全 62 件のコメント

[–]1favours_of_the_moon 57ポイント58ポイント  (6子コメント)

I look at civilization generally as having been created to PROTECT women, children and the elderly. At great expense to the great disposable masses of men.

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 28ポイント29ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, it is funny when feminists decry patriarchy when patriarchy = civilization. Why don't they just go back and live in mud huts? Oh right, there are bugs and shit out there....

[–]aanarchist 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

pretty sure most of my insecurities as a man had to do with women and how they viewed me. if a guy didn't have to think or worry about whether women found him attractive or whether his woman was loyal or his kids were his and trying to find out based on her behaviors, we'd all be a bunch of super happy dudes playing sports for the fun of it instead of killing each other trying to amass power.

[–]Quisel 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

are you implying that those mud huts were build by women?

[–]Swole_is_life 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"White men are the worst thing that has ever happened to the world!"

Written on a device invented by a white man, powered by the inventions of other white men, while getting fat because of agriculture advances made by white men, disease-free due to medicines discovered by white men and in a free country able to say (almost) whatever you want without fear due to the sacrifices of white men.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

[–]Casanova-Quinn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Great point here. By creating a safe civilization, modern women have taken for granted the protection men have provided.

[–]Areu4realm8 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

what expense are men paying? civilization gives more help to the weaker. do you want to get your hand held like old people?

[–]2Auvergnat 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

I rarely say this, but this is sidebar material right here. In the sense that it is an overwhelmingly important but very fundamental point that newbies would do well to understand at the earliest stage of their red pill journey, and that it is very well and concisely written. Cheers mate.

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

That means a lot. I've enjoyed this community for a long time but have only recently had the courage to start writing stuff directly aimed at the subreddit. It makes me glad to hear it is well-received. Cheers.

[–]Lionlocker 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also been enjoying this community for a while now, and everything you said makes so much sense.

I love your username, bro, I'm trying to start up some lucid dreaming business, and I've done some pretty insane stuff in my dreams.

[–]ShOdinn 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The last paragraph of the body (titled "The Red Pill Solution") especially. Though it needs context for many people, it is almost a mantra that one could repeat until deprogrammed.

[–]mercuryg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

AGREED, this is pure preventative medicine for literally any male living and breathing in the western world today.

Doesn't matter if you're a TRP vet or the most beta guy in the world, just by living in this social climate the poison seeps into your brain one way or another and a concise, no-bullshit post like this feels an oasis in the desert. This is sidebar quality no doubt, as a introductory post of some sort, i could get behind that.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMattyAnon 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Women have never been oppressed in the West, that's the dirty truth of the feminist lie as OP says.

The further you go back in time, the worse things are for women. And the worse they are for men too. Women didn't have no-fault divorce? Well guess what, men didn't either.

Women didn't work... not because of male oppression but because it took 25 years to raise 10 children and support a husband (no decent cars, no washing machine, no microwave, no kettle, no dishwasher) while he worked himself to death in the mines.

The more privilege women get (and let's not mince words - the Western woman is now the most privileged group in the entirety of life on earth) .... the more they demand.

To get more privilege means they have to invent more oppression. And that's exactly what happens.... the rape culture myth.... the 77 cents on the dollar wage myth.... they'll lie (and believe each other unconditionally) to justify stealing yet more undeserved rights.

[–]Swole_is_life 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As usual, they only look at the very top men. Read some old Scottish poetry sometime; at a time in history when white men were supposedly running around oppressing everyone, there are tons of poems about how truly awful it was to be a common man.

The rich and powerful have always oppressed the poor and weak and probably always will.

[–]ManChildProud 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Second that. I appreciate you writing this. Very articulate. It shows that the "Patriarchy" is part of the evolution process and that neither gender is to blame.

[–]Randomshortdude 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agree with everything you wrote.

Good post.

[–]exquecher 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

And don't forget. It's not all some big conspiracy where all women are "in on it", but rather, the result of all the conditioning foisted upon civilization by the Globalist Elite and certain powerful (((people)))

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

I tend to blame feminist but then, that begs the question, who empowers the feminists and makes their philosophy so central in our culture?

