# The Sexodus



## tech-novelist

Apparently some people want to discuss MGTOW. Here is part 1 of a good introduction: The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society - Breitbart.

Here's part 2: The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis - Breitbart


----------



## tom67

This guy is pretty funny...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnK38SEwUic


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."


Yes, women have taken men's jobs because they can and because they do better in school. And poor men are left to figure out what to do about that. Meanwhile, women are fine, they find men they want to be with, they have their careers, and the world rocks on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

“Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."

And thus we have the crux of the problem. Average men cannot get attractive women on a regular basis....so WAHHHHHHH!!!! Let's all take our ball and go our own way because those hot chicks will not sleep with us! WAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

By all means, go your own way and thin out the pool for us. Your sexodus works out great for us.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren’t worth the hassle. It’s girls who lose out in this scenario: men don’t need the sustained emotional intimacy that comes with a fulfilling sexual relationship and can retreat into masturbatory pursuits, prostitution and one-night stands much more comfortably."


Um, no. Girls don't lose out in this scenario. These men should absolutely be focused on masturbation and prostitution, since normal women will want nothing to do with them. There is no girl anywhere who is sad these men are going their own way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Men created most of what is good about the world. The excesses of masculinity are also, to be sure, responsible for much of what is bad. But if we are to avoid sliding into decline, mediocrity and a world in which men are actively discriminated against, we must arrest the decline in social attitudes towards them before so many victims are claimed that all hope of reconciliation between the sexes is lost. If that happens, it will be women who will suffer."


Again um, no. Women will not suffer as men like this remove themselves from the dating pool. They will (and do) rejoice in the streets!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> There is no girl anywhere who is sad these men are going their own way.


Exactly. None of us want to be with these guys anyway. They just decided to do the "you can't fire me, I quit!" 

I saw this around my facebook for a while with a bunch of men liking it. Pretty much the same thing for these kind of men


----------



## techmom

Most men who exist in the real world don't give a flying f*ck about other men "going their own way". They say hey, more for us. Industry will continue and the earth will continue to move on its axis. The men in my life, my brother and uncles, laugh at sites like this, and say things like, "don't they sound like the guys who we would beatup in school back in the day? Lol!"

These guys are jokes, they want to make a statement but are failing because no one gives a damn about a bunch of men with hurt feelings from being rejected by the pretty cheerleader chicks.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Most men who exist in the real world don't give a flying f*ck about other men "going their own way". They say hey, more for us. Industry will continue and the earth will continue to move on its axis. The men in my life, my brother and uncles, laugh at sites like this, and say things like, "don't they sound like the guys who we would beatup in school back in the day? Lol!"
> 
> These guys are jokes, they want to make a statement but are failing because no one gives a damn about a bunch of men with hurt feelings from being rejected by the pretty cheerleader chicks.


Thanks for reinforcing the idea that men who can't get laid are inferior. Of course that isn't sexist, is it?


----------



## tom67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQX6zrCAqE]

I love this guy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Thanks for reinforcing the idea that men who can't get laid are inferior. Of course that isn't sexist, is it?


There's a HUGE difference between 'can't get laid' and 'can't get the attractive women they think they deserve even though they are only average themselves'

And yes, every man I know would laugh their butts off at this stuff too. 

Even if these guys were attractive, their desirability would go way down because they are whiny and entitled with bad self confidence.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a HUGE difference between 'can't get laid' and 'can't get the attractive women they think they deserve even though they are only average themselves'
> 
> And yes, every man I know would laugh their butts off at this stuff too.
> 
> Even if these guys were attractive, their desirability would go way down because they are whiny and entitled with bad self confidence.


As far as I've seen, most of the men involved in the MGTOW movement either:

1. Couldn't get laid other than by a prostitute, or
2. Are scared to death of getting taken to the cleaners for child support or divorce (if they got married), or
3. Have already been married and/or been paying child support and don't want that to happen again.

Yes, there are men who complain about not getting to scr3w the head cheerleader, but they are indeed pathetic and get very little sympathy even from other MGTOWs.

As far as I can tell, anyway.


----------



## tom67

Sigh...
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-ZdxOMXvY

This week in stupid.
Our favorite Mesopotamian leader.:surprise:

Oh the poor cupcakes.

I love UK slang.


----------



## NotLikeYou

Yeah, I had an AWESOME comment typed out for the MGTOW thread. Men would have read it and felt empowered, and probably strangely attracted to other men. Wimmen would have read it and wept bitterly at how shabbily they have treated the men in their lives all these years.

Small children would have read it and liked the crayon drawings.

I accidentally deleted it before I posted it.

Doh.

Look. As a manly man, I am all about hoisting feminists on their own collective petards. They're silly people, really, none more so than the male ones.

MGTOW and the "sexodus" and "I'm taking my marbles and GOING HOME" are one of the few things in life sillier than feminism.

Confirmation bias is where you look for examples that support the idea you're trying to prove, and ignore examples that don't, and this is what anyone writing about MGTOW or the sexodus is doing..

Some of the slicker bloggers use charts and data- "A-HA! The marriage rates are declining! Must be men deciding they're tired of women's B.S."

No.

The specimens quoted or mentioned as examples of MGTOW are (obviously) guys who are UNABLE TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIP. Period. Some have sworn off women entirely. Some frequent prostitutes. Some construct a facade that they just don't care. All of them use internet porn. And since they're messed up deep down inside, they look for validation, and they find it. If you want to read some bitter screeching, go read the comments on an MGTOW site. Feminist Tumblr got nothing on a bunch of lonely guys.

The "sexodus" is not any kind of movement away from women at all. Just a collection of anecdotes from, again, guys who can't find the effort to relate to a member of the opposite sex.

Women are the choosers of intimacy.

Guys are prone to hallucinations, because they usually think they're the ones choosing.

Women make the choices that lead to relationships and marriages. And they make the choices to end marriages. 80% of divorces are initiated by women.

Women choose, we're just along for the ride.

If a woman really wants a relationship, she can usually find a guy to have one with. He may not be that great of a guy. He may be a lousy guy, but he'll still be available. And SHE will be the one who chooses to have a relationship with him.

Given the changes we have made as a society, in many cases "women don't need no man," because they have put in the work to be able to support themselves. A man may be nice to have but not essential to have.

The woman in question may choose not to settle for a man of low quality (as defined by her). When enough women do this, it causes the marriage rates to fall, and a bunch of guys whom are too much trouble for a woman to have a relationship turn up and complain to anyone who will listen.

Their complaints get written up as MGTOW and the sexodus.

And that, boys and girls, is the story of how men started going their own way. I'm taking requests for the next fairy tale I explain.

Be good to the person you're in a relationship with. Be good to children borne of that relationship. Require that you partner do the same for you and yours.

If you can do those things, you probably won't have to go your own way, regardless of which sex you are.


----------



## tech-novelist

NotLikeYou said:


> Be good to the person you're in a relationship with. Be good to children borne of that relationship. Require that you partner do the same for you and yours.
> 
> If you can do those things, you probably won't have to go your own way, regardless of which sex you are.


As long as you are attractive enough to women to attract a woman, based on attraction alone, which is true of about 20% of men, you're in good shape. Otherwise, you're scr3wed.

Was it always like this? No. In the old days, women found life very uncomfortable without men to protect and support them. Thus, they would marry men who weren't their ideal, i.e., men of roughly the same social characteristics as themselves. If they wanted a divorce, they would have social problems and money problems, so they stayed married even if it wasn't glorious.

Was that a perfect system? Obviously not, as it led to many people not being fabulously happy. But it did lead to relatively stable marriages for most men and women. 

The current system is fine for most women, who can spend their twenties having fun (i.e., having sex with the hottest guys they can get to have sex with them), then when they want to settle down, around age 30, they can rope in some guy whom they wouldn't have given the time of day to previously. And of course the hot guys love it because they have an endless buffet of girls to choose from.

But this system leaves out one large segment of society: the young men who aren't that hot. They live in a sexual desert from puberty to age 30 or so, when they are finally acceptable to women who are done having fun.

At least, if they are financially able to carry the burden those women represent, especially considering the terrible student debt many of them still carry at that age.

One problem, though, is that a lot of these men dropped out of the dating scene in their early 20's when they couldn't get the time of day from any women anywhere near their level of attractiveness, as those women were interested only in the hot guys. And a lot of them also dropped out of the rat race, being content to spend their evenings drinking with their friends in the same situation, playing video games, and of course using porn instead of continuing to beat their heads against their unattractiveness to women.

So at the point that the 30-year-old women want to settle down, a lot of them can't find men to settle down with. Thus, you hear the screams of frustration of these women crying "why can't I find a good man?", meaning a man who meets their 125-point checklist. 

Here is the answer I would give a women who (hypothetically) asked me that:
1. Most of them dropped out so they can't make enough money to meet your requirements.
2. Your 125-point checklist is going to dissuade any of them who have somehow managed to make enough money for you.

Of course I know this is un-PC in the extreme, but so be it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

NotLikeYou said:


> Women are the choosers of intimacy.
> 
> Guys are prone to hallucinations, because they usually think they're the ones choosing.
> 
> Women make the choices that lead to relationships and marriages. And they make the choices to end marriages. 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
> 
> Women choose, we're just along for the ride.
> 
> If a woman really wants a relationship, she can usually find a guy to have one with. He may not be that great of a guy. He may be a lousy guy, but he'll still be available. And SHE will be the one who chooses to have a relationship with him.
> 
> Given the changes we have made as a society, in many cases "women don't need no man," because they have put in the work to be able to support themselves. A man may be nice to have but not essential to have.


I haven't experienced this for myself. I've been the one wanting and they decide if they want to be with me. I chased, I wooed, I asked for well over 50% of the time. 

The thing is, there are plenty of just not as appealing women out there who men can find too. They are trying to find a man, trying to woo a man, chase a man and a man can _choose _to be in a relationship with them. 

I just don't see the dynamic where the woman has more control over that UNLESS she is significantly higher "sex rank" than he is and he is trying to chase to keep up. 

I am an average woman and completely invisible. I don't think men realize that it's not all fun and games for us average women either. We just aren't noticed by _anyone_. They are all chasing the higher ranked women and don't even see the rest of us. That leaves us having to be the aggressors to get their attention. To provide something that makes us stand out as a good mate. 

It's not any easier for us than it is for average men, the average men were just more able to use their earning potential to raise their rank before where now it's not as important to many women so they can pick who they want to.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> As far as I've seen, most of the men involved in the MGTOW movement either:
> 
> 1. Couldn't get laid other than by a prostitute, or
> 2. Are scared to death of getting taken to the cleaners for child support or divorce (if they got married), or
> 3. Have already been married and/or been paying child support and don't want that to happen again.
> 
> Yes, there are men who complain about not getting to scr3w the head cheerleader, but they are indeed pathetic and get very little sympathy even from other MGTOWs.
> 
> As far as I can tell, anyway.


As I stated in the mgtow thread, some men love marriage and kids when the going is good, with the wifey at home baking cookies and such. But when troubles arise, is it always the demon b!tches fault? Nothing is his fault, he is the victim of society and feminism.

Problem with some men is that after they marry, all they think they need to do is show up with the paycheck. Everything else takes care of itself. Or so they think, most SAHMs make a mutual decision with the husband to put her career on hold in order to raise a family. This is a great sacrifice, and considering how MRAs cry and moan about being taken to the cleaners, she should reconsider and have kids later after she establishes her career. Then, there should be no complaints.

Considering that the birth rate is dropping, maybe women are " going their own way" in regards to bringing kids into the world. Maybe we should cling to our careers and forgo having kids until later in life, let these guys find something else to cry about.>


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> As long as you are attractive enough to women to attract a woman, based on attraction alone, which is true of about 20% of men, you're in good shape. Otherwise, you're scr3wed.
> 
> This idea that only 20% of men are attractive is just ridiculous. SOME women like those big, macho guys. Others like a nice average guy with a good personality.
> 
> The current system is fine for most women, who can spend their twenties having fun (i.e., having sex with the hottest guys they can get to have sex with them), then when they want to settle down, around age 30, they can rope in some guy whom they wouldn't have given the time of day to previously. And of course the hot guys love it because they have an endless buffet of girls to choose from.
> 
> But this system leaves out one large segment of society: the young men who aren't that hot. They live in a sexual desert from puberty to age 30 or so, when they are finally acceptable to women who are done having fun.


Those men need to stop chasing the girls at the bar trying to get with the hot guys. Find the girl who sits alone at the coffee shop reading a book while she waits for the men to stop chasing the girls at the bar.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Those men need to stop chasing the girls at the bar trying to get with the hot guys. Find the girl who sits alone at the coffee shop reading a book while she waits for the men to stop chasing the girls at the bar.


If that girl is not hideously unattractive, all she has to do is to smile at one of those non-hot guys.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> As I stated in the mgtow thread, some men love marriage and kids when the going is good, with the wifey at home baking cookies and such. But when troubles arise, is it always the demon b!tches fault? Nothing is his fault, he is the victim of society and feminism.
> 
> Problem with some men is that after they marry, all they think they need to do is show up with the paycheck. Everything else takes care of itself. Or so they think, most SAHMs make a mutual decision with the husband to put her career on hold in order to raise a family. This is a great sacrifice, and considering how MRAs cry and moan about being taken to the cleaners, she should reconsider and have kids later after she establishes her career. Then, there should be no complaints.
> 
> Considering that the birth rate is dropping, maybe women are " going their own way" in regards to bringing kids into the world. Maybe we should cling to our careers and forgo having kids until later in life, let these guys find something else to cry about.>


Sure, why not? Of course, then the fundamentalist religious people who have 6 or 7 children would just end up as the majority of the population in pretty short order. But what's wrong with that?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> If that girl is not hideously unattractive, all she has to do is to smile at one of those non-hot guys.


That's just not true. They are smiling at them, they are just looking right past her. Literally not even seeing her. Sometimes a guy would notice me, then a hot woman would walk by and he'd be gone.

For me to get the attention of men I almost always have to put myself out there, be the initiator, the one who starts the conversation, etc. 
That's how I got my H. I am not hideously unattractive. I am not obese. I take care of myself hygienically, don't wear too much make-up and wear proper clothing.
I am a curvy size 10/12 with an average face and too quiet to be in the bar scene. 

We are out there, we just don't get noticed and would love to be with one of those 'not hot' guys if they stopped chasing the other girls and paid attention to us.


----------



## john117

There's two such men in my team and I'm happy they're not in the dating or gene pool.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That's just not true. They are smiling at them, they are just looking right past her. Literally not even seeing her. Sometimes a guy would notice me, then a hot woman would walk by and he'd be gone.
> 
> For me to get the attention of men I almost always have to put myself out there, be the initiator, the one who starts the conversation, etc.
> That's how I got my H. I am not hideously unattractive. I am not obese. I take care of myself hygienically, don't wear too much make-up and wear proper clothing.
> I am a curvy size 10/12 with an average face and too quiet to be in the bar scene.
> 
> We are out there, we just don't get noticed and would love to be with one of those 'not hot' guys if they stopped chasing the other girls and paid attention to us.


Then women like you should be happy for men to realize that there is no point in their chasing the hot girls, which is what the MGTOWs are finding out.


----------



## soccermom2three

It doesn't help these young men when they spend hour upon hour playing video games instead actually going out and interacting with people.


----------



## jld

Techmom, here is something you posted a while back that might fit this convo:

The 11 Differences Between Dating a Boy vs a Man - JustMyTypeMag


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Then women like you should be happy for men to realize that there is no point in their chasing the hot girls, which is what the MGTOWs are finding out.


But they are whiny, entitled and think they are "settling" for a girl like me when they feel they should be with someone better. 

I don't want that guy.

I want the guy who WANTS a girl like me and finds me attractive and perfect for him. A man who is mature and confident. 
Not one of these kind of guys who decided he couldn't get one of the hotter ones and got all pissed off about it so he figured he'd stomp his feet away and go for me instead. 

Luckily these MGTOW type men are the minority and most men would roll their eyes about the whole concept so most women can choose to avoid them easily.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech...you are completely correct. The men you speak of can't get laid, like SGC and I have been saying. And thus they create a sexodous for themselves, you are still totally correct. The fact that you think that this will in anyway punish any woman anywhere is really funny. Every woman cheers at the news you are spreading.

And meanwhile...

Wonderful men everywhere who love women, get women.


----------



## happy2gether

what a crock of crap. I cant even read most of it, but this is seriously real?

while these guys may claim it helps men all it helps is to drive them away from women.


----------



## techmom

jld said:


> Techmom, here is something you posted a while back that might fit this convo:
> 
> The 11 Differences Between Dating a Boy vs a Man - JustMyTypeMag


Thanks JLD I forgot this


----------



## tom67

soccermom2three said:


> It doesn't help these young men when they spend hour upon hour playing video games instead actually going out and interacting with people.


I agree with this...
Who is promoting this...
The public fool system.

Now you know why males at least in the US are so f^cking emasculated.
Talk about whipping a dead horse.

Soccermom your bil I'll guess he is a product of this system.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Then women like you should be happy for men to realize that there is no point in their chasing the hot girls, which is what the MGTOWs are finding out.


So they go their own way...what a compliment...not!:surprise:


----------



## john117

soccermom2three said:


> It doesn't help these young men when they spend hour upon hour playing video games instead actually going out and interacting with people.


Let's not start the anti video game thing. I'm known to have awesome Angry Birds scores and a killer online backgammon rating but I'm not a social dunce by any stretch


----------



## Catherine602

Ewwww “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men." 

Really? Look at this statement again, and put yourself in the shoes of attractive women. Did it occur to you that an attractive woman may not find an average man sexually attractive? Why would she want to make herself available to "get laid" by an average man she does not find equally attractive? If an average man is entitled to an attractive woman why is she required to settle for average?

In addition, "getting laid" implies a sexually selfish, predatory average man. That is a problem, I can't think of more unattractive combination of traits. A hot man with a little attitude might be forgiven but a ridiculously entitled average man would be machine gunned. 

Be realistic and fix your attitude about women, you'll be happier. There is no guarantee you will "get laid" by an attractive woman. You may meet a women who wants to get to know you and have mutually satisfying sex. You need to work for it, you can't get what you are not willing to give anymore.


----------



## Catherine602

technovelist said:


> Thanks for reinforcing the idea that men who can't get laid are inferior. Of course that isn't sexist, is it?


What do you mean? What does "get laid" mean? I know what I think from my point of view. I assume you "get laid" so what happens?


----------



## tech-novelist

Catherine602 said:


> Ewwww “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."
> 
> Really? Look at this statement again, and put yourself in the shoes of attractive women. Did it occur to you that an attractive woman may not find an average man sexually attractive? Why would she want to make herself available to "get laid" by an average man she does not find equally attractive? If an average man is entitled to an attractive woman why is she required to settle for average?


How about the average man and the average woman? It turns out that the average woman is not attracted to the average man, whereas the average man is attracted to the average woman.



Catherine602 said:


> In addition, "getting laid" implies a sexually selfish, predatory average man. That is a problem, I can't think of more unattractive combination of traits. *A hot man with a little attitude might be forgiven* but a ridiculously entitled average man would be machine gunned.


That is exactly the point. Hot guys can get away with anything, whereas average guys can't get the time of day... from average women.



Catherine602 said:


> Be realistic and fix your attitude about women, you'll be happier. There is no guarantee you will "get laid" by an attractive woman. You may meet a women who wants to get to know you and have mutually satisfying sex. You need to work for it, you can't get what you are not willing to give anymore.


The issue is how one defines a realistic attitude toward women.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> How about the average man and the average woman? It turns out that the average woman is not attracted to the average man, whereas the average man is attracted to the average woman.


Why do you think these things? There are millions of average women who are very attracted to average men.

I personally don't like guys that go to the gym. The real cut looking ones. Just not my type. 

They are other women's type and that's ok too but there are many, many women left over that have different wants. 

We are typically not attracted to sad, whiny men with no confidence. Average or not. THAT is why these guys have a hard time. It has nothing to do with their muscles, their hair. It's their attitude. It sucks and we can sense it a mile away. 

A lot of men just aren't attracted to me and that's ok. I don't wallow, I don't pout about it. I have enough confidence to know that there are men out there who would be very attracted to me and like my personality too, not all of them have to. It's ok to have different types. 

Some men want a skinnier woman, some want a nicer looking face, some want taller, whatever it is. It's all ok. 
What I would never go for is a man who _preferred _a different type but ended up with me. 

So you keep putting yourself out there until you find a partner that's a good match for you. 
Or you give up, blame the system and live in self-pity like these guys.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> That is exactly the point. Hot guys can get away with anything, whereas average guys can't get the time of day... from average women.


Oh and LOL because hot women can get away with a lot more than an average woman too. It's just how it is. I shrug my shoulders and move on. There's no need to have animosity towards them or the men who choose them. 

I worry about me. Not the hot model looking girl with the perfect set of breasts and no stretch marks and not the men - all kinds of men, average and not - who are chasing that woman. Good for them, it has nothing to do with me. 

If you stop looking at the hot guys and the women chasing them, you'll see the ones who aren't. 
But we aren't going to settle for the guy that just got turned down by the other girl so he slinks off to us instead. We aren't going to settle for a pouty guy who thinks he deserves better. We aren't going to settle for the guy with no confidence. 
That's why they don't give those guys the time of day.


----------



## knobcreek

I think some of the complaints are women who are high earners and type A claim they are fine with a good man who earns less, even a man who stays at home with the kids, but cheating and divorce rates with marriages like this show this is a farce, they aren't actually happy with these guys at all and are in fact nearly impossible to please long term.

“Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."

This has always been hard lol, average dudes don't typically land 9's and 10's. This movement I believe is really a bunch of dudes who just can't lower their standards and accept that they're a 5 and aren't landing a 9. But in their mind a woman is an object, not really free to choose what she wants so it incites hatred and vindictiveness in them. Even though he's short, ugly, and a skinny fat dude, he deserves that pretty girl because he does, and damn her for not wanting him.


----------



## Vorlon

IMHO: Much of this whining is from the Mr Rodgers era coming home to roost. Everyone is special!! NO you are only special to your parents. After that its genetics, hard work and luck. Dear XXXX, you are NOT Entitled to happiness. You have the right and opportunity to pursue happiness. So you have to earn it. No one will give it to you and nor should they. 

I do see a lot of younger men that bury themselves in video games and porn. Its easy and provides immediate gratifications. Unfortunately its leads to nowhere. I personally roll my eyes when I hear about the latest game release and these young guys talk about how they raided and have the highest score, blah, blah.... 

I can see how women would almost find that repulsive. I find it a colossal waste of time. But like everything there is an exception. If they have a great job, invest well and live in their own house or apartment and spend an occasional few hours playing a game for entertainment I can understand that. Its recreation. 

I would rather go to the gym, compete, create or build something. I would (if single) go out and meet women of all ages, interests and beauty level. Do something instead of sit at home in front of a computer screen. I can't even watch TV for very long anymore. Too much I want to do and that needs to get done. We all only get so many days on this earth and I want the most out of everyone. 

But for those over about 23 that still work a minimum wage job, barely pay the bills if at all or still live with mom and dad, not going to school then they really don't deserve to mate with a quality women. That type of lack of ambition and accomplishment should not be allowed to reproduce. They really should be alone.


----------



## Catherine602

technovelist said:


> How about the average man and the average woman? It turns out that the average woman is not attracted to the average man, whereas the average man is attracted to the average woman.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the point. Hot guys can get away with anything, whereas average guys can't get the time of day... from average women.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is how one defines a realistic attitude toward women.


You can't change the parameters now to avoid the discomfort of looking at your assumptions. You said what you felt in your first post. What you feel may be the reason for your turn against women. It's not the women, it's you. 

Contrary to what you were led to believe, you cannot "lay" any woman you want. A woman has the right to choose who she wants. She has a right to have requirements for the man of her choice. She is human just like you.

Thats the real problem. I've read about what men require for a woman to be deemed attractive - bj's to completion on demand,, PIV orgasms, willingness to do what he likes with enthusiasm, no demands for anything he does not want, a good chief, virgin, at lest 10 positions, big breasts, under 125 pounds, wears sexy clothes in and out of the house, likes displaying the goods. 

Which gender has more unrealistic expectations? Men are not controlling this dynamic. Men are giving up on women and women are giving up on men. We may have reached a tipping point where people feel so entitled that nothing will make them happy.


----------



## Ikaika

I find this and the mgtow discussion confusing as well as even defining the concept of average male or female. This obsession seems odd to me or maybe I'm just from a different generation. When I was single if a lady was not into to me, I simply had the next up mentality. I always figured there was always going to be plenty of "fish" in that big ocean. I'm not sure what alternative in this mgtow mentality?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tom67

Interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzjXUJnV70


----------



## Runs like Dog

Most people make decisions about people in the first 30 seconds. All any of this really is is honestly admitting that.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

LOL at the video description "Even if men rid themselves of the biological need for women, will they simply create a new kind of women to exploit them?" 

These silly men need to stop blaming their crappy lives on other people. _No one_ exploits you without your permission. If these men spent half the time working on themselves as they do whining they might actually be able to get a date.


----------



## Ikaika

I love competition, let the games begin. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

tom67 said:


> Interesting...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzjXUJnV70


Sums it up nicely:"what men want is a relationship, but a relationship with something they don't have to fear. A robot is more than a sex doll, it has a personality so men can relate to it, but without having to fear what it might do."

Gynocentrism, LOL!


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."
> 
> And thus we have the crux of the problem. Average men cannot get attractive women on a regular basis....so WAHHHHHHH!!!! Let's all take our ball and go our own way because those hot chicks will not sleep with us! WAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
> 
> By all means, go your own way and thin out the pool for us. Your sexodus works out great for us.


I find it humorous that so many posters here equate "attractive" with highly above average--using words like "hot" and "chearleader", when I think most men think of attractive as "not repugnant". For most of us "attractive" means, "yeah, I'd do her". 

In fact, I can back that up a little bit. Even women admit it's true.

Why men can't see their girlfriends' imperfections - Telegraph
What Guys Notice - What Guys Think About Women
5 "Imperfections" That Men Find Totally Sexy | YourTango


----------



## Catherine602

Kivlor said:


> I find it humorous that so many posters here equate "attractive" with highly above average--using words like "hot" and "chearleader", when I think most men think of attractive as "not repugnant". For most of us "attractive" means, "yeah, I'd do her".
> 
> In fact, I can back that up a little bit. Even women admit it's true.


That's what was implied. The poster didn't say average man / average woman or attractive man/ attractive woman. He said average man/ attractive woman. It's not news that people of equal attractiveness pair up. The average man would be better off setting his sights on an average woman to "do" so he is not left empty handed.


----------



## Kivlor

Catherine602 said:


> That's what was implied. The poster didn't say average man / average woman or attractive man/ attractive woman. He said average man/ attractive woman. It's not news that people of equal attractiveness pair up. The average man would be better off setting his sights on an average woman to "do" so he is not left empty handed.


