"Man just hate women" The evolutionary response.

Darkseeker_Mau · 2020-01-03T20:02:23+00:00

Charles Darwin recognised a small number of traits that made domesticated species different from their wild ancestors, that could be obtained through different...

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

"Men" do not generally hate women. Some men, particularly manospherians do or at the very least have a great disdain for them.

Why wouldn't they? I want you to consider the following:

A man in 1860 in some tiny hamlet outside of Limerick, Ireland, works in a coal mine 12 hours a day, every day. Each day he walks home with the other miners. He's so covered in coal dust, his own children don't recognize him until he drags his exhausted ass up the front stoop of their hovel.

He goes inside and washes up in a bucket of frigid water his wife drew from a pump 100 yards from their home. She puts a plate of whatever she could scrape together in front of him. Her hands are chapped from washing his clothes and pinning them on the line. He hacks half a lung up into a handkerchief. There's blood on the linen, and it's disgusting, and it's her job to wash that gross thing, along with the children's diapers, in a cauldron on their coal stove.

He hands her his weekly pay packet. She takes what she needs for the maintenance of the house and the children, and hands him back enough to have a pleasant Friday night at the pub. She thinks briefly about retaining something to put in savings and build over time to see a dentist, but she knows he'll only take her money and pull what few teeth she still has.

He does this every day but Sunday for two decades, until he dies along with 30 other men in a colliery accident. At the hearing to determine fault or no fault on the part of the company, the inspector begs her to testify. He tells her juries don't care about the dead men, they care about the widows and the bereaved children. He comes right out and says she won't get any money unless she puts herself on display in all her victimized glory, because her husband's life is worth nothing to the jury OR the company. But she's a sympathetic figure. She, and her children, are the true victims of the corporate negligence that killed her husband.

So she testifies, and receives enough settlement money from the company to scratch out a subsistence living until she dies of consumption at age 55.

According to the feminist narrative, this woman's husband was her oppressor. He essentially subordinated her and exploited her as a domestic slave and a brood mare. And she would have been better off working outside the home for a wage than being forced to be dependent on his money.

And women, by and large, tolerate this fucked up, slanderous narrative about their own great great grandfathers being taught in universities and propagated in the media. Many of them believe it.

Why wouldn't manospherians take a dim view of most women?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I would not deny that there is some unfortunate rhetoric that exists today about men in general. I would, however, not agree that it’s existence justifies the disdain of women as a group generally that is common within the manosphere. I realize a lot of it is reactionary to feminism, but a lot of it goes beyond that too. Red pill for example is not just about what they deem to be inaccurate feminist narratives that demonize men, it goes way beyond that. MRAs I suppose would be the closest thing in the manosphere that corresponds to trying to correct a narrative they believe is harmful to men.

Personally I did not grow up being inundated in the feminist academia narrative you’re describing, and I cannot say I know many who have. I belong to a couple of womens groups but they are work related, and other than some metoo stuff (which is pretty rampant in my field), we rarely even talk about men, it is mostly about lifting each other up and supporting each other in obtaining leadership roles since my field is so male dominated (although it goes beyond this, it’s very political too which is a bigger factor IMO).

Im a little confused about your example regarding a hypothetical jury trial. Of course I don’t know how trials were done back then but I do know how they are done now and that’s not typically how it goes, although I am not sure if that is really relevant to your overall point.

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I would not deny that there is some unfortunate rhetoric that exists today about men in general. I would, however, not agree that it’s existence justifies the disdain of women as a group generally that is common within the manosphere.

You appear to have intentionally missed my point. The point is, the "unfortunate" (read: maliciously false and defamatory) rhetoric about men as a group is believed and/or tolerated by the vast majority of women (and a lot of men).

Red pill for example is not just about what they deem to be inaccurate feminist narratives that demonize men, it goes way beyond that.

Because part of their mission is to inoculate as many men as possible against the vagaries of vag worship (sorry, could not resist). They are compensating for a misleading overabundance of positive mainstream rhetoric about women and an even more misleading absence of the opposite.

If Red Pill spaces are the sole arena for discussing negative generalities about women and femininity, then these discussions will make up a large proportion of the discussion there.

Think about it this way. Every space is an appropriate space to air one's grievances against all men. Because of this, the concentration of male-bashing in a particular mainstream space is going to be lower than the concentration of woman-bashing in the few non-mainstream places where it's permitted.

MRAs I suppose would be the closest thing in the manosphere that corresponds to trying to correct a narrative they believe is harmful to men.

Part of correcting that narrative is addressing the absence of unflattering (but generally accurate) information about female behavior and psychology.

Personally I did not grow up being inundated in the feminist academia narrative you’re describing, and I cannot say I know many who have.

Really? You were never taught in school that women were historically oppressed? That it was an injustice on the part of men, due to sexism alone, that women were denied the right to vote for so long, and that it was only the brave suffragettes risking their lives that won women that right? You were never taught that your mother or grandmother, for completely arbitrary reasons, could not legally get a credit card, loan or mortgage in their own names until the 1970s? That it used to be legal for men to beat their wives? That women couldn't serve on juries until whatever date, because sexism against women? That women didn't have the right to work outside the home until feminists came along and gained that for them?

These are all either false or present an incomplete and misleading picture. My son learned these things (among others) in his grade 12 social studies course this year, a course that he needs in order to graduate. And he had been taught them in previous years, to some degree or other. The only reason he knows all of the above information is false or misleading is because I'm his mom.

Granted, I'm in Canada, but I'm assuming that there are many kids in the US, at all levels of primary and secondary education, who are being fed this bullshit.

it is mostly about lifting each other up and supporting each other in obtaining leadership roles since my field is so male dominated (although it goes beyond this, it’s very political too which is a bigger factor IMO).

I'm curious what your field is, though I'll understand if you can't answer. My man is an engineer, working for a major multinational firm. He works on a floor of about 150 IT personnel, engineers, computer scientists, PLC programmers, operations liaisons and software maintenance staff. Most are contractors, meaning they have no job security, get no benefits like drug coverage and paid sick/personal days, not even statutory holiday pay. Some of these contractors have 15+ years at the firm, and 30+ years of experience in the field.

The demographics are as follows: 60% Asian, 40% white.

There are 5 women on the floor, all Asian, 3 of them first gen Canadians. The longest any of them has been there is 4 years. The 4th of these 5 women was recently made an official employee after just 1.5 years working there.

At a recent company-wide "town hall", where the execs were bragging about record high revenue, an audience member asked if that meant they'd start hiring on some of the contractors. The response? They were aggressively recruiting at black colleges in the US, and were always interested in hiring on women and indigenous people. They just came right out and said it.

Translation? If you're a white or Asian man, you're a contractor for life. Lucky you if you were hired on 20 years ago, when HR didn't prioritize diversity.

Im a little confused about your example regarding a hypothetical jury trial. Of course I don’t know how trials were done back then but I do know how they are done now and that’s not typically how it goes, although I am not sure if that is really relevant to your overall point.

A few years ago, someone sent me a link to a contemporary commentary on official inquiries and hearings into fatal colliery accidents in Britain in the mid to late 1800s. It contained excerpts from the official transcripts and other details, with commentary by the inspector tasked with proving the company was negligent or otherwise at fault. A finding of fault meant that the owner of the mine could be forced to pay compensation to the families of the victims.

In one insane case he related, the third to last witness was still testifying on the stand while the jury was passing among them and signing a decree absolving the company of wrongdoing.

He was outraged, and demanded the adjudicator (a magistrate, IIRC) reprimand the jury and quash the finding. The jurors objected that it was dinnertime and they just wanted to get it over with and go eat. To the adjudicator's credit, he put his foot down. I don't recall the outcome of that case (it's been ages since I read the document), but my overall impression was that juries often found no fault on the part of the mine owner, sometimes even when numerous credible witnesses (including foremen) testified to the company's gross negligence and indifference to worker safety.

The author states outright in his commentary that descriptions of the mangled and burned bodies of men after an explosion, even from the emotionally traumatized and visibly injured men who survived, did not tug the heartstrings of the jury as effectively as a single weeping widow with her children in tow.

That the bereaved woman and children were the most effective weapon he could use to convince juries to hold companies accountable for the wrongful deaths of men surely casts the "men oppressed women" narrative into doubt. Looks more like a 1850s coal miner version of "women are the primary victims of war. They lose their fathers, their husbands, their sons in combat."

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You appear to have intentionally missed my point.

I did not "intentionally" miss your point. Maybe give me the benefit of the doubt here.

The point is, the "unfortunate" (read: maliciously false and defamatory) rhetoric about men as a group is believed and/or tolerated by the vast majority of women (and a lot of men).

I do not think, even taking this at face value, that it justifies similarly false and demeaning rhetoric about women from manospherians. Which would also seem pretty hypocritical if that is where it stems from. But I suppose they would not care much about that even if some agreed.

They are compensating for a misleading overabundance of positive mainstream rhetoric about women and an even more misleading absence of the opposite.

I understand that is the given reason, "anger phase" and trying to help men "wake up" and all that. I am not certain that is the entire reason for it.

Part of correcting that narrative is addressing the absence of unflattering (but generally accurate) information about female behavior and psychology.

I do not agree that manospherians are generally accurate about women. There is definitely kernels of truth in a lot of the "theory" but a whole lot of it is also inaccurate IMO.

Really? You were never taught in school that women were historically oppressed?

I'm sure I was at some point in time during a history class. At no point in time did my public school upbringing teach me men were horrible oppressors or anything of the sort. Even in college when I took a human rights colloquium where I learned about FGM it was not taught in some sort of "men are the perpetrators of women's problems" or anything like that. The feminism that I was exposed to growing up as a girl in the 90s was more "you can do/be anything!" rather than "men are oppressors and responsible for women's problems" or the like.

hat it was an injustice on the part of men, due to sexism alone, that women were denied the right to vote for so long, and that it was only the brave suffragettes risking their lives that won women that right? You were never taught that your mother or grandmother, for completely arbitrary reasons, could not legally get a credit card, loan or mortgage in their own names until the 1970s? That it used to be legal for men to beat their wives? That women couldn't serve on juries until whatever date, because sexism against women? That women didn't have the right to work outside the home until feminists came along and gained that for them?