[–]Algernoq 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Who owns the media conglomerates that push the blue-pill narrative?
Who provided and still provides funding for feminist protesters and others aimed at toppling the old order and creating an egalitarian "utopia"?
Who is it illegal to criticize?

[–]analyticaltoafault 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is some actual literal redpill shit a lot of people need to realize.

[–]Swallowed_the_pill 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The media. They want headlines and they wan't to sell. It's easier to sell something that convices the user that everything is societies fault and not yours.

It's societies fault that you aren't considered to be beatiful, not the fact that you are fat.
Society is at fault for your poor choices regarding education and career, leading you to earn less than other people.
Etc...

Most people do not want the truth, facts and logic. They want comfort, dopamine spikes and something to point their fingers at. So they can hate something with the same intensity that they hate their miserable lives. Feminists does it, frustrated nice guys does it even people who come to TRP does it during the anger phase.

Your ego/brain likes to protect itself and will usually try to blame something you can't control before you are self aware enough to stop doing it.

[–]nonthaki -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

That begs the question : If from now on suddenly only more traditional or "feminine" TV shows and propaganda and advertisements etc were soon bought into the public , would the young girls and women and the already damaged sjw libtard lesb women & bitches pick it up ? Is there a chance that many of them would turn into a new leaf ? Or will they be like the hounds who when once they taste blood and they got a taste of freedom of the new-world feminism bullshit and their taste of victory from the countless bending of other men's lives , they can never go back ?

[–]EliasBoudinot 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only thing you missed is that it's not the feminists per se pushing this. It's a nefarious subset of men who realized they could exploit female psychology as a weapon against their fellow man. Most feminists don't understand that they are pawns in a global power struggle game. They think they won all their benefits by holding signs in the street, or the modern equivalent, posting rants on YouTube.

[–]blue_dover 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist

[–]nonthaki 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can that argument be extended to the case of God too?. Unrelated to what you said but I am Just curious .

[–]goin_fishin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you asking if God tricked us?

[–]Maleden 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would argue that he did not. Creation of great and ordered things, every construct, language, and eudaimonistic quality reveals a creator. But this is the TRP sub, I digress.

[–]ElectricDruid 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can anyone elaborate on the claim that men were allowed to vote because they were registered for the draft? I get the suspicion that is not true but I don't know

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Failure to register is a felony (for men). Felons cannot vote. Thus, one must register to vote, if male.

[–]ElectricDruid 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting. I suppose it is different in the UK though so OP's writing isn't a universal truth.

[–]Luckyluke23 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just be yourself

it isn't really a lie. it's more a fact guys don't know who they are

[–]goin_fishin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where did you get your information on bonobos? I am keen to biology and most of my biologist friends love to site the bonobos for their leftist ideals. Not that I disagree, this group of chimps are interesting. After a superficial review of the literature, it's like everything about bonobos has been tainted by the left. I'd love to see some work on bonobos that isn't heavily biased!

Second, it's a shame people downvote anyone who disagrees with you. For the most part I do agree with you, but downvoting healthy discussion is ridiculous.

For my last point, have you considered that women have developed strategies to cope for their 'lot in life' so to speak? It seems ignorant to not consider that woman had to be more intelligent, cunning and manipulative behind the scenes. This is a point I think a lot of men miss because they are so worried about being alpha, manly and physical. A lot of discussion gets overlooked.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -4ポイント-3ポイント  (22子コメント)

Okay, this is going to be a dissenting opinion, so forgive me for that. This post is just a lot of fluffy conjecture and we really ought to stay fact based.

To offer a controversial opinion of my own... I don't think that the (romanticized) dangers of male existence compare to the state of being effectively subhuman that women have been subjected to. Call it masculine of me to say but I think freedom is more important than security.

That's not to say that the male existence doesn't entail a number of issues which society doesn't care to recognize or respect, but that doesn't give license to dismiss the arguments of inequality as myth.

the men would fight and die to protect the women of the tribe, they would hunt large, dangerous beasts to provide the tribe protein, and they would man the perimeter against the horrors of the outside world. And, in return for all of this protection, the women would defer to the men, support the men, and submit to the men’s leadership of the tribe.