I know, it's difficult to be honest with each other; so I'll help us all along.

Here is the full quote:

“Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men. Women today of *average or even below average *quality desire an elite man with above-average looks, muscles, intelligence, and confidence."

I know, it doesn't fit the narrative, but the truth's the truth. And it appears the line you all were attacking is in line with my citations.


----------



## Kivlor

Personal said:


> Can you please describe all of the traits that identify the average man and the average woman?
> 
> Absent any definition it's all rather meaningless.


Can you describe the traits that identify the attractive man and attractive woman? The hideous?

I can't define an elephant, but I know one when I see it.


----------



## Lon

Ikaika said:


> I find this and the mgtow discussion confusing as well as even defining the concept of average male or female. This obsession seems odd to me or maybe I'm just from a different generation. When I was single if a lady was not into to me, I simply had the next up mentality. I always figured there was always going to be plenty of "fish" in that big ocean. I'm not sure what alternative in this mgtow mentality?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


my room mate is living the mgtow lifestyle. He is attracted to women, has very high standards of what he wants but has accepted that he is low on the pecking order and just doesn't bother putting himself out there any more because it's truly not worth it for him. he has never complained or whined about it, or even gotten bitter or angry, though he did go through a depression a few years ago. He is not in particularly good physical shape but he is very social, latino, with tons of family and friends and is incredibly intelligent, but the intelligence just gets in the way of what most women could ever live with.

If I wasn't in a very satisfying relationship with a woman who melts my heart and seems to compliment me in every way I would be going my own way too at this point in life.


----------



## gallebom

You are right. Life is short. Do what makes you happy!


----------



## Lon

Personal said:


> If my sexual relationship with my wife comes to an end, I will divorce and get another sexual partner.


I would be available for sex if a suitable woman who wanted that from me came along... but that has never happened to me because there are always better dudes to pick from if she is just looking for sex. I would also be available if a suitable woman who wanted a good relationship came along, and that often happens to me when I've been single, and I seem great at fulfilling the safety role to some very good women. But I don't think I'd wish to expend as much energy as I did in my youth trying to go after them.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I think the analysis is stupid, but then again, I think there are too many people on the planet. So the less reproduction the better. 

I think much of the West will be heading in the direction of Japan with more and more asexual life long singles and a declining population. I do think that the combination of a fairly economically comfortable present, combined with little hope for meaningful progress in the future, breeds asexuality. 

These are long term trends and a "who's to blame" analysis is child-like in it's simplicity.


----------



## Kivlor

Personal said:


> Average is surely easier to define than attractive since attractive is an observer dependant moving feast whereas average isn't.
> 
> Is an average man 5'6" inches tall?
> 
> The only reason you can identify an elephant when you see it, is because it has known identifying features.
> 
> So again what is an average man or an average woman?


LMGTFY

Good job, you got me to Google something for you. Woohoo. 

Caveats Apply: there are different averages depending on age and race and probably location and employment and the list goes on. An average is not a mode. When people say "average" they mean "typical" however in math, we mean something different. I didn't check methodology, so average in this case could be either. The rest is up to you. 

In the end, we all have a relatively similar idea of what "average" or "typical" is. The same way I know what an elephant is, because I've seen it. 

Depending on sources:
US Men:
From CDC: 
Avg Height: 69.3"
Avg Weight: 195.5 lbs
Avg Waist: 39.7"

US Women: 
From CDC:
Avg Height: 63.8"
Avg Weight: 166.2 lbs
Avg Waist: 37.5"


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> LMGTFY
> 
> Good job, you got me to Google something for you. Woohoo.
> 
> Caveats Apply: there are different averages depending on age and race and probably location and employment and the list goes on. An average is not a mode. When people say "average" they mean "typical" however in math, we mean something different. I didn't check methodology, so average in this case could be either. The rest is up to you.
> 
> In the end, we all have a relatively similar idea of what "average" or "typical" is. The same way I know what an elephant is, because I've seen it.
> 
> Depending on sources:
> US Men:
> From CDC:
> Avg Height: 69.3"
> Avg Weight: 195.5 lbs
> Avg Waist: 39.7"
> 
> US Women:
> From CDC:
> Avg Height: 63.8"
> Avg Weight: 166.2 lbs
> Avg Waist: 37.5"


Gah. No wonder some people are dropping out of dating.


----------



## JoeHenderson

Faithful Wife said:


> "Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."
> 
> 
> Yes, women have taken men's jobs because they can and because they do better in school. And poor men are left to figure out what to do about that. Meanwhile, women are fine, they find men they want to be with, they have their careers, and the world rocks on.


Wow, they really come across as whiny. I mean c'mon!


----------



## knobcreek

I will concede that if they develop a 100% passable female robot we can program however we want then 0 men would ever bother with real women, that's basically a given. But it's likely the same the other way around and it would definitely lead to the extinction of the human race. But I don't see them being able to build cyborg women with real human flesh and blood anytime soon, so for now we'll have to deal with real women.


----------



## JoeHenderson

knobcreek said:


> I will concede that if they develop a 100% passable female robot we can program however we want then 0 men would ever bother with real women, that's basically a given. But it's likely the same the other way around and it would definitely lead to the extinction of the human race. But I don't see them being able to build cyborg women with real human flesh and blood anytime soon, so for now we'll have to deal with real women.


The struggle...:grin2:


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> I will concede that if they develop a 100% passable female robot we can program however we want then 0 men would ever bother with real women, that's basically a given. But it's likely the same the other way around and it would definitely lead to the extinction of the human race. But I don't see them being able to build cyborg women with real human flesh and blood anytime soon, so for now we'll have to deal with real women.


I think if such a female robot were created, women would realize that they had to bring a little more to the table.

Like love and caring.


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> I think if such a female robot were created, women would realize that they had to bring a little more to the table.
> 
> Like love and caring.


What women are you hanging around with that you do not see an abundance of love and caring?

I do not get some of you guys at all.


----------



## JoeHenderson

technovelist said:


> I think if such a female robot were created, women would realize that they had to bring a little more to the table.
> 
> Like love and caring.



Maybe some, but not all. The same could be said for a lot us dudes.


----------



## Married but Happy

I'll never give up on real women - but I may never marry again if I lose this wife. There'd be no need.


----------



## tech-novelist

Married but Happy said:


> I'll never give up on real women - but I may never marry again if I lose this wife. There'd be no need.


I might marry again if something happened to my wife... but only to someone with a desirable passport.

Otherwise I agree there is no need.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> What women are you hanging around with that you do not see an abundance of love and caring?
> 
> I do not get some of you guys at all.


Yep, the women I know are awesome, bring a lot to the table and sometimes even more than their H. 
The men (and women) who seem to end up around these types must have something that attracts them to it in the first place. 
Like attracts like. 
But when someone has bad views of women, or is insulting towards them (or how they look) good women aren't going to stick around long enough for them to get to know. 
They end up with drama queens and users and it just confirms what they think of women. 

If they raised their standards - and their attitude- they would see all the great women out there.


The law of attraction states that "like attracts like." This means that people with a low frequency -- people who are insecure and self-abandoning -- attract each other, while people with a high frequency -- people who love and value themselves -- also attract each other. People who are positive, open, secure, giving, caring and kind to themselves and others are not attracted to people who are closed, negative and needy of approval and attention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-paul-phd/relationship-advice_b_1516235.html


----------



## TiggyBlue

technovelist said:


> I think if such a female robot were created, women would realize that they had to bring a little more to the table.
> 
> Like love and caring.


I think we would be to busy playing with our male robots :grin2:


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> What women are you hanging around with that you do not see an abundance of love and caring?
> 
> I do not get some of you guys at all.


Most of the people I know--and have known throughout my life--male or female, don't really qualify as loving or caring. 

Where do you find these mythical people? I mean, I can think of maybe 3 of them. Well, 5 actually... Ever. Maybe I've met more, but I didn't know them well enough that I'd make a judgement call. And I've known a lot of people. The rest just put up a good face.


----------



## tech-novelist

TiggyBlue said:


> I think we would be to busy playing with our male robots :grin2:


Do they bring home a paycheck, kill spiders when needed, and go see what that noise is in the middle of the night?

If not, they wouldn't be much of a replacement for a husband, at least for many women.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Do they bring home a paycheck, kill spiders when needed, and go see what that noise is in the middle of the night?
> 
> If not, they wouldn't be much of a replacement for a husband, at least for many women.


I do all those things myself. 

I like my husband to make inside jokes with me, laugh until our faces hurt, give me feedback, raise my kids with.... 
I can kill my own spiders, make my own money AND make repairs to the house and mow the lawn BTW

I wouldn't mind a second robot husband maid... to do dishes and cook dinner. Also wouldn't mind if it has a vibration setting...... :x


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Most of the people I know--and have known throughout my life--male or female, don't really qualify as loving or caring.
> 
> Where do you find these mythical people? I mean, I can think of maybe 3 of them. Well, 5 actually... Ever. Maybe I've met more, but I didn't know them well enough that I'd make a judgement call. And I've known a lot of people. The rest just put up a good face.


I know a lot.


----------



## TiggyBlue

technovelist said:


> Do they bring home a paycheck, kill spiders when needed, and go see what that noise is in the middle of the night?
> 
> If not, they wouldn't be much of a replacement for a husband, at least for many women.


I didn't realize there's so many women that either doesn't have a job or doesn't get paid.
Personally not the reason I got married, but it seem to have a better understanding what women want in men than me.
All of the women I know are competent enough to do everything you've listed.


----------



## tech-novelist

TiggyBlue said:


> I didn't realize so many women didn't work or doesn't get paid.
> Personally not the reason I got married, but it seem to have a better understanding what women want in men than me.


According to Stay-at-home mothers through the years : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 29% of mothers are stay-at-home mothers.

According to The Likelihood of Being a Stay-at-Home Dad | Pew Research Center, 7% of fathers are stay-at-home fathers.

So it is roughly 4x as likely for a mother to stay at home than a father.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> My wife brings home more money than I do, and has done so for a long time. Plus if she's around I prefer it when she kills the spiders since I'm scared of them. That said snakes and people don't scare me and I've dealt with both of them as intruders.


Statistically you are at an elevated risk of marital problems due to the difference in incomes. See Divorce is a risk when she earns more than him - FT.com for just one reference to this problem.


----------



## TiggyBlue

technovelist said:


> Do they bring home a paycheck, kill spiders when needed, and go see what that noise is in the middle of the night?
> 
> If not, they wouldn't be much of a replacement for a husband, at least for many women.





technovelist said:


> According to Stay-at-home mothers through the years : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 29% of mothers are stay-at-home mothers.
> 
> According to The Likelihood of Being a Stay-at-Home Dad | Pew Research Center, 7% of fathers are stay-at-home fathers.
> 
> So it is roughly 4x as likely for a mother to stay at home than a father.


What does this have to do with our male robots?
Just because some women are stay at home mum's doesn't mean there incapable of working outside of the home.


----------



## tech-novelist

TiggyBlue said:


> What does this have to do with our male robots?
> Just because some women are stay at home mum's doesn't mean there incapable of working outside of the home.


It has to do with your asking why it matters if a man brings home a paycheck. If a woman is staying at home with children (or without children, for that matter), then she needs her husband to bring home a paycheck. A robot can't do that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

technovelist said:


> It has to do with your asking why it matters if a man brings home a paycheck. If a woman is staying at home with children (or without children, for that matter), then she needs her husband to bring home a paycheck. A robot can't do that.


How do you know what our male robot's couldn't work?
It's a robot ffs, if it can f*ck then it can flip burgers.


----------



## tech-novelist

TiggyBlue said:


> How do you know what our male robot's couldn't work?
> It's a robot ffs, if it can f*ck then it can flip burgers.


Ok, fine with me.

Although I think flipping burgers is more difficult technically. >


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal...I find it hilarious that anytime a man like you who loves women, has a wonderful wife and sex life, and who doesn't match up to their bizarre basement cooked up theories posts their experience here, the dudes who believe those theories try to tell you "just wait, you will find out your wife doesn't want to have sex with you any day now"....or that she is going to cheat on you because she earns more...or divorce you and take your kids away forever...or whatever other nonsense they have to say.

No evidence that doesn't fit into their theories will be considered, everything else will be poo-pooed.

No matter how many guys have wonderful experiences with women and love women, they just don't want to hear it and they will tell themselves your experience is somehow irrelevant.

Yet to me, you are the most normal guy around here. You are the most like other men I know IRL. They are happy, love women, women love them, and their lives are going well.

Cheers!


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> Sure except in my first marriage I earned more, since my first wife was a stay at home mum. Yet she cheated while I was away for work so I dumped her immediately upon finding out.
> 
> Alternatively fast forward to today after 19 years of living together, 16+ of those being married with 2 kids 15 & 12, where except for 2 years throughout that time she's earned more than me
> 
> Yet my wife seldom drinks any alcohol, does a girls nights out once per decade while remaining sober and get's drunk once per 7 years so far only with me. Plus she has enthusiastic sex with me 4-6x a week doing whatever I want and often more as has always been the case. While she also frequently plays submissive on the receiving end of my sexual fetish as well. She also seems to like spending plenty of time with me and is always talking to me about everything and anything as well. All in all we have an excellent marital relationship, where she goes to and from work and then spends lots of time with me.
> 
> So after 17 years through 19 years of a significant income disparity, you can understand why I'm not particularly worried about it now.


I can understand that and I hope things continue well for you.

I am also doing fine although the risks of marriage are so high that I can't recommend it in general.

I mean, if someone puts all their money into small cap stocks and makes a fortune, does that mean that everyone should do that?


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> Depending on sources:
> US Men:
> From CDC:
> Avg Height: 69.3"
> Avg Weight: 195.5 lbs
> Avg Waist: 39.7"
> 
> US Women:
> From CDC:
> ]Avg Height: 63.8"
> Avg Weight: 166.2 lbs
> Avg Waist: 37.5"



Good God! No wonder there's a sexodus, the average is apparently morbidly obese. A 40 inch waist is AVERAGE for a man? LOL WTF? I powerlifted for five years and only hit a 37 inch waist but that was coupled with a 50+ inch chest and I was strong as an ox. The average waist for a 5'3 woman is 37.5 inches? Tough to believe to be honest.

Maybe I'm much higher on the ****ability scale than I've ever given myself credit for?


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> Good God! No wonder there's a sexodus, the average is apparently morbidly obese. A 40 inch waist is AVERAGE for a man? LOL WTF? I powerlifted for five years and only hit a 37 inch waist but that was coupled with a 50+ inch chest and I was strong as an ox. The average waist for a 5'3 woman is 37.5 inches? Tough to believe to be honest.
> 
> Maybe I'm much higher on the ****ability scale than I've ever given myself credit for?


I'll tell you how bad it is.

A 5' 8" man can weigh over 200 pounds and still be in the best risk classification for life insurance.

We are doomed.


----------



## EllisRedding

technovelist said:


> Statistically you are at an elevated risk of marital problems due to the difference in incomes. See Divorce is a risk when she earns more than him - FT.com for just one reference to this problem.


I would be willing to put this theory to a test ... but would require me leaving my wife and finding a sugar mamma lol.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Personal...I find it hilarious that anytime a man like you who loves women, has a wonderful wife and sex life, and who doesn't match up to their bizarre basement cooked up theories posts their experience here, the dudes who believe those theories try to tell you "just wait, you will find out your wife doesn't want to have sex with you any day now"....or that she is going to cheat on you because she earns more...or divorce you and take your kids away forever...or whatever other nonsense they have to say.
> 
> No evidence that doesn't fit into their theories will be considered, everything else will be poo-pooed.
> 
> No matter how many guys have wonderful experiences with women and love women, they just don't want to hear it and they will tell themselves your experience is somehow irrelevant.
> 
> Yet to me, you are the most normal guy around here. You are the most like other men I know IRL. They are happy, love women, women love them, and their lives are going well.
> 
> Cheers!


Ever think IRL we're not nearly as cynical and we use TAM and more specifically the Men's Clubhouse to vent about incredibly painful past experiences with the opposite sex so we don't have to vent on friends, the wife, parents, etc...? I'm sure some of the women in here are not nearly as mean, rude, and condescending IRL as they are here to men.

And you have no idea what the men you know IRL think in their heads, what they say when alone with trusted friends, maybe some post here?



technovelist said:


> I'll tell you how bad it is.
> 
> A 5' 8" man can weigh over 200 pounds and still be in the best risk classification for life insurance.
> 
> We are doomed.



That's really unbelievable, 5'8 and 200 lbs? Unless you're a running back in the NFL you are likely very very fat. America has a real problem with weight if those averages were legit. I find it hard to believe the average woman is 5'3 166 lbs with a nearly 38 inch waist. I knew it was bad but I had no idea it was THAT bad. I'm a VP IT for a large company and I guess thinking about it nearly every person I work with is morbidly obese.


----------



## EllisRedding

knobcreek said:


> Good God! No wonder there's a sexodus, the average is apparently morbidly obese. A 40 inch waist is AVERAGE for a man? LOL WTF? I powerlifted for five years and only hit a 37 inch waist but that was coupled with a 50+ inch chest and I was strong as an ox. The average waist for a 5'3 woman is 37.5 inches? Tough to believe to be honest.
> 
> Maybe I'm much higher on the ****ability scale than I've ever given myself credit for?


The stats are scary, but from what I have seen unfortunately they are accurate. The bad part as well, obesity is happening at younger ages.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I know I've mentioned it before, My H has been with plenty of 10s, they picked him up, they initiated, etc but the ones he was with were the dramatic, loud, going out types. The life of the party, could get any man they wanted kind. 

One reason he likes me so much is that I'm not. I'm a shy introvert homebody. He feels that I am very loving and caring, too much even he tells me I need to toughen up. He feels that I am very giving. I don't care for brand names, fancy clothes, money. He feels like he would be completely lost without me and that I do so much for him. - His words- 
But I am NOT a 10.

I am curious, with all the complaining about high maintenance women who are users and dramatic and bring nothing to the table and the ewwwwing about what is average. 

Would they really prefer a woman who had the loving, caring personality they were looking for IF she was less attractive, less of a prize? 166.2 pounds even? 

There's a lot of talk about how men with sleep with anything 5+ that gives them second look (ugh) but I feel that a lot of guys, especially the types who feel they deserve a high "sex rank" woman, want to nab the best looking one they can get regardless of if her personality fits him. They will use whatever they have to raise their own worth to get the hottest woman they can get.

Then they end up with a woman they can't stand and who can't stand them. 

It's like buying a fancy car to show off, you want to look cool and like you've made it but the darn thing has no trunk or backseat so it's useless for actually having a family because you have no where to put them. Sometimes you gotta get the minivan because it fits your lifestyle better. 
I'm ok with being a minivan.

If men want a woman who is loving and caring and don't go out with their girlfriends every weekend and flirt with men and get drunk, they should look for that first. 

*and I know I sound like I'm grouping all hot women into one group and non-hot into another so I want to point out that hot women can be giving and loving, non-hot women can be drama queens*


----------



## knobcreek

@SlowlyGoingCrazy I don't need a 10, but keeping relatively physically fit would be a must for me. 5'3 and 166 lbs is obese unless she's a competitive CrossFitter or something, the proper BMI for a woman 5'3 is ~120 lbs. If I were to date another woman I have a list of musts.

1. kind and loyal (the hardest attribute to find in a woman)
2. Physically fit - doesn't have to have a perfect body or face at all, but takes care of herself, shares my interest in running would be perfect
3. Sane
4. Low maintenance
5. Sports fan
6. Nice feet, tight boobs (don't have to be big, I don't judge a woman on this, just not hanging to her knees), non-cavernous vagina (sorry these are deal breakers for me)
7. Educated, makes her own money
8. Family oriented, a homebody not a party girl

I don't think those are too lofty requirements.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> That's really unbelievable, 5'8 and 200 lbs? Unless you're a running back in the NFL you are likely very very fat. America has a real problem with weight if those averages were legit. I find it hard to believe the average woman is 5'3 166 lbs with a nearly 38 inch waist. I knew it was bad but I had no idea it was THAT bad. I'm a VP IT for a large company and I guess thinking about it nearly every person I work with is morbidly obese.


Here you go: http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/liu/Underwriting_Overview.pdf

Ok, I forgot something, namely that I was thinking of the limits for people over 60.

For people 18-59, it is a little stricter. Go to page 3, "Build Table 1". Look at the line labeled "Best". That tells you the weight limits for people of different heights to get the best possible life insurance classification. The limit for "Best" classification for 5'8" is 190 pounds, and 5'3" is 163 pounds.

Note that these are unisex tables, so a 5'3" 166 pound female (or male) would be over the limit for Best. They would fall in the second best category, though, as would a 5'8" person at 203 pounds.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Ever think IRL we're not nearly as cynical and we use TAM and more specifically the Men's Clubhouse to vent about incredibly painful past experiences with the opposite sex so we don't have to vent on friends, the wife, parents, etc...? I'm sure some of the women in here are not nearly as mean, rude, and condescending IRL as they are here to men.
> 
> And you have no idea what the men you know IRL think in their heads, what they say when alone with trusted friends, maybe some post here?.


So why are even talking to me? I had addressed @Personal, not you. I have my thoughts on these things, which you apparently don't like hearing about. I stand by what I said to Personal and the point I was making, which is that the way he speaks on these and other issues is more in line with the men I know in real life. I guess I should have clarified a bit, because I have heard men say some of the other disturbing things I've heard around here...though those men I've heard that from are in no way my friends or anyone I would want to be around so once I hear that kind of stuff, I avoid them. 

Yeah sometimes you have a brother in law or someone in your life you can't completely escape who expresses the type of disturbing things I hear around here. Those people raise my radar and I get as far away from them as possible. But the people I choose to remain close to, I know personally well enough to have asked pertinent questions about these issues and I know their stance. Just like Personal doesn't run off and say he feels something else when in private (such as on the topic of feminism or MRA's), neither do these other men in my life, because their views on these topics are not shameful to them. 

So I applauded Personal, and you had to run in and try to find some reason my applause of him wasn't valid.

It is really amazing how some of you guys will dog pile on another GUY if he doesn't agree with you, and will try to make him the odd man out.

Again I stand by what I said. Most men I know (and associate with by choice) are more like Personal, @Ikaika, @Fozzy, @Thundarr (and I could name a few others) than the guys who write about things like how women are ruining society for poor wittle mens. I'm not saying these guys I mentioned always agree with me or me them, I'm just saying they are decent, normal men who love their wives and women in general and that there are far more of them than there are MGTOW's or even MGTOW sympathizers.


----------



## Married but Happy

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Would they really prefer a woman who had the loving, caring personality they were looking for IF she was less attractive, less of a prize?


High compatibility in all areas (but especially loving and caring) is my non-negotiable requirement, and if those requirements are met, then all else being equal, I'll go for the most attractive (to me) in that group. I'll gladly choose a 7 over an 8 or 9 if the 7 is noticeably more compatible, IMO. 

I may have married beyond my league in terms of looks, but not in terms of real compatibility. In other words, I got lucky when she found me.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> So why are even talking to me? I had addressed @Personal, not you. I have my thoughts on these things, which you apparently don't like hearing about. I stand by what I said to Personal and the point I was making, which is that the way he speaks on these and other issues is more in line with the men I know in real life. I guess I should have clarified a bit, because I have heard men say some of the other disturbing things I've heard around here...though those men I've heard that from are in no way my friends or anyone I would want to be around so once I hear that kind of stuff, I avoid them.
> 
> Yeah sometimes you have a brother in law or someone in your life you can't completely escape who expresses the type of disturbing things I hear around here. Those people raise my radar and I get as far away from them as possible. But the people I choose to remain close to, I know personally well enough to have asked pertinent questions about these issues and I know their stance. Just like Personal doesn't run off and say he feels something else when in private (such as on the topic of feminism or MRA's), neither do these other men in my life, because their views on these topics are not shameful to them.
> 
> So I applauded Personal, and you had to run in and try to find some reason my applause of him wasn't valid.
> 
> It is really amazing how some of you guys will dog pile on another GUY if he doesn't agree with you, and will try to make him the odd man out.
> 
> Again I stand by what I said. Most men I know (and associate with by choice) are more like Personal, @Ikaika, @Fozzy, @Thundarr (and I could name a few others) than the guys who write about things like how women are ruining society for poor wittle mens. I'm not saying these guys I mentioned always agree with me or me them, I'm just saying they are decent, normal men who love their wives and women in general and that there are far more of them than there are MGTOW's or even MGTOW sympathizers.


What are you so angry about? Read my reply again it was in no way even antagonistic. I would guess IRL there's no way you are this aggressive and harsh toned with people, but here at TAM you are. Just like guys in the men's clubhouse complain about women, and yes even guys you know IRL when at the bar with other guys have some awful things to say about women, doesn't mean they hate all women, we vent, just like women do, just like you've been doing in this thread and everyone like it.

Every message board like this has their white knights looking to get kudos and Internet points from the feminist mobs that spend their time here, they're likely full of sh*t, at least I'm being sincere and speaking what's on my mind at the time. No one on this site is leading a perfectly fine life and marriage, that I believe. If your marriage is great why troll here?


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> What are you so angry about? Read my reply again it was in no way even antagonistic. I would guess IRL there's no way you are this aggressive and harsh toned with people, but here at TAM you are. Just like guys in the men's clubhouse complain about women, and yes even guys you know IRL when at the bar with other guys have some awful things to say about women, doesn't mean they hate all women, we vent, just like women do, just you've been doing in this thread and everyone like it.


What is so strange is that other men who do not agree with you are not reading me as aggressive and harsh...they are just reading me as responding IN KIND to certain posters how they have treated me.

Nice people who post nicely to me get nice response from me. Harsh people who post harshly to me get harsh responses from me. Simple.

Again, please ask @Personal if his story changes on the topic of feminism or MRA's or how much he loves his wife when he's at the bar with his friends. You can make assumptions that other men are all exactly like you, but it is not true.

For myself, yes if I encounter in real life a person who I have to discuss feminism and MRA's with and if that person holds some of the extremely sickening viewpoints as some here do (such as that hybristophilia has anything to do with normal woman) I will say the same things to that person as I say here. For instance, I may laugh in that person's face and ask if they tell their wife they hold such ideas.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Every message board like this has their white knights looking to get kudos and Internet points from the feminist mobs that spend their time here, they're likely full of sh*t, at least I'm being sincere and speaking what's on my mind at the time. No one on this site is leading a perfectly fine life and marriage, that I believe. If your marriage is great why troll here?


Ah...I see you've edited your response to be even MORE inflammatory to any man who doesn't agree with you. So decent, normal men who enjoy interacting with the women here (and there are lots of men who do) are actually looking to get "internet points" from the "feminist mob". They are also likely "full of sh*t"....all because they do not agree with YOU. :rofl:


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Again, please ask @Personal if his story changes on the topic of feminism or MRA's or how much he loves his wife when he's at the bar with his friends. You can make assumptions that other men are all exactly like you, but it is not true.
> .