Sure I learned about the suffragette movement and women's right to vote but again, this was not taught to me in some way that painted it as men being these evil creatures holding women back. The rest of it, no I cannot say this was ever included in my curriculum, even in an elective class I took on women/race in law in literature there was nothing of that sort. In undergrad we had, like events to support rape victims and at some point the vagina monologues came into town, but that was about all the big feminism on campus that I saw and it again was not about men being perpetrators.

I'm curious what your field is, though I'll understand if you can't answer.

I am a trial attorney. I represent injured people. There has been some push for more diversity in my field but plaintiff's firms here are generally less corporate, we don't have "diversity policies" and the like. They basically just hire who they think can bring in business and make $$.

That the bereaved woman and children were the most effective weapon he could use to convince juries to hold companies accountable for the wrongful deaths of men surely casts the "men oppressed women" narrative into doubt.

While I don't litigate these cases myself, my firm does a lot of asbestos/meso cases. Similar to your coal miner example, this means blue collar men who have died or are soon to die at the hands of corporate negligence. And yes, a grieving spouse and children are more effective in a courtroom than an empty chair for a dead person, who obviously cannot testify. But they are there to talk about the deceased as well. And if it was a woman that died, the same strategy would be used and we would put up the grieving widower (assuming they played well). This is a reality for multiple reasons, not just evidentiary in nature but also psychologically.

Overall, I do not disagree with you that there is definitely a narrative which exists that men oppress/have oppressed women historically. But I do not understand why that would justify the rhetoric we are talking about. At least based upon my own personal values, it does not.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

1/2

I do not think, even taking this at face value, that it justifies similarly false and demeaning rhetoric about women from manospherians.

Some examples of which are?

I do not agree that manospherians are generally accurate about women. There is definitely kernels of truth in a lot of the "theory" but a whole lot of it is also inaccurate IMO.

It might help us understand each other if you itemized those kernels of truth and the alleged inaccuracies.

I'm sure I was at some point in time during a history class. At no point in time did my public school upbringing teach me men were horrible oppressors or anything of the sort.

Those things were being done to women, these unjustified and arbitrary limitations were being placed on them, leading women as a class to live in a state of unjust disadvantage as second class citizens.

Who, if not men, was doing that to them? Aliens? The Illuminati?

And if it was aliens or the Illuminati, why didn't men do something about it? Didn't they care about their women and girls? Why did they just go along with a system that was so unfair to half the population? For their own benefit?

"you can do/be anything!" rather than "men are oppressors and responsible for women's problems" or the like.

My grandmother was born in 1909 into rural poverty and attended school sporadically until grade 8, when her family needed her to work full time on the farm and help raise her younger siblings. She struck out on her own at around age 20. By the time she married my significantly younger grandfather several years later, she was running a department store.

She lived the former and rejected the latter, and had no use for the second wavers who sometimes made the news in the 1960s and 70s.

I am a trial attorney. I represent injured people. There has been some push for more diversity in my field but plaintiff's firms here are generally less corporate, we don't have "diversity policies" and the like. They basically just hire who they think can bring in business and make $$.

In Ontario just a few years ago, the Law Society of Upper Canada (the provincial bar association) made it mandatory that every applicant to the bar write a personal essay-form diversity pledge.

The law society is making it mandatory for lawyers and paralegals to abide by what it's calling a personal "statement of principles" that acknowledges they have an obligation to "promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public."

Proponents claim it represents a minute "incursion" on freedom and it's no biggie. Opponents see it as unlawful bureaucratic overreach and compelled speech.

Having been watching all things SJW closely for the last 10 years, I view it as the thin edge of a much larger wedge. The debate over Bill C-16 (opposition to which put Jordan Peterson on the map) was framed by proponents as much ado about nothing. It won't compel speech. No one will be forced to say "xe" or "xim" or "zir". Heck, the word "pronoun" doesn't even appear in the bill! No need to add clarifying language to the bill. You "crazy conservative conspiracy theorists" are worried over nothing!

Within 2 months of the law passing, BC's branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (Canada's largest public sector union) put out a video wherein one of their general counsel listed the reasons a federal employee should use people's preferred pronouns. First reason? "It's the law." Due to recent changes in federal legislation.

Two years after that, we had a lunatic with a fetish for 12 year old menstruating girls take 16 mostly immigrant (Muslim, Sikh, etc) women, mostly providing esthetician services out of their own homes often with small children around, to a human rights court because they declined to wax his lady balls.

While the HRC decided against this psycho and in favor of the defendants, they had the option to decline to hear the case at all, but didn't opt to.

And had this person's unsavory obsession with fantasies of helping pubescent girls insert their tampons in public bathroom stalls (among other disturbing things) not been adduced at the hearing, and had the plaintiff not been an obviously vexatious litigant who had actively sought out practitioners he knew would refuse him services so he could sue them, who knows?

Maybe the law in Canada right now would be that self identified women with male genitalia and male hormonal profiles can force women to touch their dicks and balls in their own homes regardless of religious or cultural restrictions.

This is a reality for multiple reasons, not just evidentiary in nature but also psychologically.

It was a much harsher time back then. Everyone was considered more expendable, and men were the most expendable of all.

To my mind, the effects on those left behind should never enter into the decision as to whether a company was at fault. They were at fault or they weren't, based on the evidence, not based on how many people died or how much their loved ones are suffering. The weeping widows' parade is for deciding damages. How gross was the negligence? How much suffering did it cause? But the fact that there is a widow or widower does not in itself implicate the company as negligent.

But that's just me, and a lot of people think I'm heartless.

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Overall, I do not disagree with you that there is definitely a narrative which exists that men oppress/have oppressed women historically. But I do not understand why that would justify the rhetoric we are talking about. At least based upon my own personal values, it does not.

You take offence at the fact that in a few places online, some of which have been sequestered, men are saying mean, denigrating and in your opinion untrue things about women. It upsets you. You find it unjust and unfair and unjustifiable.

What if that was what you saw when you watched CNN or MSNBC? Read Slate or Salon or the Guardian or the Washington Post? What if it was constantly trending on Twitter? What if your HR department instantiated it in company policy? What if your union promoted it as a true fact that needed rectifying? What if the American Psychological Association, in their guidance for treating women and girls in crisis, was promoting the ideas espoused by r/TheRedPill and recommending treatment practices based on them? What if this narrative had convinced your country or state to reverse hundreds of years of jurisprudential advances, and return to an era where due process is an inconvenience that should be abandoned?

That's what men see when they turn on the TV or open the newspaper. It's what they're confronted with when they come into contact with the criminal justice system, or the mental health profession.

Those women I told you about, who work with my husband? When they gain employee status (and the goody bag that goes along with it) they're also put through a diversity course. The four who were hired all came out of it saying, "you know, come to think of it, I actually do have it pretty bad as a woman. Sometimes my coworkers and superiors are rude to me. Sometimes they don't give me the respect I want or the support I need, and maybe it IS because I'm a woman."

None of them ever said this before that training. Why? Because when you're a systems engineer maintaining a massive and potentially deadly industrial system with out of date hardware that isn't on speaking terms with your updated software and everyone's just trying to get their work done without killing anyone, sometimes you're rude to people. Sometimes you don't have it in you to coddle a coworker or underling. Sometimes you get bitchy, or even yell. And if you're a contractor, as most of them are, you know that if something fucks up, you get to share liability with the company. That's why you're paying for millions of dollars of insurance, right?

These women have been trained to see themselves as particular victims, because of their gender, of a situation that is affecting EVERYONE. They have been trained to see it that way by their fucking employer.

I'm not going to say these women were happy in their work prior to the course. My man joked during his latest round of technical training that, "when I want the wife to go away, I just start talking about my day." It's funny because it's true. It's dry, frustrating, repetitive, detail-oriented work where the best thing that can happen is "no incident". That's your reward for a job well done. Nothing bad happened. Things just went along like they did yesterday and the day before.

It's soul crushing and boring and you always know that the best you can do is be adequate, but the worst you can do is make a typo in the absolutely worst possible segment of code, kill a bunch of people and then spend 6 years in prison because you're an independent contractor, and that means the buck stops with you. The company will keep chugging along as if nothing happened.

It's not a particularly fulfilling job. There are people who get to go home alive and with their limbs intact every day because of you, but they're not going to ever throw you a party over it. They don't even know who you are. Some of them don't even know you exist.

The women on the floor were no more demoralized than my husband is, until they got hired on and went through an indoctrination session that led them to believe that even though they've been singled out for coveted employee status because of their gender, they're actually being discriminated against because of their gender by both the company and their male coworkers.

It's gross that the company tells them that. It's disappointing that these women believe it.

And it astounds me that the men tolerate the narrative, given their position.

But some assholes on the internet promote a negative narrative about women. Cry me a fucking river.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Some examples of which are?

I've been on PPD for about 4 years now, there are plenty of examples. Just today I was informed that women can't love, they are only interested in men's wallets. It does not matter what statistics show, women cannot "truly" love they only want men for money. This is actually mild compared to a myriad examples I could give you concerning how terrible women, in general, are.

It might help us understand each other if you itemized those kernels of truth and the alleged inaccuracies.

This is a large task. For an example, let's use hypergamy. There are stats showing women more than men marry "up" class/economic-wise. That does not support the idea that men are ATM machines for women which is all they care about or that women "monkey branch" from man to man higher and higher to get more status/money. Yet this is a pretty common piece of rhetoric that I have seen from manospherians. I might as well say men are hypergamic because of the trope that men leave wives for "better, hotter, younger models". While this does happen, "men" do not do it, it's not a basis to stereotype "men" in general IMO. But I am not a manospherian. Let's use another example - I used to practice family law. And I represented plenty of male clients. Almost never do they accurately describe things. Even if it's something x jx does, which I could at least entertain, it's almost always something meant to represent the larger consortium, which is hard for me to accept give my practical experience + knowledge of the industry. Typically, it seems very hyperbolic.

Who, if not men, was doing that to them? Aliens? The Illuminati?

You asked me about my experience and I gave it. If you are disappointed at the result that does not change my recollection of the matter at hand.

In Ontario just a few years ago, the Law Society of Upper Canada (the provincial bar association) made it mandatory that every applicant to the bar write a personal essay-form diversity pledge.

Ok, we do not have that here that I am aware of.

I cannot speak to what your first amendment rights are like in CA, only the US. There have been instances I was concerned about SJW-ism in america too. Specifically, a law prof here got dinged for making a tort hypothetical about sexual assault at a massage parlor. Which is ridiculous to me, because how can you even be a lawyer if that is too triggering to you? It was also ridiculouus to my 40 year+ high school english teacher father.