You're spreading misinformation. We don't know how paleolithic societies were structured. Plenty of scholars have suggested the cave-people were matriarchial, but that was likely just excitement in the wake of the Venus of Willendorf. It is nonetheless quite likely that they were egalitarian and if you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to share.

but because we’ve often inhabited a violent and sub-par world

We exaggerate the violence of civilized history because we're fascinated by violence, mostly on account of living lives which are so lacking in violence.

never-crying men standing sentinel at the mouth of our caves

Why never-crying? What happens when his dog dies?

Women have traditionally put up with being controlled because they relied on men for survival, and men have fought, died, built, and created because those activities were necessary to protect, shelter, and insulate the people that they relied on for the continuation of life itself: namely, the women and children.

What are you referring to? The issues of inequality likely arose after the neolithic period, with the advent of agriculture and civilization. What marginalized women was initially the increasing reliance on physical strength for productivity. All this about men fighting and dying and protecting women is, for lack of a more polite word, fluff. It's just something that can sound intuitive in someone's head but doesn't have any basis in information. The "protecting the women and children" argument really doesn't hold up, it refers to really specific occasions that have grown less and less relevant as the centuries went on.

Masculinity is not toxic.

Not in itself, but the qualities that people often arbitrarily assign to masculinity often are. What is masculinity anyways? It's not a thing we can define on a consistent, logical basis beyond the symptoms of high testosterone levels. Now we all as humans want to empower ourselves with confidence and if emulating some cultural definition of masculinity is what does that for you then go for it. Grow a beard, work out, etc. But don't act like it carries some sort of significance for all of us to be operating on.

You are not part of the “rape culture” because you attempt to chat up a pretty woman on the subway. It is not “catcalling” to say hello to a woman on the street.

Strawman. Chatting up a woman on the subway or saying hello to a woman on the street is pretty low-risk, no one actually cares. You may make a woman uncomfortable but no one is going to be calling you a rapist, even if you saw a 13 year old's tumblr post that said otherwise once.

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

Thanks for your comment.

effectively subhuman

This is a huge leap to make. From being protected, taken care of, and controlled to being subhuman? Does that mean that every child is subhuman? Does that mean, if my wife obeys me and supports me that she is "Basically subhuman"? Seems a big reach to me.

arguments of inequality as myth.

I never said they were a myth. I'm saying if you put the inequalities on some kind of Karmic scale, women are doing way better than men in the arrangement.

You're spreading misinformation. We don't know how paleolithic societies were structured.

Are you arguing that women went out and hunted? That they waged war? That they led the tribe through danger? If you are, then that is kind of silly.

If you are more reasonably arguing that women, at some point in the past, had social power. Then I would totally agree. They always have had, in fact. The myth that women had no say in society is one that is flat out wrong. The whole reason we are even talking about feminism is evidence that women have incredible influence and social power in society.

We exaggerate the violence of civilized history because we're fascinated by violence, mostly on account of living lives which are so lacking in violence.

Here is where I have to flat out disagree. Read a history book. 60 million people died violently in one war last century

The world would have been even more violent in the past.

Why never-crying? What happens when his dog dies?

Men don't cry, traditionally, because a man is seen to be worth the amount of protection he can provide. In tribal African villages a man who cries because his dog died would never marry, reproduce, and thus be an evolutionary dead end.

All this about men fighting and dying and protecting women is, for lack of a more polite word, fluff. It's just something that can sound intuitive in someone's head but doesn't have any basis in information.

Every defensive war ever fought has been fought by men protecting their women and children.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

This is a huge leap to make. From being protected, taken care of, and controlled to being subhuman? Does that mean that every child is subhuman? Does that mean, if my wife obeys me and supports me that she is "Basically subhuman"? Seems a big reach to me.

Well I'm not sure what all that was about but I think you're misunderstanding me... Was "subhuman" too extreme of a term? Women throughout "patriarchial" history have been considered a lesser race arbitrarily denied a variety of basic rights. That was a common, prevailing trend of opinion and policy. That's all I was referring to and I really can't figure out what you thought I said.

I never said they were a myth.