They're white knights and scared of you, looking to win Internet points from you. I would take a look at how you address people, it's certainly a lot harsher than you give it credit for, insulting, degrading, and many times that's completely unwarranted. You sound like you have anger management issues to me.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> So decent, normal men who enjoy interacting with the women here (and there are lots of men who do) are actually looking to get "internet points" from the "feminist mob". They are also likely "full of sh*t"....all because they do not agree with YOU. :rofl:


Yep basically. Can you even summarize my views based on this thread? Read all my replies and try to come up with what "agreeing with me" is.

Why guys troll the Internet looking to be the Internet white knight for feminists I have no idea, but they exist, not sure what their motivation is.

I am a "decent" and "normal" man, I just don't feed into your ideal and BS. You come into the men's lounge and look to embarrass men, degrade them, and feed your ego by doing so. I called you on that, sorry.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> They're white knights and scared of you, looking to win Internet points from you. I would take a look at how you address people, it's certainly a lot harsher than you give it credit for, insulting, degrading, and many times that's completely unwarranted. You sound like you have anger management issues to me.


Ok guys, you've all been labeled.

White Knights looking to win 'Internet Points' from me.

I must be so powerful.

Those of you I have awarded 'Internet Points' to will get a special Internet Medal from me and I shall Knight Thee "Sir (insert user name) of TAM". Ye shall forever more be on my Board Of Trusted Normal Thinking Men and I shall request your advice and friendship on a regular basis.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Yep basically. Can you even summarize my views based on this thread? Read all my replies and try to come up with what "agreeing with me" is.
> 
> Why guys troll the Internet looking to be the Internet white knight for feminists I have no idea, but they exist, not sure what their motivation is.


No, I don't really care what your views have been, however I did see you disagreeing with several of the MGTOW points with someone else. I think I even put a like on one or two of them (I meant to anyway, not sure if I did). And then out of the blue you began attacking me, apparently because I said in other threads that I loves me some big peen (that seems to be stuck in your craw pretty good).

And thanks again for insulting lots of the men around here. Again.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> Yep basically. Can you even summarize my views based on this thread? Read all my replies and try to come up with what "agreeing with me" is.
> 
> Why guys troll the Internet looking to be the Internet white knight for feminists I have no idea, but they exist, not sure what their motivation is.
> 
> I am a "decent" and "normal" man, I just don't feed into your ideal and BS. You come into the men's lounge and look to embarrass men, degrade them, and feed your ego by doing so. I called you on that, sorry.


I know the answer to why guys play Internet white knight for feminists: because they feel that it will attract females to them for sex.

Of course it won't, because even feminists don't want to have sex with white knights.


----------



## Faithful Wife

WOW!!! Now all the men who are kind and decent to women on TAM actually do so just because they want to have sex with us?

(blush)

Awww....really? That's all it is? They aren't just actual kind and decent men? Guess we've been duped.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> No, I don't really care what your views have been, however I did see you disagreeing with several of the MGTOW points with someone else. I think I even put a like on one or two of them (I meant to anyway, not sure if I did). And then out of the blue you began attacking me, apparently because I said in other threads that I loves me some big peen (that seems to be stuck in your craw pretty good).
> 
> And thanks again for insulting lots of the men around here. Again.


I don't recall attacking you in this thread at all, once you started with the insinuation that I'm not normal or decent, then sure, once attacked I'll give it back. You seem to indicate attacking you is replying to you without aything but overwhelming glowing praise and kissing your backside.

I also didn't attack you in the big schlong thread, I said one thing about large vaginas and that with a nice 7 incher I've ran the gambit from stretching a woman out, perfect fit, and tossing a hotdog down a hallway, so penis size really doesn't matter because vaginas range in size much more. I tried adding that to make the guys self-conscious feel better, while you seemed to enjoy making guys self-conscious about it feel worse (why is that?). That seems to really stick in your craw because you went off on me after that. 

But revisionist history is always great.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Would they really prefer a woman who had the loving, caring personality they were looking for IF she was less attractive, less of a prize? 166.2 pounds even?


I think it depends though as, at least for me, what I find attractive initially could change. I could see a 9, start talking to her, and she quickly becomes a 4. I could see a 6, start talking to her, and she quickly moves up. It is really a balance of finding someone who you are compatible with both physically and mentally. There will be physical attributes where no matter how attractive she may be it is not enough to overcome some other "shortfalls". Likewise, she may have an awesome personality, but it may not be enough to overcome some of the physical "shortfalls".


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> I don't recall attacking you in this thread at all, once you started with the insinuation that I'm not normal or decent, then sure, once attacked I'll give it back.
> 
> I also didn't attack you in the big schlong thread, I said one thing about large vaginas and that with a nice 7 incher I've ran the gambit from stretching a woman out, perfect fit, and tossing a hotdog down a hallway, so penis size really doesn't matter because vaginas range in size much more. I tried adding that to make the guys self-conscious feel better, *while you seemed to enjoy making guys self-conscious about it feel worse *(why is that?). That seems to really stick in your craw because you went off on me after that.
> 
> But revisionist history is always great.


Yes it was clear you were trying to make the self-conscious guy feel better and also clear this is what is stuck in your craw. Yet I was expressing how I feel and what my thoughts are, which have nothing to do with any man reading. You still had to try to assign me with some kind of intent. I at least understand better now why you are so hung up on this. And of course when you say I "went off on you", you are referring to my one line response where I told you that I had not taken offense to any of your comments, regardless of what you believe.

As you said, revisionist.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

EllisRedding said:


> I think it depends though as, at least for me, what I find attractive initially could change. I could see a 9, start talking to her, and she quickly becomes a 4. I could see a 6, start talking to her, and she quickly moves up. It is really a balance of finding someone who you are compatible with both physically and mentally. There will be physical attributes where no matter how attractive she may be it is not enough to overcome some other "shortfalls". Likewise, she may have an awesome personality, but it may not be enough to overcome some of the physical "shortfalls".


That's why there's no such thing as a ten


----------



## EllisRedding

Julius Beastcavern said:


> That's why there's no such thing as a ten


I am still waiting to get my cheat sheet to know exactly what each number in the ratings mean lol.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

EllisRedding said:


> I am still waiting to get my cheat sheet to know exactly what each number in the ratings mean lol.


Perhaps someone brave will create one in the mens club house :surprise:


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it was clear you were trying to make the self-conscious guy feel better and also clear this is what is stuck in your craw. Yet I was expressing how I feel and what my thoughts are, which have nothing to do with any man reading. You still had to try to assign me with some kind of intent. I at least understand better now why you are so hung up on this. And of course when you say I "went off on you", you are referring to my one line response where I told you that I had not taken offense to any of your comments, regardless of what you believe.
> 
> As you said, revisionist.


More silly attacks, my member and sex ability is probably the one area where I'm not insecure and self-conscious. I'm a natural athlete so I have no concerns there. There were clearly guys in there concerned over it, one such guy in that thread is now looking to leave his wife and divorce due to her showing the picture of some pirate or something that he spoke about in that thread. Seems insignificant, but I'm sure your cold responses and the way you judged him had an impact on his psyche, so congrats on that.

I don't care what you believe, I added my little story of large vaginas and how I've been with tight ones, perfect ones, and large ones to hopefully get him unwound off the idea that it really mattered, while you seemed to take pleasure in letting him know it indeed did.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> I am still waiting to get my cheat sheet to know exactly what each number in the ratings mean lol.


Ya, I'm not sure what all the numbers mean either but I use them because it's easier. 

And I agree with everyone that it's a balance. I think sometimes, especially younger men or men with less experience, just go for looks. Their appearance makes them overlook other important attributes. They are so excited to have nabbed a good looking woman they give and give and pour all their effort into them and don't realize they aren't getting much back until years later. 

Some of these guys even use money and gifts to GET the girl in the first place and then wonder why a decade later they are with someone who only cares to take and about their money and gifts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> More silly attacks, my member and sex ability is probably the one area where I'm not insecure and self-conscious. I'm a natural athlete so I have no concerns there. There were clearly guys in there concerned over it, one such guy in that thread is now looking to leave his wife and divorce due to her showing the picture of some pirate or something that he spoke about in that thread. Seems insignificant, but I'm sure your cold responses and the way you judged him had an impact on his psyche, so congrats on that.
> 
> I don't care what you believe, I added my little story of large vaginas and how I've been with tight ones, perfect ones, and large ones to hopefully get him unwound off the idea that it really mattered, while you seemed to take pleasure in letting him know it indeed did.


Aww, you're such a prince. And I'm such a big meanie. 

No, I don't care that MR had a freak out about whatever I said on that thread because it was not about HIM or any other man reading here.

I've never once mentioned "your member" nor your sexual ability so I have no idea why you are mentioning it. Who cares?


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Aww, you're such a prince. And I'm such a big meanie.
> 
> No, I don't care that MR had a freak out about whatever I said on that thread because it was not about HIM or any other man reading here.


I wouldn't say a prince, just can tell when people need a little word to help them out. I'll take I'm a good guy and you're a "meanie", sure, I'm good with that.

Maybe we don't give a crap about what you think of MRA's, our marriages, MGTOW, because it's not for you any other woman reading here?


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> I wouldn't say a prince, just can tell when people need a little word to help them out. I'll take I'm a good guy and you're a "meanie", sure, I'm good with that.
> 
> Maybe we don't give a crap about what you think of MRA's, our marriages, MGTOW, because it's not for you any other woman reading here?


No, that is not acceptable! Men must always listen to women who tell them what they should do! But of course women should not listen to men who tell them what to do.

Any other approach is misogyny!


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Maybe we don't give a crap about what you think of MRA's, our marriages, MGTOW, because it's not for you any other woman reading here?


It's perfectly fine if no one gives a crap what I think.

Strange though that whenever there is a thread in the ladies lounge by women talking about OUR thoughts on MRA/RP/PUA/MGTOW and our thoughts about feminism, there is an angry mob of men rushing in expecting us to give a crap what they say.


----------



## farsidejunky

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I know I've mentioned it before, My H has been with plenty of 10s, they picked him up, they initiated, etc but the ones he was with were the dramatic, loud, going out types. The life of the party, could get any man they wanted kind.
> 
> One reason he likes me so much is that I'm not. I'm a shy introvert homebody. He feels that I am very loving and caring, too much even he tells me I need to toughen up. He feels that I am very giving. I don't care for brand names, fancy clothes, money. He feels like he would be completely lost without me and that I do so much for him. - His words-
> But I am NOT a 10.
> 
> I am curious, with all the complaining about high maintenance women who are users and dramatic and bring nothing to the table and the ewwwwing about what is average.
> 
> Would they really prefer a woman who had the loving, caring personality they were looking for IF she was less attractive, less of a prize? 166.2 pounds even?
> 
> There's a lot of talk about how men with sleep with anything 5+ that gives them second look (ugh) but I feel that a lot of guys, especially the types who feel they deserve a high "sex rank" woman, want to nab the best looking one they can get regardless of if her personality fits him. They will use whatever they have to raise their own worth to get the hottest woman they can get.
> 
> Then they end up with a woman they can't stand and who can't stand them.
> 
> It's like buying a fancy car to show off, you want to look cool and like you've made it but the darn thing has no trunk or backseat so it's useless for actually having a family because you have no where to put them. Sometimes you gotta get the minivan because it fits your lifestyle better.
> I'm ok with being a minivan.
> 
> If men want a woman who is loving and caring and don't go out with their girlfriends every weekend and flirt with men and get drunk, they should look for that first.
> 
> *and I know I sound like I'm grouping all hot women into one group and non-hot into another so I want to point out that hot women can be giving and loving, non-hot women can be drama queens*


I married someone very similar after being with the looks type for a long time.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Starstarfish

Are people good at rating their own attractiveness? I mean, by the stats given me and my husband are way off normal.

He wears a 29 or 30 waist pant with a 33 inseam and is tall and slim almost dangerously so Tom Huddleston style. I'm 5'7. I used to weigh a lot more. I lost weight, now I'm hovering around 155, but I've been down to 139. (Ugh, steroids for an infection that wouldn't die.)

So ... who settled there? Were we average or attractive? Or neither and just a weird abnormal couple who found each other?


----------



## Kivlor

Starstarfish said:


> Are people good at rating their own attractiveness? I mean, by the stats given me and my husband are way off normal.
> 
> He wears a 29 or 30 waist pant with a 33 inseam and is tall and slim almost dangerously so Tom Huddleston style. I'm 5'7. I used to weigh a lot more. I lost weight, now I'm hovering around 155, but I've been down to 139. (Ugh, steroids for an infection that wouldn't die.)
> 
> So ... who settled there? Were we average or attractive? Or neither and just a weird abnormal couple who found each other?


The problem I tried to get at, and why I opposed posting those numbers, is that they have only a little to do with attractiveness.

Body type, weight distribution, posture, mannerisms, dress choice, hair color, facial hair, and all manner of other things affect how attractive someone is. Not "what's your BMI?" "What do you weigh compared to the average weight?" 

Height, in men, is a larger factor. Chicks tend to dig taller men. My theory is they evolved that way because of kitchen cabinets being naturally to tall, and they want someone to be able to get stuff for them :grin2:


----------



## Starstarfish

It also ignores that everyone doesn't find the same thing attractive, based both on personal preferences and cultural conditioning. 

I've honestly never primarily dated people based on how "hot" they are. Common interests and intelligence rank higher to me. I've arguably never dated a guy other people would probably drool over and declare "hot."

So this idea that men can't find anyone who is interested I have a hard time believing. Someone who meets all theur standards? Eh ... depends what those standatds are. Some people have contradictory and impossible standards. Some probably have someone who is interested but they probably have her in the "friend zone" because she doesn't meet all the standards. I was there for a long time. Women do it too.

People look for Mr/Mrs Perfect and miss someone they probably really could be happy with.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Starstarfish said:


> It also ignores that everyone doesn't find the same thing attractive, based both on personal preferences and cultural conditioning.


This is so true.
Me and my friends growing up had 100% different types. We used to joke that it was one reason we'd never fight over boys. 
One liked the blonde hair, blue eyes jock types that you'd see at the gym. Tall but skinnier, abs, pretty, clean.
I do not. At all. 
Give me a dark haired labour worker rough looking dirty guy with rough hands any day. 

Another friend likes the kind of nerdy looking guys. Based on FB I can see she married one, they all go as starwars characters on Halloween.

All of our most attractive guys are different but all perfect for us.


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> Apparently some people want to discuss MGTOW. Here is part 1 of a good introduction: The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society - Breitbart.
> 
> Here's part 2: The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis - Breitbart


The guy who wrote the first article lacks self confidence and lacks confidence that young men are capable of succeeding. In his world we can't marry a decent woman because they all cheat, we will always be raising kids that aren't ours biologically, we all have ADHD (by the way I did and it didn't stop me from succeeding), none of us have retirement, we're all viewed as paedophiles and rapists when we pursue women, and that was only the first 20% of the article. SOUR GRAPES.

I'm not willing to accept that defeatist attitude. We don't have to give up on (or judge) all women because a particular woman screwed us royally. My first wife was a nightmare but guess what; I found a new kind of woman (human). It's not all complicated to evaluate red flags that we missed the first time around and fix our criteria for the second time. Plus I had a few things to fix in myself as well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Personal said:


> As to Feminists I think plenty of them are okay including my wife who was a very active organiser in a Feminist women's collective when we started dating.
> 
> I wonder if the men who complain about Feminists are even married to one?
> 
> Personally I think it's terrific being married to a self identifying Feminist.


:grin2:

I don't think most of them even know what one is. My H loves that I am a feminist. We've talked about this a lot the last few days as I have read him bits of these threads. He's proud that I can pass this stuff along to both our son and daughter. 

He used to have some sexist and negative views about women based on what he had grew up with and seen, but he's learning  
I'm learning about men all the time too. 

Having a daughter really helped him understand how women should be treated and viewed. 

I do wonder if these sexodus or whatever kind of men have daughters, if they pass their negative views onto them. When you have such hatred for something it'd be hard to hide.


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> Ewwww “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."
> 
> Really? Look at this statement again, and put yourself in the shoes of attractive women. Did it occur to you that an attractive woman may not find an average man sexually attractive? Why would she want to make herself available to "get laid" by an average man she does not find equally attractive? If an average man is entitled to an attractive woman why is she required to settle for average?
> 
> In addition, "getting laid" implies a sexually selfish, predatory average man. That is a problem, I can't think of more unattractive combination of traits. A hot man with a little attitude might be forgiven but a ridiculously entitled average man would be machine gunned.
> 
> Be realistic and fix your attitude about women, you'll be happier. There is no guarantee you will "get laid" by an attractive woman. You may meet a women who wants to get to know you and have mutually satisfying sex. You need to work for it, you can't get what you are not willing to give anymore.


Fyi to guys; there are a lot of attractive women ready to look past us not being 6.4, chiselled, and perfectly symmetrical. No way would I be happily married to my wife of almost two decades if she were hyper focused on looks alone. Not that I'm chopped liver.


----------



## Lon

Personal said:


> I think the bolded part is terrific, I don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> If you don't mind my asking, what did expending much energy trying to go after them look like back then?


By expending energy, I mean in two particular ways, 1) the physical - staying well groomed, trying to stay fit, making plans with friends to go out and finding ways to have fun that would make me more visible in general. Basically attempting to make my presence known and if there were any indicators of interest to actually go over and pursue a conversation. 2) emotionally, allowing myself to hope I could a) have fun b) hold some sort of a conversation with someone in any scope, c) be interested and d) prepare myself for the shear amount of rejection needed to find a single worthy experience of any sort.

The good solid relationships that eventually have come my way have been genuinely well founded and wonderful, but the part in me that has to come to grips with my inadequacy and complete lack of prowess or basic aptitude to develop those kinds of skills is the part that causes the inner conflict. For some MGTOW they are just defeated, while for others they may just accept that reality may never match what they at one time hoped for and instead of banging head against wall repeatedly they are just going to take a more open approach with no fantasy expectations of themselves.


----------



## aine

The only difference between MGTOW and women is that we usually marry the men first then give up on them (ever changing)


----------



## optimalprimus

Kivlor said:


> LMGTFY
> 
> Good job, you got me to Google something for you. Woohoo.
> 
> Caveats Apply: there are different averages depending on age and race and probably location and employment and the list goes on. An average is not a mode. When people say "average" they mean "typical" however in math, we mean something different. I didn't check methodology, so average in this case could be either. The rest is up to you.
> 
> In the end, we all have a relatively similar idea of what "average" or "typical" is. The same way I know what an elephant is, because I've seen it.
> 
> Depending on sources:
> US Men:
> From CDC:
> Avg Height: 69.3"
> Avg Weight: 195.5 lbs
> Avg Waist: 39.7"
> 
> US Women:
> From CDC:
> Avg Height: 63.8"
> Avg Weight: 166.2 lbs
> Avg Waist: 37.5"


Wow. Average male waist of near 40"....

Wheres the penis size and bra sizes lol

I think men are conditioned biologically to compete for the 'best' women so are often 'disappointed'. The most disappointed are those who a) have an inflated view of their own attractiveness and b) can't identify good partners (ie slowlygoingcrazys point).

I think women are a little (but not always) better at b) on average, mainly as in most of history their fate has been tied to their husband.




Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> :grin2:
> 
> I don't think most of them even know what one is. My H loves that I am a feminist. We've talked about this a lot the last few days as I have read him bits of these threads. He's proud that I can pass this stuff along to both our son and daughter.
> 
> He used to have some sexist and negative views about women based on what he had grew up with and seen, but he's learning
> I'm learning about men all the time too.
> 
> *Having a daughter really helped him understand how women should be treated and viewed.
> 
> I do wonder if these sexodus or whatever kind of men have daughters, if they pass their negative views onto them. When you have such hatred for something it'd be hard to hide.*


And how is it that women should be treated and viewed?

As far as passing on "negative views" to their daughters, if they don't have kids, it's a non-issue. If they do, I suspect they will. My mother's family passed on their man-hating to their kids. It's what people do.



Lon said:


> By expending energy, I mean in two particular ways, 1) the physical - staying well groomed, trying to stay fit, making plans with friends to go out and finding ways to have fun that would make me more visible in general. Basically attempting to make my presence known and if there were any indicators of interest to actually go over and pursue a conversation. 2) *emotionally, allowing myself to hope* I could a) have fun b) hold some sort of a conversation with someone in any scope, c) be interested and d) prepare myself for the shear amount of rejection needed to find a single worthy experience of any sort.
> 
> The good solid relationships that eventually have come my way have been genuinely well founded and wonderful, but the part in me that has to come to grips with my inadequacy and complete lack of prowess or basic aptitude to develop those kinds of skills is the part that causes the inner conflict. For some MGTOW they are just defeated, while for others they may just accept that reality may never match what they at one time hoped for and instead of banging head against wall repeatedly they are just going to take a more open approach with no fantasy expectations of themselves.


Once you learn to give up hope, you can learn to accept reality, and then work to change you situation Hope is like fear: mind-numbing. The Greeks warned about it in Pandora's Box. Giving up hope doesn't mean giving in to despair. And that's what they're doing. 

Totally agree with the rest of your statement though. Great way to view everything. And if the whole "hope" thing works for you, well, different strokes for different folks


----------



## Kivlor

Personal said:


> As to Feminists I think plenty of them are okay including my wife who was a very active organiser in a Feminist women's collective when we started dating.
> 
> I wonder if the men who complain about Feminists are even married to one?
> 
> Personally I think it's terrific being married to a self identifying Feminist.


Groups large groups tend to be diverse. Some good, some bad. I do not think anyone who complains about feminists is wanting to marry one. In fact, the notion seems idiotic. It's like saying "I can't stand car salesmen, they're terrible people" and then marrying one. Not likely.

So, what kind of feminist does your wife identify as? Because in reality, it's a diverse movement. Most of the guys complaining have a specific type of feminist they don't like. That's who they're complaining about.

Me, I generally don't like most of them and their views (some exceptions apply). What rights are they fighting for here? Inequality and privileges. They tilt at windmills. (Not to say they don't serve a purpose in say, the 3rd world...)

If you're not sure why many don't like feminism, you might start here. or here or here

Why would anyone want to sleep with, date or marry anyone like these people?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> And how is it that women should be treated and viewed?


Realizing that there are differences between genders but that both should be considered equal. 
They should be treated with respect, love and without negative stereotypes, sexism and judgement.
They shouldn't have someone's anger over another woman/women directed at them. 
They are their own people, all different, they have different wants, needs and attractions and should be treated as such.
Not looked down on for their gender, sexual activities, attractiveness. 
Not thought of as a trophy to buy but as a human to share a life with. 
Not treated as though they owe anyone a date or sex even if someone has spent time or money trying to get one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> My mother's family passed on their man-hating to their kids. It's what people do.


As I said on the other thread, this is sad.

It helps us understand where you are coming from.

If your only example growing up was of people (I assume mostly women) who hated you because of your gender and then used you as a pawn in their mind games against each other, of course you are going to see the world through that lens.

Is there anyway you can imagine though that for people who were raised with love, for and by both genders, raised with respect and joy and fun and family support and encouragement...that they may actually see the world differently than you do? As you said, people pass their beliefs down to their children. Those who are loving, kind people who love their kids (both genders) and love people in general, also pass these beliefs down to their children.

I'm really sorry about your abusive childhood and I would not wish that on anyone. But for those who have not had such a childhood, the world is not quite so scary, dim, hateful and dreary.

And some who have had abusive childhoods actually don't hold that dim view of the world either, it just depends on so many factors as to how people's world view gets shaped.

But in your case....it is very easy to see why your world looks the way it does and I can't blame you for the having the opinions you have. I probably would too in similar circumstances.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Completely off topic but I love the title of this thread.

Every time I read it I think, "Biblical theme porno...."


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Realizing that there are differences between genders but that both should be considered equal.
> They should be treated with respect, love and without negative stereotypes, sexism and judgement.
> They shouldn't have someone's anger over another woman/women directed at them.
> They are their own people, all different, they have different wants, needs and attractions and should be treated as such.
> Not looked down on for their gender, sexual activities, attractiveness.
> Not thought of as a trophy to buy but as a human to share a life with.
> Not treated as though they owe anyone a date or sex even if someone has spent time or money trying to get one.


Ok, how should men be treated then?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Ok, how should men be treated then?


With the same principals, tweaking to fit the gender or person you are specifically talking about like:

Not thought of as a_ bank account_ but as a human to share a life with.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> If you're not sure why many don't like feminism, you might start here. or here or here
> 
> Why would anyone want to sleep with, date or marry anyone like these people?


I've only watched the first one of those, but it was an excellent expose.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> With the same principals, tweaking to fit the gender or person you are specifically talking about like:
> 
> Not thought of as a_ bank account_ but as a human to share a life with.


That's a good start, thanks. Anything else?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> That's a good start, thanks. Anything else?


Well everything for the women as well. 

Realizing that there are differences between genders but that both should be considered equal.
Both
They should be treated with respect, love and without negative stereotypes, sexism and judgement.
Both
They shouldn't have someone's anger over another woman/women directed at them.
Both with man/men replacement
They are their own people, all different, they have different wants, needs and attractions and should be treated as such.
Both- and "needs" is not just sex. We know that WE have different needs/wants- like being told we're pretty and thanked for doing stuff but sometimes forget that our men do too. Men have all kinds of needs and emotions.
Not looked down on for their gender, sexual activities, attractiveness.
Both- including more male judged qualities like income/job
Not thought of as a trophy to buy but as a human to share a life with.
This one I changed 
Not treated as though they owe anyone a date or sex even if someone has spent time or money trying to get one.
With this both but also:
Not treated as though you are owed anything - even a relationship- with any man, even if you chose to sleep with him. 
Covert contracts are bad for both sides.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well everything for the women as well.
> 
> Realizing that there are differences between genders but that both should be considered equal.
> Both
> They should be treated with respect, love and without negative stereotypes, sexism and judgement.
> Both
> They shouldn't have someone's anger over another woman/women directed at them.
> Both with man/men replacement
> They are their own people, all different, they have different wants, needs and attractions and should be treated as such.
> Both- and "needs" is not just sex. We know that WE have different needs/wants- like being told we're pretty and thanked for doing stuff but sometimes forget that our men do too. Men have all kinds of needs and emotions.
> Not looked down on for their gender, sexual activities, attractiveness.
> Both- including more male judged qualities like income/job
> Not thought of as a trophy to buy but as a human to share a life with.
> This one I changed
> Not treated as though they owe anyone a date or sex even if someone has spent time or money trying to get one.
> With this both but also:
> Not treated as though you are owed anything - even a relationship- with any man, even if you chose to sleep with him.
> Covert contracts are bad for both sides.


Very nice. I can't see how anyone could object to that.


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> Fyi to guys; there are a lot of attractive women ready to look past us not being 6.4, chiselled, and perfectly symmetrical. No way would I be happily married to my wife of almost two decades if she were hyper focused on looks alone. Not that I'm chopped liver.


