Page 14 of 32 [ 501 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 32  Next

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

23 May 2013, 9:19 pm

appletheclown wrote:
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.


My ex girlfriend constantly spoke about how sex should wait until marriage, traditional values and all that. I slept with her on the first date. Many people who talk about familie values, purity and all that are grade A hypocrites.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:22 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
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.


Hmm now you are making me sound bad. I love children more than you, and your one to speak? I don't want a sex slave, as I'd rather be a lady's baby providing machine, and would never subject her to any persecution. I want her to be happy, plenty of people already know this, even on wp. I love them more than you, I was actually just speaking your language as that is how you define marriage any time you speak of it.
I only want to marry a woman who is my type, I would never force anyone to have anymore children than she wants. If I were a smart person, I'd know you take everything to harshly, even for an aspie. Sounds like it, but no, it isn't. Your an aspie? I wasn't implying anything. Sex is romantic to someone like me until you come along and make us want to barf, stop this f'd us flaming before I report you for framing me.


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:28 pm

Kurgan wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
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.


My ex girlfriend constantly spoke about how sex should wait until marriage, traditional values and all that. I slept with her on the first date. Many people who talk about familie values, purity and all that are grade A hypocrites.


I never meant because of traditional values I treat women better, I treat them nicer because I do in general. You're quick to assume. Oh grade a hypocrites eh? Well I'm not many people am I, SUPRISE! 8) :o 8)


_________________
comedic burp


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

23 May 2013, 9:29 pm

appletheclown wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
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.


Hmm now you are making me sound bad. I love children more than you, and your one to speak? I don't want a sex slave, as I'd rather be a lady's baby providing machine, and would never subject her to any persecution. I want her to be happy, plenty of people already know this, even on wp. I love them more than you, I was actually just speaking your language as that is how you define marriage any time you speak of it.
I only want to marry a woman who is my type, I would never force anyone to have anymore children than she wants. If I were a smart person, I'd know you take everything to harshly, even for an aspie. Sounds like it, but no, it isn't. Your an aspie? I wasn't implying anything. Sex is romantic to someone like me until you come along and make us want to barf, stop this f'd us flaming before I report you for framing me.


Last, I checked, there was nothing in the rules against so-called "framing." There are rules against using demeaning language towards other races and genders, however. You said you basically wanted an incubator to pump out babies and that the only use of sex would be procreation. That's as sexist as it gets. That means your partner can't even use birth control if she wants to, and either she has to have your babies, or she has to cheat in order to get satisfied. I said you were ok earlier, but in some ways, you are much much worse than the PUA's.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:31 pm

Kurgan wrote:
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.


I never said I viewed them as incubators, i actually said I wanted them to enjoy sex and be happy, are you not reading what I type? You are just flaming me for not agreeing with your views, I never said anything you said I did, typical of your type of arguments.


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:34 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
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.


Hmm now you are making me sound bad. I love children more than you, and your one to speak? I don't want a sex slave, as I'd rather be a lady's baby providing machine, and would never subject her to any persecution. I want her to be happy, plenty of people already know this, even on wp. I love them more than you, I was actually just speaking your language as that is how you define marriage any time you speak of it.
I only want to marry a woman who is my type, I would never force anyone to have anymore children than she wants. If I were a smart person, I'd know you take everything to harshly, even for an aspie. Sounds like it, but no, it isn't. Your an aspie? I wasn't implying anything. Sex is romantic to someone like me until you come along and make us want to barf, stop this f'd us flaming before I report you for framing me.


Last, I checked, there was nothing in the rules against so-called "framing." There are rules against using demeaning language towards other races and genders, however. You said you basically wanted an incubator to pump out babies and that the only use of sex would be procreation. That's as sexist as it gets. That means your partner can't even use birth control if she wants to, and either she has to have your babies, or she has to cheat in order to get satisfied. I said you were ok earlier, but in some ways, you are much much worse than the PUA's.


Hey trion, YOU ARE BEING COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR, I DO NOT WANT WOMEN TO BE INCUBATORS STOP TWISTING MA DAMN TONGUE, I WOULD NEVER TREAT WOMEN WRONG STOP BEING AN INTERNET WARRIOR AND CLIMB OF YA PERCH!


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:37 pm

WTH, I SAY I WANT MY WOMAN TO BE HAPPY AND TWO GUYS WHO DO SEE WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS TELL ME I'M SEXIST? WTH HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?


_________________
comedic burp


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

23 May 2013, 9:42 pm

appletheclown wrote:
WTH, I SAY I WANT MY WOMAN TO BE HAPPY AND TWO GUYS WHO DO SEE WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS TELL ME I'M SEXIST? WTH HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?