Okay let's change "inequality" to "oppression" then, because from a semantic perspective literally all things are inequal to any other given thing in some capacity and I'm not going to waste time in that trap. Whatever you are saying is a myth is what I'm contesting. I think to argue that men are the more disadvantaged group out of the two requires a lot more support than what you've offered, especially considering you've said things which are directly contrary to fact.

I'm saying if you put the inequalities on some kind of Karmic scale, women are doing way better than men in the arrangement.

I don't think that's a statement you're equipped to make. I've consistently seen that the only people who envy the station and privileges of women are exceptionally weak men. Tell me right now in the most concise terms you can muster, in a list, what is it that women have on men in this regard? Exception from military drafts, favor in custody rulings, and... What?

Here is where I have to flat out disagree. Read a history book. 60 million people died violently in one war last century

This is not in any way a rebuttal to what I just said, just a gross misunderstanding of the statement. I don't even understand how you're coming up with these interpretations. You just suggested that I didn't know what World War II was. Shit... I'm confident I know more about World War II than you do.

The world would have been even more violent in the past.

Not really, that's just concentrated centers of violence as opposed to violence being a pervasive cultural presence.

Men don't cry, traditionally, because a man is seen to be worth the amount of protection he can provide.

God damn it dude, please stop. You are completely, resoundingly, factually, demonstrably wrong as you have been about virtually everything you've said about history up until this point and it blows my mind that people are just letting that slide. Misinformation is one of the very few things in this world that offends me and I am starting to feel a bit upset.

The whole "men can't cry" thing is just a recent development of the industrial age and not even a strong one at that.

Let's look at the Bible. Men are seen crying before battles, in lamentation of the fate of the hebrews, David at the death of Absalom, Abraham at the death of Sarah, Joseph when meeting Benamin, Jesus at the death of Lazarus, and the male narrator of the Book of Lamentations weeps unrestrainedly at the destruction of Jerusalem...

In Greek culture, there were actually occasions in which men were expected to cry while women weren't, such as if something threatened the family honor. Odysseus cries on numerous occasions throughout the Oddyssey. We even see Achilles cry in the Illiad.

It wasn't until 1949 that we see proper evidence of crying having been turned into something that men shouldn't be doing, and that was just a comedy about a guy who breaks down in tears upon separating from his wife, and when she cries in response and gets back with him he pretends he wasn't crying for real. That's it.

And let's be real, it's not like it was really ever that powerful of a taboo since then. It's more of a juvenile point of fear to be caught crying, it's always been mostly accepted. The only point of importance is for men to cry less.

In tribal African villages a man who cries because his dog died would never marry, reproduce, and thus be an evolutionary dead end.

Which Tribal African Villages? I'd love to know.

Every defensive war ever fought has been fought by men protecting their women and childre

What?! No. Just, no. NOOO

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

Thanks for the comment. It is obvious you are looking at the world through a very different lens than I am, so let me see if I can address the main difference in your world view with some facts and statistics. This is a carefully selected list of figures that I use anytime someone says "Prove that men have it worse"

Tell me right now in the most concise terms you can muster, in a list, what is it that women have on men in this regard? Exception from military drafts, favor in custody rulings, and... What?

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Men pay 97% of Alimony

Men make 94% of work suicides.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

80% of all suicides are men.

77% of homicide victims are men.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

Men are over twice as victimized by strangers as women.

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's

At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.

There are more, but I'm hoping you will get the picture. The actual stats support my original claim that men sacrifice more...that they get the shorter end of the gender stick, unlike what we are popularly led to believe.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Ok, this is progress I guess but I'd appreciate it if you own up to any of your prior mistakes or at least if you wouldn't gloss over all the other points of argument. Or if you'd answer the questions I pressed of you. This is the difference between expressing a desire to have an honest, constructive discussion and simply wanting to make a certain impression on whoever else may be reading this discussion. Do you actually have any interest in promoting truth and knowledge or are you content to leave people misinformed if it means protecting your online reputation?

Now before I address each of the 16 lovely points you raised, let's talk about the approach we're taking right now.

Do you really think someone couldn't just pull up a list of women's issues as a counter? The issues of either gender in any given society are nearly infinite, making a list of one gender's issue is a kind of an insipid approach to discussing this matter. It's a road that doesn't go anywhere. What you ought to be doing is comparing the issues of men and women, point by point.

