Misogyny/MRA is a sign of weakness
23 May 2013, 6:57 pm
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
meems wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
I seriously thought you guys were smarter and less sheep-like than this. But you guys for the most part are just as bad as NTs. I never thought I'd see some of the posters' true colors. Misandry is allowed and misogyny isn't. Why can't both be disallowed, instead of misogyny getting treated seriously while misandry is brushed aside?
And don't anybody say that nobody is being a misandrist here. If you give me a couple days, I can bring up quite a few examples.
This society isn';t about equality at all. It's about trying to one-up each other, like Max said earlier.
And don't anybody say that nobody is being a misandrist here. If you give me a couple days, I can bring up quite a few examples.
This society isn';t about equality at all. It's about trying to one-up each other, like Max said earlier.
Though the fact that those who point out "misandry" never point out misogyny, that says a lot. Occasionally acknowledging it isn't the same thing as actually caring about it.
So when you say you want fairness and equality and you talk about the misandry problem, you should be talking about the misogyny problem too. Because every time someone brings up sexism toward women on this forum, the first thing that comes up is "What about the misandry!! !!"
So, fair is fair.
How hypocritical is this?
People who cry "misogyny" all the time never point out misandry either. So how does this response make any logical sense?
I swear, the craziness I've had to deal with today. First, people crying "misogyny" every time someone disagrees with them, then I got into an argument on FB with a 35-year-old passive-aggressive dude.
I should seriously call off work today, for my sake.
I've seen misandry ONCE on WP, and it had been reported repeatedly and the thread was closed by the time I saw it.
So yeah, call off work because I'm not reporting imaginary misandry on WP.
I've seen the occasional misandry posts here. It's not that uncommon for a girl to claim that "all men are the same" (as if somebody owed her anything for the sex) or that men only care about looks. There are clearly more misgyonistic posts here, but them again, men with AS typically have more problems in the dating department than women, though.
Misgyonistic threads are typically closed, though.
If anyone would care to reference the examples of misandry with an actual link I might buy it that it's not a rare occasion.
Read to some of the stuff im the women's section or for that matter check out some of the stuff in the Tumblr page you're linking to.
So you can't find anything, is what you're saying? My tumblr isn't a part of the board, and the "MISANDRY4LYFE" things are tumblr in-joke.
But still, you can't find anything, and I could easily point out examples right now. Like the recent comments about tits, the gratuitous use of the very gendered word b***h, people laughing that a girl was so scared she threatened to report a guy for harassment, etc.
You can't come up with a single example, can you?
Didn't have to look for a very long time: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt220261.html
What comments about tits are anti-feministic? b***h (from the Scandinavian word 'Bikkje') originally meant female dog, but nowadays it refers to an unpleasant woman, just like as*hole or dick refers to an unpleasant man.
You wrote that ugly men shouldn't be allowed to be shirtless. Some white knights and radicals in this board would be fairly quick to judge a man as a misgyonist if he said that women who didn't shave their armpits should be banned from wearing sleeveless shirts or women who were fat shouldn't be allowed to wear a bikini at the beach.
Quote:
No, I didn't write that, a satire blog wrote that, and I re-blogged it, satirizing men who say stupid things like women who don't shave their armpits should be banned from wearing sleeveless shirts. Because it's such an incredibly common thing.
I never claimed they should be, I just used it as an example. As gross as it is, a law that prevents it would interere too much with personal freedom.
Quote:
And the comments about tits don't need to be anti-feminist to be misogynistic. If you don't understand why b***h is misogynistic then you're kind of a lost cause for me.
So what precisely makes the comment saout tits misogynistic? The word b***h is not a misogynist term; words that describe unåleasant people are needed—regardless of gender.
Quote:
And would you like to point out what, exactly, in that thread could be called misandry? Because you still haven't pointed out misandry. Unless you think making a thread questioning who has it easier is misandry, in which case 90% of the "Who has it easier" threads are misogyny.