I don't see women as sex objects. Typically, it's the other way around. 8)

Anyway, you're sexist because you want a baby machine and aren't ok with your partner using birth control. That's another way of viewing women as sex objects + a whole bunch of other f****d up stuff.



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

23 May 2013, 9:44 pm

Guys, last I checked we were talking *general*, not *personal*.


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

23 May 2013, 9:47 pm

Kjas wrote:
Guys, last I checked we were talking *general*, not *personal*.


Back to the original topic, which had a socio-economic focus.

How many MRA's do y'all think hold high-level corporate or government positions or work on Wall Street?

I mean, there are some Republican Senators who share views with appletheclown, whom I would not consider to be MRA. But I've never heard anything related to MRA come out of well-off powerful men even in the Republican Party. Why? Rick Santorum, for all his gender issues, has never said that feminism has led to the subjugation of men, or that women have it better, somehow. As a former United States Senator, he believes in traditionalism and the subjugation of women in that way, but he's not an MRA. I am not aware of any powerful men who are MRA's. If there are, kindly point me to some of them.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

23 May 2013, 9:49 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
WTH, I SAY I WANT MY WOMAN TO BE HAPPY AND TWO GUYS WHO DO SEE WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS TELL ME I'M SEXIST? WTH HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?


I don't see women as sex objects. Typically, it's the other way around. 8)

Anyway, you're sexist because you want a baby machine and aren't ok with your partner using birth control. That's another way of viewing women as sex objects + a whole bunch of other f**** up stuff.


I don't view women as sex objects! Your just a troll! I never said I wanted a baby machine quote my damn self: 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.

What I forgot to include is I would have sex with my women whether I wanted to or not! Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't make me see them as baby factory, it means I am willing to please them even if I do not wish to because I love them more! Next time don't twist people damn words around! Did I say exactly "I want a baby machine"? NO, STOP FLAMING! If my wife uses birth control I'd like it more, then I could go bare back, are you that dull? Damn, you assume too much for you're own good, no wonder why traditional women hate you!


_________________
comedic burp


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

23 May 2013, 10:12 pm

appletheclown wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
WTH, I SAY I WANT MY WOMAN TO BE HAPPY AND TWO GUYS WHO DO SEE WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS TELL ME I'M SEXIST? WTH HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?


I don't see women as sex objects. Typically, it's the other way around. 8)

Anyway, you're sexist because you want a baby machine and aren't ok with your partner using birth control. That's another way of viewing women as sex objects + a whole bunch of other f**** up stuff.


I don't view women as sex objects! Your just a troll! I never said I wanted a baby machine quote my damn self: 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.

What I forgot to include is I would have sex with my women whether I wanted to or not! Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't make me see them as baby factory, it means I am willing to please them even if I do not wish to because I love them more! Next time don't twist people damn words around! Did I say exactly "I want a baby machine"? NO, STOP FLAMING! If my wife uses birth control I'd like it more, then I could go bare back, are you that dull? Damn, you assume too much for you're own good, no wonder why traditional women hate you!


Quote:
appletheclown wrote:

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.


Yep, I've heard the "it's all about love. I love women and respect them and would never treat them wrong" before, in abusive cults, like the one where I grew up. It's scary.

With choices of words like this (pregnant wives and "litters"), good luck getting any kind of job in corporate America that will allow you to tap into male privilege.



meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

23 May 2013, 10:22 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
WTH, I SAY I WANT MY WOMAN TO BE HAPPY AND TWO GUYS WHO DO SEE WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS TELL ME I'M SEXIST? WTH HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?


I don't see women as sex objects. Typically, it's the other way around. 8)

Anyway, you're sexist because you want a baby machine and aren't ok with your partner using birth control. That's another way of viewing women as sex objects + a whole bunch of other f**** up stuff.



Yeah, I see Tyri0n as a sex object. Because I'm a misandrist. And a vegan. And kind of autistic. TRIPLE THREAT


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 165
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

23 May 2013, 11:58 pm

It seems some people are quick to label male members as misogynistic for merely holding views that aren't agreeable to some feminists.

Calling a woman a "b***h" is not necessarily misogynistic. It could be based on her personality rather than gender just as calling a male an "a**hole" is not necessarily misandrist.

And there have been a lot of joking around about members' nuts here that I find it ironic that one female member is making a big deal about someone referring to her tits.

With that said, bitterness is not making either side look good. You guys and girls may want to revise some of your latest posts here.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 May 2013, 1:09 am

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 MRA-like claim that men are just naturally inclined to work harder, and have the exact same burden as women in terms responsibilities outside of work.