Now only because I feel obligated I will respond to your points. It's a stupid way to argue but it seems that's the only way to argue anyone is offering me right now

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Modern military personnel are 100% voluntary.

Men pay 97% of Alimony

I don't think you understand how alimony works. It's just what the wealthier party pays to who they're divorcing. The reason why men pay more is because they generally make more money than their wives. Make of that what you will, there are both misandrist and misogynist interpretations of that fact.

Men make 94% of work suicides. 80% of all suicides are men.

This is a completely valid point that deserves attention. Men are offered less emotional support/sympathy, largely due to the pressure for stoicism which you referred to earlier. It's sad and wrong and needs change.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Unless you're referring to some sort of slave labor then I don't understand what the point is. Work is voluntary, not forced. Men brave the risks of a dangerous line of work for the money it offers. Dangerous lines of work are voluntarily occupied by men more than women because they're more physically demanding. If women are to apply they're seldom accepted. Now explain what any of that has to do with the station of men in society in regards to anything that would support your argument.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Yeah

77% of homicide victims are men.

88% of homicides are committed by men. How does the fact that perpetrators of homicide are typically men targeting men invalidate the myth of oppression on women?

Hell, it's not like it's even a likely influence on our lives. 77% of homicide of victims are men? Considering that there were 15,589 homicides and 114,718,205 males in America, meaning 99.999 percent of the male population doesn't suffer homicide. The amount that does is approximately the population of Ardmore, Alabama.

The question is what does any of this have to do with us? Homicide doesn't play a role in most of our lives and neither does the danger of homicide. I think it has no bearing on the cultural station of males in America or elsewhere.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

That sounds interesting. Can I get a source?

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

Here's a SECOND valid point. Custody courts are incredibly biased against men. It's a well known issue and one that feminists are actually concerned about as well, you should take it up with them!

Men are over twice as victimized by strangers as women.

What does that mean? Can I see a source?

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Couldn't that mean that men commit 165% more crime, with both parties being equally convicted? Not suggesting that men aren't convicted, just pointing out that it's not a valid point.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Valid point #3

60-80% of the homeless are men.

And this is a consequence of what, exactly? What is the takeaway from this? Explain.

Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's

Women's cancers fundraise better.

Am I supposed to bring up an arbitrarily long list of random women's problems now? Do I really have to?

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm interested in having a discussion, I just don't have the time or energy to respond to each individual opinion of yours when I sort of have a blanket disagreement with the way you view the world, just as you apparently disagree with my basic assessment of things.

Also, the incredulous, holier-than-thou way you are expressing what, let's face it, are just your emotional opinions (not saying many of mine aren't, but at least I'm civil) is starting to grate on me a bit.

That said, I would actually be very interested in seeing a statistical list showing comparable disadvantages women have. I've never seen such a list. Usually, in this type of debate as we're having now, any reckoning of women's disadvantages that I've seen is emotion-based, without statistics. Things like "Women aren't taken seriously", or "Women have to be afraid walking home at night" which couldn't be proven in hard science no matter how much feminist funding was involved. My stats, on the other hand, are entirely empirical. Value that how you will, and know that yes, I am open to feminist stats if you actually have them.

If you are interested in looking deeper into the stats I posted, you can find relevant links here: http://www.realsexism.com/

Otherwise, I'm glad that we've had this discussion. You raised some points that have made me think.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

holier-than-thou

are just your emotional opinions (not saying many of mine aren't, but at least I'm civil) are starting to grate on me a bit.

I get that you're trying to goad me but the fact of the matter is that you said a number of blatantly false statements and I wasn't nice about pointing them out. You attempted a number of fallacious arguments and I wasn't nice about responding to them. Frankly, I've given you as much respect as you deserve, don't try to paint yourself as a victim. When I'm wrong about something I own up to it. When my opponent raises a good point I acknowledge it. You were wrong about almost everything you said about history and what do you do? You pretend it didn't happen. It's childish and it will make anyone increasingly rude as they speak with you.

Usually, in this type of debate as we're having now, any reckoning of women's disadvantages that I've seen is emotion-based, without statistics.