Claiming that men have it easier in the first place would be a start. Another example is claiming that women are required to be 20 lbs overweight withput mentioning that men are both under pressure to be below healthy fat levels and at the same time carrying a lot of muscle.
Claiming that it's easier just because without giving a very good explanation would be misgyonistic. Claiming that women are less i telligent or uncapable of making their own decissions would also be misgyonistic. But claiming that women have it easier in terms of dating is not. Let's be frank here: Taking the passive role (while still having the option to take the active role) is much more convenient than having to take the active role.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 7:37 pm
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
Why are all the neckbeards complaining again? I am happy, yet still am going to get married. People who like traditional values or the traditional way of life are not all mra's. I also find his comment on neck beards offensive, he's emotionally scarred more like it, I am nice to ladies! On another note, why is this a problem, still no answer!
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 7:43 pm
And just to let you all know, I am citing my sociology professor on this one, white males are the most likely to commit suicide, maybe not suffer from depression, but still. Marshall seems to think traditionalists are to blame for something that naturally happens to women sometimes, and that is pretty dumb.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 7:44 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
meems wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
meems wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
I seriously thought you guys were smarter and less sheep-like than this. But you guys for the most part are just as bad as NTs. I never thought I'd see some of the posters' true colors. Misandry is allowed and misogyny isn't. Why can't both be disallowed, instead of misogyny getting treated seriously while misandry is brushed aside?
And don't anybody say that nobody is being a misandrist here. If you give me a couple days, I can bring up quite a few examples.
This society isn';t about equality at all. It's about trying to one-up each other, like Max said earlier.
And don't anybody say that nobody is being a misandrist here. If you give me a couple days, I can bring up quite a few examples.
This society isn';t about equality at all. It's about trying to one-up each other, like Max said earlier.
Though the fact that those who point out "misandry" never point out misogyny, that says a lot. Occasionally acknowledging it isn't the same thing as actually caring about it.
So when you say you want fairness and equality and you talk about the misandry problem, you should be talking about the misogyny problem too. Because every time someone brings up sexism toward women on this forum, the first thing that comes up is "What about the misandry!! !!"
So, fair is fair.
How hypocritical is this?
People who cry "misogyny" all the time never point out misandry either. So how does this response make any logical sense?
I swear, the craziness I've had to deal with today. First, people crying "misogyny" every time someone disagrees with them, then I got into an argument on FB with a 35-year-old passive-aggressive dude.
I should seriously call off work today, for my sake.
I've seen misandry ONCE on WP, and it had been reported repeatedly and the thread was closed by the time I saw it.
So yeah, call off work because I'm not reporting imaginary misandry on WP.
I've seen the occasional misandry posts here. It's not that uncommon for a girl to claim that "all men are the same" (as if somebody owed her anything for the sex) or that men only care about looks. There are clearly more misgyonistic posts here, but them again, men with AS typically have more problems in the dating department than women, though.
Misgyonistic threads are typically closed, though.
If anyone would care to reference the examples of misandry with an actual link I might buy it that it's not a rare occasion.
Read to some of the stuff im the women's section or for that matter check out some of the stuff in the Tumblr page you're linking to.
So you can't find anything, is what you're saying? My tumblr isn't a part of the board, and the "MISANDRY4LYFE" things are tumblr in-joke.
But still, you can't find anything, and I could easily point out examples right now. Like the recent comments about tits, the gratuitous use of the very gendered word b***h, people laughing that a girl was so scared she threatened to report a guy for harassment, etc.
You can't come up with a single example, can you?
Didn't have to look for a very long time: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt220261.html
What comments about tits are anti-feministic? b***h (from the Scandinavian word 'Bikkje') originally meant female dog, but nowadays it refers to an unpleasant woman, just like as*hole or dick refers to an unpleasant man.
You wrote that ugly men shouldn't be allowed to be shirtless. Some white knights and radicals in this board would be fairly quick to judge a man as a misgyonist if he said that women who didn't shave their armpits should be banned from wearing sleeveless shirts or women who were fat shouldn't be allowed to wear a bikini at the beach.