That being said, there are equally ridiculous examples from the conservative side. Neither is how you teach IMO.

I do not know what to tell you about the case of some guy trying to get young women to wax him, I am sure you heard about it because it was just that crazy. It sounds like your courts made the right decision?

To my mind, the effects on those left behind should never enter into the decision as to whether a company was at fault. They were at fault or they weren't, based on the evidence, not based on how many people died or how much their loved ones are suffering. The weeping widows' parade is for deciding damages. How gross was the negligence? How much suffering did it cause? But the fact that there is a widow or widower does not in itself implicate the company as negligent.

You seem to understand that the issue is damages, but then you conflate that with liability. They are two separate issues, yet they are both required to winning a civil suit at least now here in the US. Liability is meaningless without damages. Negligence is duty, breach, causation, damages. If you fail to establish one, you're done, it does not matter that the other three are established. You need damages to win. Period. No, damages alone do not implicate liability, but it is still an essential part of the claim. At least now, I can assure you, it is in most cases.

I am not sure where your 2/2 is, sorry.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The second part is a reply to the first part, so it wouldn't have shown up in your messages.

You asked me about my experience and I gave it. If you are disappointed at the result that does not change my recollection of the matter at hand.

I think you may have misunderstood. My point is, there will be kids who extrapolate what was said, and reach the only possible logical conclusion. "If women suffered class oppression, the class that was oppressing them must, by sheer lack of any other possibility, be men."

Now add on the obviousness that it was primarily men who had political power--they were the lawmakers and the law enforcers, etc etc. Men were the administrators of the family/marital finances. So of course it was men oppressing women, and they were doing it willfully because they, and only they, had the power to end the oppression.

That you did not think beyond the description of the historical condition of women in search of who was to blame for it does not mean other students around you didn't.

Now, I'm not saying that many of the things I described are not technically correct, however, they were presented to me in complete isolation from the rest of the picture.

For instance, the fact that women could not own property. (It's actually married women, by the way, but is often presented as all women.)

This part of the marital custom of coverture conferred protections, entitlements and immunities on wives, and placed full financial accountability on the husband. No taxes were owe-able in her name, so she was never held liable if the taxes were not paid. She was entitled to be supported by her husband to the best of his ability. She was legally empowered to purchase goods on his credit as his legal agent. If the family went into debt, only he was vulnerable to being put in debtor's prison. If an action on her part damaged another person's property, it was he who was legally responsible for compensating that person, even if she had brought nothing of material value into the marriage.

I was told none of this in school. I was simply told women were not allowed to own property. This made it seem that women were considered second class citizens with no privileges to compensate for their handicaps, rather than different citizens with different privileges that did compensate for them. Regardless of how satisfactory we might view that compensation through the lens of the modern day, what was presented in school was that there was none.

This system was not presented as a bargain or a trade-off between men and women--an exchange of things of value to and from both sides. It was men not letting women have property rights, full stop.

I suppose I was lucky in my contrariness and distrust of authority and dislike of school. I thought to myself, "how could that possibly be the case? No loving father would ever consign his daughter to such a fate as being married under such conditions, and it can't be just my grandfather's generation who finally learned how to love their daughters, right? Pretty much all dads would have to be heartless for that system to exist for so long, so what I've been told can't be the whole story."

I do not know what to tell you about the case of some guy trying to get young women to wax him, I am sure you heard about it because it was just that crazy. It sounds like your courts made the right decision?

Sure, it was crazy. So crazy, Ricky Gervaise all the way across the pond heard and tweeted about it (for which he was slammed as a transphobe by a lot of people).

But here's the thing. Had Jessica (formerly Jonathan) Yaniv not been a grossly perverted lunatic and vexatious litigant, but just a normal transwoman, the decision might have been different. At which point, the Jessica Yanivs of Canada would have a precedent to rely on when they entered someone's home-based waxing salon demanding services.

I don't believe Yaniv is genuinely trans. I think this person has an entire constellation of mental problems, including pedophilia, proneness to violence, all the cluster Bs and delusional megalomania. Oh, and she's also a hideous xenophobe, Islamaphobe and racist (which is possibly one reason so many of the estheticians she targeted were brown).

Being a "woman" gives her access to the girls she wants to ogle and potentially victimize in public bath and change rooms, being trans means she might have been able to force women to touch her genitals, and she walks with a walker right up until a camera is pointed at her, at which point I've seen her sprint like Usain Bolt for more than a block, as well as pick up said walker and hit reporters with it.

Had she not been such a hot mess, she might have succeeded.

[–]carlsberg240 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This part of the marital custom of coverture conferred protections, entitlements and immunities on wives, and placed full financial accountability on the husband. No taxes were owe-able in her name, so she was never held liable if the taxes were not paid. She was entitled to be supported by her husband to the best of his ability. She was legally empowered to purchase goods on his credit as his legal agent. If the family went into debt, only he was vulnerable to being put in debtor's prison. If an action on her part damaged another person's property, it was he who was legally responsible for compensating that person, even if she had brought nothing of material value into the marriage.

I was told none of this in school. I was simply told women were not allowed to own property. This made it seem that women were considered second class citizens with no privileges to compensate for their handicaps, rather than different citizens with different privileges that did compensate for them. Regardless of how satisfactory we might view that compensation through the lens of the modern day, what was presented in school was that there was none.

People tend to look at the past through the prism of the modern world and make moral judgments according to present day knowledge and awareness. This is clearly a fallacy. Up until recently, life was difficult and brutal for nearly every human being. It's not even whether things were "fair" or not, it's that survival mattered more than having a perfectly egalitarian society. Men and women fulfilled the gender roles biologically suited for them because it worked. It increased chances of survival and playing with this delicate balance was a risk that our wise ancestors were understandably wary of.

Still, like you said, it is a notorious misconception that men had all the privileges and women had none. First of all, positions of power were only for the very few. An average peasant gained nothing from the fact that he shared the trait of having a penis with his monarch. Secondly, the possibility of ascending to positions of power and through that, gaining access to women, was one of the ways that society incentivized men to go off and get mangled in bloody wars. In turn, women were assured of having special protections in exchange for their roles in being mothers and caregivers. Civilizations where men no longer care to put their lives on the line to protect their families inevitably collapse. As do those where fertility rates drop way below replacement.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The second part is a reply to the first part, so it wouldn't have shown up in your messages.

Ok I just did not see it then. No worries, I see it now but I will probably just continue with our conversation here. If there is anything specific you would like me to address from the comment I missed, please let me know.

My point is, there will be kids who extrapolate what was said, and reach the only possible logical conclusion. "If women suffered class oppression, the class that was oppressing them must, by sheer lack of any other possibility, be men."

Certainly there would be. My broader point was not to say this would never occur, but that the lessons that at least I personally learned were not framed with some overarching theme of men collectively being oppressive. Those few lessons that I did get definitely did not shape an opinion of men today that I was being oppressed, etc. At least that was my experience.

Now, I'm not saying that many of the things I described are not technically correct, however, they were presented to me in complete isolation from the rest of the picture.

Yes I see your point. I would say it's likely not possible to present an absolutely complete picture if we are talking about one portion of one lesson plan from one class, because it would simply take too long. But I do agree with what I believe is more to your point - educators should aim to be objective and accurate in the information they teach.

This part of the marital custom of coverture conferred protections, entitlements and immunities on wives, and placed full financial accountability on the husband. No taxes were owe-able in her name, so she was never held liable if the taxes were not paid. She was entitled to be supported by her husband to the best of his ability. She was legally empowered to purchase goods on his credit as his legal agent. If the family went into debt, only he was vulnerable to being put in debtor's prison. If an action on her part damaged another person's property, it was he who was legally responsible for compensating that person, even if she had brought nothing of material value into the marriage.

I do not mean to be nit-picky about what is just one example you are providing me, but these things you raise seem to be in place mostly because "women could not own property" and had no financial authority. In other words, just on face value it seems less about giving women "privileges" and more about the practical reality related to only allowing the husband to own property and make financial decisions for the family unit. E.g., women could not be taxed because they owned nothing that could be taxed, could not be sued individually because they had no property or ability to own. You could make some parallels with parent/child relationships today (ie., parents legally can own property even that their child earns, parents are typically sued instead of children and even if the child is sued the parents may be liable to pay for a judgment). Although the debt thing - it is still true today that both parties to a marriage are liable for any marital debt, even if the decision to incur that debt was just to one party.

Anyway, kind of a tangent on my part but I guess I really question the extent that these were really "privileges" and "compensation" rather than simply practical and necessary measures when you limit someone's rights to own property or make financial decisions. If you have no financial authority or ability to even own your own finances how can you be responsible for consequences related to them, in other words. I assume the opposite side of this is that men's decisions could also very much negatively effect women who were unable to own property, but you can correct me if I am wrong because this is not a topic I have studied.

But here's the thing. Had Jessica (formerly Jonathan) Yaniv not been a grossly perverted lunatic and vexatious litigant, but just a normal transwoman, the decision might have been different. At which point, the Jessica Yanivs of Canada would have a precedent to rely on when they entered someone's home-based waxing salon demanding services.

This depends on the holding in the case. If the holding was very fact/circumstance-specific than yes that leaves the door open wider. If, however, the decision was more law-based it could have a farther reaching precedential effect. I will try to think of an example to illuminate what I mean if that is unclear. Obviously I caveat this with your understanding that I am not an expert on Canadian law or how precedent works in your country.

Some of the SJW stuff is just downright nuts to me. Maybe I will try to look up that decision if it's online somewhere since it does sound like an interesting case.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Although the debt thing - it is still true today that both parties to a marriage are liable for any marital debt, even if the decision to incur that debt was just to one party.

This is true today but has not always been so. The reason it's true today because as work became more modernized and women were more capable of being financially independent, they successfully demanded lenders be prohibited from requiring a male cosigner. Once that happened, things morphed into the only tenable and workable outcome--that both parties to a marriage have joint responsibility for debt.

Anyway, kind of a tangent on my part but I guess I really question the extent that these were really "privileges" and "compensation" rather than simply practical and necessary measures when you limit someone's rights to own property or make financial decisions.

Or we could look at the timeline (I'll keep things to English speaking countries with a shared history of British Common Law):

The Married Women's Property Act of 1870 (UK) provided that wages and property which a wife earned through her own work or inherited would be regarded as her separate property and, by the Married Women's Property Act 1882, this principle was extended to all property, regardless of its source or the time of its acquisition.