...What? We've hardly spoken a word on women's statistics. You're just trying to discredit everything I've said as "emotional" just because I gave you an attitude, and perhaps to resolve the cognitive dissonance of being repeatedly refuted on so many different things, none of which you've owned up to. You've donned an almost civil tone, but it's a really thin facade. There's not a single argument I made which was based on emotion in any capacity, you're being deliberately insulting and it kind of ruins that facade.

Ironically, what you're trying to do is the holier-than-thou approach. You're trying to present yourself as the civil, more reasonable one, as if your arguments should be empowered on the basis of character which is determined by this one comment. You're only attempting this because you can't contend with me on a basis of information.

Things like "Women aren't taken seriously", or "Women have to be afraid walking home at night" which couldn't be proven in hard science no matter how much feminist funding was involved.

The only barrier is the fact that you've chosen to state vague, abstract statements to inhibit them from empirical application. You're being deliberately deceptive again.

Women aren't taken seriously... What? In what context? Choose one and there are statistics to support it.

Women have to be afraid walking home at night? It's an awkwardly worded statement which I'm guessing is referring to the likelihood of sexual assault, in which case... Yes, such sexual assault on women is statistically likely.

and know that yes, I am open to feminist stats if you actually have them.

If you are interested in looking deeper into the stats I posted, you can find relevant links here: http://www.realsexism.com/

Okay, so you gloss over nearly every question I posed to you and nearly every constructive point of discussion I tried to broach. Now you're not even willing to defend or support a single one of the points you raised. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to sit there and make me verify your information? What happens when I bring up the list of... "feminist" (?)... points? Are you even going to address them, or are you going to just make some half-assed, dismissive response? Gathering this shit is labor intensive and you've given me absolutely no reason to believe that you're going to address any of the points I'd raise because you haven't done so up until this point.

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

You were wrong about almost everything you said about history

You literally have not posted a single stat, figure, or historical source to refute anything I've said. You disagree. Fine. But acting like you have contructed ANY refutation at all is ridiculous.

"What?! No. Just, no. NOOO" is not an argument. It is not even interesting. You've basically just written pages and pages saying "I disagree", and you are entitled to do that, but the fact that you assume you've proved me wrong with your knee-jerk reaction tells me that I'm getting nowhere here. You are obviously intelligent but Jesus man, learn the difference between opinion and fact.

[–]Legitstarake 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm fairly certain you've been arguing with a woman based on what I've just read.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

You literally have not posted a single stat, figure, or historical source to refute anything I've said. You disagree. Fine. But acting like you have contructed ANY refutation at all is ridiculous.

You assume you've proved me wrong with your knee-jerk reaction tells me that I'm getting nowhere here.

Umm... Yes, yes I have. If there was anything even slightly invalid about a single one of my responses then you would have responded to the responses. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think the arguments I made were pretty sound. If you want to see some sort of link-source supporting the fact that Odysseus cries in the Odyssey, or that scholars aren't actually certain what the likely structures of paleolithic society were, then I guess I could provide them. I honestly didn't think I needed to, especially considering the fact that you didn't contest them. That's partially why I "assumed" I'd proven you wrong. I deconstructed almost everything you said and all the while you just shied further and further away from an honest, committed discussion. Honestly if there are flaws in my rebuttals then I want to know. I'd love to have an interesting debate on the matter. If I was wrong about something I'd desperately want to know because that's just an opportunity to learn something.

"What?! No. Just, no. NOOO" is not an argument

You're absolutely right. To be brutally honest the claim you made was so goddamn silly that I knew that all I had to say was "no" because it wasn't a defensible claim.

Was I needlessly disrespectful for this argument? Yes, I'm patronizing and condescending. The thing is that if I'm arguing with someone who is being slippery, deceptive, and avoiding accountability in an argument, I find that disrespectful. That's the kind of thing I have a distaste for. I'm more than happy to have a debate with someone whom I disagree with if it's a constructive debate, but at no point did you display any sign of interest in a constructive debate. Everything you did was more like damage control

[–]thelandofdreams[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

You just keep spouting an intellectual-sounding version of "I'm right and you're wrong."

And then claiming that I'm somehow being "slippery" and evading your "constructive debate".