Quote:
No, I didn't write that, a satire blog wrote that, and I re-blogged it, satirizing men who say stupid things like women who don't shave their armpits should be banned from wearing sleeveless shirts. Because it's such an incredibly common thing.
I never claimed they should be, I just used it as an example. As gross as it is, a law that prevents it would interere too much with personal freedom.
Quote:
And the comments about tits don't need to be anti-feminist to be misogynistic. If you don't understand why b***h is misogynistic then you're kind of a lost cause for me.
So what precisely makes the comment saout tits misogynistic? The word b***h is not a misogynist term; words that describe unåleasant people are needed—regardless of gender.
Quote:
And would you like to point out what, exactly, in that thread could be called misandry? Because you still haven't pointed out misandry. Unless you think making a thread questioning who has it easier is misandry, in which case 90% of the "Who has it easier" threads are misogyny.
Claiming that men have it easier in the first place would be a start. Another example is claiming that women are required to be 20 lbs overweight withput mentioning that men are both under pressure to be below healthy fat levels and at the same time carrying a lot of muscle.
Claiming that it's easier just because without giving a very good explanation would be misgyonistic. Claiming that women are less i telligent or uncapable of making their own decissions would also be misgyonistic. But claiming that women have it easier in terms of dating is not. Let's be frank here: Taking the passive role (while still having the option to take the active role) is much more convenient than having to take the active role.
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
Tyri0n
Veteran
Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)
23 May 2013, 8:10 pm
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
The problem is the social expectations that force these roles on men and women because of their gender. Some men are better caretakers, and some women are better at making money. Yet society stigmatizes women who don't get married and have kids, and society stigmatizes men who aren't traditional "providers" (and women are as guilty of this prejudice as men); therefore, there is a lot of pressure on women to do things that distract from a career, like raising children, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a decent public daycare system in the U.S./UK, which partly contributes to the pay disparity. But it's still sexism. It's just more deeply embedded sexism.
So you have a combination between society's sexism and an actual glass ceiling (which may or may not be overstated, depending on the field), and that's the were the pay disparity comes from. It's still sexism, even if some of the contributors to it look like individual choice.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was that given that men have all these advantages, I'm curious why some men would get bitter and say women have it better. These must not be men who are able to take full advantage of the patriarchy because, everywhere I look, men have higher-paying jobs and little trouble dating because men in high-prestige jobs are typically swarmed by women looking to get into their pants; it's more than just their money; it's the aura of power and attractiveness they give off. Men who do not experience this or recognize the patriarchy for what it is and how it benefits them are clearly lacking in personal qualities possessed by a significant % of other men.
I would compare MRA's and gender to an analogous situation involving socio-economics. For example, to a WASP rich kid who alienates her wealthy parents and ends up homeless on the streets washed out by MDMA. Then, she sees poor minority classmates going to college and even a few going to Harvard and Yale, and she says, "poor minorities have it easier." No, they don't. You have to look outside yourself at the full picture. She had every advantage in the world in America's f****d up corporatist classist society but blew them all. On AVERAGE, WASP kids do much better than poor minorities from a socio-economic point of view. Those WASP kids who do poorly are simply losers.
Last edited by Tyri0n on 23 May 2013, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 May 2013, 8:11 pm
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 8:19 pm
Tyri0n wrote:
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
The problem is the social expectations that force these roles on men and women because of their gender. Some men are better caretakers, and some women are better at making money. Yet society stigmatizes women who don't get married and have kids, and society stigmatizes men who aren't traditional "providers" (and women are as guilty of this prejudice as men); therefore, there is a lot of pressure on women to do things that distract from a career, like raising children, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a decent public daycare system in the U.S./UK, which partly contributes to the pay disparity. But it's still sexism. It's just more deeply embedded sexism.
So you have a combination between society's sexism and an actual glass ceiling (which may or may not be overstated, depending on the field), and that's the were the pay disparity comes from. It's still sexism, even if some of the contributors to it look like individual choice.