In 1910, British schoolteacher Mark Wilks was imprisoned for income tax evasion for failing to pay his wife's income taxes. Dr. Elizabeth Wilks was a practicing physician, and her income exceeded his significantly, rendering him unable to afford to pay it. He argued before the court that even if he could afford it, she had refused to show him the documentation required to calculate the taxes owing. Which was her right under the law--that was her private financial information.

After a hubbub in the press, he was released from prison on humanitarian grounds due to his failing health, and died some months later.

So. The financial liability for paying taxes on the wife's income and property was still the legal norm 40 years after she no longer had to hand over her income or property to him, or share it with him in any capacity whatsoever.

In a 1910 letter published by the New York Times in rebuttal of a suffragette article the prior week, Mrs. Francis M. Scott wrote:

For over thirty years a woman has been able to hold and enjoy her separate property, however acquired, even when it has been given by her husband, freed from any interference or control by him, and from all liability for his debts. A husband is, however, liable for necessaries purchased by his wife and also for money given his wife by a third person to purchase necessaries, and he is bound to support her and her children without regard to her individual or separate estate. Even when a separation occurs a husband is compelled through the payment of alimony to continue to support his wife, nothing short of infidelity on her part and consequent divorce relieving him of that liability. No obligation, however, to furnish necessaries to a husband rests upon the wife under any circumstances whatever.

[...]

Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a woman cannot make a binding contract with her husband to be paid for her services. But she doesn’t have to do so. He is obliged to support her, but she can go into any business she pleases, keep all the profits, and still demand support from him. A husband has no claim against his wife’s estate for having supported her, but if she supports him, as by keeping a boarding house, and he acknowledges the debt, she has a valid claim for reimbursement against his estate.

So. More than 30 years after women in New York were emancipated from the handicaps of coverture regarding property and income, they were still enjoying the rights and privileges furnished by their husbands' coverture obligations. The Law of Agency (italicized in the quote) was still in effect, as was his liability for debts she incurred in the course of running the household.

Now fast forward to the 1970s. Phyllis Schlafly single-handedly convinced several states in the US to back out of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Her most memorable and convincing argument was perhaps the least material--that the ERA would subject women to the military draft, putting the nations daughters on the front lines of combat. The argument was pretty weak, since 99% of women would not pass the physical tests to be placed in combat roles.

Her second argument was what I found most interesting. She said passage of the ERA would mean women would lose their legal entitlement to be financially supported by their husbands.

So. Now we're talking 90 to 100 years of women retaining the privileges of coverture after having been absolved of all of the handicaps.

Let's fast forward even further, to 2016.

Dower Rights are Abolished in Michigan. On December 28, 2016, Governor Rick Snyder signed into law Public Act 378 of 2016 (the “Act”), which abolishes all statutory or common law rights of dower in Michigan, except in the case of a widow whose husband dies before the Act's effective date.

Dower rights were a part of coverture laws that granted a wife a default "life interest" in any real property owned by her husband, and gave her the right to prevent him from selling it, and a guaranteed inheritance from it. He could not sell it without her permission, as she had a right to live in it. And upon his death, she would receive at least a 1/3 share of its value regardless of his wishes.

We have dower rights in Alberta, where I live, but they're gender neutral. In Michigan, up until 2016, dower rights were straight out of the coverture laws of the early 1800s.

So. I'm going to ask you, if this is the case:

I really question the extent that these were really "privileges" and "compensation" rather than simply practical and necessary measures when you limit someone's rights to own property or make financial decisions.

If the purpose of coverture laws was to privilege men and handicap women, and merely provide women enough compensation via male obligation to make it tenable for them to go along with the deal, then why did the obligations of men linger for up to 136 years after the privilege of men was expunged from that body of laws before the privileges of women were finally eliminated?

Which party did we allow to walk away from the deal, and which party was still held to it for decades after the other party walked away?

It would seem to me that the party released from the contract by legislative fiat is not the party the contract was designed to ensnare and obligate. And it would seem to me that the party that is still held to its contractual obligations once the other party has been absolved of them is the party targeted by that contract.

If the contract was designed with the intention of exploiting women or depriving them of their rights, why were women released from their contractual obligations and men still held to theirs?

[–]problem_redditor1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I do not mean to be nit-picky about what is just one example you are providing me, but these things you raise seem to be in place mostly because "women could not own property" and had no financial authority.

Just to clarify, I'm not u/girlwriteswhat (so not the person you've been responding to), but I disagree with this statement quoted above. Single women (feme sole) had the right to own their property and their income as their own, could enter into contracts in their own name, etc and overall did have financial authority, so clearly we did not think them so irresponsible that they should not manage these matters at all. Why would we arbitrarily strip them of those rights in marriage for no good reason?

To understand why marriage was the way it was back then, you have to consider the context. These customs developed in a time when we had no reliable birth control, no safe abortion, no maternity leave, or social security, and most public sphere work back then involved hard labour. And if you were a woman back then who wanted to be able to have sex, then you would have had to plan your life around the idea that you would be getting pregnant, giving birth, and breastfeeding for most of your adult life.

So imagine you got married at 18 back then. Within a year, you get pregnant and this makes you very tired because your body is using a lot of its nutrients and resources to support the growth of the baby inside you. Then you go through childbirth and you need to move around for as little as possible for a month. Then you have to be the one to breastfeed since you can't hire someone else to do it (unless you're an extremely rich and affluent woman), and babies for the first few months need to be fed every 2 hours. Even as they get bigger and they start crawling and walking they need more food around the clock and are able to start eating solids they still mostly prefer your milk.

6 months after you give birth, your body can get pregnant again (of course it can even before that) and in a world where no one knows exactly how to prevent pregnancy and everyone wants to have sex, you get pregnant again and then the whole process begins again until you finally go through menopause.

And in a society where most public sphere work was arduous, punishing and involved hard, physical labour, all of this would have meant you could not be a reliable enough worker to support even yourself, let alone a child, and it would inherently have made you dependent on other people to help you. In that environment, men's responsibility to support their families had to be very, very aggressively enforced because for the majority of human history removing this obligation from men would have been disastrous.

In fact, it seems the most basic function of marriage was to assign paternity as much as was possible back then and to hold the men so assigned accountable for the support of their children and the mothers of their children.

So I actually think it's the other way around. When someone is responsible for the financial wellbeing of other people, they're the one who should have the say in how the money is spent. Women had to hand over their property and income over to their husbands in marriage because their husbands, and only their husbands, had the obligation to be accountable for provision for his wife and children and to maintain family finances. If the money was mismanaged, he was the one working extra shifts to compensate. A woman had no such obligation and thus had to defer to her husband in financial matters.

Regardless, women by and large went about their lives blissfully unaware of these legal handicaps, as the vast majority of women used their money as if it was completely their own so never had to question this. In other words, most husbands did not exert control over what their wives did. Hell, the woman (Millicent Fawcett) who led the first campaign to change marital property law in Britain too was completely unaware of this until her purse was snatched and she heard the police referring to the money in it as her husband's instead of her own. She'd had absolutely no idea.

On the other hand, most women were probably aware of the entitlements granted them under coverture, such as the law of agency which gave them the right to purchase goods and services on their husband's credit as their legal agent.

edited, to add a few things

[–]exparadox19894 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]9penguin0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marketing_BaboonRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's true that red pillers tend to generalize and use less nuance.

The absolute irony of saying this in a thread about nuance. "Stop generalizing!" she says, generalizing all the way. I digress. I don't think red pill ideology generalizes more than any other, that's just bias on your side because you dislike what we generalize about, which is fine, but you could at least admit that.

When it comes to AWALT specifically for example, you're not even interpreting it correctly. It's not to be taken literally. It's an idiom, the same thing as calling something typical or predictable. The premise is that it's easier to admit personal responsibility in that frame. If a snake bites you, you shouldn't blame the snake. All snakes are like that. You were the dumbass that thought maybe this snake was different. Meanwhile, plenty of people have pet snakes that don't bite. For the record I'm not calling women snakes or pets, I didn't pick it for the negativity it's just the first thing that came to mind.

I'll admit most guys at TRP don't ever fully get the concept and do just apply it literally, but widespread misapplication is universal to every ideology and 'pill'.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I did not say "stop generalizing", red pillers are not known for their nuance. I always think it's funny that red pillers would be so in favor of generalizing others though yet get pretty up in arms when someone dares to generalize them. Especially in an off-hand, joking comment that doesn't even reference them....

I don't think red pill ideology generalizes more than any other

Of course it does. Although I do not really know what other ideologies you're comparing it to. Blue pill isn't really an ideology, but if we are generalizing blue pillers (lol) they are far more likely to argue nuance, not everyone is the same, NAWALT, etc. Do you honestly disagree with this?

When it comes to AWALT specifically for example, you're not even interpreting it correctly. It's not to be taken literally.

Sure I am. AWALT is about "women's nature". Things that are immutable and exist in "womankind" regardless of whether they manifest. AWALT is prone to just as many interpretations as any other red pill concept. While there are some who do say it is literal, that is certainly not the most common interpretation that I have seen. It is that AWALT is "female nature" and about the "capacity" etc etc etc.

[–]Marketing_BaboonRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I always think it's funny that red pillers would be so in favor of generalizing others though yet get pretty up in arms when someone dares to generalize them.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I admit I generalize a lot. Everybody has a schema or model that they use to live 'optimally'. It's your brain constantly running probabilities and checking whether your predictions were accurate. The problem is it's prone to confirmation bias. I just admitted mine, but if you're going to call me a hypocrite for calling *you* a hypocrite, then we're going to be here all day spiraling down an infinite rabbit hole.

Blue pill isn't really an ideology

It is an ideology, it just happens to be the default one of society so it's less defined. It's the ideology behind every Disney movie.

but if we are generalizing blue pillers (lol) they are far more likely to argue nuance, not everyone is the same, NAWALT, etc. Do you honestly disagree with this?

That's not nuance, that's just the opposite of red pill ideology and it also displays a one-sided picture. Nuance would be more akin to this:

"Not all women are literally this way and nor should you treat them that way. Male and female behaviors exist on overlapping distributions such that we're more similar than different. Thus, everyone is an individual who should be free of prior judgement or assumptions based on sex. With that said, at a population level certain predictions can be made based on raw statistical data that displays inherent differences on average and if you tailor your behaviour to this you'll be right more often than not."

