief that women are deserving of more rights and liberties than men.

I have looked up the ratios, and while i do agree yes that the current status is abysmal, as i had already said, those same governmental services are available to men as well, they just choose not to utilize them as often, or are in a position in which they don't need to, this is, if anything something that can be viewed as a strength on men's part. If a male tried to access these services and was denied, it would be a valid case for a discrimination suit, and could and more than likely will result in whatever service or organization does such a thing in losing its governmental funding(unless you live in the shithole that i do((canada)) in which women are considered an oppressed class and thus can pull that sort of shit through legal loopholes)

Why would i want to repeal women's suffrage? that right there is an outright telling that you view women as subhuman, everyone deserves the right to vote, and to take the vote from one side, to benifit another because "muh oppression" is exactly what men's rights organizations are trying to fight back against feminists for.

Men also understand that generalizations are largely construde as not good arguementative points, if we can agree that to discredit and ignore the MGTOW belief of "all women are out to get men" than this conversation can become vastly more productive, as from what i can tell, we both have valid beliefs, i just don't condone violence for numerous reasons, one of the many is the possiblity of harm and death to innocents through whatever violent means revolt would come in(domestic terrorism, bombings, riots, etc) as i said, i have bore witness personally to a riot, and both sides did me a disservice during it going on, the black bloc attacked me when i tried to stop them from beating the shit out of cop cars and stores, and the cops arrested me and locked me up for 72 hours solely for being there, the few valid points the black bloc had were discredited because they engaged in violence, and any and all other points made by peaceful protestors were discredited because they were automatically thrown in as the same lot as the rioters, if even one men's rights group resorted to violence, the entire movement would be discredited, and this is something one must keep in mind.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If women are 55% percent of the voting population, how do you get 14% discrepency in voting power?

Now that I'm thinking about it, it's bigger than that (and, to be honest, I don't remember what numbers I punched to get 14).

Women are 56% of the voting population, men are 44% of the voting population. That alone is a 12% spread (men behind by 6% women ahead by 6%). But because it's a ratio, that spread alone doesn't tell the whole story:

In a world with 100 people, 56 being women and 44 being men, 21% of the women would have to abstain from the vote in order for men and women to have equal voting power. Another way to look at it is that each man's vote would have to count as 127% (27% more) of a vote in order for men and women to have equal voting power, or a woman's vote would have to count as 78% of a vote (22% less) for equal voting power.

The problem is, I can't remember if 21, 27, or 22 is the correct power difference (or if it's not any of those three). In any case, it's significant.

You mean the "war on women" propagandized by mainstream media?

Yes, that one. The same one that influenced tons of voters.

that anyone with a sound logical brain dismissed as pure stupidity?

Just like people dismissed "Only 15% of medical research goes to women diseases"...

and that the only reason that people were offended by it in the first place is due to the significant lack of male contraceptives?

What fantasy land are you living in? That might have been what MRAs were complaining about... but the general public was not.

How exactly can you state they can but they won't without any valid evidence to support such a claim

The evidence is there, but I'm making you look it up: The ratio of taxes paid by men, and the ratio of government money given to women.

I have looked up the ratios

Go ahead... say them out loud.

and while i do agree yes that the current status is abysmal

No... they're downright criminal. And when you consider that taxes increased 2000% since women's suffrage... they're oppressive.

those same governmental services are available to men as well

Nope. De facto perhaps, but far from de jure.

Why would i want to repeal women's suffrage?

Because it's oppressive to men. It's a moral hazard.

that right there is an outright telling that you view women as subhuman

Nope. It's that I link rights and responsibilities. It's women's right (vote) that men have the responsibility for (taxes). Of course women have been generous to themselves with men's money.

everyone deserves the right to vote

No. What is a vote? A vote is telling government how to spend the money it collects in taxes (and how much taxes to collect). Why give that power to those who don't contribute money to government?