Gender roles are not sexism, and thinking so is completely ignorant. The one thing you think is that even if the majority of women want sex and kids, because you don't, they must be sexist for wishing for children. You lied to me when you said you weren't bagging on tradition, and now you say we are sexist? I am all for free will sure, but don't call us sexist if we don't want to join you. You lied, and that was very disrespectful. BTW thanks for agreeing it is probably true all the traditionalist women whom you fail with would adore me, send them my way, I won't care for anything other than one, I promise.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 8:20 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
I am not a woman. I'm not the son of a wealthy billionaire either, but I know that it would be easier to buy a house if I were.
Since when did giving birth to children become mandatory? Most of the men a woman dates during her lifetime, aren't going to knock her up.
Not having to take the active role (while at the same time having the option to do so) is easier. Having job prospects come to you instead of applying for jobs and compete with more than a hundred other people would be easier as well.
23 May 2013, 8:27 pm
Tyri0n wrote:
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
The problem is the social expectations that force these roles on men and women because of their gender. Some men are better caretakers, and some women are better at making money. Yet society stigmatizes women who don't get married and have kids, and society stigmatizes men who aren't traditional "providers" (and women are as guilty of this prejudice as men); therefore, there is a lot of pressure on women to do things that distract from a career, like raising children, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a decent public daycare system in the U.S./UK, which partly contributes to the pay disparity. But it's still sexism. It's just more deeply embedded sexism.
So you have a combination between society's sexism and an actual glass ceiling (which may or may not be overstated, depending on the field), and that's the were the pay disparity comes from. It's still sexism, even if some of the contributors to it look like individual choice.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was that given that men have all these advantages, I'm curious why some men would get bitter and say women have it better. These must not be men who are able to take full advantage of the patriarchy because, everywhere I look, men have higher-paying jobs and little trouble dating because men in high-prestige jobs are typically swarmed by women looking to get into their pants; it's more than just their money; it's the aura of power and attractiveness they give off. Men who do not experience this or recognize the patriarchy for what it is and how it benefits them are clearly lacking in personal qualities possessed by a significant % of other men.
I would compare MRA's and gender to an analogous situation involving socio-economics. For example, to a WASP rich kid who alienates her wealthy parents and ends up homeless on the streets washed out by MDMA. Then, she sees poor minority classmates going to college and even a few going to Harvard and Yale, and she says, "poor minorities have it easier." No, they don't. You have to look outside yourself at the full picture. She had every advantage in the world in America's f**** up corporatist classist society but blew them all. On AVERAGE, WASP kids do much better than poor minorities from a socio-economic point of view. Those WASP kids who do poorly are simply losers.
And further more, I don't have a hard time. I am only 19, and I am finding a job while trying to turn my blacksmithing hobby into a real etsy business. You are almost living not just in one moment, but in one ideal for everyone who ever lived. I see kids going to college and make friends with them.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 8:40 pm
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
I am not a woman. I'm not the son of a wealthy billionaire either, but I know that it would be easier to buy a house if I were.
Since when did giving birth to children become mandatory? Most of the men a woman dates during her lifetime, aren't going to knock her up.
Not having to take the active role (while at the same time having the option to do so) is easier. Having job prospects come to you instead of applying for jobs and compete with more than a hundred other people would be easier as well.
I didn't say all women, and it is still enough for a right to an easier time, even asexual women have to deal with horny men, so stop living in your own world. They don't have job prospects, and have to search just as hard. I don't date women who don't want a serious relationship, I know what I want, I'm not some lost puppy. Why date for no reason at all? I think you got friend zoning and dating confused. Plus, why would I talk to you when I could just find a woman who agrees with me? Then I could marry he, and you would have nothing to say. Since when did men stop wanting to pass on their dna, not much of an alpha are you. Thing is, Alphas WANT children, not the other way around. Wolves are getting more traditional than we are..... I could say so many things, I want a woman who wants me and my values so she is happy, not so she can be a housewife, but even that wouldn't matter.