I suppose some women can and do pair with men who are not as attractive as she. Her choice may be one of pragmatism and not a matter of strong sexual chemistry or that looks don't matter. With so manny options open to attractive woman, you have to ask why she would choose a man who does not match her level of attractiveness. 

The myth that looks don't matter to women is so strongly held that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince some men that it is not true. Sexual chemistry is based on the appeal of a person's appearance. The tendency is to be attracted to a person of equal attractiveness. That's human nature. 

Unlike men, of lack of sexual attraction or pleasing looks does not prevent women from having sex. In a sense, looks don't matter to have sex. But that cannot be interpreted as a disinterest in sexual chemistry which, is tied to looks and usually governed by equal attractiveness. 

The problem is that faulty belief prevents some men from using caution before plunging into a committed relationship with a more attractive woman. She can have sex but not have a strong desire to have sex with a less attractive man. 

The lack of a strong attraction may show up latter in the relationship and lead to misery. With the stakes so high, it doesn't hurt to consider that looks matter to women as much as men. Don't buy the myth, it may lead to selection of an incompatible partner.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Faithful Wife said:


> "Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."
> 
> 
> Yes, women have taken men's jobs because they can and because they do better in school. And poor men are left to figure out what to do about that. Meanwhile, women are fine, they find men they want to be with, they have their careers, and the world rocks on.


While it is true many women have taken jobs, often these weren't jobs being done by men. I'm studying management at the moment at university, It's been 30 years since I last studied at university.

The modern workforce is entirely different, as is the focus of the training. It used to be focused on processes and engineering, even in many of the soft sciences and arts. Now there is far more time spent on terminology and writing reports and copying what others have decreed - things that would have got a quick fail 30 years ago. And it is similar in the workforce, far more time is spent getting all the boxes tidied away, passing on costs to others, and making image - and the costs have shot up extraordinarily. Used to be that a rule or law was pared down to its bare necessities, or tacked on to a bunch of other laws - now everything is levels of redundancy and bubblewrapping. It's very much a woman's world, one that many men find wasteful and abhorrent - for reasons of differentiation between "resource providers" and "resource consumers"...and more we see profitability at the expense of someone else, not about the providing of new economies and service, and more and more I see the "but who is actually paying for all this overhead and redundant accuracy?" being swept under the carpet. But as usual, for most women, as long as she is getting her way, stands high enough in hierarchy to look down on others, and "is happy in what she does", then nothing else matters. Mature men have more responsible mindsets.


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> I suppose some women can and do pair with men who are not as attractive as she. Her choice may be one of pragmatism and not a matter of strong sexual chemistry or that looks don't matter. With so manny options open to attractive woman, you have to ask why she would choose a man who does not match her level of attractiveness.
> 
> The myth that looks don't matter to women is so strongly held that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince some men that it is not true. Sexual chemistry is based on the appeal of a person's appearance. The tendency is to be attracted to a person of equal attractiveness. That's human nature.
> 
> Unlike men, of lack of sexual attraction or pleasing looks does not prevent women from having sex. In a sense, looks don't matter to have sex. But that cannot be interpreted as a disinterest in sexual chemistry which, is tied to looks and usually governed by equal attractiveness.
> 
> The problem is that faulty belief prevents some men from using caution before plunging into a committed relationship with a more attractive woman. She can have sex but not have a strong desire to have sex with a less attractive man.
> 
> The lack of a strong attraction may show up latter in the relationship and lead to misery. With the stakes so high, it doesn't hurt to consider that looks matter to women as much as men. Don't buy the myth, it may lead to selection of an incompatible partner.


I get your point. Where I was saying we should not sell ourselves short, you're saying we should not over sell ourselves and think that looks don't matter at all to women. There's truth in what both of us are saying I believe. While being confident, in shape, and intelligent influences our attractiveness a great deal, these things are not trump cards.


----------



## Faithful Wife

spotthedeaddog said:


> The modern workforce is entirely different, as is the focus of the training. It used to be focused on processes and engineering, even in many of the soft sciences and arts. Now there is far more time spent on terminology and writing reports and copying what others have decreed - things that would have got a quick fail 30 years ago. And it is similar in the workforce, far more time is spent getting all the boxes tidied away, passing on costs to others, and making image - and the costs have shot up extraordinarily. Used to be that a rule or law was pared down to its bare necessities, or tacked on to a bunch of other laws - now everything is levels of redundancy and bubblewrapping. It's very much a woman's world, one that many men find wasteful and abhorrent - for reasons of differentiation between "resource providers" and "resource consumers"...and more we see profitability at the expense of someone else, not about the providing of new economies and service, and more and more I see the "but who is actually paying for all this overhead and redundant accuracy?" being swept under the carpet. *But as usual, for most women, as long as she is getting her way, stands high enough in hierarchy to look down on others, and "is happy in what she does", then nothing else matters. Mature men have more responsible mindsets*.


In the company you are describing, are you saying women or a woman OWNS this company? Are all of the top managers who make decisions about bubble wrap women? Or is it a publicly held company? If so, are all the board members women?

Unless a woman made every decision that has led to your bubblewrap nightmare, then I have no idea what your point is. 

Do you actually think some women somewhere made these decisions, or would you rather just ignore the fact that a man probably did, since a man most likely is the owner and a man is most likely the top manager and decision maker.

Decisions that affect the bottom line are still typically made by men. Unless a woman made those decisions, then wth are you talking about?


----------



## EllisRedding

The spelling kinda kills it lol.


----------



## MEM2020

Tech,

Perhaps some level of categorization would facilitate this discussion. 

I'm going to agree with the obvious statements that it is easier for highly attractive folks to get laid. And more important to enter into a sexual relationship that may become permanent. 

In general I believe men are shallower than women. And here's why. 

Show me an average looking guy who has charisma and a good job and I'll show you a man with a LOT of options. 

While charisma and income make a woman more attractive, I don't think it's to the same degree. 

And FWIW, I believe there are a subset of men who prize charisma and female partner earning power. Just a much smaller subset than exists in the female population. 

And then I'll add one more component to the discussion. We all get dealt a hand. 

My brother in law is BELOW average in raw physical appearance. And yet my sister who is a solid 8 (on a 10 scale) in physical attractiveness fell in love with, married and lays him like tile. 

He came from a blue collar family. Had no money when they met. 

But he was bursting at the fvcking seams in charisma, ambition and smarts. 

Full disclosure on this story of the happy marriage of a female (8) and a male (4). He was ok marrying a mid twenties woman who was already divorced with 2 kids. And she had full custody. So he raised 2 step kids, and the two bio kids they had together. 

And I'll add a bit of color here. My sister is a rock solid wife. Organized, great with money, great with the kids. 

And my final observation is this. I don't know any other couples with such a big attractiveness gap where the MAN is the more attractive partner. 

Just sayin





technovelist said:


> How about the average man and the average woman? It turns out that the average woman is not attracted to the average man, whereas the average man is attracted to the average woman.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the point. Hot guys can get away with anything, whereas average guys can't get the time of day... from average women.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is how one defines a realistic attitude toward women.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well everything for the women as well.
> 
> Realizing that there are differences between genders but that both should be considered equal.
> Both


Yes men should not be allowed violence to control relationships, and women should not be allowed to use passive aggressiveness to do the same. It's abuse either way. (the latter includes emotion tantrum/crying/sulking/withholding sex). And to be fair it need go both ways (which is why I added sulking in the latter one)


----------



## MEM2020

Spot,
Sorry but physical intimidation, outright abuse and the threat of physical violence as a form of emotional terrorism, are in a league of their own. 

Totally comfortable putting folks in jail for that. 

Withholding sex, affection, and throwing tantrums aren't ever going to be illegal. And in my view they shouldn't be. 




spotthedeaddog said:


> Yes men should not be allowed violence to control relationships, and women should not be allowed to use passive aggressiveness to do the same. It's abuse either way. (the latter includes emotion tantrum/crying/sulking/withholding sex). And to be fair it need go both ways (which is why I added sulking in the latter one)


----------



## Kivlor

spotthedeaddog said:


> Yes men should not be allowed violence to control relationships, and women should not be allowed to use passive aggressiveness to do the same. It's abuse either way. (the latter includes emotion tantrum/crying/sulking/withholding sex). And to be fair it need go both ways (which is why I added sulking in the latter one)


Because women don't use violence just about as often as men to control relationships. Nope. Not at all.


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> Tech,
> 
> Perhaps some level of categorization would facilitate this discussion.
> 
> I'm going to agree with the obvious statements that it is easier for highly attractive folks to get laid. And more important to enter into a sexual relationship that may become permanent.
> 
> In general I believe men are shallower than women. And here's why.
> 
> Show me an average looking guy who has charisma and a good job and I'll show you a man with a LOT of options.


I have repeatedly said that men are shallower than women, so I'm not sure what we disagree on, if anything.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

MEM11363 said:


> Spot,
> Sorry but physical intimidation, outright abuse and the threat of physical violence as a form of emotional terrorism, are in a league of their own.
> 
> Totally comfortable putting folks in jail for that.
> 
> Withholding sex, affection, and throwing tantrums aren't ever going to be illegal. And in my view they shouldn't be.


Nope. tear fests, complete refusals to communicate same weapon different tactic, just because one is visible and somewhat "honest" (and a popular media slogan) doesn't make it better.

Yes some people die of violence... but now go look at the bullying and across the board suicide rates - how many of those were from physical beatings? at tleast with physical beatings there are options for help.


----------



## MEM2020

Spot,

The funny thing about this - every guy who says it - believes it until I ask them a simple question. And then - well - some folks just aren't equipped to deal with a collision between what they 'think' and what they 'believe'. 

So here's the question. You just got convicted of a crime you didn't commit. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. Warden gives you a choice, you can share a cell with Jim, or with Bill.

You've got 4" of height and 40 pounds of weight on Jim.
And you are 4" shorter and 40 pounds lighter than Bill. 

Warden tells you that Jim is a pain in the neck and will try to mess with your head. Bill however, when he gets agitated he will just beat you. 





spotthedeaddog said:


> Nope. tear fests, complete refusals to communicate same weapon different tactic, just because one is visible and somewhat "honest" (and a popular media slogan) doesn't make it better.
> 
> Yes some people die of violence... but now go look at the bullying and across the board suicide rates - how many of those were from physical beatings? at tleast with physical beatings there are options for help.


----------



## joannacroc

Kivlor said:


> The problem I tried to get at, and why I opposed posting those numbers, is that they have only a little to do with attractiveness.
> 
> Body type, weight distribution, posture, mannerisms, dress choice, hair color, facial hair, and all manner of other things affect how attractive someone is. Not "what's your BMI?" "What do you weigh compared to the average weight?"
> 
> Height, in men, is a larger factor. Chicks tend to dig taller men. My theory is they evolved that way because of kitchen cabinets being naturally to tall, and they want someone to be able to get stuff for them :grin2:


I feel like a terrible hypocrite for saying this, but yes, it is secretly quite hot when a guy reaches something from the top shelf in the kitchen for me. :grin2: Having said that I've also dated guys the same height/shorter than me. The guy I'm currently dating is tall, but I think it's his kindness and sense of humor that make him stand out from the crowd - kindness is very rare.


----------



## Lila

spotthedeaddog said:


> Nope. tear fests, complete refusals to communicate same weapon different tactic, just because one is visible and somewhat "honest" (and a popular media slogan) doesn't make it better.
> 
> Yes some people die of violence... but now go look at the bullying and across the board suicide rates - how many of those were from physical beatings? at tleast with physical beatings there are options for help.


Are you serious? You're actually equating physical violence to a "tears fest"? That's ridiculous!

This is Sarah Burge. Today she calls herself the human barbie doll due to all of the cosmetic procedures she's had done over the years. Her long journey with plastic surgery started as a result of a domestic violence "incident" as she likes to call it. 

"_I was involved in an incident of domestic violence so severe that I was left with a broken cheekbone, jaw, eye socket and teeth. I was rushed to hospital to be patched up but when I eventually saw myself in a mirror I collapsed in shock._"










There are men that suffer abuse from women as well. This is Ian McNicholl. His fiancee stubbed cigarettes up his nose, poured boiling water in his lap, and held a steam iron on his arm (See pic).










Tear Fests:










Silent Treatment










Um, no comparison AT ALL.


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,

That's a good article. I just read it. 

Why did you label it the way you did? The article doesn't say that female to male intimate partner violence was equal. 

And FWIW some quick facts. Intimate partner homicide has been tracked for quite some time. The victim demographics are:
Males commit 72% of the murders
Females commit 28% of them

It turns out that for every murder, there are typically 3-5 cases of serious to permanent injury. 

----------
That said, I have seen statistics that remind me of the old saying:

There's liars, damn liars and statisticians. 

The ONLY way to achieve parity in intimate partner violence is to define violence as ANY aggressive contact. That means treating a single flat handed push against a man's chest as the SAME as a brutal beating leaves you with permanent loss of function (hearing, sight, mobility, etc). 

Are women sometimes violent. You betcha. Those homicide numbers don't lie. 28% is a non trivial number. That said, if you walk around and eyeball the typical size and weight delta in a pool of couples, in most of them, absent a gun or a blitz attack starting with a disabling strike, the woman loses. 

I accept that men who are victims of real domestic violence - aren't taken seriously. Cultural bias is powerfully against them. And that's not right. It's also true that size matters. 

From a practical sense, for couples with a typical size difference, a female who flat palms the chest of her much bigger, stronger mate is expressing anger, not engaging in physical intimidation. 






Kivlor said:


> Because women don't use violence just about as often as men to control relationships. Nope. Not at all.


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> I get your point. Where I was saying we should not sell ourselves short, you're saying we should not over sell ourselves and think that looks don't matter at all to women. There's truth in what both of us are saying I believe. While being confident, in shape, and intelligent influences our attractiveness a great deal, these things are not trump cards.


We do Thun. People of unequal attractiveness do fall in love and have strong sexual chemistry, I have see it many times. The people I know are equal on many fronts in their lives. The less attractive person seems unimpressed by the beauty of their partner. I think that's what you are describing in your marriage. You don't seem unduly dazzled by your wife's beauty while at the same time, you enjoy it. 

I've seen less attractive people practically prostrate themselves to their more attractive partner. The relationship seems tragic to me. It is not looks so much as attitude. If there is a good level of self-respect and self-esteem, that in itself seems appealing. Looks matter to everyone but, to a degree, there are mitigating factors. 

Like everything else in life, each person has to decide if the mitigation is a positive for them.


----------



## MEM2020

Catherine,
I'd like to add to this. To 'some degree' you can purchase a mate. Might be via the 'partner worship' model. Or by throwing a LOT of money and resources at them. 

Thing is - reason my sister loves and desires my brother in law is that he is a great life partner. Charisma, humor, problem solving skills. He's never acted like she was doing him a favor. 

Nor that he was doing her a favor. 

He is just an all around great guy. And they treat each other like royalty - both in and out of bed. 





Catherine602 said:


> We do Thun. People of unequal attractiveness do fall in love and have strong sexual chemistry, I have see it many times. The people I know are equal on many fronts in their lives. The less attractive person seems unimpressed by the beauty of their partner. I think that's what you are describing in your marriage. You don't seem unduly dazzled by your wife's beauty while at the same time, you enjoy it.
> 
> I've seen less attractive people practically prostrate themselves to their more attractive partner. The relationship seems tragic to me. It is not looks so much as attitude. If there is a good level of self-respect and self-esteem, that in itself seems appealing. Looks matter to everyone but, to a degree, there are mitigating factors.
> 
> Like everything else in life, each person has to decide if the mitigation is a positive for them.


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> I've seen less attractive people practically prostrate themselves to their more attractive partner. The relationship seems tragic to me. It is not looks so much as attitude. If there is a good level of self-respect and self-esteem, that in itself seems appealing. Looks matter to everyone but, to a degree, there are mitigating factors.


It's a terrible dynamic because a partner is hearing the message that their looks define their worth. I wouldn't like to be with someone who let me get away with other crap because of my looks and I bet most people are the same. It seems like a dynamic that eventually generates fitness tests that the clingy partner obviously fails.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> 
> That's a good article. I just read it.
> 
> Why did you label it the way you did? The article doesn't say that female to male intimate partner violence was equal.
> 
> And FWIW some quick facts. Intimate partner homicide has been tracked for quite some time. The victim demographics are:
> Males commit 72% of the murders
> Females commit 28% of them
> 
> It turns out that for every murder, there are typically 3-5 cases of serious to permanent injury.
> 
> ----------
> That said, I have seen statistics that remind me of the old saying:
> 
> There's liars, damn liars and statisticians.
> 
> The ONLY way to achieve parity in intimate partner violence is to define violence as ANY aggressive contact. That means treating a single flat handed push against a man's chest as the SAME as a brutal beating leaves you with permanent loss of function (hearing, sight, mobility, etc).
> 
> Are women sometimes violent. You betcha. Those homicide numbers don't lie. 28% is a non trivial number. That said, if you walk around and eyeball the typical size and weight delta in a pool of couples, in most of them, absent a gun or a blitz attack starting with a disabling strike, the woman loses.
> 
> I accept that men who are victims of real domestic violence - aren't taken seriously. Cultural bias is powerfully against them. And that's not right. It's also true that size matters.
> 
> From a practical sense, for couples with a typical size difference, a female who flat palms the chest of her much bigger, stronger mate is expressing anger, not engaging in physical intimidation.


I said "Because women don't use violence *just about as often as men to control relationships*. Nope. Not at all."

There is this myth of the man as the assaulter, and the woman as victim in intimate relationships. Which I was addressing. In the article goes on to say



> Research showing that women are often aggressors in domestic violence has been causing controversy for almost 40 years, ever since the 1975 National Family Violence Survey by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire found that women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse and men were just as likely as women to report getting hit. The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, *Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.*


Even the National Violence Against Women survey and CDC NISVS reports nearly equal levels of reported DV between men and women. 

One of the issues that is acknowledged is that we don't really know how high it is, because there is a terrible stigma against men for reporting. The article actually


> chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive. In the early 1990s, when laws mandating arrest in domestic violence resulted in a spike of dual arrests and arrests of women, battered women’s advocates complained that the laws were “backfiring on victims,” claiming that women were being punished for lashing back at their abusers. Several years ago in Maryland, the director and several staffers of a local domestic violence crisis center walked out of a meeting in protest of the showing of a news segment about male victims of family violence. Women who have written about female violence, such as Patricia Pearson, author of the 1997 book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, have often been accused of colluding with an anti-female backlash.


You are right, that women are more likely to be severely injured. The stats include reported assaults. Which means they're including when women make up an assault and when it really happens. And we already know that women lie, probably often about rape.

Women commit assault against their partners in similar levels. We know this. We've known it for 40 years now. I highly suggest the Strauss document linked above. It looks at several studies.

Page 4 has a great breakdown of 10 studies. In 10 of the 14 estimates, women actually made up more perpetrators. In the NAFVS 1995, women were 2.35 times more likely to inflict a serious injury than men. In the National Youth Survey 1994, it was men who were 1.5 times more likely to inflict a serious injury.

On page 5, Women were more likely to be violent in 6 of 6 studies.

I find it ridiculous that you advocate not calling assault what it is, because a woman's smaller and probably won't hurt a guy as bad. Certainly, the degree of damage matters, but I think if anyone hits you, you should strike them back. Guy or girl. Don't take it. I think maybe, just maybe, a lot of these situations might not escalate if men hit back more often (once, not going overboard) and then told the woman to get the F out of their house. Women being hit by men should do the same. Staying in these relationships only perpetuates more violence. In fact, several studies show that in roughly half of violent couples, both are violent, with another 1/4 men only and 1/4 women only.

My point was, and is easily backed up: Women are just as likely to initiate and participate in violence in intimate relationships to exert control. And women are more likely to use emotional and psychological abuse. Despite the myths we tell.


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,

That's like a little magic trick there. 

You take the legal definition of assault - which size renders totally asymmetrical, and assign it meaning. 

Jumping from flat palming the man's chest to: using violence to control the relationship.

And per my earlier post, regarding cell mates. 
The warden has this policy. If you refuse to 'choose' a cell mate, he puts you in with the smaller guy. It's just safer. 


UOTE=Kivlor;14421138]I said "Because women don't use violence *just about as often as men to control relationships*. Nope. Not at all."

There is this myth of the man as the assaulter, and the woman as victim in intimate relationships. Which I was addressing. In the article goes on to say



Even the National Violence Against Women survey and CDC NISVS reports nearly equal levels of reported DV between men and women. 

One of the issues that is acknowledged is that we don't really know how high it is, because there is a terrible stigma against men for reporting. The article actually 

You are right, that women are more likely to be severely injured. The stats include reported assaults. Which means they're including when women make up an assault and when it really happens. And we already know that women lie, probably often about rape.

Women commit assault against their partners in similar levels. We know this. We've known it for 40 years now. I highly suggest the Strauss document linked above. It looks at several studies.

Page 4 has a great breakdown of 10 studies. In 10 of the 14 estimates, women actually made up more perpetrators. In the NAFVS 1995, women were 2.35 times more likely to inflict a serious injury than men. In the National Youth Survey 1994, it was men who were 1.5 times more likely to inflict a serious injury.

On page 5, Women were more likely to be violent in 6 of 6 studies.

I find it ridiculous that you advocate not calling assault what it is, because a woman's smaller and probably won't hurt a guy as bad. Certainly, the degree of damage matters, but I think if anyone hits you, you should strike them back. Guy or girl. Don't take it. I think maybe, just maybe, a lot of these situations might not escalate if men hit back more often (once, not going overboard) and then told the woman to get the F out of their house. Women being hit by men should do the same. Staying in these relationships only perpetuates more violence. In fact, several studies show that in roughly half of violent couples, both are violent, with another 1/4 men only and 1/4 women only.

My point was, and is easily backed up: Women are just as likely to initiate and participate in violence in intimate relationships to exert control. And women are more likely to use emotional and psychological abuse. Despite the myths we tell.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> 
> That's like a little magic trick there.
> 
> You take the legal definition of assault - which size renders totally asymmetrical, and assign it meaning.
> 
> Jumping from flat palming the man's chest to: using violence to control the relationship.
> 
> And per my earlier post, regarding cell mates.
> The warden has this policy. If you refuse to 'choose' a cell mate, he puts you in with the smaller guy. It's just safer.


I know, I'm just a broken record, but it would behoove you and your position to read the Straus review. I'm linking it again here.

By the way, I'm not making that jump, it is a quote from Straus and the review I've linked repeatedly. And I think it's patently false to claim a woman striking her H isn't engaging in physical intimidation. She's relying on the fact that if he defends himself, the police will arrest him, not her. Because she's a girl, and he should just take it. She knows that this will happen, and she knows that he's aware of it. 



> The controversy over gender symmetry in PV was fueled by the 1975 National Family Violence Survey, which found a perpetration rate of assault by men partners of 12% and by women partners 11.6% (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006). The rate of severe assaults such as kicking, punching, choking, and attacks with objects was also about the same for men and women (3.8% by men and 4.6% by women). Neither of these gender differences was statistically significant.


As to which cell mate I'd pick, I don't know. Because it's hard to determine just on weight and height. How long am I in for? I'd probably rather the big, but innocuous fella. I'd take a guy who'll yell at me over a guy who'd slit my throat any day. Similarly, I'd feel safer with a big guy who yells at me than a violent woman. Every. Damn. Time.

There's a tremendous difference between being in a prison cell with someone, and living in a house with them. I can leave the house almost any time. I can't leave the prison cell until someone sets me free. 

If you think a woman can't easily make up her size difference in the real world, you're very, very wrong. And I hope you never have the misfortune of finding yourself on the receiving end of a violent or manipulative one, because it's terrifying.


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,
That's an exceptionally good analysis. 

I like how he explains a complex topic in a clear and coherent manner. 

I understand why you answered my cell mate question the way you did. I framed it that way for simplicity. But for additional clarity, both cell mates are criminals with long records. They have poor coping skills so when they are having a bad day they WILL mess with you. 

One of them can and will beat you when you decline his offer of sex. The other isn't strong enough and will therefore just TRY to mess with your head. 

And I'm not being clever here, just sincere. That's EXACTLY why the study shows that despite EQUAL rates of physical aggression, women in a physically abusive marriage are harmed far more both physically and psychologically. 

All,
I think it's worth reading. The main thing is that the tone strikes me as one of a sincere desire for finding the truth. Whether it fits our preconceptions or not. 







Kivlor said:


> I know, I'm just a broken record, but it would behoove you and your position to read the Straus review. I'm linking it again here.
> 
> By the way, I'm not making that jump, it is a quote from Straus and the review I've linked repeatedly. And I think it's patently false to claim a woman striking her H isn't engaging in physical intimidation. She's relying on the fact that if he defends himself, the police will arrest him, not her. Because she's a girl, and he should just take it. She knows that this will happen, and she knows that he's aware of it.
> 
> 
> 
> As to which cell mate I'd pick, I don't know. Because it's hard to determine just on weight and height. How long am I in for? I'd probably rather the big, but innocuous fella. I'd take a guy who'll yell at me over a guy who'd slit my throat any day. Similarly, I'd feel safer with a big guy who yells at me than a violent woman. Every. Damn. Time.
> 
> There's a tremendous difference between being in a prison cell with someone, and living in a house with them. I can leave the house almost any time. I can't leave the prison cell until someone sets me free.
> 
> If you think a woman can't easily make up her size difference in the real world, you're very, very wrong. And I hope you never have the misfortune of finding yourself on the receiving end of a violent or manipulative one, because it's terrifying.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> That's an exceptionally good analysis.
> 
> I like how he explains a complex topic in a clear and coherent manner.
> 
> I understand why you answered my cell mate question the way you did. I framed it that way for simplicity. But for additional clarity, both cell mates are criminals with long records. They have poor coping skills so when they are having a bad day they WILL mess with you.
> 
> One of them can and will beat you when you decline his offer of sex. The other isn't strong enough and will therefore just TRY to mess with your head.
> 
> And I'm not being clever here, just sincere. That's EXACTLY why the study shows that despite EQUAL rates of physical aggression, women in a physically abusive marriage are harmed far more both physically and psychologically.
> 
> All,
> I think it's worth reading. The main thing is that the tone strikes me as one of a sincere desire for finding the truth. Whether it fits our preconceptions or not.


I just realized I misread the dilemma you represented. Sorry. I somehow read it as the smaller was violent, the larger not. Don't know how I did that.:surprise:

Yeah, I'd take the smaller one, because he's not violent. I'd take the non-violent cellmate every time, regardless of size. And if the non-violent one got violent, I'd defend myself. With prejudice. Even if they were the larger person. Or a girl. 

Still, I think part of the issue is that prison is not the real world. We have other options outside of a jail cell, that prisoners do not have. And outside of a jail cell, the smaller person has options to make up for their size.