Seriously. Go tell any family of 5 that the kids should vote on the household budget too because they also have the right to vote on it... see how silly that sounds. That's the exact same situation women's suffrage is: the contribute so little to the tax base, but we give them effective control of how it's spent (and how much to collect).

if we can agree that to discredit and ignore the MGTOW belief of "all women are out to get men"

You can't. Women's voting record demonstrates that women, in general, do see men as beasts of burden meant to serve them. And women's suffrage gives women government force to make that the law.

i just don't condone violence for numerous reasons, one of the many is the possiblity of harm and death to innocents through whatever violent means revolt would come in

Every war has civilian casualties. You do your best to minimize them, but you don't avoid war just because they'll exist.

if even one men's rights group resorted to violence, the entire movement would be discredited

Only if they lose the war.

Again, I'm not talking about random violence. I'm talking about overthrowing the government. It's a targeted objective.

And as for the violence... we can have it sooner (revolt) or we can have it later (collapse)... but we can't avoid it. The system is going down one way or the other.

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I completely understand the politcal viewpoint scale as i'd be considered hard centrist, but identify as a libertarian social-anarchist.

And here, first google link i found was actually the NYtimes and VOX QQ'ing about the low amount of feminazis in the world.

They even try to spin it with the whole "equal rights for women" which anyone who's for equal rights period would answer yes to that question regardless of if it was "equal rights for women/men/black/asian/latino/white/purple/attack helicopter"(i fucking had to throw attack helicopter in there...come'on)

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/

Edit: here's one bu AVfM if you don't want to give the NYtimes ad rev

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/new-poll-results-the-decimation-of-feminism/

[–]GeminiEngine1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I decided to wait till I had a clear head and some sleep, before I looked for and reviewed those studies for data accuracy, but I could not find anything off with the math itself. I still disagree with the sample size required to obtain a good confidence level due to self/selection biases, but that is my argument with the practitioners and my past instructors.

However, the question itself was loaded. It appears to entrust to the person taking the survey to have an understanding of Feminism and the efforts that are made under the name of Feminism. That is a big problem to me. Although, that the movement of Feminism having little mainstream support is nice to see.

Thank you for pointing me in the direction.

I actually read the line through and chuckled at the attack helicopter, but really? No love for the Chinook?

[–]BlightedArrow912 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Uh except he's right, provide ANY proof that we cop to politically correct speech

How about from your own reply to me?

People like you are the reason the MRM hasn't made any impact, the minute you mgtow manbabies start spreading this butthurt hate against women and act as if they are some sort of big bad boogeyman enemy, we lose literally all credibility, do yourself a favor and make sure MGTOW explicitly mentions they aren't MRA's

That's PC bullshit.

Equality, IS the gold standard, sorry to burst your bubble but we don't want more rights than women, we don't want women to have more rights than us, we want everything to be fucking equal, what is so difficult to understand about equality?

More PC bullshit. Equality is not possible.

women having the right to vote is a GOOD thing

Research Bureaugamy and get back to me.

All you've proven is that you're a literal manbaby

And you've proven the linked post correct. Every argument it said you would make, you have made.

You're just pissed because it demonstrates the failure of your path.

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeminiEngine1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

lulz cuz i'm going to believe a MGTOW cuck has a girlfriend.

I love how you're moving the the crybully tactics of "waahhh he attackeded me" when you literally started all of this shit with an inflammatory comment.

Don't want to get insulted, don't insult, it's common sense.

I am quite well informed, and could give a flying fuck about my popularity, literacy has nothing to do with it at all either, If you had come in here acting like a decent human being, i'd of treated you like one, and we perhaps could have engaged in a meaningful and productive debate, but instead you MGTOW subbies decided to come here and poke fun and start shit, If you want to put down the sword and shield, and engage in actual conversation i'd be more than willing to, Otherwise i think we're done here, because this is going absolutely nowhere.

I suggest you get help for that cognitive dissonance btw.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow910 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What part of vote did you not understand, there's a 55% majority of female voters because less men vote, if more men voted, were alerted to the issues at hand, and had candidates that advocated their rights, things could move forward, all you've done is prove that more men need to vote.