_________________
comedic burp
Tyri0n
Veteran
Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)
23 May 2013, 8:47 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
The problem is the social expectations that force these roles on men and women because of their gender. Some men are better caretakers, and some women are better at making money. Yet society stigmatizes women who don't get married and have kids, and society stigmatizes men who aren't traditional "providers" (and women are as guilty of this prejudice as men); therefore, there is a lot of pressure on women to do things that distract from a career, like raising children, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a decent public daycare system in the U.S./UK, which partly contributes to the pay disparity. But it's still sexism. It's just more deeply embedded sexism.
So you have a combination between society's sexism and an actual glass ceiling (which may or may not be overstated, depending on the field), and that's the were the pay disparity comes from. It's still sexism, even if some of the contributors to it look like individual choice.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was that given that men have all these advantages, I'm curious why some men would get bitter and say women have it better. These must not be men who are able to take full advantage of the patriarchy because, everywhere I look, men have higher-paying jobs and little trouble dating because men in high-prestige jobs are typically swarmed by women looking to get into their pants; it's more than just their money; it's the aura of power and attractiveness they give off. Men who do not experience this or recognize the patriarchy for what it is and how it benefits them are clearly lacking in personal qualities possessed by a significant % of other men.
I would compare MRA's and gender to an analogous situation involving socio-economics. For example, to a WASP rich kid who alienates her wealthy parents and ends up homeless on the streets washed out by MDMA. Then, she sees poor minority classmates going to college and even a few going to Harvard and Yale, and she says, "poor minorities have it easier." No, they don't. You have to look outside yourself at the full picture. She had every advantage in the world in America's f**** up corporatist classist society but blew them all. On AVERAGE, WASP kids do much better than poor minorities from a socio-economic point of view. Those WASP kids who do poorly are simply losers.
And further more, I don't have a hard time. I am only 19, and I am finding a job while trying to turn my blacksmithing hobby into a real etsy business. You are almost living not just in one moment, but in one ideal for everyone who ever lived. I see kids going to college and make friends with them.
You're a bit sexist, but I wouldn't call you misogynistic or an MRA, so this thread was not aimed at you. You're sexist in theory but might be just fine in practice, so anyway, I was not implying anything about you when I wrote that.
23 May 2013, 8:49 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
I am not a woman. I'm not the son of a wealthy billionaire either, but I know that it would be easier to buy a house if I were.
Since when did giving birth to children become mandatory? Most of the men a woman dates during her lifetime, aren't going to knock her up.
Not having to take the active role (while at the same time having the option to do so) is easier. Having job prospects come to you instead of applying for jobs and compete with more than a hundred other people would be easier as well.
I didn't say all women, and it is still enough for a right to an easier time, even asexual women have to deal with horny men, so stop living in your own world.[/quote]
They don't have to date them.
Quote:
I don't date women who don't want a serious relationship, I know what I want, I'm not some lost puppy. Why date for no reason at all?
I never called you a lost puppy. You can't be sure when you start dating someone that it will lead to a serious relationahip.
Quote:
I think you got friend zoning and dating confused.
Who said anything about friendzoning?
Quote:
Plus, why would I talk to you when I could just find a woman who agrees with me? Then I could marry he, and you would have nothing to say.
Not sure what to make of this, and your arguments are getting more and more obscure, if you don't mind me saying.
Quote:
Since when did men stop wanting to pass on their dna, not much of an alpha are you. Thing is, Alphas WANT children, not the other way around.
Our natural sex drive doesn't take pills and condoms into consideration—and our instinct to f.ck doesn't care as long as a girl LOOKS fertile.
Quote:
Wolves are getting more traditional than we are..... I could say so many things, I want a woman who wants me and my values so she is happy, not so she can be a housewife, but even that wouldn't matter.
The tradition until the rise of monogamy some 6000 years ago, was "everybody in the pack f***s everybody, except the ones with the bad genetics", like the chimpanzees do.
23 May 2013, 9:03 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
I am not a woman. I'm not the son of a wealthy billionaire either, but I know that it would be easier to buy a house if I were.