THAT is nuance, and I've never seen a blue-pilled person admit to the latter half. You focus on the former for your decisions, I focus on the latter. Both views can be correct, and they are, it's just not the full picture.

Edit: added a sentence for clarity

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think it’s hypocritical to point out that blue pillers tend to apply more nuance whereas red pillers tend to engage in more black and white thinking. In fact, I tried to make a post a while back stereotyping red pillers to try and get them to see why this type of thinking is flawed, because clearly though those stereotypes are valid, they are not accurate for individual red pillers per se. In any event, I do not think my joking “welcome to the blue pill lol” comment was some big assassination of red pillers.

It is an ideology, it just happens to be the default one of society so it's less defined. It's the ideology behind every Disney movie.

People use it that way but that is not what I was talking about, blue pillers here do not follow some ideology as compared to red pillers. I suppose at best you could say blue pillers here align more with feminist/liberal ideology but even that is kinda off it’s the closest thing I can see though.

That's not nuance, that's just the opposite of red pill ideology and it also displays a one-sided picture. Nuance would be more akin to this:

It is, I was just summarizing the types of arguments not providing a full explanation of what one might look like in practice. Regardless, red pillers AWALT arguments do not tend to be made in reliance upon “raw statistical data”, they tend to find data which supports their views and then it becomes some post hoc support, I do not believe they find the data first and only then draw their conclusions, which frankly isn’t all that relevant anyways because the data that is found is almost always taken and a bunch of red pill assumptions are then made on top of it to even get to the conclusions in the first place. But hey maybe you do rely more on stats,I can’t speak to your method of course.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I haven't looked at the comments yet, but the nazi comparison is apt. Not sure if everyone here knows that the "Grievance Studies Hoaxers" (Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay) submitted a modified version of a chapter from "Mein Kampf" (swapping Aryans with women and Jews with men) to a feminist journal, and it was accepted for publication.

The reality is that there is no great ape species where females are victimized more by violence than males are. Even the bonobos, who I find irredeemably repulsive, generally treat females less violently and with more gentleness than males.

Now consider that among primates living in groups with more than one male, the males are all kin. Most of the females leave the group at maturity, and find a new group to join, but the males typically remain with their birth group--they buck the trend for mammals regarding philopatry.

Here's the kicker. Despite the fact that all the males are kin and few of the adult females within the group are, the males are more violent with each other than with the females.

On top of this, males spend an inordinate amount of time in male bonding behaviors, just to maintain the peace. These are males with father/son, brother and cousin bonds, and they still have to put in a ton of effort just to get along with each other, and even doing that, are more likely to be violent with each other than with females.

But somehow, we humans are completely different?

Yeah, don't think so.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marketing_BaboonRed Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Too simple. Men as a whole, even a majority, do not feel even contempt for women. We love women. Most of our lives revolve around women. The problem is it no longer benefits most men to be this way, but since it's so deeply rooted biologically we can't be free of it. You're partially right, in that things are mostly fine as long as we're getting laid, but you miss the bigger picture about why that is.

Men and women were always mostly cooperative throughout history. Granted, this was due to a mutual respect and understanding of our respective lots. Men do the work to feed, protect, and shelter you and the children and in return we continue get laid. Obviously an oversimplification, but that's essentially our biological niches boiled down. The major problem is that model doesn't work in today's society, we're not psychologically and physically adapted to the new technologies that essentially freed people from our respective roles. We don't need each other the way we used to, obviously that's going to create some tension. The greater freedom is good, but we're not adapted to it, and we probably won't be for quite a while. We need to figure out an alternative way of getting back to mutual understanding, some way of bridging the divide that isn't transactional like it used to be.

[–]badgersonice6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marketing_BaboonRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When most people think of their mother's, how they gave birth to them, raised them, nurtured them, etc., do you think they see them as just 'fuck holes'? Or do you think they look at them with utmost love and respect? It's a different role, but it's not any less important or worthy of respect. I was only being crass because the comment I responded to was fairly crass as well.

You also conveniently left out the part where I said the extra freedom, being able to be more than just caretakers, was a very good thing. For most of history that wasn't really an option because we lacked effective contraception. So yes, biologically women very much evolved to fill that role, but that doesn't mean they have to. I did also say traditional roles are no longer compatible with modern society, did I not? Keep trying to make me a bad guy though, please.

[–]badgersonice1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When most people think of their mother's, how they gave birth to them, raised them, nurtured them, etc., do you think they see them as just 'fuck holes'?

No, normal men actually do respect women. And maybe you were just being crass, but you gave no indication that you respect women for anything else in your comment where you said men do the work to feed protect and shelter women and children... but then on the balance, only thing you mentioned women contribute was that men get to fuck them. I don’t consider that “mutual respect” if women’s fuckability is the only thing you can think of that women contribute in that’s exchange.

You also conveniently left out the part where I said the extra freedom,

Women contributed plenty more than just sex before the modern era, with modern extra freedoms too. Women worked farms, mended clothing, minded children, produced cottage industry crafts to sell, maintained social structures and traditions and communities, and maintained everything at home while their husbands were away at war or market or whatever, and then worked in factories when industrial era began, all of this before gaining “extra freedom”. Women throughout history were way more than just creatures that made it so “we continue get laid.” Failing to appreciate or respect anything women do besides provide you with sex isn’t respect. Normal men know this, and acknowledge it when they talk about “mutual respect”, but sex was all you mentioned that women provide in your comment.

[–]Marketing_BaboonRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]badgersonice0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]hammerhauntsAtlas-orbiting RPW5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IcyMartinis5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2SJW2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Aromantic but cuddly2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

but feel free to continue making it.

The need for a scapegoat, and a common enemy.

The framing of women's (aryans) issues as an attack of them as a collective or a class struggle.

The concept of unaddressed historical injustices against women (aryans), framed not as a human injustice in which men (jews) suffered too, but as systems in which men (jews) benefited from women's (aryans) suffering.

Dehumanization tactics, in which men (jews) are monstrous rapist (who can only reproduce by rape) and leeches on society.

The idea that men (jews) are on the top, that they have unearned unnatural advantages, not because they earned but because they stole it from the women (aryans)

The idea that men (jews) are behind all wars, all catastrophes, all coincidences, all suffering, all injustices; born out of greed, absolute malice, mind-bending sociopathy.

The concept that maleness (jewish religion) in it of itself must be radically changed to accommodate women's (aryans) demands, and if those demands are not met, then it must be eradicated.

I could keep going, but what do you think?

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dora_BowlWrites like a bitchy philosophy article0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]Black Pill Feminism10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago* (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Men protect their own women because they view them as possessions. It's related to "male honor" and all that bullshit. They don't actually care about women as people.

Here's an unfounded claim you've made that anyone who's actually done research about the topic knows is completely wrong.

Women have a strong "in group" bias where they favor/protect/side with other women.

Now, you'd think that men would also have an in group bias favoring other men but that's not the case. Men actually have an "out group" bias where they also favor/protect women over other men - men lack a mechanism that bolsters in-group bias.

These biases have been proven with multiple scientific studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

Yet another study showed that men were more likely to be sacrificed for the benefit of others than women, and that we perceive harming women as "more morally unacceptable".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/men-more-likely-to-be-sacrificed-for-the-benefit-of-others-than/

"In one experiment a group of subjects was given £20 and told that any money they held at the end of the experiment would be multiplied up to 10 times. In the course of the experiment the subjects interacted with other individuals. They were told that if they decided to keep the money, these individuals would be subjected to mild electric shocks, but if they gave up the money, no shocks would be administrated.

Women were less likely than men to be subjected to shocks, suggesting an aversion to harming females - even when this came at the subjects’ own financial expense. While both female and male subjects were less likely to shock women than men, women in particular were less willing to shock other women.

Subjects were also asked questions such as: “On a sinking ship, whom should you save first? Men, women, or no order”; and “According to social norms, how morally acceptable is it to harm men/women for money?” Overall, the answers of both female and male respondents suggested that social norms account for greater harming behavior toward a male than a female target.

“There is indeed a gender bias in these matters: society perceives harming women as more morally unacceptable,” explains co-author Dean Mobbs, an assistant professor of psychology at Columbia University."

And a study of adolescent boys and girls showed that both boys and girls produce more empathy towards women than towards men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112287/

"Gender differences were investigated in the experience of empathic sadness towards same- versus other-sex targets. The relationships were studied cross-sectionally (N = 730) and longitudinally (N = 318) with Dutch adolescents using the empathic sadness scale of the Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (IECA; Bryant 1982). In both studies, female adolescents reported more empathic sadness than did male adolescents. Female targets also received more affective empathy than did male targets, and, more importantly, gender differences were observed in same-sex versus other-sex affective empathy. Specifically, in both studies male adolescents reported less empathic sadness towards same-sex than towards other-sex targets. In contrast, female adolescents reported more empathic sadness towards same-sex than towards other-sex targets in the cross-sectional study, and equal levels of empathic sadness towards both types of targets in the longitudinal study.".

These studies completely contradict your idea that men only protect women because they view women as possessions. Sorry, but people don't produce more empathy towards a prized possession than they do another person. I do not empathise with my favourite shirt more than I do my neighbours, nor do I feel that harming my neighbours is more morally acceptable than harming my possessions.

Shouldn't it be enough to prove that men don't hate women, view them as objects or want to oppress them when whenever a society faces an external threat, its male citizens will be thrown in front of the threat to protect its female citizens? Men throughout history have been tasked with the responsibility of providing protection and provision for their daughters, wives and sisters at risk to their own wellbeing, health and even life.

Tell me, would you get your luggage off the Titanic before you would yourself? No? Because according to you, that's what a lot of men did, which is completely counterintuitive. The fact is that in order to want to protect someone to the point where you would sacrifice yourself for them and give up your spot on the lifeboat, you have to view them as people deserving of consideration and empathy, not objects.

Both men and women have biases in favour of women, have stronger feelings of positive affiliation with women, are less likely to harm women, and produce more empathy towards women than towards men. People - not only men, but people in general, care more about women, and are more concerned with the wellbeing of women than men.

Yet you think men "don't care about women as people".

But you keep on keeping on with your crazy, counter-factual bullshit.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]Black Pill Feminism0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Again, men protect their "own women" because it's a matter of male pride.