I guess you don't understand: Of those who have the vote, 55% are women. Even if every man voted, women out number them.

So just to clarify, instead of doing things in a human manner you want violence right? why exactly do you see violence as the answer?

Because I know where rights come from: violence. And because I know women have voted the proxy violence of government to take from men to give to women. How else do you defeat that?

i didn't reallize not acting violently means being PC....TIL

It actually does. Men are exploited by the system. If you can't discuss removing the system then, yes... you are bowing to political correctness.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I guess you don't understand: Of those who have the vote, 55% are women. Even if every man voted, women out number them.

No, not true, don't spread misinformation, the statistic of 55% majority female voters comes from the total amount of people utilizing their right to vote, if you're going to quote something, be factually accurate about it.

Because I know where rights come from: violence. And because I know women have voted the proxy violence of government to take from men to give to women. How else do you defeat that?

why the flying fuck do you think violence is okay in any form, it isn't, we're not so oppressed that we need to engage in violent acts, and anyone who says this has some clear mental issues that need to be looked at.

It actually does. Men are exploited by the system. If you can't discuss removing the system then, yes... you are bowing to political correctness.

Discussing removing the system is perfectly fine, but discussing utilizing violence to remove the system is definitely not okay, and any true caring mra or egalitarian will tell you the same.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not true, don't spread misinformation, the statistic of 55% majority female voters comes from the total amount of people utilizing their right to vote, if you're going to quote something, be factually accurate about it.

WRONG(Check the last table).

Of those who are eligible for suffrage, women are 55%. Women make up 52.high% of adults over 18. The rest of the difference comes from disenfranchised men (ex-felons, etc.).

why the flying fuck do you think violence is okay in any form

Because it is. Without violence, you have no law.

we're not so oppressed that we need to engage in violent acts

Go find these two numbers: The percentage of taxes which are paid by men, and the percentage of social services granted to women. When you have those two numbers, come back to that statement and question it.

Discussing removing the system is perfectly fine, but discussing utilizing violence to remove the system is definitely not okay

How fucking else do you remove a system?

[–]BlightedArrow912 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

WRONG(Check the last table).

RIGHT, read your own evidence, the entire thing is about voter turnout, and reported voters, nothing about the current population of voting aged citizens, or anything thereof that would equate to anything you are saying, so sorry, you failed on that front.

Because it is. Without violence, you have no law.

Last time i checked, people don't get flogged in courtooms, they discuss and debate the point of innocence.

Go find these two numbers: The percentage of taxes which are paid by men, and the percentage of social services granted to women. When you have those two numbers, come back to that statement and question it.

Question what exactly? the fact that i still don't believe in violence against women and my own government? nothing will change that theory, you're just a disillusioned militant MGTOW, legitimately militant.

How fucking else do you remove a system?

You vote it out, or find alternative methods of removal, last time i checked ghandi didn't need to use violence to get his way.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By being arrested, last time i checked an arrest isn't always a violent act

It's the threat of violence. Why do you think cops carry guns?

you move to calling me a kid because

Because you are, and because I've refuted everything you've said.

The level of men's oppression is not high enough to demand violence

Until you have researched those two numbers, you don't even know what level of oppression men are facing. You are talking from your feels, not your reason (which is why we are calling you a SJW).

And until you are using reason, I can't reason you out of it. This conversation is over until you reply with those numbers.

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow911 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How many MRM members are willing to understand that the problem isn't feminists, but rather women and women's nature?

Women aren't the problem and feminism isn't the problem (although it is a symptom of the problem), the problem is that men have an innate outgroup bias towards women. Now this makes biological sense at a species level but not so much now that civilisation has rendered it moot. However the residual hangover is written into our DNA and can't merely be shedded just because equality sounds nice in principle. But blaming women or even feminism is dancing around why male disposability exists without acknowledging that it is the problem and that men are just as guilty if not moreso by using the power they do attain to act against their self interests and instead for the interests of the group that sees them as disposable.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link