Why don't you lay it out for me, citing evidence to the contrary, why you think I'm wrong about women not being oppressed. Do it in an emotionless way that uses logic and facts. I've been waiting for you to come around to it for hours not but it is beginning to feel like you have nothing to say.

[–]raisins3142 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Call it masculine of me to say but I think freedom is more important than security

You can't have freedom if you are dead. Freedom pre-supposes some level of security, especially for a female. As an outdoorsmen, I could probably go off on my own and experience incredible freedom, but likely live a short and brutish life that was also uncomfortable. So, if you give up security, then you will taste very little freedom because it will end soon.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

You can't have freedom if you are dead.

To offer a completely and valid rebuttal to this - so what?

It's not a relevant argument. Death isn't the price you and I are paying for the liberties of male existence. Do you feel at risk of death? Hell, what is the difference in security you're perceiving between yourself and women?

Indeed we give up freedoms for security, but women have been denied many freedoms without any actual yield in security or anything else for that matter. Women were denied liberties because men could afford to do that to them, not because there was any sort of transaction of security and freedom going on. Women could have had more liberties this whole time without risking death.

I ask you this - what would you have different in your life, in terms of security and freedom?

[–]raisins3142 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Men did deny women certain liberties for partially selfish reasons, and also for the greater good of society.

Guess what? Men of yesteryear denied women they were married to the ability to be alone with other men. They were afraid that their wife would fuck said men, eventually. Well, that changed and guess what? The women were alone with men, and they did indeed fuck.

Without pair bonding and a reasonable certainty of paternity, then men do not pair up with women and do not contribute as much to society. Hence, you are seeing the decline of the institution of marriage and the entire culture as well.

Further, it was once very taboo for women to dress provocatively in public. It made them look easy and they were likely to be approached by men. Guess what? Women now a days dress the way prostitutes did a few decades ago. I personally can't taken them seriously because they all look like a woman that is DTF.

When women are given free reign, they fuck everything up. The main reason I believe is that they cannot think abstractly as well as men and view things outside of themselves. Everything is processed through their emotional filters in terms of how it affects them.

They are not able to contribute the same amount to society on either a physical or intellectual basis. Therefore, on what grounds, aside from being nice and fair, do they deserve what men have?

EDIT: The argument goes that reason women contributed much less is because they were oppressed. But it is a chicken-egg thing, I feel they were given less freedoms because they can do less and handle less, which probably made them produce even less than they would otherwise. For instance, the more liberal countries have fewer women going into STEM fields than do countries that are comparatively regressive, like the middle east.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Guess what? Men of yesteryear denied women they were married to the ability to be alone with other men. They were afraid that their wife would fuck said men, eventually. Well, that changed and guess what? The women were alone with men, and they did indeed fuck.

What exactly is your point? On the basis of apparent implications what you just said is so ground-fuckingly stupid that I feel stunned and disoriented and compelled to just give you the benefit of the doubt.

Without pair bonding and a reasonable certainty of paternity, then men do not pair up with women and do not contribute as much to society.

Hence, you are seeing the decline of the institution of marriage and the entire culture as well.

So what you're saying is that you dislike today's culture, or what you perceive of it, and you also fear for the state of marriage, or what you perceive of it. I don't think our culture is in decline and I don't think the increasingly finite nature of marriage is something to be that concerned about. Marriage has an very different purpose nowadays then it used to.

Further, it was once very taboo for women to dress provocatively in public. It made them look easy and they were likely to be approached by men. Guess what? Women now a days dress the way prostitutes did a few decades ago. I personally can't taken them seriously because they all look like a woman that is DTF.

Women always dressed provocatively, the definition of "provocative" is what has changed. Indeed people of the Victorian era would have blanched at seeing women dress in practical, comfortable clothing, but I don't see why we should be sharing that view. Neither I nor the rest of relevant society really gives a fuck what women wear so it's effectively meaningless. It's not like there's a logical reason for it to be any other way. You may not take them seriously, but it's not like they take you seriously either you know? We dress to attract each other and if you're not attracted to certain people then you're probably not their target demo.

When women are given free reign, they fuck everything up. The main reason I believe is that they cannot think abstractly as well as men and view things outside of themselves. Everything is processed through their emotional filters in terms of how it affects them.