And you have to ask where this comes from. Protecting women is something men take pride in doing BECAUSE people in general, including men have always cared about the wellbeing of women far more than they do men. It would not have become a source of male pride if they did not already think the protection and provision of women wasn't an important and vital task in the first place.

They view women as possessions.

And again, you're completely wrong. This is a claim you've repeatedly stated but refused to provide evidence for. As far as I'm aware, these are your own unfounded assertions and conjectures created to demonise men as much as you possibly can.

You don't see women going around murdering men. It's almost always MEN murdering women and other men.

And yet, just like their male counterparts, female perpetrators of homicide are too more likely to murder men than they are other women. 78% of the victims of female offenders are also male. Men are more likely to be the victims of both male violence and female violence.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2017.0016

Why, it's almost as if both men and women are more willing to hurt, harm and kill men than they are women. Funny that, isn't it?

[–][deleted]Black Pill Feminism1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditor6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes perfect sense. Women "murder" mostly in self-defense .

Nope. Here's a study out of Australia that finds that financial gain is one of the most common motivators for women who kill, and disproves the idea that women who kill their partners are only ever acting defensively against "abusers".

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/they-are-calculating-what-makes-women-kill-their-partners/news-story/e5e6a97cc432c0f79363917471b78791

WOMEN are at their most deadly when they are under financial strain — and even females who have no criminal history can be driven to murder, new research shows.

An analysis of almost 150 Australian murders by Queensland University of Technology researcher Dr Belinda Parker has shown women are more likely to kill when they are motivated by gain.

"I think it highlights perhaps an area we don't talk about enough," she told news.com.au. "We tend to talk about abuse [as a motivating factor], which is important - and I'm not trying to downplay that - but it's important to look at why these females commit the murders beyond [simply] a psychological explanation."

Her recent thesis Seven Deadly Sins identifies what is fuelling Australian homicides. It is the first of its kind to test the characteristics of murder motives and look at them side-by-side to compare each motive to one another.

"Gain is one of seven motives that characterise the solved homicides I analysed. The others were jealousy, revenge, conviction/hate, concealment, love, and thrill,"

Properly understanding motives could then led to identifying "risk factors in people's lives".

"Especially the gain [motive]. I did see that quite a lot in my sample - the financial insecurity on the part of the females was when she acted in the cases that I observed."

It is well known that women are at risk of being killed by a lover, but Dr Parker's findings show risk factors such as a separation or divorce, or drawing up a new will, could provide warning signs for male victims.

"Homicide of a male partner is not always motivated by a history of domestic abuse, which again challenges a lot of the prior literature," she said.

In fact in all of the cases Dr Parker examined, the female killers were not the victims of abuse by their husbands.

They absolutely do view women as possessions. This is why we see men losing their shit about "foreigners raping their women", but the same men don't give a fuck if a white man rapes. They view women as possessions and only protect their possessions from "other" men.

Again, these are pure unfounded assertions that can be thrown in the trash just like all of your prior assertions. You stating it again doesn't make it any more true. Your assertion that "men don't give a fuck if a white man rapes" is particularly off-base. There are intense social stigmas around male violence against women, it gets nonstop media coverage, and evokes disgust and outrage in those who witness it. Legally, many countries (such as Spain) consider it a special crime, regardless of circumstance. The UN has innumerable initiatives to protect women and girls globally from everything from domestic violence to war rape to sexual assault to child marriage to genital cutting. Every western country (and many nonwestern ones, such as India) has a federal minister, department, commission, etc, on the status of women (and girls), and one of its primary mandates is reducing violence against women (and girls). Most have federal legislation specifically criminalizing it and providing billions of dollars in funds to prevent it and assist victims. A lot of this legislation infringes on long-cherished due process protections that are afforded to any other type of criminal perpetrator.

All this, regardless of the fact that violence is more likely to be perpetrated on a male than a female. Already the safest demographic in society, women are also considered the most deserving of protection (even above children). And the men who supposedly "don't give a fuck" have been more than willing to enact legislation for the purpose of protecting and assisting women and only women, even if said legislation tramples on the rights of others to achieve it.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men protect "their own women", the women of their own tribe. The same men would happily rape and brutalize the women of another tribe, as we see in various wars throughout history.

Uh... are you dumb? Let me elaborate:

"Women protect 'their own children', the children of their own tribe. The same women would happily ululate their men to the rape and slaughter of the men, women and children of other tribes, as we see in various wars and genocides throughout history, including the most recent ones."

Men protect their own women because they view them as possessions.

"Women protect their own children because they view them as possessions. They don't actually care about children as people."

You seem to believe that women are not prone to tribalism. That completely fucked up and baseless belief is what makes it so hard to bring women like this to justice. One of them literally admitted to considering killing her half Tutsi son "for practice".

Muslims are more realistic about women. Back in the earliest days of that faith, they considered the torture of prisoners of war to be "women's work". The men would just kill you. The women would make you beg for death.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeanLoner3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I have a perfectly rational hostility, thank you.

As the son of an abusive, alcoholic single mother who somehow got custody despite my father being in every way a better custodian... To witnessing a man go to jail for a rape he did not commit... to seeing a good friend have his son murdered by the grandmother of the man his wife was cheating on him with... To finding out my ex was married, had four men she was spinning at the same time... An online relationship when I was younger, where the woman lied about everything from the country she lived in to her age and name... Seeing male friends destroyed by breakups over the most ridiculous shit and being blamed for the whole thing... Lies, damned lies, litigious lies... Abuse, betrayal and an absolute void of empathy for the men involved in any way that mattered.

I try to be objective with every new woman I meet, knowing they are not to blame. But I seethe with rage over a society that holds women as better beings than men.

Calling my anger irrational? Fuck whatever dumpster fire you salvaged your concept of rationality from.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

Women get custody by default. Women get lower sentencing or no sentencing for the same crimes. Women get more government funding, whenever a distinction between sexes is made. Women in media are given a pass for behavior a man would be condemned for. Women have the vast majority of purchasing power. That's just the obvious stuff.

Socially, women are not criticized for being in public with children, when men are. Women can straight up beat a man and no one will interfere. Women can approach a group of men with no fear of being ostracized for it. Women hold more managerial positions, are treated better in schools, and are much more easily able to create and maintain social support. Women can ask for help with a reasonable expectation of getting it. Women have a by a fair margin a lower chance of being victimized, and a stronger chance of being believed when they are.

I mean christ it fucking sucks to be a man right now. Everybody's situation is unique, so this is only more or less true when looked at on a granular level, but on average? Yeah. Women have more standing than men.

[–]peach-ring3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some of what you say is true, I’ll grant you that, but there’s a lot that is outright false. Men in media are given a pass on behaviors women would be condemned for as well. Men can approach a group of women and not be ostracized. I’ve not found any sources backing up your claim on managerial positions; the vast majority of CEO’s and upper management, government officials, etc. are men. There are lots of examples of women being stopped from hurting men, and plenty of examples of men beating women with no intervention.

Other ways women are at a disadvantage: women are perceived as talking too much when they talk less than men in the room. The labels slut and prude don’t exist for men. Women are more likely to be murdered by their partners. Men can stand on a crowded train with way less of a risk of being groped. Men in positions of power will be praised for the same actions that women will be labeled a bitch for. Medical research and other research around health and safety often only takes into account male bodies, needs, symptoms, etc. which causes the symptoms of, for example, heart attacks in women to be poorly understood. Men aren’t expected to shave massive areas of their bodies. You mentioned the sentencing/custody issue; what about the fact that most of these rulings are made by men, who make up the majority of judges? Men are more likely to get an interview with the same resume as a woman. Men are less likely to live in poverty. Men are seen as more competent, smarter, better leaders, generally better just for existing.

I mean christ it fucking sucks to be a woman right now. Everybody's situation is unique, so this is only more or less true when looked at on a granular level, but on average? Yeah. Men have more standing than women.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Women get custody by default

True. But let’s be honest about how we got here. You’re young. You don’t remember a time when men routinely walked out on their children and no one was chasing them for child support. I do. True the pendulum has swung in the other direction but let’s be honest, we’re still not there and there are still men abandoning their kids and claiming that child support is unfair. I’m all for a gender neutral family court but men are going to have to step up a little bit more for that to work.

Women get lower sentencing or no sentencing for the same crimes.

Ok. With you on that one.

Women get more government funding, whenever a distinction between sexes is made.

I work in public health so I’m waaaaaay with you — no actually waaaay ahead of you — on this one and I’ve talked about it numerous times here.

Women in media are given a pass for behavior a man would be condemned for.

Can you give a specific example?

women are not criticized for being in public with children

Men are not either. I find it hard to believe you don’t routinely see fathers in public with their children.

Women can straight up beat a man and no one will interfere.

Can’t say I’ve ever seen this happen but I concede that people will intervene a lot quicker when a man is beating a woman than the reverse. But you do understand why this is right?

Women can approach a group of men with no fear of being ostracized for it.

See above.

Women hold more managerial positions, are treated better in schools

I think the number is 40% and I’m not sure that women getting better grades is “being treated better.” Most studies show that girls study more. I concede there is a problem with schools using disciplinary measures in a discriminatory way against male students but that mostly affects black and Hispanic boys .

Which brings me to another point. If you were to remove men of color from these stats, you would largely see that “male bias” in American is really “black and brown male bias.”

Women can ask for help with a reasonable expectation of getting it

I mean now we’re getting into some real esoteric stuff that can’t be proven or disproven.

a stronger chance of being believed when they are.

Is there data to back this up? Because despite #metoo most rape victims are still not believed.

I agree that men are getting a raw deal in a lot of ways today. But some of this is just hyperbole. And you have to consider how race and class play into it. For your average UMC 6 figure white guy, life doesn’t suck all that much.

[–]parahacker3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Can’t say I’ve ever seen this happen but I concede that people will intervene a lot quicker when a man is beating a woman than the reverse. But you do understand why this is right?

It's worse than you think.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dtVHnZX8E50

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GccCWo_eZdw

Read what u/girlwriteswhat has to say on domestic abuse laws, and how feminism managed to suppress violence on men so thoroughly that men are arrested for being abused.

In short, no I do not understand it, I think it's horrifying.

I think the number is 40% and I’m not sure that women getting better grades is “being treated better.” Most studies show that girls study more. I concede there is a problem with schools using disciplinary measures in a discriminatory way against male students but that mostly affects black and Hispanic boys .