From _my experience_, the analogy, rather than 2 abusive cell mates would be this: If you're having an argument in a bar with a guy who's got 6" and 60lbs on you, you don't go from words to fists and expect to not get your face pummeled. You don't escalate to violence, and expect him to just say "meh". I mean, sure, he might. But you shouldn't count on it. And your beating is going somewhat earned--and quite foreseeable. It's like playing with fire next to a powder-keg. Imprudent. 

I've not seen much male on female violence in my life, where the man didn't start by defending himself / someone else. I've seen some though. _I've definitely seen men take it too far, and go well beyond what was sufficient to end the situation._ However, I've seen women initiate serious violence regularly. 

I've never had a guy load a shotgun and threaten to shoot me because I left a dirty fork in a sink over night. Or because I 'looked at him disrespectfully'. Or for anything. Never had one threaten me with a knife because he can't find the booze he misplaced the day before. Never seen a man threaten to injure himself and call the cops, file assault charges on me. Never had to fear any of that from a man. I've been on the receiving end of women doing every one of those things and more. I've lived in a home where the doors had to be locked at night, and a crowbar kept by the bed, because if she's drunk and angry, she may try to kill you. 

But, surely, for everyone like me, there's a girl with the same story about a man. As shown in the studies I linked above, I'm likely in the minority, men initiate violence 25% of the time at a minimum; and it's got to be higher than that, though we don't know how much so. Still, it is hard for me to ignore my experiences. I'm sure it's that way for many women who've grown up in similar circumstances too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor, what happened to you is sad and insane. 

I don't think there is anyone here who would say that a woman should get any different treatment from law enforcement or the legal system for a crime than a man should for the same crimes. There is a lot wrong with the legal system that ends up with people not being protected as they should be, and criminals not being brought to justice.


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> It's a terrible dynamic because a partner is hearing the message that their looks define their worth. I wouldn't like to be with someone who let me get away with other crap because of my looks and I bet most people are the same. It seems like a dynamic that eventually generates fitness tests that the clingy partner obviously fails.


My sister, who was 2 years older than me, was beautiful. She was shy and sensitive. Her inner self did not match her outer appearance. Her relationships were based on her looks. She longed for a relationship with someone who understood and loved her. What she got was adoration and impatience with her shy sensitive nature. 

I look at the "looks matter" thing from a slightly different angle. For some people, it means that is all that matters. Also, They do anything to get and stay in a relationship based on looks. I think that's disrespecting themselves and cheating their partner. 

There is nothing wrong with going after beautiful men or women. But they need to be loved and understood too. They may never have had a partner that cared to get to know them. They are not as confident as they look. 

I think it is easier for a sincere, confident and loving reasonable looking person to get into a mutually satisfying relationship with an exceptional looking partner. 

These people rarely meet a partner who can muster up the strength to demand more of them than looking good. Such a person would be a gift to anyone but especially a person who is burdened with beauty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

That's an enlightening story.

I believe it was Robert Deniro who said something interesting during an interview. 

Suddenly you're famous. Not a little famous, a LOT famous. And most of the people around you, stop giving you the type of feedback that is normal and healthy and positive. 

And that absence of honest feedback is so harmful. 

That's why I agree that sometimes very attractive folks end up with more average folks. Average except they are unaffected by the reality distortion field of beauty. 





Catherine602 said:


> My sister, who was 2 years older than me, was beautiful. She was shy and sensitive. Her inner self did not match her outer appearance. Her relationships were based on her looks. She longed for a relationship with someone who understood and loved her. What she got was adoration and impatience with her shy sensitive nature.
> 
> I look at the "looks matter" thing from a slightly different angle. For some people, it means that is all that matters. Also, They do anything to get and stay in a relationship based on looks. I think that's disrespecting themselves and cheating their partner.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with going after beautiful men or women. But they need to be loved and understood too. They may never have had a partner that cared to get to know them. They are not as confident as they look.
> 
> I think it is easier for a sincere, confident and loving reasonable looking person to get into a mutually satisfying relationship with an exceptional looking partner.
> 
> These people rarely meet a partner who can muster up the strength to demand more of them than looking good. Such a person would be a gift to anyone but especially a person who is burdened with beauty.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

MEM that is so right. I watched what happened to my sister. One summer she was an ordinary stringy looking girl the next summer, she was able to transfix men and boys with her mere presence. She was so threatening that the group of girls we hung with kicked us out of the group. Me by association. We were isolated in the neighborhood and in school till we found a new group of friends. 

The easy attention and other perks were, at first glance, pleasant. Like winning the lottery. However, like a person who comes into sudden wealth, she got to see the ugly side of people. Those who wanted to use her or display her like a doll or be friends just to be seen with her or the false friends who betrayed her. 

If you think about it, you have to have resilience and strong parents to help you mature under those circumstances. She had neither.

Beauty carries special types challenges. No more than the average person, just different. Same thing with growing up with a weight problem or a disability or just being different.


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,
That is a frightening story. Sorry to hear it. Hope your current partner is non violent. 

I've never had a violent partner. Did have a partner threaten to self harm once. Very upsetting. 





Kivlor said:


> I just realized I misread the dilemma you represented. Sorry. I somehow read it as the smaller was violent, the larger not. Don't know how I did that.:surprise:
> 
> Yeah, I'd take the smaller one, because he's not violent. I'd take the non-violent cellmate every time, regardless of size. And if the non-violent one got violent, I'd defend myself. With prejudice. Even if they were the larger person. Or a girl.
> 
> Still, I think part of the issue is that prison is not the real world. We have other options outside of a jail cell, that prisoners do not have. And outside of a jail cell, the smaller person has options to make up for their size.
> 
> From _my experience_, the analogy, rather than 2 abusive cell mates would be this: If you're having an argument in a bar with a guy who's got 6" and 60lbs on you, you don't go from words to fists and expect to not get your face pummeled. You don't escalate to violence, and expect him to just say "meh". I mean, sure, he might. But you shouldn't count on it. And your beating is going somewhat earned--and quite foreseeable. It's like playing with fire next to a powder-keg. Imprudent.
> 
> I've not seen much male on female violence in my life, where the man didn't start by defending himself / someone else. I've seen some though. _I've definitely seen men take it too far, and go well beyond what was sufficient to end the situation._ However, I've seen women initiate serious violence regularly.
> 
> I've never had a guy load a shotgun and threaten to shoot me because I left a dirty fork in a sink over night. Or because I 'looked at him disrespectfully'. Or for anything. Never had one threaten me with a knife because he can't find the booze he misplaced the day before. Never seen a man threaten to injure himself and call the cops, file assault charges on me. Never had to fear any of that from a man. I've been on the receiving end of women doing every one of those things and more. I've lived in a home where the doors had to be locked at night, and a crowbar kept by the bed, because if she's drunk and angry, she may try to kill you.
> 
> But, surely, for everyone like me, there's a girl with the same story about a man. As shown in the studies I linked above, I'm likely in the minority, men initiate violence 25% of the time at a minimum; and it's got to be higher than that, though we don't know how much so. Still, it is hard for me to ignore my experiences. I'm sure it's that way for many women who've grown up in similar circumstances too.


----------



## MEM2020

Catherine,
There are a lot of cases on TAM which sort of read like this. 

I love and desire my partner. Just don't like or respect her very much. 

They don't use those words, but that is what they convey in their posts. 

I 'had' a friend like this. Having a beautiful woman on his arm was a huge ego requirement for him. But he often didn't like them. And never respected them. 

Part of the reason we aren't friends any more was he got furious one day when I said that M2 and I were friends. Actually best friends to each other. He got very loud and told me that men and women couldn't be friends and I was deluding myself.....





Catherine602 said:


> MEM that is so right. I watched what happened to my sister. One summer she was an ordinary stringy looking girl the next summer, she was able to transfix men and boys with her mere presence. She was so threatening that the group of girls we hung with kicked us out of the group. Me by association. We were isolated in the neighborhood and in school till we found a new group of friends.
> 
> The easy attention and other perks were, at first glance, pleasant. Like winning the lottery. However, like a person who comes into sudden wealth, she got to see the ugly side of people. Those who wanted to use her or display her like a doll or be friends just to be seen with her or the false friends who betrayed her.
> 
> If you think about it, you have to have strong parents to help you mature under those circumstances. You also have to be resilient. She had neither of those.
> 
> Beauty carries special types challenges. No more than the average person just different. Same thing with growing up with a weight problem or a disability or just being different.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> That is a frightening story. Sorry to hear it. Hope your current partner is non violent.
> 
> I've never had a violent partner. Did have a partner threaten to self harm once. Very upsetting.


I learned not to tolerate it; and I highly recommend anyone, man or woman do the same. I've found that if people know that it's not an option to hit you, they don't try. I meant what I said earlier. If someone takes a swing at you, strike them back and then remove them from your life. 

My theory is I used to exude weakness, which enticed people to attempt that kind of stuff. No one respects a weak man and everyone will turn on you if they see weakness. I don't exude weakness, so no one attempts it anymore. Be strong, and this stuff ends, in my experience. 

I'll openly admit it messed with me, probably permanently. I still don't let women hold knives near me. Not even for cooking. Scares the piss out of me. 

I'll agree that it's very upsetting to have a partner threaten self-harm. Sorry you had to go through that. I hope you got them the help they needed.

My point earlier was that women use violence just about as often as men, with the intent of trying to exert control. I think they can be less successful with those attempts because as you pointed out, men are much larger and stronger. But I think it's mistaken to discount their efforts and their intent. And women are not afraid to call in armed soldiers to exert control for them. And that is a very deadly level of force.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

jld said:


> Techmom, here is something you posted a while back that might fit this convo:
> 
> The 11 Differences Between Dating a Boy vs a Man - JustMyTypeMag


That article is worth its weight in gold, and explains exactly why I was so frustrated in my marriage. I was married to a boy. And at 51 years old and still avoiding and defending and deflecting, he was never going to become a man and lead his family. Sure, he's responsible. But he also has a moral compass that allows him to think something is ok just because he wasn't the initiator. Communication with his exes, being the OM in an affair (before we met), etc. Listening to what my needs are and acting like he cares but afraid of trying and thus leaving the lifting in the relationship to me. And when he finally admitted this is who he is and he's not going to change, he failed to realize that he is selling his own life short and that no real woman who stands in her own two feet will accept a man with no vision, no passion, and no ownership of his actions and decisions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SurpriseMyself said:


> That article is worth its weight in gold, and explains exactly why I was so frustrated in my marriage. I was married to a boy. And at 51 years old and still avoiding and defending and deflecting, he was never going to become a man and lead his family. Sure, he's responsible. But he also has a moral compass that allows him to think something is ok just because he wasn't the initiator. Communication with his exes, being the OM in an affair (before we met), etc. Listening to what my needs are and acting like he cares but afraid of trying and thus leaving the lifting in the relationship to me. And when he finally admitted this is who he is and he's not going to change, he failed to realize that he is selling his own life short and that no real woman who stands in her own two feet will accept a man with no vision, no passion, and no ownership of his actions and decisions.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He sounds like a submissive male. He may meet a woman who can dominate him and they both will be happy.

People cannot change their natures. They can only accept and work within them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

jld said:


> He sounds like a submissive male. He may meet a woman who can dominate him and they both will be happy.
> 
> People cannot change their natures. They can only accept and work within them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree that you can't make yourself outgoing when you are shy, or bubbly when you are reserved, but to say that it is your nature to avoid growth, to say "I'm a good guy because I never cheated" when you were actually having sex with a married woman in their martial bed with their child asleep in the next room-- that is denial and deflection. If that is in someone's nature and cannot be changed, then only those with an uncheckered past are inherently good people. 

I don't buy this, and perhaps you aren't saying this, but I do expect people to mature and grow over the course of their lives.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Here's a very valuable article for men to improve themselves:

What's Really Wrong With Nice Guys - Entitlement, Nerds and Neanderthals - Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## techmom

An excerpt from the article I posted:



> See, the problem with Nice Guys – and something that’s embedded deep into Aaronson’s comment – is the deep-seated belief that they’re being “cheated” somehow. In Aaronson’s experiences, he’d been doing everything “right”… so why was it that other people are getting rewarded and he wasn’t?
> 
> All this time, I faced constant reminders that the males who didn’t spend months reading and reflecting about feminism and their own shortcomings—even the ones who went to the opposite extreme, who engaged in what you called “good old-fashioned ass-grabbery”—actually had success that way. The same girls who I was terrified would pepper-spray me and call the police if I looked in their direction, often responded to the crudest advances of the most Neanderthal of men by accepting those advances. Yet it was I, the nerd, and not the Neanderthals, who needed to check his privilege and examine his hidden entitlement!
> 
> This is the fall-back of many a Nice Guy – the lament that women love *******s, instead of Nice Guys like him. He’s been following the rules! He’s not playing grab-ass! He’s being nice! Shouldn’t that count for something?
> 
> Well… no. As I’ve said many times before: you don’t get a cookie for meeting what are minimum requirements for decent behavior. But he’s unwilling to examine that maybe the problem is what he is or isn’t doing. Aaronson has defined himself as a nerd… and therefore the “good guy” by definition. There can’t be anything wrong with his behavior. Those other guys – the ones that women are going home with – are “Neanderthals”. The bad boys. And believe me, Aaronson chose that word deliberately; he’s saying they’re brutish and crude, even beastial. They’re cavemen while Aaronson is an astronaut. He’s enlightened while they’re ignorant. They’re bad. He’s Nice.


----------



## techmom

Another excerpt:



> In short: “why do you have to make me feel bad about myself, I’m not a bad guy!” It’s #notallmen once more, the constant insistence that an exception should be made because reasons. It becomes about making their hurt feelings the center of the debate instead of hey, maybe people shouldn’t act this way. But the point of Schrodinger’s Rapist and other feminist writings isn’t that men are evil rapists and everything they do is unwelcome, it’s that women live in a world where sex is used against them. It’s a basic benefit of being a man – men don’t experience sexual harassment or risk sexual assault the way women do. Despite his protests that being a nerd makes him one of the least privileged people in society (apparently in all of his feminist reading he never encountered the concept of intersectionality), being bullied in high-school or reading mean quotes about social misfits on Tumblr and Jezebel doesn’t equate with hundreds of years of systematic oppression. Being told that, hey, society teaches men to act in a certain way that’s incredibly ****ty to women (and, frankly to men as well) isn’t a referendum about his worth as a man but a call to be better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There's also this great article:

5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women | Cracked.com

The rest of the article is excellent too, but this part is like the one you posted, @techmom 



#5 We Were Told That Society Owed Us a Hot Girl

Does it seem like men feel kind of entitled to sex? Does it seem like we react to rejection with the maturity of a child being denied a toy?

Well, you have to keep in mind that what we learn as kids is really hard to deprogram as an adult. And what we learned as kids is that we males are each owed, and will eventually be awarded, a beautiful woman.

We were told this by every movie, TV show, novel, comic book, video game and song we encountered. When the Karate Kid wins the tournament, his prize is a trophy and Elisabeth Shue. Neo saves the world and is awarded Trinity. Marty McFly gets his dream girl, John McClane gets his ex-wife back, Keanu "Speed" Reeves gets Sandra Bullock, Shia LaBeouf gets Megan Fox in Transformers, Iron Man gets Pepper Potts, the hero in Avatar gets the hottest Na'vi, Shrek gets Fiona, Bill Murray gets Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters, Frodo gets Sam, WALL-E gets EVE ... and so on.

Hell, at the end of An Officer and a Gentleman, Richard Gere walks into the lady's workplace and just carries her out like he's picking up a suit at the dry cleaner.

And then we have Star Wars, where Luke starts out getting Princess Leia (in The Empire Strikes Back), but then as Han Solo became a fan favorite, George Lucas realized he had to award her to him instead (forcing him to write the "She's secretly Luke's sister" thing into Return of the Jedi, even though it meant adding the weird incest vibe to Empire). With Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling played with the convention by having the beautiful girl get awarded to the sidekick character Ron, but she made it a central conflict in the story that Ron is constantly worried that, since Harry is the main character, Hermione will be awarded to him instead.

In each case, the woman has no say in this -- compatibility doesn't matter, prior relationships don't matter, nothing else factors in. If the hero accomplishes his goals, he is awarded his favorite female. Yes, there will be dialogue that maybe makes it sound like the woman is having doubts, and she will make noises like she is making the decision on her own. But we, as the audience, know that in the end the hero will "get the girl," just as we know that at the end of the month we're going to "get our paycheck." Failure to award either is breaking a societal contract. The girl can say what she wants, but we all know that at the end, she will wind up with the hero, whether she knows it or not.

And now you see the problem. From birth we're taught that we're owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we're heroes for just getting through our day.

So it's very frustrating, and I mean frustrating to the point of violence, when we don't get what we're owed. A contract has been broken. These women, by exercising their own choices, are denying it to us. It's why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won't win him sex. It's why we go to "sl*t" and "wh*re" as our default insults -- *we're not mad that women enjoy sex. We're mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that they owed us*.

Yes, the women in these stories are being portrayed as wonderful and beautiful and perfect. But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.

(end quote)

The bolded part in particular is the 80/20 argument in a nutshell.

I loved that the author spoke so openly and honestly and addressed the problem of feeling entitled to a "hot girl" and sex with her. It is completely understandable and causes a lot of the problems we are seeing here. Conversely, stories about being a poor girl and growing up to marry the Prince of a large, rich country are ridiculous as well, and girls grow up with the wrong ideas about sex and relationships in the same way.


----------



## techmom

Another excerpt, this is the last one I will post:



> Let’s go back to Aaronson’s complaint that the sexual harassment seminars didn’t provide him with clear-cut rules on when approaching someone isn’t sexual harassment. Of course, they couldn’t; the difference between welcome, consensual flirting and harassment is contextual, not binary. What works in some circumstances for some people isn’t going to work for everyone or in every circumstance. It’s on the individual to learn to adapt and change as needed. But by complaining that he wasn’t handed a consistent, universal rules-set2 is asking people to stop being people and start being social robots and the world doesn’t work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was this moment:
> 
> _"In a different social context—for example, that of my great-grandparents in the shtetl—I would have gotten married at an early age and been completely fine."_
> 
> He goes on to clarify that he wishes for a consensual arrangement not a return to when women were property, but for a series of rules and rituals. But this, too, is about avoiding what he ultimately had to do: grow, adapt and change. Instead, he’s asking for someone to provide him with a woman and that the current system isn’t what he’s “optimized” for. But again: that’s not how the world works. You either adapt or you don’t.
> 
> Then there’s this bit:
> 
> _"From my perspective, it serves only to shift blame from the Neanderthals and ass-grabbers onto some of society’s least privileged males, the ones who were themselves victims of bullying and derision, and who acquired enough toxic shame that way for appealing to their shame to be an effective way to manipulate their behavior."
> _
> OK, I’m going to say this with all sincerity to Aaronson and other nerds and Nice Guys: I’m sorry you were bullied. I’m sorry you may find relationships scary and confusing. I’m sorry you may not have the instinctual social ease that others may have. I’ve been there, I have done that and I’ve got the emotional scars to prove it. I understand that trying to figure out how to get better at dating can be confounding, frustrating and intimidating – that’s the whole reason why I created this site.
> 
> So with that being said: build a bridge and get the **** over it.
> 
> Being bullied doesn’t make you right, or better or morally superior. Being a nerd doesn’t mean that you’re holy. Just because you’re a geek doesn’t mean that you aren’t also an *******. Being socially awkward isn’t an excuse and trying to play the Oppression Olympics doesn’t make it any better. No, life isn’t fair, it never has been fair and the sooner you stop expecting that fairness to apply to you, the sooner you’ll be able to improve.
> 
> Yes, we live in a society that tells men and women conflicting rules about sex and sexuality and that can be confusing. Yes, the rules about boundaries and consent are changing and we’re all trying to shake off generations of toxic lessons about gender and sexuality and it can be weird, confusing and intimidating. But blaming feminists for scaring you, bullies for bullying you or neanderthals for taking what you “deserve” isn’t progress, it’s whining. Stop blaming others for what, at the end of the day, are your choices. You and you alone are responsible for your life and to make it better.


----------



## techmom

Throughout TAM we hear some male posters say that things were so much better before feminism, that our grandparents had it better than we do, relationships are being destroyed and women are walking out of marriage and destroying families. What all of these complaints reflect is an unwillingness to grow and adapt with the times. It shows a lack of confidence in oneself to bring something else to a relationship besides a paycheck and money. Then complain when that is all the woman is interested in.

These types of men want to go back to a time when EVERY MAN WAS GUARANTEED A PARTNER, through arranged marriage, or whatever. They don't want to have to work to improve themselves, pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and find a girl using something else besides your ability to provide for her financially, like maybe some personality and similar interests. Then if she doesn't like you, simply find another one. But using your wallet to attract a lady then complaining that she is only into because of your wallet is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## techmom

Privilege, Entitlement and Dating



> To a woman, saying something along the lines of “I’m interested in meeting as friends, if something more develops, great” means “I want to take things slowly and make sure that the person I meet up with is willing to respect my pace and boundaries.” To a man with entitlement issues, it’s putting up a barrier between herself and any men who might want to get to know her; after all, who is she to set the terms of how to meet her? I’ve seen far too many people for whom the idea that a woman has decided that she is only open to certain types of relationships or why certain types of individuals shouldn’t bother trying to contact her is a personal insult. In fact, copping an attitude is one of the most common mistakes men make in online dating. Just about every woman I’ve known who has tried online dating has received a variation of “**** YOU, YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO NOT LIKE ME” when she didn’t respond immediately with a “YES, TAKE ME NOW IN A MANLY FASHION” to his unsolicited email – or worse, didn’t respond at all. It’s rather startling to watch “You’re really pretty I think we should go on a date” turn on a dime to “**** u, ur an ugly ho u crazy bitccccch” when the woman in question didn’t respond in the pre-approved manner quickly enough.
> 
> The perception that placing some sort of artificial restriction on the men who are “allowed” to communicate with her bothers these people because, frankly, they resent the fact that there’s a woman that they’re cut off from. Men already have a complex stew of entitlement issues and serious insecurities warring in their heads. On the one hand, any man who isn’t in the top 10th percentile of whatever metric you might want to use to gauge male sexual desirability is painfully aware of this fact. On the other hand – tying back into that “fairness” issue I mentioned before – they resent the fact that they might not get the hottest/sexiest/richest woman because of it. However, instead of turning their attention inward – dealing with their self-esteem issues, working on improving their lives, accepting that maybe they hold women to impossible standards- they decide to externalize their anger… and put the blame for their lack of dating success firmly on women because they’re rejecting the unwritten rule that men are owed their sexual attention.
> 
> Of course, in many cases it goes well beyond the idea that somehow women aren’t keeping up their end of the social contract… it’s a full blown conspiracy! Y’see… women are in total control of every social interaction they have with men and men are forced, forced I say!, to accede to their wishes.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

This thread has become so interesting! I love the articles linked throughout, and laughed out loud at the quote, "Go build a bridge and get the f--- over it!" That is awesome. Too many whiny people who point out the unfairness of this or that and have the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" attitude when what they really should be asking themselves is why no one wants to play with them!!!


----------



## MEM2020

Techmom,
This resonates with me: Leading with your wallet and then complaining a (prospective or actual) partner is only interested in your money is an exercise that rarely produces a positive outcome. 

My ex friend did this. He simply had this core belief that where women were concerned, money trumped everything. 

As a handsome young man, and a super talented tennis player he had a LOT of success having short term sexual relationships. 

One of the most awkward, nay painful conversations we ever had went like this. 
Me: Why is it you think women don't care about - other stuff?
Him: Like what?
Me: Basic level of fitness 
Him: What does that mean
Me: Buddy, you won't even glance at a woman carrying an extra 10 pounds. Won't even give her a first look. But you are carrying around 50 extra pounds. 
Him: Conveying that I had somehow broken the bro code, and then changing the subject. 

I guess it's partly a core values thing. The world is full of guys who would rather look good (strolling around with a very attractive partner who treats them poorly) and lose, than stroll around with a more average partner who treats them well. 




techmom said:


> Throughout TAM we hear some male posters say that things were so much better before feminism, that our grandparents had it better than we do, relationships are being destroyed and women are walking out of marriage and destroying families. What all of these complaints reflect is an unwillingness to grow and adapt with the times. It shows a lack of confidence in oneself to bring something else to a relationship besides a paycheck and money. Then complain when that is all the woman is interested in.
> 
> These types of men want to go back to a time when EVERY MAN WAS GUARANTEED A PARTNER, through arranged marriage, or whatever. They don't want to have to work to improve themselves, pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and find a girl using something else besides your ability to provide for her financially, like maybe some personality and similar interests. Then if she doesn't like you, simply find another one. But using your wallet to attract a lady then complaining that she is only into because of your wallet is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> The world is full of guys who would rather look good (strolling around with a very attractive partner who treats them poorly) and lose, than stroll around with a more average partner who treats them well.


Wow, that's interesting, MEM. It is basically all about their image?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

Yes. Kind of sad because he was a very clever and often perceptive fellow. And he could - at times be very entertaining. 

Sad thing was - his father was in love with his mother. But it wasn't really mutual. Resulted in a marriage that was very sexually tense for the father. He didn't speak of it - to my friend. But it was so obvious to him as a child. 

It caused him to see - women - as sort of predatory. In his mind, his mother got a great deal, and his dad got a raw deal. 






jld said:


> Wow, that's interesting, MEM. It is basically all about their image?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> Yes. Kind of sad because he was a very clever and often perceptive fellow. And he could - at times be very entertaining.
> 
> Sad thing was - his father was in love with his mother. But it wasn't really mutual. Resulted in a marriage that was very sexually tense for the father. He didn't speak of it - to my friend. But it was so obvious to him as a child.
> 
> It caused him to see - women - as sort of predatory. In his mind, his mother got a great deal, and his dad got a raw deal.


That's too bad, MEM. 

I have never really understood that idea of women as predatory. The "maneater" idea. I think it is because my default thinking is that men are powerful. I don't think of them as being easily manipulated, though for sure some are.

Getting back to the importance of image, though . . . That is important to men who are insecure, right? They are more concerned about how they look to others than how they themselves actually feel. That just seems so superficial and unsatisfying.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

techmom said:


> Privilege, Entitlement and Dating


Thank you for posting this article. It was so enlightening! I found particularly interesting this bit:

On Monday, I wrote an article about why women might not be writing back on dating sites when the topic of screening came up. Some women will add qualifiers to their profile – that they’re not there to find dates, only friends, that you should only message her if you meet X, Y and Z or if you’re not looking for sex… A common complaint that men have – one that was echoed in the comments on the article – was that this is somehow a violation of the Dating Site Contract. That women who, say, create an ******* for the various quizzes and aren’t looking to meet men are somehow Using It Wrong. If you’re on a dating site – so the implied contract goes – you’re supposed to be willing to consider anyone who stops to email you.