That's a fine opinion and I don't particularly care.

They are not able to contribute the same amount to society on either a physical or intellectual basis. Therefore, on what grounds, aside from being nice and fair, do they deserve what men have?

On the grounds that they are able to contribute the same amount to society. Your statement is dependent on an assumption which I don't agree with, so why should it have any impact? You're just frustrated with women and you're thrusting that upon me, I'm more interested in hearing fact/logic based arguments than archaic opinions.

[–]raisins3142 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

" You're just frustrated with women and you're thrusting that upon me"

Frustrated and correct are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps I'm frustrated because I am correct?

"Men of yesteryear denied women they were married to the ability to be alone with other men. They were afraid that their wife would fuck said men, eventually. Well, that changed and guess what? The women were alone with men, and they did indeed fuck.

"What exactly is your point? On the basis of apparent implications what you just said is so ground-fuckingly stupid that I feel stunned and disoriented and compelled to just give you the benefit of the doubt.""

The point is that humans are not naturally monogamous. However, monogamy was happened upon as the best system to raise children and have a productive society. As a result, cultural norms were put into place to help monogamy. Those cultural norms felt restrictive or hurt various feels, and so were dismantled. As a result, marriage is now a failing institution. And our society has declined, perhaps you aren't old enough to have noticed.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Perhaps I'm frustrated because I am correct?

What? Whether or not you're correct doesn't somehow alter the source of frustration. You're frustrated at something and you obviously consider yourself correct. That you think yourself correct doesn't mean anything to me.

The point is that humans are not naturally monogamous.

Actually they are. To say that humans have always trended towards monogamy to a significant degree is an understatement. In a manner of thinking we owe our evolution to monogamy. Males can't impregnate freely and expect lasting progeny, human beings require a great amount of resources to raise to adulthood, and the most likely way for that to be handled is in mating pairs, in or outside of a community. It would make sense for monogamy to predate civilization.

The point is that humans are not naturally monogamous. However, monogamy was happened upon as the best system to raise children and have a productive society.

Humans are not naturally monogamous? What is your basis for that? The fact that they have the mere capacity for polyamory? Is there a basis for that?

I will say that it's not unlikely at all that paleolithic societies were largely monogamous, mating pairs is a pretty sensible method of reproduction considering the resources it takes to raise a human child. A man cannot afford to impregnate a bunch of women and expect lasting progeny, he needs to personally provide for his own children.

As a result, cultural norms were put into place to help monogamy. Those cultural norms felt restrictive or hurt various feels, and so were dismantled.

When you speak in terms this vague you only make yourself sound like you don't know what you're talking about. You did imply that the responsibility of adultery lies entirely with women, which is why I accused you of being irrationally frustrated.

And our society has declined, perhaps you aren't old enough to have noticed.

Perhaps. As far as I can tell it is advancing at incredibly rapid rates on every level. Progress will indeed always come with consequences, but those are only going to be upsetting to those old and weak minded enough to be have an aversion to change.

[–]raisins3142 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, infidelity and divorce rates disagree with you.

Women temporarily pair bonding with a male in order to raise a kid to the age at which its needs decrease is not what most would call monogamy. There are terms for women's apparent tendencies toward "monogamy" and those are hypergamy, serial monogamy, and Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks.

[–]dungeonmeisterlfg -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Infidelity? You mean that thing that men have often been condoned for through the centuries while women suffer cruel and unusual punishments? Infidelity rates? What infidelity rates? You do realize that statistically speaking, most people don't cheat on their partners?

Women temporarily pair bonding with a male in order to raise a kid to the age at which its needs decrease is not what most would call monogamy

So long as she is with one partner at a time, that's literally monogamy. Look it up please

There are terms for women's apparent tendencies toward "monogamy" and those are hypergamy, serial monogamy, and Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks.

I don't get it. Do you consider these concepts to define female mating behavior? If so you're statistically wrong.

[–]Dustin_Bromain -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good post. To make an analogy, men are the solid cement foundation of human civilization and women are the flimsy but necessary wooden walls that house the prodigy safely inside. Without the foundation, civilization collapses in on itself; descending into anarchy and ultimately, extinction.