First of all, the number is currently 54% of management being women.

That's despite women being around 40% of all active workforce, which makes the difference even more glaring.

Second, boys are actively discriminated against in school, in many different ways. There's a study that showed that a paper got graded about 20% higher on average, simply based on the name at the top. The same paper. I am all linked out, but the evidence is easy to find, just search 'boys discrimination in school' or similar. It's not just the tip, it's the whole shaft.

If you were to remove men of color from these stats, you would largely see that “male bias” in American is really “black and brown male bias.”

Yeah no. If you control for gender VS. controlling for race, you can see very clearly that men of any color are fucked. I had a black friend I did this with once, blew his mind. Not doing it again, you can find evidence that contradicts this easily.

Continued

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

and how feminism managed to suppress violence on men so thoroughly that men are arrested for being abused.

But you do understand that the vast majority of IP homicides are committed by men right? Again it’s not wrong that then law protect women any more than its wrong that it protect men. Sadly you think the law can only protect one or the other and i don’t accept that.

I am all linked out, but the evidence is easy to find,

K. “A paper?” Really?

just search 'boys discrimination in school' or similar.

Yeah and what I’m saying is that black and brown boys overwhelmingly bear the brunt of this.

Yeah no.

No, yeah.

men of any color are fucked. I had a black friend I did this with once, blew his mind.

Let me know when you want to “do this” again because your arguments here are far form compelling.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But you do understand that the vast majority of IP homicides are committed by men right?

Back in the 1940s and 50s, it was about 50-50. Now, it's about 65-35. Neither qualifies as a "vast majority".

Again it’s not wrong that then law protect women any more than its wrong that it protect men. Sadly you think the law can only protect one or the other and i don’t accept that.

Feminists demanded mandatory arrest policies in the 1980s in the US, because cops were "letting men get away with it". In California, those policies resulted in a 37% increase in arrests of men, and a 446% increase in arrests of women. In other jurisdictions, the pattern was similar.

In response to this unexpected turn of events, they developed and implemented "predominant aggressor" policies, which required police to consider who was the larger, stronger, taller party, the one who was less visibly upset, and the one who, within the "patriarchal terrorism" paradigm was the "typical" abuser. In other words, arrest the man.

As for boys and school, the gap in post-secondary attainment between black boys and black girls is larger than that of other races. That doesn't really add up to anti-black bias, since black girls are doing disproportionately better compared to their male peers than white and Asian girls.

In the UK, the group entering kindergarten right now that is least likely to finish high school or attend college is white, working class boys.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists demanded mandatory arrest policies in the 1980s in the US, because cops were "letting men get away with it".

You’re confusing domestic violence with child support. In the 80s feminists were demanding mandatory arrest policies for DV after several high profile cases, Look up Francine Hughes, Tracy Thurman, etc. The deadbeat dads law which made failure to pay child support a felony was passed in the mid 90s.

As for boys and school, the gap in post-secondary attainment between black boys and black girls is larger than that of other races.

What does that have to do with the fact that black and Hispanic students are 4-5 times more likely than white studies to be suspended and expelled for the same disciplinary violations. were not taking about academics.

That doesn't really add up to anti-black bias, since black girls are doing disproportionately better compared to their male peers than white and Asian girls.

You literally just admitted black girls are disciplined more harshly than white girls did you not?

I don’t claim to know the stats in the UK, I’m talking about America.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re confusing domestic violence with child support.

Uh... no, I'm not. And I'm aware of the high profile cases. Such emotionally evocative cases cause knee-jerk overcorrections and are rarely a source of good law and policy.

We've recently had several judges in Canada rule that a law (passed just a year ago) after a high profile case that spurred tons of public outrage, is unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of the law was not hidden or subtle--it was glaringly, in-your-face obvious. Yet a parliament full of politicians with law degrees passed it anyway.

The deadbeat dads law which made failure to pay child support a felony was passed in the mid 90s.

Not exactly. That was what made willful failure to pay child support a federal crime. Prior to that, it was an explicit crime in some state statutes. If it was court ordered, it also qualified as contempt of court.

The first Federal child support enforcement legislation was Public Law 81–734, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, which added section 402(a)(11) to the Social Security Act (42 USC 602(a)(11)). The legislation required State welfare agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement officials upon providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a parent.

If refusal to pay child support were not a crime in 1950, there wouldn't be legislation requiring state welfare agencies to involve law enforcement in cases of unpaid child support.

were not taking about academics.

That part of the conversation started with parahacker bringing up grade discrimination--identical work being graded lower if a boy's name is on it compared to a girl's name, and compared to gender-blinded evaluation. So yes, academics.

You literally just admitted black girls are disciplined more harshly than white girls did you not?

Here is what I said:

That doesn't really add up to anti-black bias, since black girls are doing disproportionately better compared to their male peers than white and Asian girls.

Perhaps I could have been more clear--when you look at the educational attainment gap favoring girls and break it down by race, the gap is wider between black boys and girls than between white or Asian boys and girls. While a white girl is only 50% more likely to go to college than a white boy, a black girl is 75% more likely to go to college than a black boy.

I would not find it hard to believe that black girls are disciplined more harshly than white girls. However, what I do know is that among all racial groups, boys are disciplined more harshly than girls. Just because there is a race gap does not mean there isn't a gender gap.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But let’s be honest about how we got here. You’re young. You don’t remember a time when men routinely walked out on their children and no one was chasing them for child support.

I am not young.

And deadbeat daddyism was never an epidemic. That's a false narrative. The main impetus for child support laws was Reagan's antiwelfare campaign in the 80's. I lived through that from the bottom of it.

Women in media are given a pass for behavior a man would be condemned for.

Many. Let's start with Asia Argentia. Or look up, I think it was Kansas City Uni where a woman violated Title IX and was hired back 8 months later. That's just off the top of my head, a quick glance at r/mensrights will give you enough examples to curl your pubes.

I find it hard to believe you don’t routinely see fathers in public with their children.

https://www.innocentdads.org/mobile/index.htm Here is a website devoted solely to this topic.

I have to refresh the page when flipping tabs to copy links, so I will address your other points in another comment.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Deadbeat dads was absolutely a thing. To deny this is totally disingenuous.

The main impetus for child support laws was Reagan's antiwelfare campaign in the 80's.

Way off there. Child support laws as we know them evolved from social services reforms in the 1960s, and they largely were not strictly enforced until the late 90s. I challenge you to find one man who was jailed for owing a back child support in the 80s. That didn’t start happening until then late 90s, conveniently coinciding with the rise of for profit prisons and the prison industrial complex.

Many. Let's start with Asia Argentia. Or look up, I think it was Kansas City Uni where a woman violated Title IX and was hired back 8 months later. That's just off the top of my head, a quick glance at r/mensrights will give you enough examples to curl your pubes.

I don’t know anything about the vague references you’re making. Can you please explain in more detail?

I have to refresh the page when flipping tabs to copy links, so I will address your other points in another comment.

Yeah. Because my comments were very objective and fair. I agreed with you that men get screwed in a lot of ways but you totally ignored that. Because you’re not interested in a good faith discussion, you just want to shit on women. My fault for falling for it.

[–]CraptainToad2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. Because my comments were very objective and fair. I agreed with you that men get screwed in a lot of ways but you totally ignored that. Because you’re not interested in a good faith discussion, you just want to shit on women. My fault for falling for it.

This is a miscommunication.

I am saying that I only have access to a browser that flips it shit every time I try to switch pages or apps. I also lose anything I've typed up to that point when I do. It's to the point where I practically have to write links by hand and then type them in character by bloody character.

I hope you can see how that makes longer replies difficult. As well as linking examples of what I'm speaking of. I can only point you to generally useful resources like r/mensrights or u/girlwriteswhat, as I did. Anything more than that will take me more hours than are in a day.

If that's not good enough, I apologize, but you have to meet me halfway here. I was not trying to insult you by saying flipping tabs is difficult for me, I was being literal.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You don’t remember a time when men routinely walked out on their children and no one was chasing them for child support.

Perhaps the syntax is confusing, but there has never been a time when it was "routine" for men to abandon their families. As for child support/alimony, in the US there have been men imprisoned for failure or refusal to pay for at least 100 years.

That it was easier to disappear back before reliable SSN identity tracking, consolidation of banking services and computer assisted inter-jurisdictional cooperation does not mean there weren't men being held accountable for child support. If a man had any firm ties to a community (assets, extended family, a business), he could not simply vanish, and paid to stay out of jail.

And in fact, the same loopholes and cracks in the system made it possible for some unscrupulous women to collect child support from multiple men in different jurisdictions for the same child, and to scam multiple men out of alimony by serial or concurrent marriages and divorces in different jurisdictions.

Meanwhile in the early 20th century, in Canada at least, if a woman walked out on her husband and kids and came back 3 years later demanding to be taken back, he was legally obligated to. If he did not, he was considered to have abandoned her, which was a crime.

Oh, and then there was the "heart balm racket", a popular scam among women in the US and Canada in the 1910s and 20s. See, you get a guy to fall in love with you. You treat him real good until he proposes marriage and announces it in the local paper, and then you turn into such a raging cunt, he breaks off the engagement. Then you take him to court and the judge makes him pay you damages for breach of promise. Then you go to a different town or city, and do it to some other guy.

In Canada, a man once tried to sue his (much wealthier) ex fiancee for breach of promise. The judge threw it out, saying that men are not expected to benefit financially from marriage--quite the reverse, in fact. It was the woman who was expected to benefit, at the expense of the husband.

But you know. None of these legal realities matter, because some men could pull an "Angela's Ashes" and get away with it.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ll concede you make some good points. I think the point I’m making is that for a woman with children prior to the 1990s, If her husband disappeared, it was more likely than not that she would never see him or a check again.

What does that have to do with women getting custody when men don't disappear? When men are actively seeking a meaningful relationship with their kids, and are supporting them financially?

I once got a call from a Saskatchewan number on a Sunday morning. I thought it was my colleague, but no. It was a stranger calling me in a panic to ask my advice because his brother, John, was in trouble.

John lived in Grand Prairie AB and had two young children. Nearly two years before when his kids were 2 and 4, his wife, Jane, left without a word. No note, no forwarding address. She'd always had problems with drugs and alcohol. He just did the single dad thing--worked full time, took care of the kids.

So the previous Friday night around midnight, she shows up out of the blue. She wants to get back together. He says, "yeah, no."