Since when did giving birth to children become mandatory? Most of the men a woman dates during her lifetime, aren't going to knock her up.
Not having to take the active role (while at the same time having the option to do so) is easier. Having job prospects come to you instead of applying for jobs and compete with more than a hundred other people would be easier as well.
I didn't say all women, and it is still enough for a right to an easier time, even asexual women have to deal with horny men, so stop living in your own world.
They don't have to date them.
Quote:
I don't date women who don't want a serious relationship, I know what I want, I'm not some lost puppy. Why date for no reason at all?
I never called you a lost puppy. You can't be sure when you start dating someone that it will lead to a serious relationahip.
Quote:
I think you got friend zoning and dating confused.
Who said anything about friendzoning?
Quote:
Plus, why would I talk to you when I could just find a woman who agrees with me? Then I could marry he, and you would have nothing to say.
Not sure what to make of this, and your arguments are getting more and more obscure, if you don't mind me saying.
Quote:
Since when did men stop wanting to pass on their dna, not much of an alpha are you. Thing is, Alphas WANT children, not the other way around.
Our natural sex drive doesn't take pills and condoms into consideration—and our instinct to f.ck doesn't care as long as a girl LOOKS fertile.
Quote:
Wolves are getting more traditional than we are..... I could say so many things, I want a woman who wants me and my values so she is happy, not so she can be a housewife, but even that wouldn't matter.
The tradition until the rise of monogamy some 6000 years ago, was "everybody in the pack f**** everybody, except the ones with the bad genetics", like the chimpanzees do.
Well call me a marauding Alpha Loner Wolf then, the pack can f**k themselves all thy want! You are still not much of an alpha, you can't be one without having pups every year. The fertile comment proves my point. Sex doesn't appeal to me unless it has the chance to make my hypothetical wife pregnant or satisfied with her litter she currently has.
_________________
comedic burp
Tyri0n
Veteran
Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)
23 May 2013, 9:09 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Quote:
Sex doesn't appeal to me unless it has the chance to make my hypothetical wife pregnant or satisfied with her litter she currently has.
Sounds like you just want a baby machine that just keeps barfing out babies, a sex slave that produces offspring. Your use of the term "litter" and all that implies is also quite disturbing. If I were a woman, I would probably report you to the moderators.
23 May 2013, 9:13 pm
Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
Greb wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you being this dense on purpose? Is it a trolling technique? My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn company. It has to do with the fact that traditional gender roles (child rearing) mean women have less energy in the tank to devote to high powered careers. It's called putting 2 and 2 together to get 4. Talking about the company is a red herring. You're starting to sound like a stereotypical repulsive Ayn Rand worshiper. It's too bad she didn't make a million clones of herself before she croaked so all the dumb emotionally stunted neckbeards could have something to f**k.
And? what's the matter?
In case you have less energy to devote to a high powered career, you get a lower salary. That's normal. If you're using less energy with your career because your devoting more energy to anything else, then you get less money. Yeap, and? where's the problem?
The problem is the social expectations that force these roles on men and women because of their gender. Some men are better caretakers, and some women are better at making money. Yet society stigmatizes women who don't get married and have kids, and society stigmatizes men who aren't traditional "providers" (and women are as guilty of this prejudice as men); therefore, there is a lot of pressure on women to do things that distract from a career, like raising children, a problem exacerbated by the lack of a decent public daycare system in the U.S./UK, which partly contributes to the pay disparity. But it's still sexism. It's just more deeply embedded sexism.
So you have a combination between society's sexism and an actual glass ceiling (which may or may not be overstated, depending on the field), and that's the were the pay disparity comes from. It's still sexism, even if some of the contributors to it look like individual choice.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was that given that men have all these advantages, I'm curious why some men would get bitter and say women have it better. These must not be men who are able to take full advantage of the patriarchy because, everywhere I look, men have higher-paying jobs and little trouble dating because men in high-prestige jobs are typically swarmed by women looking to get into their pants; it's more than just their money; it's the aura of power and attractiveness they give off. Men who do not experience this or recognize the patriarchy for what it is and how it benefits them are clearly lacking in personal qualities possessed by a significant % of other men.