To a woman, saying something along the lines of “I’m interested in meeting as friends, if something more develops, great” means “I want to take things slowly and make sure that the person I meet up with is willing to respect my pace and boundaries.” To a man with entitlement issues, it’s putting up a barrier between herself and any men who might want to get to know her; after all, who is she to set the terms of how to meet her? I’ve seen far too many people for whom the idea that a woman has decided that she is only open to certain types of relationships or why certain types of individuals shouldn’t bother trying to contact her is a personal insult. In fact, copping an attitude is one of the most common mistakes men make in online dating. Just about every woman I’ve known who has tried online dating has received a variation of “**** YOU, YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO NOT LIKE ME” when she didn’t respond immediately with a “YES, TAKE ME NOW IN A MANLY FASHION” to his unsolicited email – or worse, didn’t respond at all. It’s rather startling to watch “You’re really pretty I think we should go on a date” turn on a dime to “**** u, ur an ugly ho u crazy bitccccch” when the woman in question didn’t respond in the pre-approved manner quickly enough.

The perception that placing some sort of artificial restriction on the men who are “allowed” to communicate with her bothers these people because, frankly, they resent the fact that there’s a woman that they’re cut off from. Men already have a complex stew of entitlement issues and serious insecurities warring in their heads. On the one hand, any man who isn’t in the top 10th percentile of whatever metric you might want to use to gauge male sexual desirability is painfully aware of this fact. On the other hand – tying back into that “fairness” issue I mentioned before – they resent the fact that they might not get the hottest/sexiest/richest woman because of it. However, instead of turning their attention inward – dealing with their self-esteem issues, working on improving their lives, accepting that maybe they hold women to impossible standards- they decide to externalize their anger… and put the blame for their lack of dating success firmly on women because they’re rejecting the unwritten rule that men are owed their sexual attention.

I found it interesting because when I tried online dating back in the day, I had this experience. I had men take umbrage to me not responding or reciprocating in the way they expected me to, and I found it completely baffling! Now I get it - these men felt entitled to my positive response. They felt that women should be available to them and that, when I didn't respond positively, immediately went to anger as it flew in the face of their sense of full entitlement. 

Very eye opening! And sad for the men who subscribe to this nonsense. They will forever be unhappy in the modern world.


----------



## MEM2020

He was an unhappy character.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> That's too bad, MEM.
> 
> I have never really understood that idea of women as predatory. The "maneater" idea. I think it is because my default thinking is that men are powerful. I don't think of them as being easily manipulated, though for sure some are.


Hard to have family, or proper social achievements/position without a wife, and in many cases it is her activities in the social circles that gives leads and cements contacts, or as several friends found out annoy the bosses wife even slightly and your career at the company is over as she'll never forget and if her husband ever wants a moments peace/food/sex he will side with her.
If she divorces, he'll usually lose half of everything he's tried to build up, and put his career/contacts into limbo for 5 - 10 years; plus often lose many of his friends and contacts as they get split in the divorce. And he'll lose his kids as well unless he spends lots of time and money chasing for them - and that's time he can't spend keeping his reputation up career-wise. And having to spend time with family immediately takes him off the boil as being the hot stuff and always available for business & social deals (not many business events are kid friendly, especially for solo dads). Often he'll also be facing reoccurring financial damage for many years to come - very hard to look generous and affluent like other people want to deal with when your ex is stripping the cash straight from your employers hand.

just take a look around the modern home - even those with two working partners. How much is "his space". Men tend to like stuff displayed and handy, women tend to like them tidied away - or if too much stuff you'll spot whose is whose anyway. She how much of the home she occupies, and how much he does. (when I last lived with a woman I got allocated 3% of the house)

So I'm keen to hear how you think men in the Western world have the power. (Arabia, India/Pakistan, Asia, Africa, South America, Micronesia, men definitely have the power.)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

SurpriseMyself said:


> Very eye opening! And sad for the men who subscribe to this nonsense. They will forever be unhappy in the modern world.


Just figured that kind of rubbish is why they never end up with anyone.
(thus the stupid become desperate, and the desperate, stupid.)


----------



## jld

spotthedeaddog said:


> Hard to have family, or proper social achievements/position without a wife, and in many cases it is her activities in the social circles that gives leads and cements contacts, or as several friends found out annoy the bosses wife even slightly and your career at the company is over as she'll never forget and if her husband ever wants a moments peace/food/sex he will side with her.
> If she divorces, he'll usually lose half of everything he's tried to build up, and put his career/contacts into limbo for 5 - 10 years; plus often lose many of his friends and contacts as they get split in the divorce. And he'll lose his kids as well unless he spends lots of time and money chasing for them - and that's time he can't spend keeping his reputation up career-wise. And having to spend time with family immediately takes him off the boil as being the hot stuff and always available for business & social deals (not many business events are kid friendly, especially for solo dads). Often he'll also be facing reoccurring financial damage for many years to come - very hard to look generous and affluent like other people want to deal with when your ex is stripping the cash straight from your employers hand.
> 
> just take a look around the modern home - even those with two working partners. How much is "his space". Men tend to like stuff displayed and handy, women tend to like them tidied away - or if too much stuff you'll spot whose is whose anyway. She how much of the home she occupies, and how much he does. (when I last lived with a woman I got allocated 3% of the house)
> 
> So I'm keen to hear how you think men in the Western world have the power. (Arabia, India/Pakistan, Asia, Africa, South America, Micronesia, men definitely have the power.)


They are the ones deciding who to marry, and then asking them, right?

Sounds like some just needed to choose more wisely. 

Take your time, and _look beyond the packaging._ That is the advice I am giving my sons, anyway.


----------



## MEM2020

Spot,
What exactly is a proper social achievement? Or social position? 

How do those aspects of life impact your ability to provide your children a good upbringing and fund their college? 

I guess being a simple minded sort of guy, I never paid much attention to that stuff. Focused on getting a good education in software and then layering skills on top of that. 

My career, and network were developed entirely separate from M2. 

This was also true for ALL my successful colleagues. 




spotthedeaddog said:


> Hard to have family, or proper social achievements/position without a wife, and in many cases it is her activities in the social circles that gives leads and cements contacts, or as several friends found out annoy the bosses wife even slightly and your career at the company is over as she'll never forget and if her husband ever wants a moments peace/food/sex he will side with her.
> If she divorces, he'll usually lose half of everything he's tried to build up, and put his career/contacts into limbo for 5 - 10 years; plus often lose many of his friends and contacts as they get split in the divorce. And he'll lose his kids as well unless he spends lots of time and money chasing for them - and that's time he can't spend keeping his reputation up career-wise. And having to spend time with family immediately takes him off the boil as being the hot stuff and always available for business & social deals (not many business events are kid friendly, especially for solo dads). Often he'll also be facing reoccurring financial damage for many years to come - very hard to look generous and affluent like other people want to deal with when your ex is stripping the cash straight from your employers hand.
> 
> just take a look around the modern home - even those with two working partners. How much is "his space". Men tend to like stuff displayed and handy, women tend to like them tidied away - or if too much stuff you'll spot whose is whose anyway. She how much of the home she occupies, and how much he does. (when I last lived with a woman I got allocated 3% of the house)
> 
> So I'm keen to hear how you think men in the Western world have the power. (Arabia, India/Pakistan, Asia, Africa, South America, Micronesia, men definitely have the power.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> Getting back to the importance of image, though . . . That is important to men who are insecure, right? They are more concerned about how they look to others than how they themselves actually feel. That just seems so superficial and unsatisfying.


I'm not sure if only insecure men get a rush out of having a "hot" woman. I think the ones who pick women "just because" she is hot are usually insecure and don't have much to offer from themselves (they may be hot too, but they will likely not also be a good guy with a good mind). 

Sometimes my H's friends say things to him like "you luuuuuucky bastard, how'd you end up with HER?"...and some men of course would beam with pride about this. My H just thinks it is tacky, and he takes offense to a man speaking about me that way at all. He feels like "hey dude I know my wife's hot, you don't have to be drooling at her and talking to me about it". (He has actually said this type of thing to men a few times, too). 

But clearly there is a general man code which says other men will give you pats on the back for having a hot woman. So even if a man doesn't want to receive the pats and is not insecure, the other men will give the pats anyway.

"What a lucky guy" almost always refers only to a man with a hot woman, when you hear it said in the general sense.

Sometimes though it may mean she is a very good woman and loves her guy deeply. My H knows that my love for him is what makes him a "lucky guy". The outer appearance isn't "luck" it was by choice, for both of us. We chose someone we were mutually sexually attracted to. We don't care what others would have preferred.

I do hear "you're such a lucky woman" about my H at times, too.

It is funny when people say things like this, particularly if they don't know you or your spouse that well. They don't know your character yet they will call your spouse "lucky"? What if you appear beautiful on the exterior but behind closed doors you are an abusive jerk, man or woman? People make assumptions about attractive people being good or better people just because of their exterior appearance (the halo effect). When you employ the halo effect while checking out your friend or colleague's partner, you can be really far off base.

Still, the friend who tries to compliment you this way is typically trying to convey a sincere compliment. 

So it is not just all about insecurity, I don't think. It is more about the fact that women are still valued for their appearance in ways that are inappropriate.


----------



## knobcreek

He with the hottest wife and most toys wins, or something like that.


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> Throughout TAM we hear some male posters say that things were so much better before feminism, that our grandparents had it better than we do, relationships are being destroyed and women are walking out of marriage and destroying families. What all of these complaints reflect is an unwillingness to grow and adapt with the times. It shows a lack of confidence in oneself to bring something else to a relationship besides a paycheck and money. Then complain when that is all the woman is interested in.
> 
> These types of men want to go back to a time when EVERY MAN WAS GUARANTEED A PARTNER, through arranged marriage, or whatever. They don't want to have to work to improve themselves, pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and find a girl using something else besides your ability to provide for her financially, like maybe some personality and similar interests. Then if she doesn't like you, simply find another one. But using your wallet to attract a lady then complaining that she is only into because of your wallet is just plain ridiculous.


Those 'good ole days' when women stayed with men because they had no other choice. I wonder how many happily married men were actually with wives who wished they could leave? Yea those good ole days when women ate their dissapointment. Na today is better because being married means both people are choosing to be married.


----------



## Thundarr

Any dating man or woman with a healthy outlook on life should never come to TAM in my opinion. Most women are not so devious and manipulative as is being portrayed here and most men are not as controlling and piggish as is being portrayed here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> Any dating man or woman with a healthy outlook on life should never come to TAM in my opinion. Most women are not so devious and manipulative as is being portrayed here and most men are not as controlling and piggish as is being portrayed here.


Indeed. Most people love the opposite sex (or the same sex) and they couple up with them, have sex with them, date them, have babies with them, and generally seek out togetherness with them for the most part of their adult lives.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> That's too bad, MEM.
> 
> I have never really understood that idea of women as predatory. The "maneater" idea. I think it is because my default thinking is that men are powerful. I don't think of them as being easily manipulated, though for sure some are.
> 
> Getting back to the importance of image, though . . . That is important to men who are insecure, right? They are more concerned about how they look to others than how they themselves actually feel. That just seems so superficial and unsatisfying.


In the modern era, how you appear to others matters more than it ever has. Ask Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt. Or any number of other people.* Today, your sins, no matter how petty, no matter how insignificant, are public and forever*. And your career is on the line at all times. Do nothing wrong. Say nothing provocative. Offend no one.

Not only can appearance destroy your reputation, but a good appearance can make it. If I wore ratted up clothes to meet with Corporate CEOs, I'd lose all my clients in a heartbeat. If I appear successful, successful people are more keen to associate with me. If I appear a bum, they are more keen to repudiate me. Pretty women can be absolutely indispensable in the acquisition of higher status. I've used my sister, (who is a definite 8.5 - 9.0) to get clients. People who may ignore me, won't ignore her. 

It may be superficial to fear for / concern yourself with how others think; but it matters dearly. 

As far as women being predatory, it's a pretty simple concept. They're not much different than men, they'll do what they must to get what they want. They just tend to employ different tactics.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Do nothing wrong. Say nothing provocative. Offend no one.
> 
> Not only can appearance destroy your reputation, but a good appearance can make it.


And then you get a reputation for being an obsequious ass-kissing "Yes man". Which might get you some places, but not necessarily where you (one) might want to go.

I've always found that competence and integrity are better than using people or relying on superficial prettiness.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Any dating man or woman with a healthy outlook on life should never come to TAM in my opinion. Most women are not so devious and manipulative as is being portrayed here and most men are not as controlling and piggish as is being portrayed here.


I agree, but just last night I was out there in the non-TAM world and happened on a conversation in which a guy said, "Women are crazy, they will make you lose your sh*t. Better to not get wrapped up with them, and just fvck as many as will let you."

I suppose it's possible that he is actually a TAMmer, but the way that conversation flowed, I got the distinct impression that it is not uncommon for men to advise each other of how "crazy" women are and how except for fvcking and looking pretty aren't much good for anything. That was the general consensus in that room, at any rate.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> And then you get a reputation for being an obsequious ass-kissing "Yes man". Which might get you some places, but not necessarily where you (one) might want to go.
> 
> I've always found that competence and integrity are better than using people or relying on superficial prettiness.


Yes, but are you a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Fortune 100? Do you have a net worth of $1B+ ? I'm thinking not.

It's easy to find someone competent. That's not enough. Today's world requires competence and a great appearance. I'd never hire an ugly girl as a secretary for me. Why would I? She reflects me when I take her places. Competence, physical appeal, sharp dress, enjoyable personality. Those are the things that are desirable today.

Look at the 2 articles and 1 video I linked. These people each did something meaningless. The woman in the last link posted something jokingly to her personal twitter, with only 170 people able to see it. The world saw it. She lost her job. She was blacklisted from hotels. No amount of hand-waving can make this go away and change reality.

A scientist wore a shirt that his female friend made for him. And because it depicted women, he was made the target of a witch hunt.

Another researcher made a joke about how 'the problem with working with the opposite sex is, they fall in love with you, you fall in love with them; and it gets in the way of work' and a witch hunt forced him to resign a position. I've got hundreds more I could post. This happens every day.

I've experienced it. I once let out an expletive, after a heated call with an attorney. Had sexual harassment charges brought up because a girl in my office overheard me. This is how petty people are.

The reality is that you must be careful of what you say and do and wear. One mistake can ruin you. How people perceive you matters.


----------



## jld

If the most important thing to you is achieving a certain financial and social status, then yes, you might need a woman who looks a certain way or is from a certain class or went to a certain school or whatever. 

But for most of us average people who just want a happy life in a stable, loving relationship, it's really much more important to think about natural compatibility, shared goals and values, and just generally how comfortable we feel when we are with the person we are considering for lifelong partnership.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dycedarg

Lot of contrived laughter here.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> If the most important thing to you is achieving a certain financial and social status, then yes, you might need a woman who looks a certain way or is from a certain class or went to a certain school or whatever.


I wonder about that...just look at the richest guys on the block and who they are married to. Are they super Barbie decorative bombshells? Mostly not. Donald Trump goes for that type, sure, but he is just as likely to embezzle and lose money as he is to do anything admirable. 

IMHO, anyone who is doing anything worth emulating is paying attention to the people not the packaging.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> The reality is that you must be careful of what you say and do and wear. One mistake can ruin you. How people perceive you matters.


Well, it most certainly helps that I have nothing offensively racist, sexist, or generally derogatory to say, as I believe sincerely that all people are deserving of respect.

But nonetheless, look also on the flipside, where a celebrity, eg, can be an obnoxious drug addicted, complete a$$hole of a person, and all that does is buy them more free press. Consider Justin Bieber pissing in the middle of a restaurant, and there are daily examples of that sort of stuff too.

Appearances may matter, but not necessarily in the way one might assume they should. And nowhere near as much as our hopelessly superficial culture believes, at least IMHO.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> I agree, but just last night I was out there in the non-TAM world and happened on a conversation in which a guy said, "Women are crazy, they will make you lose your sh*t. Better to not get wrapped up with them, and just fvck as many as will let you."
> 
> I suppose it's possible that he is actually a TAMmer, but the way that conversation flowed, I got the distinct impression that it is not uncommon for men to advise each other of how "crazy" women are and how except for fvcking and looking pretty aren't much good for anything. That was the general consensus in that room, at any rate.


What crowd are you hanging around young lady :nono:? .Na I'm picking of course. It might be common, even prevalent, depending on the particular place and crowd. Even so, people say a lot of things they don't really believe and talk is cheap. A fly on the wall in a bar would hear that men are dogs and women are crazy. Some men and women think these things but many are just presenting a facade. I've noticed that the loudest talkers when single are often the ones who fall the hardest when someone comes around.


----------



## Kivlor

@always_alone

How you are perceived is critical. Even at the lower level. One must never make someone else uncomfortable, or call them out for their BS, unless they're willing to lose their job. Or even remove all names, and just complain about how poorly someone treated someone else in front of you. 

I also think you'll find, if you read those articles, that no one said anything terrible. Certainly nothing worth losing a career over. One of them said nothing, he merely wore a favorite shirt, which upset some woman somewhere. FWIW, here's the shirt:










Truly worthy of outrage. 

How about pointing out, jokingly, something that is obvious: In co-ed work environments, people tend to date each other, which creates drama. Pretty contentious stuff there; sexist and vitriolic even. Or a girl saying something as an inside joke, to a few friends, but having one of those "friends" share her joke with Gawker, who ran with it in a campaign to destroy her. Yup, they were just a bunch of offensive a$$holes and they deserved it. 

I could post hundreds of articles where someone didn't even do anything. All it took was an angry, hurt, embarrassed or crazy woman who falsified a story and made it public. Your image matters. And you only have so much control over it. 

I will say I wish I had your optimism about the lack of importance of the "superficial".
@jld

If you want to open doors for your children, and grandchildren, if you want to increase the options for your family, it is useful to concern yourself (or your husband to concern himself) at least a little, with status. Some doors cannot be opened, unless you know the right people, have enough money and fit the right description. 

Personally, I'm interested in building a dynasty, and not seeing what I've created destroyed when I die, nor letting it destroy my children when I am gone. Doing such requires social status, wealth, power, and "pull". It requires tremendous planning and great execution. It also requires a partner that understands where we are going, and what's necessary to get there.


----------



## jld

What if your kids don't want what you have planned for them?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> What if your kids don't want what you have planned for them?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then they can be cut out of my Last Will and Testament? :grin2:

Honestly, the goal is to build many things that can be run for them out of an Intervivos Trust. NNN Real Estate Investments are a favorite of mine. Then, if they've an interest in the more active businesses, well, they'll get a taste of it young. And a lot of training. If they don't like it, there will be other options. 

Some of my top priorities are having the knowledge to teach them well and the wealth and connections to provide excellent educators who can supplement and surpass my own teachings. 

They control their own destiny, I just want to give them a massive advantage against everyone else. Because I wholeheartedly believe that's my duty as a parent: to give my kids a better chance than I had.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I also think you'll find, if you read those articles, that no one said anything terrible. Certainly nothing worth losing a career over. One of them said nothing, he merely wore a favorite shirt, which upset some woman somewhere. FWIW, here's the shirt:
> 
> 
> Truly worthy of outrage.
> 
> How about pointing out, jokingly, something that is obvious: In co-ed work environments, people tend to date each other, which creates drama. Pretty contentious stuff there; sexist and vitriolic even. Or a girl saying something as an inside joke, to a few friends, but having one of those "friends" share her joke with Gawker, who ran with it in a campaign to destroy her. Yup, they were just a bunch of offensive a$$holes and they deserved it.


Well, first off, we will have to agree to disagree as to what counts as offensive. IMHO, racism, sexism, derogatory comments are offensive and deserve to be called out. If you make them at work, or announce them to the world at large, you shouldn't be at all surprised if someone is offended by them and complains about it. 

Second of all, we'll have to agree to disagree about what counts as a "witch hunt" or "ruining" someone's life. The Internet has the attention span of a gnat, and most of this viral stuff blows over pretty quick.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Well, first off, we will have to agree to disagree as to what counts as offensive. IMHO, racism, sexism, derogatory comments are offensive and deserve to be called out. If you make them at work, or announce them to the world at large, you shouldn't be at all surprised if someone is offended by them and complains about it.
> 
> Second of all, we'll have to agree to disagree about what counts as a "witch hunt" or "ruining" someone's life. The Internet has the attention span of a gnat, and most of this viral stuff blows over pretty quick.


We can disagree about what is we are offended by, because offense is always taken, never given.

I'm curious that you would take offense at any of the stories I posted. What particularly galled you?

Also, although "the internet has the attention span of a gnat", Google remembers you forever. Don't think most employers won't Google Search you first. What, exactly, would be a sin so egregious, that you should forever live with the Scarlet Letter for committing it? It stands in complete opposition to the Western system of Justice, in which a person "serves their time" and "repays their debt to society." 

Did any of these people commit some violation worthy of losing their career? If so, please explain. Also, as a side note, you're not helping your case regarding how little appearances matter, if a colorful comment is enough to damn someone. It flies in opposition to what you said above.



> And then you get a reputation for being an obsequious ass-kissing "Yes man". Which might get you some places, but not necessarily where you (one) might want to go.
> 
> I've always found that competence and integrity are better than using people or relying on superficial prettiness.


Or should we all be "an obsequious ass-kissing 'Yes man'"? Should we judge their character and capacity to do a job by the shirt they wear? The jokes they tell?


----------



## tom67

Oh this is so spot on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVP9OJ3xpE :frown2:


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,
I was responding in a very precise manner to the statement that having a 'proper wife' is necessary to success. 

Reason I have an allergic reaction to that is it feels like part of an overall strategy to blame females for - well - just about everything. 

Obviously I have to manage MY image by dressing, speaking and projecting well. Just like I actually have to perform well. 

Most of the world is driven by substance, not form despite what the Kardashian clan might want you to think. 

Can poor form kill you? Yes. Having an email box full of crude or racist messages is dangerous for your career. So what. How hard is it to prevent that from happening? 

That has zero to do with being married or having a hot girlfriend/sister to use as a business prop. If you are in a sales roll and need a pretty face - like for a trade show - you can hire one. Or your company can. 

And for clarity - a trade show hostess might get me the first 5 minutes with a prospect, but the remaining 12 month sales cycle is driven by performance. 

I'm not naive. Pretty folks get through doors easier. True for both sexes. 




Kivlor said:


> In the modern era, how you appear to others matters more than it ever has. Ask Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt. Or any number of other people.* Today, your sins, no matter how petty, no matter how insignificant, are public and forever*. And your career is on the line at all times. Do nothing wrong. Say nothing provocative. Offend no one.
> 
> Not only can appearance destroy your reputation, but a good appearance can make it. If I wore ratted up clothes to meet with Corporate CEOs, I'd lose all my clients in a heartbeat. If I appear successful, successful people are more keen to associate with me. If I appear a bum, they are more keen to repudiate me. Pretty women can be absolutely indispensable in the acquisition of higher status. I've used my sister, (who is a definite 8.5 - 9.0) to get clients. People who may ignore me, won't ignore her.
> 
> It may be superficial to fear for / concern yourself with how others think; but it matters dearly.
> 
> As far as women being predatory, it's a pretty simple concept. They're not much different than men, they'll do what they must to get what they want. They just tend to employ different tactics.


----------



## Deguello

Deguello here,
What the hell is MGTOW?,I am totally confused.


----------



## tech-novelist

*See, the problem with Nice Guys – and something that’s embedded deep into Aaronson’s comment – is the deep-seated belief that they’re being “cheated” somehow. In Aaronson’s experiences, he’d been doing everything “right”… so why was it that other people are getting rewarded and he wasn’t?

All this time, I faced constant reminders that the males who didn’t spend months reading and reflecting about feminism and their own shortcomings—even the ones who went to the opposite extreme, who engaged in what you called “good old-fashioned ass-grabbery”—actually had success that way. The same girls who I was terrified would pepper-spray me and call the police if I looked in their direction, often responded to the crudest advances of the most Neanderthal of men by accepting those advances. Yet it was I, the nerd, and not the Neanderthals, who needed to check his privilege and examine his hidden entitlement!

This is the fall-back of many a Nice Guy – the lament that women love *******s, instead of Nice Guys like him. He’s been following the rules! He’s not playing grab-ass! He’s being nice! Shouldn’t that count for something?

Well… no. As I’ve said many times before: you don’t get a cookie for meeting what are minimum requirements for decent behavior. But he’s unwilling to examine that maybe the problem is what he is or isn’t doing. Aaronson has defined himself as a nerd… and therefore the “good guy” by definition. There can’t be anything wrong with his behavior. Those other guys – the ones that women are going home with – are “Neanderthals”. The bad boys. And believe me, Aaronson chose that word deliberately; he’s saying they’re brutish and crude, even beastial. They’re cavemen while Aaronson is an astronaut. He’s enlightened while they’re ignorant. They’re bad. He’s Nice.*

Here's the real situation.

Women don't like doormats. They aren't attracted to guys who supplicate to them. They often aren't even attracted to actually nice guys who treat them with respect, if those guys aren't fabulously handsome or famous.

They are much more likely to be attracted to guys who are highly confident and don't treat them like princesses, whether or not they are assh0les.

What guys who are actually nice (rather than the covert contract ones whom no one really likes) should be mad about is *not *that women don't like them for being themselves. That's a law of nature that makes as much sense to be mad about as the law of gravity.

What they *should *be mad about is that they have been lied to by being told that women are attracted to men like them. They aren't. So if they want women to be attracted to them, they have to act in a way that attracts women.

Of course it doesn't help that many women don't want these men to understand this either, because then those women might be attracted to someone who isn't "really" like that. That's why it is generally a bad idea for men to take dating advice from women; of course, the reverse may be true as well but that is a different topic.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Did any of these people commit some violation worthy of losing their career? If so, please explain. Also, as a side note, you're not helping your case regarding how little appearances matter, if a colorful comment is enough to damn someone. It flies in opposition to what you said above.


I didn't say a colorful comment should be enough to damn anyone. What I said was that if you make derogatory remarks in public, you shouldn't be surprised if you offend someone and get called out on it.

The Internet *is* public; if you share it there, you might as well blast it in the headlines.

The way I see it, people have been losing their jobs for doing stupid stuff for yonks. The big difference now is that thanks to the interwebs, we're a lot more likely to hear about it. Doesn't mean it's ruining their lives. If they're smart, they'll be like the Twitter woman, learn something, and move on.

Appearances mostly matter to people who care about them. People who, for example, will hire a secretary based on how she looks because they don't think competence counts for anything. But my bet is that ultimately this is the bigger risk, and if there is "face" to be lost, it will more likely be caused by focusing on appearance over substance than the other way around.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> What guys who are actually nice (rather than the covert contract ones whom no one really likes) should be mad about is *not *that women don't like them for being themselves. That's a law of nature that makes as much sense to be mad about as the law of gravity.
> 
> What they *should *be mad about is that they have been lied to by being told that women are attracted to men like them. They aren't. So if they want women to be attracted to them, they have to act in a way that attracts women.