So then she asks can't she stay the night on the couch? She has no money, nowhere else to go, and it would be so great to see the kids in the morning. He's an idiot, and lets her.

He gets up at 7 next morning and Jane and the kids are gone. He flips out and calls police and tells them what happened. They tell him to come in at 8:00 when the local detachment opens to file an official report. He spends an hour there giving a statement. Then he goes home, worried sick, and gets arrested the moment he steps onto his property.

What happened, you might ask? Well, see, she woke the kids up in the middle of the night and took them to a domestic violence shelter. The staff there took her and the kids in and woke a Justice of the Peace at around 4AM. They went in, she went into an ex parte hearing, alleged he'd abused her, and the judge granted her and the children a temporary order of protection.

Because the shelter was within 500 metres of his home, the moment he went home from filing a missing persons report for his children, he was in violation.

Now you put yourself in his position. He wakes up to find his drug addict wife he hasn't seen in nearly two years has run off with the kids, he goes in and files a missing persons report, and when he returns home he's arrested for violating a restraining order he had no idea existed.

He has no idea what to do. They're shoving a peace bond in his face, which can't de jure be used against him if he signs, but de facto will be. He phones his brother, and his brother can't think of anyone else to call but some person on YouTube he looked up in the phone book.

Women abandon their families too, and worse.

[–]parahacker1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women can ask for help with a reasonable expectation of getting it

I mean now we’re getting into some real esoteric stuff that can’t be proven or disproven.

There's a objective evidence, no esotericism needed.

Just compare the numbers of women's shelters to men's.

Or if you enjoy a dash of esotericism, then just contemplate how much having a support network helps with attending uni, then review the number of male uni graduates.

Given the history of every instance of education in the world ever, the history of universities themselves, I defy any claims that men are this intrinsically bad at it. This is a recent phenomenon.

Is there data to back this up? Because despite #metoo most rape victims are still not believed.

Yes. Search "male victims of domestic violence," or head over to r/mensrights. A bit of browsing can unearth that data easily, it's a hot topic.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]Black Pill Feminism2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are objectively better beings than men. The so called false rape accusations are dwarfed by the cases of actual rape committed by men. There are multiple studies that show that women are more empathetic, more generous than men.

https://www.media.uzh.ch/en/Press-Releases/2017/female-brain-and-prosocial-behavior.html

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/49953/1/49953-01.pdf

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-07459-008

Remember the manosphere meme about how female teachers "rape" male students? Well, according to actual statistics it is actually MORE common for MALE teachers to rape. The reason you don't know about it is that the media likes to focus on female rapists because they're "hot". You know why women are more likely to abuse their children? It's because women spend MORE TIME around children than men. There are many studies that show that women spend way ore time on parenting than men. Give children to men and I guarantee that men will be more abusive, just like they're more violent and abusive in every other aspect of life.

Feminists argue that there is moral equality between men and women. I disagree. Women are objectively morally superior.

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are objectively better beings than men. The so called false rape accusations are dwarfed by the cases of actual rape committed by men.

And what of the actual rape committed by women? There isn't a huge body of research into rape and child sexual abuse committed by women, and what there is is fairly recent. But what there is indicates that women are no angels when it comes to forcing, coercing or pressuring unwilling people (mostly men and boys) into sexual intercourse.

Some of the data suggests that more women than men report having engaged in at least one attempt to get sex from an unwilling person, and that for men, sexual coercion is a more concentrated and specific phenomenon--that is, a small percentage of men who offend many times, compared to a larger percentage of women who occasionally offend.

Given that stories of female sexual coercion against men (FSCAM) date back to biblical times and earlier (Lot's daughters, Potiphar's wife, Ishtar and Gilgamesh), I highly doubt that the phenomenon of FSCAM just spontaneously appeared the moment sociologists decided to gather data on it.

Of course, feminist "experts" like Mary Koss, who consults with the CDC, restrict the definition of rape to instances where the victim is penetrated by the perpetrator, which means most cases of FSCAM, even when they fit the definition of sex by physical force or threat, including with a weapon, aren't considered rape.

What I find very interesting, however (particularly given the next assertion of yours that I will quote), is that the men of The Patriarchy^TM back in the days of Lot, Joseph and Gilgamesh, made no laws specifically outlawing a woman forcing or attempting to force a man to have sex. The only laws that would punish women for this behavior were adultery and fornication laws, which also considered the man to be culpable.

Despite an obvious acceptance within the body of literature (the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc), that women COULD be sexually predatory against men, those evil, oppressive, Patriarchal^TM men were only interested in preventing male sexual predation against women.

Huh.

There are multiple studies that show that women are more empathetic, more generous than men.

From your first link: "The striatum, located in the middle of the brain, is responsible for the assessment of reward and is active whenever a decision is made. The findings show: The striatum was more strongly activated in female brains during prosocial decisions than during selfish decisions. By contrast, selfish decisions led to a stronger activation of the reward system in male brains."

This is perfectly understandable and expected given at least 200,000 years of gendered division of labor and increasingly monogamous male provisioning of females. Females operated in a closely knit community of mostly kin, where being generous and empathetic builds reputational status and reciprocal altruism. Males operated in the more competitive sphere of inter-group conflict of interest, where many of the individuals and groups they were dealing with were strangers or adversaries.

Females in the kin group benefitted from male selfishness in the arena of inter-group trade and conflict. That very male selfishness provided them the wherewithal to be generous with the members of their in-group. It's easy to be generous with the spoils of war when your man has been selfish in acquiring them. It's easy to be generous with the meat when your man was able to selfishly negotiate with his fellow hunters to score the biggest portion of the gazelle.

And of course, there's babies. They literally suck the life out of women, and the women who consent to having their life sucked out of them were more successful at keeping their babies alive than those who were not.

But women could not have been so generous with their children and their kin had men not been as ungenerous within their sphere of operation.

That women have now entered the same sphere as men inhabited for tens or hundreds of thousands of years (politics, inter-group trade and conflict, etc), and are attempting to turn it into something it can never sustainably be (empathetic and generous) does not make them superior.

Well, according to actual statistics it is actually MORE common for MALE teachers to rape. The reason you don't know about it is that the media likes to focus on female rapists because they're "hot".

I noticed you didn't provide any links for this claim.

You know why women are more likely to abuse their children? It's because women spend MORE TIME around children than men.

Correlation =/= causation. This has been suggested, and should be taken into consideration. But there is no definitive evidence that the more time one spends around one's children makes one more likely to abuse them. Especially since statistically the safest place for a child is living in an intact family with its biological mother and father.

Give children to men and I guarantee that men will be more abusive, just like they're more violent and abusive in every other aspect of life.

Really? You guarantee it? I hate to burst your bubble, but in a family violence context, men are no more likely to be violent or abusive than women. In the larger, public sphere context, men are more likely to be violent and abusive. Because that makes it possible for women to be generous and empathetic in the close-knit kin community context.

Feminists argue that there is moral equality between men and women. I disagree. Women are objectively morally superior.

Two words. Cajun Navy.

Morality and empathy are as much about action and the willingness to risk your health or your life as they are about being willing to weep over the dead. I didn't see a whole lot of women in boats risking their safety rescuing the stranded in that situation. Did you?

Edit: a word

[–]parahacker0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My life experience disagrees with you.

Also, any discussion of morality cannot be objective. This is not a bad thing, it simply means that ethics and morality are inherently subjective, as any ethics 101 class would teach you. Even utilitarianism is subjective at its heart.

But it demonstrates that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

I find your points about rape and abuse laughable. But I just don't have the heart to dig into the many ways you are wrong about this. Morality is a social construct, women are taught that they are better than men, ergo treating men like disposable tools is moral. In this moral view, raping men is not rape. Abusing boys is not abuse, if it is a woman doing it. This is all socially acceptable belief, and until it is not your position that women are more moral has no real meaning if morality itself is flawed.

[–]King_Loser273 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]determinism_is_truth4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsclepiustheSage3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsclepiustheSage2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AsclepiustheSage-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Emervila3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emervila1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emervila2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emervila2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

just so this thread doesn't get taken as an endorsement of slavery

How's that even possible?

I was clarifying and refuting the toxic Marxist idea women have always been slaves as in a special oppressed class therefore they are antagonists to men as a social class. Like employer/capitalist vs worker, social marxism by Engels proposes women vs men, being women the always oppressed class which is a lie.

Thru history when women were slaves, men were also a slave for kings, monarchs, castle owners, etc. Women outside slavery within those periods did hold some social status and rights-based on their relation to men but were lacking equal political rights and sometimes even human rights such as owning property which by no means was correct at all.

Those systems were not create by men to destroy women, nor they were created out of hatred, but out of ignorance.

This exactly. not ignorance but GREED. Those few, really few men designed the political system to be on top and hold power to point power could only remain in their bloodline for granting their wealth to be superb for ages, like current billionaires and hedge fund owners who run our planet with economic crisis and food limitations to seize control and grant they will remain dominant and wealthy forever, this is not strictly against women but also against men, if just a few greedy people damaging the vast majority, not gender-related.

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emervila0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PPPPDAccount2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PPPPDAccount4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PPPPDAccount2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PPPPDAccount1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PPPPDAccount1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapaPinyunConan the Gargarean2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapaPinyunConan the Gargarean1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapaPinyunConan the Gargarean1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapaPinyunConan the Gargarean1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]beetlejuicer__Socrates was a troll1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikepGrey1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MikepGrey1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_ImperialSurnameBenevolent DOM1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bonusfruit1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bonusfruit0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bonusfruit1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HennythepainawayI don't even like Henny5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HennythepainawayI don't even like Henny0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HennythepainawayI don't even like Henny1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yuckyuck131 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]yuckyuck131 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yuckyuck131 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterJose1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorkaholiconewNo Pill, Leaning red, Brazilian.0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkseeker_MauPlease don't take me seriously.[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorkaholiconewNo Pill, Leaning red, Brazilian.1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorkaholiconewNo Pill, Leaning red, Brazilian.1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Asbelowsoaboveme0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WorkaholiconewNo Pill, Leaning red, Brazilian.1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	"Man just hate women" The evolutionary response.
Author	Darkseeker_Mau
Upvotes	20
Comments	220
Date	January 3, 2020 8:02 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ejktui/man_just_hate_women_the_evolutionary_response/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/man-just-hate-women-the-evolutionary-response.306349 https://theredarchive.com/post/306349

Comments