I would compare MRA's and gender to an analogous situation involving socio-economics. For example, to a WASP rich kid who alienates her wealthy parents and ends up homeless on the streets washed out by MDMA. Then, she sees poor minority classmates going to college and even a few going to Harvard and Yale, and she says, "poor minorities have it easier." No, they don't. You have to look outside yourself at the full picture. She had every advantage in the world in America's f**** up corporatist classist society but blew them all. On AVERAGE, WASP kids do much better than poor minorities from a socio-economic point of view. Those WASP kids who do poorly are simply losers.
And further more, I don't have a hard time. I am only 19, and I am finding a job while trying to turn my blacksmithing hobby into a real etsy business. You are almost living not just in one moment, but in one ideal for everyone who ever lived. I see kids going to college and make friends with them.
You're a bit sexist, but I wouldn't call you misogynistic or an MRA, so this thread was not aimed at you. You're sexist in theory but might be just fine in practice, so anyway, I was not implying anything about you when I wrote that.
And I'm just pointing out that even though I probably treat women better than you, you call me sexist for the hell of it. You are just as guilty when your an arse who takes traditionalist women out on dates when he knows he is not meant for marriage.
_________________
comedic burp
23 May 2013, 9:17 pm
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
What's wrong with this statement? It's no more offensive than saying men have an easier time in the military or that a man who applies for a job as a pipefiter is much more likely to get the job than a woman.
No it is completely different than those. You are just going to look like a complainer. The ones you just said are actually true, while the women have it easier dating isn't. What is easy about dating? Are you a woman? NO. End of story. They give birth to children, they have a right to have it easier anyways if that is even true. You're full of frustration.
I am not a woman. I'm not the son of a wealthy billionaire either, but I know that it would be easier to buy a house if I were.
Since when did giving birth to children become mandatory? Most of the men a woman dates during her lifetime, aren't going to knock her up.
Not having to take the active role (while at the same time having the option to do so) is easier. Having job prospects come to you instead of applying for jobs and compete with more than a hundred other people would be easier as well.
I didn't say all women, and it is still enough for a right to an easier time, even asexual women have to deal with horny men, so stop living in your own world.
They don't have to date them.
Quote:
I don't date women who don't want a serious relationship, I know what I want, I'm not some lost puppy. Why date for no reason at all?
I never called you a lost puppy. You can't be sure when you start dating someone that it will lead to a serious relationahip.
Quote:
I think you got friend zoning and dating confused.
Who said anything about friendzoning?
Quote:
Plus, why would I talk to you when I could just find a woman who agrees with me? Then I could marry he, and you would have nothing to say.
Not sure what to make of this, and your arguments are getting more and more obscure, if you don't mind me saying.
Quote:
Since when did men stop wanting to pass on their dna, not much of an alpha are you. Thing is, Alphas WANT children, not the other way around.
Our natural sex drive doesn't take pills and condoms into consideration—and our instinct to f.ck doesn't care as long as a girl LOOKS fertile.
Quote:
Wolves are getting more traditional than we are..... I could say so many things, I want a woman who wants me and my values so she is happy, not so she can be a housewife, but even that wouldn't matter.
The tradition until the rise of monogamy some 6000 years ago, was "everybody in the pack f**** everybody, except the ones with the bad genetics", like the chimpanzees do.
Well call me a marauding Alpha Loner Wolf then, the pack can f**k themselves all thy want! You are still not much of an alpha, you can't be one without having pups every year. The fertile comment proves my point. Sex doesn't appeal to me unless it has the chance to make my hypothetical wife pregnant or satisfied with her litter she currently has.
You accuse others of misogynism, yet you still view women as just incubators? Here's something every man who's had a relationship and every woman who's had sex knows: Women like sex just as much as men do. Some misandrists pretend not to like it so that they can whine about how men don't repay the sex with a relationship.