Should women be "mad" because they were "lied to" by Disney movies?

No. Women should realize what fairy tales are and what they are for.

Your being mad about "being lied to" is exactly what the Cracked article I linked earlier said. Ultimately, past the "being lied to" the next step is "and then I didn't get the sex with the hot girl I was promised".

If women were openly stating this type of sentiment, (ie: "oh woe is me, no gorgeous rich prince came to make me feel special for the rest of my life, while providing me diamonds and ball gowns galore") I'm pretty sure every man everywhere would vomit.

But we're supposed to be empathetic about a man's plight of being "lied to" by The Revenge of the Nerds?

Sorry, but nah.

By the way, here's a great article about that movie and this topic from a true nerd, who is also a brilliant thinker...

Your Princess Is in Another Castle: Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds - The Daily Beast


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> But we're supposed to be empathetic about a man's plight of being "lied to" by The Revenge of the Nerds?
> 
> ]


sorry, but yeah. Men are taught so much that is blatantly wrong about women, it isn't funny. It is not just mainstream media, it is the school system, it is everywhere. If you don't want to see this as a problem, fine. But to degrade those who do, meh, go away. You are being complicit to MGTOW, without even realizing it.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> sorry, but yeah. Men are taught so much that is blatantly wrong about women, it isn't funny. It is not just mainstream media, it is the school system, it is everywhere. If you don't want to see this as a problem, fine. But to degrade those who do, meh, go away. You are being complicit to MGTOW, without even realizing it.


Actually I would say that she is doing men a great service by posting her comments.

Not necessarily in the way she would prefer, of course.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> sorry, but yeah. Men are taught so much that is blatantly wrong about women, it isn't funny. It is not just mainstream media, it is the school system, it is everywhere. If you don't want to see this as a problem, fine. But to degrade those who do, meh, go away. You are being complicit to MGTOW, without even realizing it.


Women like different things. We aren't all the same. Some women go for the hot hero, some go for the nerdy guy, some go for the jock at the gym flashing his abs in the mirror, some go for the labour worker with dirt under his nails, some want the guy who climbs the cooperate ladder in his office. 


The problem is the "nice guys" just aren't nice. They think if they do this and do that they will get their reward. They are entitled, whiny, bitter. They have this horrible mixture of low self esteem and high ego.
That in itself it a turn off for pretty much all women. Can you give an example of how society has told you that this kind of guy is taught that he gets the girl?

A truly nice man who meets our needs will absolutely be attractive to a woman. He doesn't need to be ripped, he doesn't need to be the alpha guy. He can find someone who wants him (if he cares enough to actually look and not just try to win one of the best women)

These men need to stop looking at women like we are all the same and want the same things, will have the same needs and attractions. But that's the problem with picking one out as a trophy or reward for all your hard work, we might as well be a fancy new sports car.
Treat us women like we are actual people with our own needs and wants and you can actually get into finding one who is compatible with you.


----------



## Married but Happy

I don't see MGTOW as a negative. Other than their rhetoric, what harm is done if they drop out? Think of it as Darwinian - they are not reproducing.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Married but Happy said:


> I don't see MGTOW as a negative. Other than their rhetoric, what harm is done if they drop out? Think of it as Darwinian - they are not reproducing.


It reminds me of this quote

It's absolutely fine to drop out and go their own way. It's the needing to announce and be all loud and obnoxious about their views on women that is the problem.

It's like if someone makes a big thread about how they are leaving TAM because it's so horrible and everyone sucks. You want to go, just go. No need to make a scene.


----------



## tom67

Married but Happy said:


> I don't see MGTOW as a negative. Other than their rhetoric, what harm is done if they drop out? Think of it as Darwinian - they are not reproducing.


And you could be raising someone else's kid and being forced to pay for it.
It's called pump and dump baby.:grin2:


----------



## Married but Happy

Who's doing the pumping, the dumping, and the raising? The final stage MGTOW aren't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Married but Happy said:


> I don't see MGTOW as a negative. Other than their rhetoric, what harm is done if they drop out? Think of it as Darwinian - they are not reproducing.


That's what most of the women have been saying.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Women like different things. We aren't all the same. Some women go for the hot hero, some go for the nerdy guy, some go for the jock at the gym flashing his abs in the mirror, some go for the labour worker with dirt under his nails, some want the guy who climbs the cooperate ladder in his office.
> 
> 
> The problem is the "nice guys" just aren't nice. They think if they do this and do that they will get their reward. They are entitled, whiny, bitter. They have this horrible mixture of low self esteem and high ego.
> That in itself it a turn off for pretty much all women. Can you give an example of how society has told you that this kind of guy is taught that he gets the girl?
> 
> A truly nice man who meets our needs will absolutely be attractive to a woman. He doesn't need to be ripped, he doesn't need to be the alpha guy. He can find someone who wants him (if he cares enough to actually look and not just try to win one of the best women)
> 
> These men need to stop looking at women like we are all the same and want the same things, will have the same needs and attractions. But that's the problem with picking one out as a trophy or reward for all your hard work, we might as well be a fancy new sports car.
> Treat us women like we are actual people with our own needs and wants and you can actually get into finding one who is compatible with you.


Studies routinely suggest that you are wrong about attraction. I also think that what you say women want, when taken as generalizations are wrong as well. Very few women go for the nerds. It is sort of a zero sum game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Actually I would say that she is doing men a great service by posting her comments.
> 
> Not necessarily in the way she would prefer, of course.


Aw thanks, tech! I think I am doing a great service here, too.

I hope you do recall that my main message, which I have said at least 3 separate times on this thread alone...is that in the big picture, men and women love each other, they couple up and mate, they have sex, they make babies, they enjoy each other's companionship, that this is the natural way of the world, and that this will continue for all time.

So you're welcome for those comments, I'm glad you think they are doing a great service. Probably not quite in the way you think, but I feel positive that most readers here can understand the sanity and clarity in the above statement and that it is natural and logical and can be seen all around us, everyday.

(yes I get it that in your mind, I'm giving an example of the type of woman men should want to get away from, ie: MGTOW....and for those types of men, YES PLEASE let me scare you far, far away from any and all women....BOO!)


----------



## Kivlor

@MEM11363 
I would argue that a pretty wife, in some ways can be another extension of appearances. You appear successful, because you have a beautiful lady. And, as I stated earlier, beautiful women can be useful in opening doors that otherwise might be closed to you. I use it. Many others do too. It’s life. Similar to what I said about choosing a secretary—I’d never hire one who’s ugly, extremely obese or has a nasty disposition. It would reflect poorly on me as a person. Picking a wife is much the same. Ugly, nasty dispositions, etc need not apply. You’ll close doors for me, not open them.
I do appreciate what you’re saying though.

@always_alone
You’re waffling here. These people weren’t called out on it. They lost their jobs / had their careers threatened over saying something; and nothing particularly egregious that I can see. I’d be willing to listen to you explain what was so terrible about them. 
And the guy who was harassed because he wore a shirt with depictions of scantily clad, beautiful women, what of him? Either way, it is obvious that appearances matter. Back to the original topic, having a pretty lady on one’s arm in public isn’t much different than picking the right accoutrements for a meeting: it enhances your appearance.

Appearances matter to nearly everyone. Don’t deny it; I doubt you’d want to go on a date with this guy








Regardless of how great a person he is. This bull about looking at what’s underneath a person's outer appearances is just that: Bull. And we all know it.


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It reminds me of this quote
> 
> It's absolutely fine to drop out and go their own way. It's the needing to announce and be all loud and obnoxious about their views on women that is the problem.
> 
> It's like if someone makes a big thread about how they are leaving TAM because it's so horrible and everyone sucks. You want to go, just go. No need to make a scene.


Well, bless their hearts, they feel the need to warn us about how much we will suffer and how all of society will collapse because they will no longer be participating.

And maybe, just maybe, we will wake up and see how terrible life will be without them, and start begging them to stay.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But posting that picture really makes your point weak, Kivlor.

How about just a picture of a random, average man instead of a movie scene of someone deliberately made up to be revolting and ridiculous? 

That would have been in line with your actual point.

I never quite understand why people do that, with the pictures as "examples", yet they use "examples" that don't actually exist and are clearly meant to mock people. Why not talk about real life, and use real examples?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> Studies routinely suggest that you are wrong about attraction. I also think that what you say women want, when taken as generalizations are wrong as well. Very few women go for the nerds. It is sort of a zero sum game.


Studies can show what men and women typically are most attracted to but it is just not that simple when you're dealing with actual people with actual feelings.

Nerdy women go for nerds I know of 2 very nerdy and happy couples who go to comic-con together and dress their whole family up as star wars characters for Halloween. One I've known since high school, she was always into nerds. You gotta find where your compatibility is and not expect that women who _don't_ like nerds will like you if you do enough for them. You're a nerd- go to a comic book store, not the bar. She might not be the sports car you were in the market for but she'll fit with you and your life. 

But yes, us average people will always have to look a little harder to find a good mate. 
If you pretend to be something you are not to get the girl/boy you'll end up in a terrible marriage down the line. 
If you take the time to be yourself and find someone who likes you for you and really get to know the real them, you'll end up winning in the long run.
Sorry that life isn't fair and that attractive, powerful people have more options. It's that way for men and women and is never going to change. 

Some guys will always go for the thin, beautiful blonde and some women will always go for the powerful, alpha guy. 
Instead of being upset that I'm not a thin, beautiful blonde and hating the system I can find someone who likes the stubby, average brunette. 

Stop thinking that you deserve a certain kind of woman and start looking for one that wants to be with you.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope you do recall that my main message, which I have said at least 3 separate times on this thread alone...is that in the big picture, men and women love each other, they couple up and mate, they have sex, they make babies, they enjoy each other's companionship, that this is the natural way of the world, and that this will continue for all time.


I know, FWIW, I agree with this statement FW. I've said it in other threads. Men love women, women love men. If they didn't they wouldn't spend so much time thinking about and doing things to attract each other.

I do tend to disagree with one of the primary premises of some of the articles you've posted: that 'men have been promised a hot woman to have sex with'. But places like Cracked go over the top, because they're a comedy site, so I expect it from them.

My experience has been that many young men were raised without strong male influences in their lives. A lot of these MGTOW / nerdy types grew up being told that women want a "nice guy" who will do nice things for them. They grew up hearing this all the time from their mothers, from their teachers in school. I know I did. As it turns out, women don't want that. 

Women want men who are strong, physically and emotionally; no matter how much they claim they want a "nice guy" who is "in touch with his emotions" and "isn't afraid to cry". They want men who set boundaries, and tell them "no". They don't want pushovers. (doesn't mean you can't do a nice thing here and there) Once I figured that out, I had no end of access to women who would date me. It would be the same for most of these guys. Sadly, they woke up having spent their lives doing what they were told they should, found out they were lied to, and rather than accepting reality and making they necessary changes, they have become angry and frustrated at the lie.

ETA: RE the above picture, how about this guy









or this one. They're both real people.









But I appreciate that you admit that @always_alone probably wouldn't even date an "average guy". I agree. 

Most women on ******* rated these guys as "significantly less attractive than average" but I'd say they're not bad looking gents:


































Women have higher standards than men lol.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Studies routinely suggest that you are wrong about attraction. I also think that what you say women want, when taken as generalizations are wrong as well. Very few women go for the nerds. It is sort of a zero sum game.


What studies? I'm sorry dude, but anyone who can make this comment and believe it knows nothing about women, what attracts women, what women fantasize about.

Even your caricature of it as a zero sum game show that you are very clearly clinging to this fantasy that guys, simply by virtue of being guys, are entitled to the hottest cheerleader in the pack, and anything less is taken as proof positive that all women want to to date the captain of the football team. 

I get that dating is tough, and sometimes that hot piece just doesn't notice you're alive. But if you (one) can't see that women actually have personalities, that some of us love nerds because, gasp, we *are* nerds, and that some of us aren't all about cut muscles because, gasp, we don't want to spend our days in the gym, and that some of us aren't all about money and position because, gasp, we have no interest in climbing the social ladder, well, all I can say is that you (one) has to stop looking only at the magazines, and stop being jealous of every guy with a hot cutie on his arm, and start realizing that women are actually people. Not trophies, not decorations, not career boosters, not accessories, not things. People.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> My experience has been that many young men were raised without strong male influences in their lives. A lot of these MGTOW / nerdy types grew up being told that women want a "nice guy" who will do nice things for them. They grew up hearing this all the time from their mothers, from their teachers in school. I know I did. As it turns out, women don't want that.


Women do want this, at least many, many of us do. The trouble is, IMHO, is --and we saw a clear cut example of this right on his thread (or maybe it was the MGTOW one)--when a guy interprets a woman asking for a favour as a signal of interest. Just because she is batting her eyelashes and sending sexy signals doesn't mean she is interested, particularly if she is asking for favours. She might just be using you.

I think a lot of guys, particularly young and inexperienced ones fall for this stuff. 



Kivlor said:


> But I appreciate that you admit that @always_alone probably wouldn't even date an "average guy". I agree.


And you would be wrong. For the record, my SO is average, is kinder than me, is not afraid to show his emotions, and I *appreciate* these qualities in him. I am also the primary breadwinner.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> Women have higher standards than men lol.


And how many men do you think are going for the most attractive women? 
Even many tv shows and movies show these average, sometimes overweight guys getting the hot girl and many of these men grow up thinking they will get one of their own someday.

How many examples of average, overweight girls do you see getting the hot guy? They are making some more like that now but it's still pretty taboo and not seen as much. How often do you see something like this http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/abercrombie-fitch-ads-re-imagined-as-attractive-fat#.gt0z8oozn as accepted? 

If you really don't think that women have beauty standards put on us - many unrealistic and photo-shopped- that we have to look and act certain ways to get a man's attention then I'm not sure what world you've been living in. 

For fun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq6IyDhNYic


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> What studies? I'm sorry dude, but anyone who can make this comment and believe it knows nothing about women, what attracts women, what women fantasize about.
> 
> Even your caricature of it as a zero sum game show that you are very clearly clinging to this fantasy that guys, simply by virtue of being guys, are entitled to the hottest cheerleader in the pack, and anything less is taken as proof positive that all women want to to date the captain of the football team.
> 
> I get that dating is tough, and sometimes that hot piece just doesn't notice you're alive. But if you (one) can't see that women actually have personalities, that some of us love nerds because, gasp, we *are* nerds, and that some of us aren't all about cut muscles because, gasp, we don't want to spend our days in the gym, and that some of us aren't all about money and position because, gasp, we have no interest in climbing the social ladder, well, all I can say is that you (one) has to stop looking only at the magazines, and stop being jealous of every guy with a hot cutie on his arm, and *start realizing that women are actually people. Not trophies, not decorations, not career boosters, not accessories, not things. People*.


You realize that it's not an either - or right? That you can be a person, and still be useful for your beauty? 

I think the reality is that most women want the things we're describing here. Sure, some don't. But if a man wants to increase his odds of attracting a beautiful woman, he's going to have to provide certain things in return. (ie physical fitness, charm, money, status, etc. And boundaries. I can't express this enough. Women, the vast majority at least, want men to set boundaries for them.)


----------



## norajane

I find all this nerd talk absurd. Our society is so heavily tech driven now, that it's shocking to me that people think nerds don't get any. Silicon Valley is full of nerds, and they're bonking like bunnies. I went to a nerd university - one of the nerdiest that ever nerded - and lots of people were bonking like bunnies back then, and they fell in love got married, had kids AND are STILL nerds. The world is full of nerds and they aren't all living in their mother's basement alone and lonely.



> My experience has been that many young men were raised without strong male influences in their lives. A lot of these MGTOW / nerdy types grew up being told that women want a "nice guy" who will do nice things for them. They grew up hearing this all the time from their mothers, from their teachers in school. I know I did. As it turns out, women don't want that.
> 
> Women want men who are strong, physically and emotionally; no matter how much they claim they want a "nice guy" who is "in touch with his emotions" and "isn't afraid to cry". They want men who set boundaries, and tell them "no". They don't want pushovers. (doesn't mean you can't do a nice thing here and there)


Who says these things are mutually exclusive? A nice nerd can't be strong physically and emotionally? Who says? Who said that doing nice things for people means you have to be a doormat and pushover and never saying no? 

My SO is a tech and science nerd, and has been all his life. He has never been a pushover, and he is both physically and emotionally strong. He was taught manners and to be nice to people, and to treat women well, and I LOVE that about him. He has never lacked for women, ever. But he is a NERD. So am I. So are most of my friends. But we all have full lives with lots of love and family and friends. Being a nice nerd does not mean no one will ever date you or love you. 

But if no women want to date you, YOU are the common denominator. Start with checking the attitude first. Sitting around hating on women does not make for an appealing or attractive attitude.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Every able bodied man between the ages of 18-64 should be going to the gym three times a week period.

You women can go on and on about how some nerdy women are into the dad bod geeks and I'm sure some are.

But when she's alone, horny and fantasizing to herself. It's the chiseled stud she dreams about getting rammed hard by.

You'll never convince me otherwise. Guys, stay out of shape and unkempt at your own peril. You've been warned.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> You realize that it's not an either - or right? That you can be a person, and still be useful for your beauty?
> 
> I think the reality is that most women want the things we're describing here. Sure, some don't. But if a man wants to increase his odds of attracting a beautiful woman, he's going to have to provide certain things in return. (ie physical fitness, charm, money, status, etc. And boundaries. I can't express this enough. Women, the vast majority at least, want men to set boundaries for them.)


This depends on what kind of women you are going after. If you want the beautiful girl who wants the hot guy with money, charm and needs to have boundaries set for them then yes, you would have to play the silly games to get her. 
Just don't be shocked when you figure out that she wants your money, status and needs to always have boundaries set and play silly games. You picked her. 

Or you can find one of the many women, with a wide variety of attractiveness, that don't care about status, money, or games and just want a decent relationship where 2 people meet each other's needs and are attracted to each other.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

BetrayedDad said:


> Every able bodied man between the ages of 18-64 should be going to the gym three times a week period.
> .


I'd never date a guy who goes to the gym, certainly not that often. Have an active enough life and a healthy enough diet that you stay in reasonable shape. Gym guys are just not attractive to me and it's certainly not the only way to stay healthy. 

Go outside, go to the park with your kids, go dancing, have a job that keeps you physical.


----------



## BetrayedDad

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'd never date a guy who goes to the gym, certainly not that often. Have an active enough life and a healthy enough diet that you stay in reasonable shape. Gym guys are just not attractive to me and it's certainly not the only way to stay healthy.
> 
> Go outside, go to the park with your kids, go dancing, have a job that keeps you physical.


I never said they had to be body builders. Even if it's cardio and light weights. The point is to stay in excellent shape and just going to the park and working a job isn't enough. I personally would refuse to date a woman who thought going to the gym was a bad idea but to each their own. Some people don't want to be made to felt bad by their significant other's appearance.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This depends on what kind of women you are going after. If you want the beautiful girl who wants the hot guy with money, charm and needs to have boundaries set for them then yes, you would have to play the silly games to get her.
> Just don't be shocked when you figure out that she wants your money, status and needs to always have boundaries set and play silly games. You picked her.
> 
> Or you can find one of the many women, with a wide variety of attractiveness, that don't care about status, money, or games and just want a decent relationship where 2 people meet each other's needs and are attracted to each other.


I'll agree on most of that. The boundaries part, I disagree. Whether they start testing at the beginning, or later, you have to set strong boundaries and keep them. Women are attracted to that. Doesn't mean controlling her life. 

All healthy relationships are built with strong boundaries. You surely have set some for your SO, right? And if he sets none in return, he'll have no one to blame, when he loses your respect.


----------



## knobcreek

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'd never date a guy who goes to the gym, certainly not that often. Have an active enough life and a healthy enough diet that you stay in reasonable shape. Gym guys are just not attractive to me and it's certainly not the only way to stay healthy.
> 
> Go outside, go to the park with your kids, go dancing, have a job that keeps you physical.


Most men like me work in an office where we sit for 10 hours a day or more. 38 year old men + plus no stimulation to our muscles + sitting 10+ hours = a sorry looking body for a man. I guess I could quit my IT job to become a lumberjack, but it's probably easier to just hit the gym, run, do some other form of exercise ~6 hours a week.

I'm not at the gym staring in mirrors, but I acknowledge that without stressing my muscles they atrophy and that's just not a good look for a dude.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> Most men like me work in an office where we sit for 10 hours a day or more. 38 year old men + plus no stimulation to our muscles + sitting 10+ hours = a sorry looking body for a man. I guess I could quit my IT job to become a lumberjack, but it's probably easier to just hit the gym, run, do some other form of exercise ~6 hours a week.
> 
> I'm not at the gym staring in mirrors, but I acknowledge that without stressing my muscles they atrophy and that's just not a good look for a dude.


Then it's a good thing I'm not attracted to office guys either :wink2:

I've always gone for labour worker types. The physical lifestyle at work and at home can just veg on the couch with me. A guy who is already putting in 10 + hours a day at work doesn't have that much left for family and wife time and I certainly would rather time time together than 6 pack abs. 
You need 15+ hours a week of alone time together to maintain a relationship. 
As long as you can do both then go for it.


----------



## Kivlor

knobcreek said:


> Most men like me work in an office where we sit for 10 hours a day or more. 38 year old men + plus no stimulation to our muscles + sitting 10+ hours = a sorry looking body for a man. I guess I could quit my IT job to become a lumberjack, but it's probably easier to just hit the gym, run, do some other form of exercise ~6 hours a week.
> 
> I'm not at the gym staring in mirrors, but I acknowledge that without stressing my muscles they atrophy and that's just not a good look for a dude.


Yeah, that's why I started building up a small home gym. I can do 3 lifts, 3 times a week, and get a full-body workout. 45 minutes is enough. 10 hours a day in front of the computer at my office, plus more at my home office in the evenings is a recipe for atrophy and unhealthiness.


----------



## bandit.45

Faithful Wife said:


> "Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."
> 
> 
> Yes, women have taken men's jobs because they can and because they do better in school. And poor men are left to figure out what to do about that. Meanwhile, women are fine, they find men they want to be with, they have their careers, and the world rocks on.


Girls do better in school because the schools reward them for accomplishment and overachievement, while boys are punished for being boys. 

Boys Are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them.


----------



## norajane

Kivlor said:


> I'll agree on most of that. The boundaries part, I disagree. Whether they start testing at the beginning, or later, you have to set strong boundaries and keep them. Women are attracted to that. Doesn't mean controlling her life.
> 
> All healthy relationships are built with strong boundaries. You surely have set some for your SO, right? And if he sets none in return, he'll have no one to blame, when he loses your respect.


This whole setting boundaries for other people makes zero sense to me. I set boundaries for _myself_, not for my SO. It goes like this: if SO does x which upsets me, *I will do y. * I can make my boundaries known to my partner, but it's up to me to set my boundaries. 

You can't force other people to accept boundaries that you set for them. It's laughable to me that people think they're supposed to police their partners.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk

This kind of thing, and I know he is joking around but some men actually believe in this kind of stuff, is a big part of the reason some men end up with problems. The fact that he would be quite low on his own sex rank just makes it even worse. These are the kinds of guys who can't find someone to actually like and respect them.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk
> 
> This kind of thing, and I know he is joking around but some men actually believe in this kind of stuff, is a big part of the reason some men end up with problems. The fact that he would be quite low on his own sex rank just makes it even worse. These are the kinds of guys who can't find someone to actually like and respect them.


How did I guess what video that linked to?

There is way too much truth in that analysis for most women to find it very funny.


----------



## Kivlor

norajane said:


> This whole setting boundaries for other people makes zero sense to me. I set boundaries for _myself_, not for my SO. It goes like this: if SO does x which upsets me, *I will do y. * I can make my boundaries known to my partner, but it's up to me to set my boundaries.
> 
> You can't force other people to accept boundaries that you set for them. It's laughable to me that people think they're supposed to police their partners.


Did I say force them to accept my boundaries? No. I said set boundaries. Tell them what is and is not acceptable behavior. It's up to them to behave. They're not children, they're grown women. 

My boundaries will become their boundaries, if they value the relationship. And, if they have any sense, they'll make their boundaries known so I understand them. A lot of problems can be addressed before they ever arise through this.

Most of the guys that end up in MGTOW lack the backbone to declare what is inviolable to them, let alone the discipline to maintain such boundaries. 

Also, I find it easy to get people to accept them. I do it every day. And force is rarely necessary. It's called diplomacy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> How did I guess what video that linked to?
> 
> There is way too much truth in that analysis for most women to find it very funny.


It's as funny as how men feel when they think they aren't part of the -insert whatever % here- that women "actually want". 

These men complain about these kinds of things being done to them, letting only a small % of them be good enough for us and yet this is what us women see over and over again. 

I don't see women talking like this about men, and maybe it's just that I don't put myself around women like that, but I do see and hear men talking like this all the time. 

I'm happy that my experience and confidence has gotten me to the point where I am comfortable with myself and knowing there would be someone out there for me because it wasn't always the case. I was always told in one way or another that I was simply not good enough, not pretty enough, to be wanted for more than just sex.

These men who are all up in arms about not being wanted for more than their money/security need to realize that this is how they make women feel when they say or act like that video and if they are really looking for a woman to share their life with, they won't just exclude their own 80% that they don't feel is good enough for them.

Treat people how you want to be treated.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

bandit.45 said:


> Girls do better in school because the schools reward them for accomplishment and overachievement, while boys are punished for being boys.
> 
> Boys Are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them.


Gotta disagree with you on this one. Girls just mature quicker and they think it's good to be smart, to make good grades. I remember clearly in 6th grade that my group of 5 girls all wanted to make 100 on our tests, etc. Boys don't seem to have that inner drive, many of them, until they are in their teens and twenties. Not sure why, but if boys didn't make fun of each other for being the smart kid, it would go a long way. Just my view, obviously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

bandit.45 said:


> Girls do better in school because the schools reward them for accomplishment and overachievement, while boys are punished for being boys.
> 
> Boys Are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them.


Huh, really? I have kids of both genders and NEVER witnessed this in the school system, not in 16 years. Just not true in my experience.


----------



## knobcreek

SurpriseMyself said:


> Gotta disagree with you on this one. Girls just mature quicker and they think it's good to be smart, to make good grades. I remember clearly in 6th grade that my group of 5 girls all wanted to make 100 on our tests, etc. Boys don't seem to have that inner drive, many of them, until they are in their teens and twenties. Not sure why, but if boys didn't make fun of each other for being the smart kid, it would go a long way. Just my view, obviously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it likely has more to do with women making up 99% of elementary school teachers, and women being harder on boys in general. Women don't understand how boys work and they placate to girls a lot more. My wife is a teacher and she's guilty of it, she has a bias towards the girls and tends to have the boys stand in a corner and constantly complains about how bad they are, yet they're just being boys. When girls are bad or mischievous she finds it endearing.


----------



## naiveonedave

knobcreek said:


> I think it likely has more to do with women making up 99% of elementary school teachers, and women being harder on boys in general. Women don't understand how boys work and they placate to girls a lot more. My wife is a teacher and she's guilty of it, she has a bias towards the girls and tends to have the boys stand in a corner and constantly complains about how bad they are, yet they're just being boys. When girls are bad or mischievous she finds it endearing.


there has to be a reason why this totally reversed course over the past 40 years. Few male teachers, no recess, expectation to be quiet and still in class all hurt the boys,.


----------



## Dycedarg

MGTOW draws a lot of hostility, and it's easy to see why. But you can exact the same response when you make much more noble declarations as well. People get really, really angry when you say that you're going to live an independent life, casually dating and keeping your finances and general social freedoms. 

I posted over in the singles thread and got a couple vicious replies because I noted that my value has gone up since I made drastic changes in my life, and that I'm content to date and have fun until I meet the right person, should that ever happen. I was told that I'm going to be impoverished and alone. One woman even mocked me for my failed past relationships which is, as far as I know, not encouraged in these forums. And I ask myself why all the hostility? Because I told myself that I should have better standards, and noted that those high standards can be validated through my own talents? 

That people blow their casket when you even begin to approach this subject is really telling, and shows me that while MGTOW proper is most certainly an inadvisable course, it contains threads of truth that, when embraced, brings a bunch of social policing complete with teeth-gnashing.


----------



## bandit.45

Holland said:


> Huh, really? I have kids of both genders and NEVER witnessed this in the school system, not in 16 years. Just not true in my experience.


Tell me that our pop culture, media, television and movies do not dumb down males while elevating and sanctifying females. Tell me this culture bias does not leak into the schools, given that kids can carry mass media in their pockets now.


----------



## Dycedarg

bandit.45 said:


> Tell me that our pop culture, media, television and movies do not dumb down males while elevating and sanctifying females. Tell me this culture bias does not leak into the schools, given that kids can carry mass media in their pockets now.


Agreed. People play it off because it's really their only option if they don't want to concede the point. It's everywhere. Men are stupid and inept. They need women to save them. Women need nothing. 

I haven't had cable TV in a long, long time. I went over to a friend's house the other day and was floored by the unified line of thought in the shows and the commercials. It's overwhelming. When you point it out everyone scatters and says "You're imagining things."


----------



## knobcreek

naiveonedave said:


> there has to be a reason why this totally reversed course over the past 40 years. Few male teachers, no recess, expectation to be quiet and still in class all hurt the boys,.


Women naturally boost girls self-esteem with their interactions with them, and typically do the opposite with boys. Seemingly innocuous interactions from women come off as world crushing to little boys. Many boys come out of elementary school with zero self-esteem, this is where all the "nice guys" of MGTOW are born, they're created to be "so nice" and "so good" that women (i.e. their teachers and mother) will find them good. Competition, wrestling, activity, mathematics and science are basically gone in elementary school, it's been re-designed specifically for girls to succeed.

Boys have almost no male interaction other than maybe their father at night or the weekends until middle school. Their lives are consumed by women who typically denigrate them for being boys 24 X 7. This kills self-esteem and breeds self-loathing. This isn't how it used to be, and school grades show it.


----------



## ThePheonix

bandit.45 said:


> Tell me that our pop culture, media, television and movies do not dumb down males while elevating and sanctifying females. Tell me this culture bias does not leak into the schools, given that kids can carry mass media in their pockets now.


Of course. And it goes back a ways . Remember the rhyme, "girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Boy are made of frogs and snales , and puppy dog tails". In the media, "truth" is manufactured to manipulate audience perception to sell products, information and ideas.
The problem is males buy into this crap even on this site. You know, the average thirty something guy who is no longer attractive because he let himself go and is not attractive to hot females. In reality go around town and tell me if most thirty something woman look any better. The buff, long legged girl out jogging is not your typical "looking at forty" female. (but as a former professor, girls are better students than boys)


----------



## BetrayedDad

bandit.45 said:


> Tell me that our pop culture, media, television and movies do not dumb down males while elevating and sanctifying females. Tell me this culture bias does not leak into the schools, given that kids can carry mass media in their pockets now.


I see it but I think it's much worse with minorities and homosexuals. 

No one really wants equality. They all want perks and special treatment.


----------



## weightlifter

Faithful Wife said:


> “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men."
> 
> And thus we have the crux of the problem. Average men cannot get attractive women on a regular basis....so WAHHHHHHH!!!! Let's all take our ball and go our own way because those hot chicks will not sleep with us! WAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
> 
> By all means, go your own way and thin out the pool for us. Your sexodus works out great for us.


Need to define attractive.
If 5 is median in looks.
Are we talking 5s or 9s?


----------



## Starstarfish

> Few male teachers, no recess, expectation to be quiet and still in class all hurt the boys,.


There's probably less male teachers because young men realized that being a teacher doesn't pay for a particularly attractive lifestyle for a male breadwinner. Honestly as a teacher I don't blame them. The student loan debt (particularly in states that require Masters degrees for teachers) to teacher income ratio isn't really an attractive future potential. 

There was less of an expectation for behavior in class during yon olden days of corporal punishment? I have an honestly hard time believing that. My grandmother has told me stories about schooling in the one room schooling house in Appalachia.

Recess is cut off in a lot of places and gym class is no longer a requirement every year and failing it has no impact on graduation.



> Boys have almost no male interaction other than maybe their father at night or the weekends until middle school. Their lives are consumed by women who typically denigrate them for being boys 24 X 7. This kills self-esteem and breeds self-loathing. This isn't how it used to be, and school grades show it.


There's a lot more to the changes in the education system than evil women denigrating boys. Part of it I think is the new big focus on self-esteem. That everyone should feel great about themselves no matter what degree of effort or non-effort they put into anything. Participation trophies for everyone. It creates the unexpected expectation for life that everyone is a winner.


----------



## BetrayedDad

weightlifter said:


> Need to define attractive.
> If 5 is median in looks.
> Are we talking 5s or 9s?


Right. I know beauty is "subjective" but not as much as many proclaim. People need to be realistic about where they stand. If you're a "5" then one woman might think your a 4, another a 6. NO ONE is going to think you're a 10 even if you do. Dream on.


----------



## MgtowMaster

Strong, independent women - angry that MGTOW are causing them to lose their rightful share of asset division, alimony and child support (alimony+) - post:

"MGTOW are beta loser, unattractive, poor, basement dwelling, tiny penis, ugly, poorly educated, smelly, overweight, stupid porn addicts afraid of strong independent women and marriage. We don't want these men in the dating/marriage/gene pool. They can all drop dead for all women care. Good riddance to them."

Countless thousands of threads devoted to MGTOW - just like this one - posted globally annually.

Actual naive beta losers form alliance with their emasculating gynocentric overlords and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well - hoping to curry favor of misandrist rulers. MGTOW laugh at them knowing they live under constant threat of cupcake NAWALT self-actualizing, going AWALT (going their own way) and destroying said men's lives. Anti-male, pro-marriage propagandists hate on MGTOW to stem tide of global mass exodus from marriage. Too late.

MGTOW here. Net worth > 1.5M. Yearly salary > 200K. Don't play video games. Well educated. Will never commit or marry. Grateful that feminists made it possible for me to live life I live. Marriage = slavery + life destruction for men. Giving woman ring of power => tens upon tens of millions of men's lives destroyed in US alone. Not your fool. Don't want my genes in the future gene cesspool.

Marriage rate down 60% since 1970. Half of all US adults unmarried. Marriage extinct by 2040. Marriage declining in both good and bad economies. Man hating sploding globally as result. Feminists/cuckservatives form alliance with "Affirmative Consent" to stop drunk sloots from slooting and to put anti-marriage, anti-commitment pump and dump chads away. Countries enacting defacto marriage laws (Cohabitation Rights Bill - UK) to force marriage upon men and to give cohabiting women same rights to asset division, alimony and child support their married counterparts so enjoy. Cohabitation as well as marriage go in steep decline. Women continue self-delusion with naive, beta white-knight boot licking echo chamber support.

Prince proposes to princess - princess refuses - prince lives happily ever after. End.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Starstarfish said:


> There's a lot more to the changes in the education system than evil women denigrating boys. Part of it I think is the new big focus on self-esteem. That everyone should feel great about themselves no matter what degree of effort or non-effort they put into anything. Participation trophies for everyone. It creates the unexpected expectation for life that everyone is a winner.


I agree. A huge part of being a man is competitiveness. It is ingrained in our brains. Much as women are engrained to be nurturing. So when "everyone is a winner" it breeds dysfunction among men later in life when they fail. 

I don't think it is evil women denigrating boys. God bless all the mothers out there but they do not know how to raise men. They raise men like women would raise girls. Hence the epidemic of 20 something's still living in mom's basement having their laundry done for them.

Boys NEED a male figure in their lives to teach them to be strong. To go out into the world and get their assed kicked. Being coddled and everyone is a winner is a recipe for failure. Can you even fathom this pathetic generation of youth being forced into a WWII style situation?


----------



## BetrayedDad

MgtowMaster said:


> Strong, independent women - angry that MGTOW are causing them to lose their rightful share of asset division, alimony and child support (alimony+) - post:
> 
> "MGTOW are beta loser, unattractive, poor, basement dwelling, tiny penis, ugly, poorly educated, smelly, overweight, stupid porn addicts afraid of strong independent women and marriage. We don't want these men in the dating/marriage/gene pool. They can all drop dead for all women care. Good riddance to them."
> 
> Countless thousands of threads devoted to MGTOW - just like this one - posted globally annually.
> 
> Actual naive beta losers form alliance with their emasculating gynocentric overlords and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well - hoping to curry favor of misandrist rulers. MGTOW laugh at them knowing they live under constant threat of cupcake NAWALT self-actualizing, going AWALT (going their own way) and destroying said men's lives. Anti-male, pro-marriage propagandists hate on MGTOW to stem tide of global mass exodus from marriage. Too late.
> 
> MGTOW here. Net worth > 1.5M. Yearly salary > 200K. Don't play video games. Well educated. Will never commit or marry. Grateful that feminists made it possible for me to live life I live. Marriage = slavery + life destruction for men. Giving woman ring of power => tens upon tens of millions of men's lives destroyed in US alone. Not your fool. Don't want my genes in the future gene cesspool.
> 
> Marriage rate down 60% since 1970. Half of all US adults unmarried. Marriage extinct by 2040. Marriage declining in both good and bad economies. Man hating sploding globally as result. Feminists/cuckservatives form alliance with "Affirmative Consent" to stop drunk sloots from slooting and to put anti-marriage, anti-commitment pump and dump chads away. Countries enacting defacto marriage laws (Cohabitation Rights Bill - UK) to force marriage upon men and to give cohabiting women same rights to asset division, alimony and child support their married counterparts so enjoy. Cohabitation as well as marriage go in steep decline. Women continue self-delusion with naive, beta white-knight boot licking echo chamber support.
> 
> Prince proposes to princess - princess refuses - prince lives happily ever after. End.


You have the mic sir....

This should be entertaining.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> I see it but I think it's much worse with minorities and homosexuals.
> 
> No one really wants equality. They all want perks and special treatment.


You might want to check your privilege.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MgtowMaster said:


> Actual naive beta losers form alliance with their emasculating gynocentric overlords...


Someone summoned me?


----------



## MgtowMaster

BetrayedDad said:


> You have the mic sir....
> 
> This should be entertaining.


Just bringing some reality to your little man hating/**** training session. If anyone has questions and/or male derision for me, feel free. I'm here to enlighten you and help the girls self-actualize.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MgtowMaster said:


> Just bringing some reality to your little man hating/**** training session. If anyone has questions and/or male derision for me, feel free. I'm here to enlighten you and help the girls self-actualize.


Oh thank god you're here....now I can be an actual girl! I was tired of being a non-actual girl.


----------



## tech-novelist

Dycedarg said:


> I posted over in the singles thread and got a couple vicious replies because I noted that my value has gone up since I made drastic changes in my life, and that I'm content to date and have fun until I meet the right person, should that ever happen. I was told that I'm going to be impoverished and alone. One woman even mocked me for my failed past relationships which is, as far as I know, not encouraged in these forums. And I ask myself why all the hostility? Because I told myself that I should have better standards, and noted that those high standards can be validated through my own talents?


It is because *nothing *must be allowed to interfere with women's power to determine *everything *about relationships. You are not playing your assigned role! You must stop doing that, and even more important, you must stop encouraging other men to do that!



Dycedarg said:


> That people *blow their casket* when you even begin to approach this subject is really telling, and shows me that while MGTOW proper is most certainly an inadvisable course, it contains threads of truth that, when embraced, brings a bunch of social policing complete with teeth-gnashing.


*That *is a great new phrase that I'm going to use liberally.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> You might want to check your privilege.


You might want to check out reality. I bust my ass like you do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> You might want to check out reality. I bust my ass like you do.


Reality? How would I be able to determine the reality of someone who doesn't share my privilege, and then proclaim that they "don't want equality they just want perks"?


----------



## BetrayedDad

MgtowMaster said:


> Just bringing some reality to your little man hating/**** training session. If anyone has questions and/or male derision for me, feel free. I'm here to enlighten you and help the girls self-actualize.


You have me all wrong. Preach on brother. I welcome the knowledge. This forum is overridden with only one side of the spectrum. Please continue professor...


----------



## Kivlor

SurpriseMyself said:


> Gotta disagree with you on this one. Girls just mature quicker and they think it's good to be smart, to make good grades. I remember clearly in 6th grade that my group of 5 girls all wanted to make 100 on our tests, etc. Boys don't seem to have that inner drive, many of them, until they are in their teens and twenties. Not sure why, but if boys didn't make fun of each other for being the smart kid, it would go a long way. Just my view, obviously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you call obedience maturity, then yes, they do. Men take longer to tame generally. Most boys don't care about their grades, because they recognize it as arbitrary and view it as meaningless. And they're right.

I'm going to propose a novel concept: college degrees and "good grades" are a symptom of wealth. Wealth is not a symptom of college degrees. Wealthy people have time and resources to focus on degrees and grades. We've had the correlation for years, we just made the wrong connection.



Holland said:


> Huh, really? I have kids of both genders and NEVER witnessed this in the school system, not in 16 years. Just not true in my experience.


There's been several studies that show that female teachers grade and treat their students very differently by gender--particularly with a favorable bias toward girls. Here's one of many.


----------



## ocotillo

bandit.45 said:


> Tell me that our pop culture, media, television and movies do not dumb down males while elevating and sanctifying females. Tell me this culture bias does not leak into the schools, given that kids can carry mass media in their pockets now.


I think that goes way, way back. Fred Flintstone and Ralph Kramden were every bit the bumbling idiots needing to be bailed out by their more intelligent wives as Peter Griffin and Ray Barone are today.

This is directly connected to the social upheavals in the Post-War-Era where traditional authority figures in any form were often made fun of. Probably the next most common trope right after the bumbling father is the high ranking incompetent military officer. Examples of that are everywhere, especially in children's entertainment for some strange reason.

I don't think most young people understand this phenomenon today, because the context is so far in the past. They see something sinister when it's probably just a form of humor that's outlived it's purpose.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> Reality? How would I be able to determine the reality of someone who doesn't share my privilege, and then proclaim that they "don't want equality they just want perks"?


I get no privilege cause I have a d!ck. There's no incentive for being a white male in the 21st century. The only perks available are for people who are not me. I'm not a sexist, racist or homophobe but everyday I'm reminded how lucky I am to be me. Give me a fvcking break.


----------



## Kivlor

BetrayedDad said:


> You might want to check out reality. I bust my ass like you do.


I assumed FW was being sarcastic lol


----------



## BetrayedDad

Kivlor said:


> I assumed FW was being sarcastic lol


Doubtful.


----------



## naiveonedave

Starstarfish said:


> There's probably less male teachers because young men realized that being a teacher doesn't pay for a particularly attractive lifestyle for a male breadwinner. Honestly as a teacher I don't blame them. The student loan debt (particularly in states that require Masters degrees for teachers) to teacher income ratio isn't really an attractive future potential.
> 
> 
> Recess is cut off in a lot of places and gym class is no longer a requirement every year and failing it has no impact on graduation.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot more to the changes in the education system than evil women denigrating boys. Part of it I think is the new big focus on self-esteem. That everyone should feel great about themselves no matter what degree of effort or non-effort they put into anything. Participation trophies for everyone. It creates the unexpected expectation for life that everyone is a winner.


In my neck of the woods teachers are overpaid, if anything. 
Boys need the physical outlet, that they get less is hurting them, as a class, academically.
I agree with your last bullet, it makes for an entitled society.


----------



## MgtowMaster

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh thank god you're here....now I can be an actual girl! I was tired of being a non-actual girl.


No problem. I get that a lot.


----------



## Kivlor

BetrayedDad said:


> Doubtful.


Well that's sad. :frown2:

Whenever someone tells me that and is serious, I've always liked the response

"I did check my white male privilege. And it entitles me to say what I want, be wealthy and lord over you. So get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich!" I usually give them a little slap on their butt if it's in person :grin2:


----------



## tom67

Well here is a rare case where a female teacher got a high bail amount to keep her in jail.
Sad but refreshing imo.
WTF a three year old and nine month old at home.

Former Menomonee Falls teacher charged with 12 counts of sexual assault | Local News - WISN Home

Oh and hubs filed for d on Monday.


----------



## MgtowMaster

BetrayedDad said:


> You have me all wrong. Preach on brother. I welcome the knowledge. This forum is overridden with only one side of the spectrum. Please continue professor...


When I said "your little", I was targeting the battleaxes. No offense.


----------



## Kivlor

tom67 said:


> Well here is a rare case where a female teacher got a high bail amount to keep her in jail.
> Sad but refreshing imo.
> WTF a three year old and nine month old at home.
> 
> Former Menomonee Falls teacher charged with 12 counts of sexual assault | Local News - WISN Home
> 
> Oh and hubs filed for d on Monday.


This is OT, but whenever I see the name "Menomenee Falls, WI" I can't help but think back to a book I read years ago called House of Leaves. Anyone else read that?


----------



## Dycedarg

tom67 said:


> Well here is a rare case where a female teacher got a high bail amount to keep her in jail.
> Sad but refreshing imo.
> WTF a three year old and nine month old at home.
> 
> Former Menomonee Falls teacher charged with 12 counts of sexual assault | Local News - WISN Home
> 
> Oh and hubs filed for d on Monday.


Call me old fashioned but I really don't think female offenders in this setting should be charged as harshly as male ones. 

Also, male students involved should be punished as well, save special circumstances.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> I get no privilege cause I have a d!ck. There's no incentive for being a white male in the 21st century. The only perks available are for people who are not me. I'm not a sexist, racist or homophobe but everyday I'm reminded how lucky I am to be me. Give me a fvcking break.


I'm very aware of my privileges and try to be aware of the struggles of those who don't have it, rather than mock them for wanting the basic rights I enjoy.


----------



## tom67

Dycedarg said:


> Call me old fashioned but I really don't think female offenders in this setting should be charged as harshly as male ones.
> 
> Also, male students involved should be punished as well, save special circumstances.


Dyce I respectfully disagree.
Giving light sentences is what keeps this going on.
A kids brain doesn't fully develops until around 25.
They want equality let's give it to them.

It's already a FACT that male offenders do much more time than the other gender for the same crime.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm very aware of my privileges and try to be aware of the struggles of those who don't have it, rather than mock them for wanting the basic rights I enjoy.


I only mock people who ask for MORE than what I receive under the guise of equality. It's a perversion of the word and a tragedy that this is the world we live in.


----------



## always_alone

ooooh, an emasculating gynocentric overlord. That kinda made my day. 

I'm a little confused about where I got all of this power. But okay. I'll take it.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> ooooh, an emasculating gynocentric overlord. That kinda made my day.
> 
> I'm a little confused about where I got all of this power. But okay. I'll take it.


Well, there is something to be said of how the abundance of sperm and the scarcity of eggs has affected the way society developed as how the genders deal with themselves and each other.

Overlord, nah. But emasculating and gynocentric, I can see cases for it.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Well, there is something to be said of how the abundance of sperm and the scarcity of eggs has affected the way society developed as how the genders deal with themselves and each other.


Oh? I thought men were super happy with their seed-spreader role. Isn't that how you justify sleeping with as many women as possible while avoiding getting locked down by evil marriage and commitment?

Indeed, I thought seed-spreader was the male ideal? Do I have that wrong?


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> I only mock people who ask for MORE than what I receive under the guise of equality. It's a perversion of the word and a tragedy that this is the world we live in.


Um...lol.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm very aware of my privileges and try to be aware of the struggles of those who don't have it, rather than mock them for wanting the basic rights I enjoy.


Um...lol.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege. 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege.
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB



Sadly, people on both sides of the isle don't seem to understand it. "Privilege" is a valid concept across an entire demographic group but when it's applied to this individual or that individual, we're making a generalization based on their race or gender, which is the very essence of racism and sexism in the first place..


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,

That list casually ignores a few factors which drive 'most folks' day to day quality of life as much or more than anything else. 




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege.
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB


----------



## BetrayedDad

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege.
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB


Keep living the fairytale that I give someone the "secret white guy handshake" and my life instantly becomes peaches and dandelions.

Guess what? Life's not fair. Get over yourself and work harder than the next person. I've had my share of bullsh!t to deal with too. Look at my username.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege.
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB


I think some people don't realize that they are members of the most privileged group of people ever to exist in the world, with the possible exception of royalty.

Note: No one who can be forced to kill or die at the whim of Congress can be considered privileged. That is the antithesis of privilege.


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,

I only speak for myself when I say that when flying in an airplane: I only want to use products designed, built, operated and maintained by people (men or women) who are certified for those jobs. 

That means they took and passed classes all the way up to and including college level courses. 

SOME types of class work have a substantive degree of subjectivity to them. For instance reports or research papers. 

That said, I'll point to my computer science degree as a counter example of grades being meaningless. 

Lots of math. The answers were either right or wrong. Software we wrote for projects either worked correctly and executed efficiently or it didn't. 

The psych class was multiple choice and the questions were framed precisely. My art history class grades were solely driven by the ability to recall names and dates. 

Let me offer a meta analysis of the themes I have recently been hearing on TAM threads:
- Grades are meaningless and arbitrary
- Therefore education is meaningless and arbitrary
- Degrees are far more correlated to family wealth than intelligence and ambition 
- Women, no even worse WIVES are necessary to succeed - to have social achievements and standing 
- Wifes are also needed for career success 
- Women are treacherous, violent critters who have the local paramilitary on speed dial and will have you arrested if you look at them cross eyed
- Women will also take your assets and income from the marriage when they get bored of you. And will also file false charges of abuse to gain an edge in the divorce and use the kids as pawns to extract more concessions from you







Kivlor said:


> If you call obedience maturity, then yes, they do. Men take longer to tame generally. Most boys don't care about their grades, because they recognize it as arbitrary and view it as meaningless. And they're right.
> 
> I'm going to propose a novel concept: college degrees and "good grades" are a symptom of wealth. Wealth is not a symptom of college degrees. Wealthy people have time and resources to focus on degrees and grades. We've had the correlation for years, we just made the wrong connection.
> 
> 
> 
> There's been several studies that show that female teachers grade and treat their students very differently by gender--particularly with a favorable bias toward girls. Here's one of many.


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> I think some people don't realize that they are members of the most privileged group of people ever to exist in the world, with the possible exception of royalty.
> 
> Note: No one who can be forced to kill or die at the whim of Congress can be considered privileged. That is the antithesis of privilege.


Like all the feather women who were shaming men to fight in ww1.
Here https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk


----------



## MgtowMaster

What I miss? So sorry. Was getting hooermoan therapy from a soon to be rich female neighbor of a soon to be poor white knight neighbor. God I love women.


----------



## MEM2020

The post below is in my persona as a fellow contributor NOT as a mod. 

The sort of comical aspect to that Priviledge-O-Meter sort of goes like this.

Most successful/powerful white guys have either a long term GF or a wife who shares in all the privilege but doesn't have to navigate the buffet of shlt sandwiches required to become and remain successful. 

By the way - for a moment I'll pick on Melinda Gates. I have a lot of respect for her. She is genuinely a woman of substance and is absolutely instrumental in the Gates foundations effort to transform Africa. That said, she is a multi billionaire solely courtesy of marriage. This path to wealth is simply not available to most men yet given the current demographics of the super rich. 

But I'll come back to that in a minute. How come nobody asked me the following questions in that survey:
- Have you ever been badly overworked?
- Have you ever been badly overworked for an extended period of time? 
- Have you experienced any stress related issues due to chronic work stress?
- Have you ever experienced intense financial stress as the sole breadwinner? 
- Have you been in a situation where you HATED your job but kept doing it to support the family? 
- Have you had extended periods at work where everything was going to shlt but you had to pretend otherwise?

Most highly successful folks are disciplined and hard working. 

It only looks 'easy' from the outside. 





BetrayedDad said:


> Keep living the fairytale that I give someone the "secret white guy handshake" and my life instantly becomes peaches and dandelions.
> 
> Guess what? Life's not fair. Get over yourself and work harder than the next person. I've had my share of bullsh!t to deal with too. Look at my username.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MgtowMaster said:


> What I miss? So sorry. Was getting hooermoan therapy from a soon to be rich female neighbor of a soon to be poor white knight neighbor. God I love women.


I thought porn would have better story lines by now. Guess not. Here I thought MGTOW guys were supposed to be cutting their penis off to avoid being controlled by us horrible, horrible women because they are too weak to resist us otherwise. The whole point is that because they can't get sex from anyone who actually wants them, they decide to opt out vs. have to buy one who will eventually take their money and leave for someone they really want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> Keep living the fairytale that I give someone the "secret white guy handshake" and my life instantly becomes peaches and dandelions.
> 
> Guess what? Life's not fair. Get over yourself and work harder than the next person. I've had my share of bullsh!t to deal with too. Look at my username.


So being betrayed was a result of your being underprivileged in some way?

Super odd that you don't even seem to know what privilege is or means or how much of it you get, yet you want to tell others they aren't entitled to as much as you have and that they simply want "perks".

"Get over yourself" is what I have to say to any of these guys who feel entitled to having sex with or being partnered with someone who isn't attracted to them. Which is because having sex is not a privilege to anyone and has nothing to do with basic human rights or legal rights. (And it is also because whiny creeps who get pissed because women aren't attracted to them deserve to be mocked).

But feel free to find any post of mine where I have mocked anyone who has not received equal or fair treatment in the justice system or family law courts. See, I know I have the privilege of being treated differently in the court system, and I would never mock someone who doesn't get fair treatment. Even though in my only experience with family court, there were no custody issues (children were adults), no spousal support paid to either party, and I am the one who made a cash payment to my ex because I kept the house so I paid out his equity.....therefore, my ex and I were both treated fairly so I haven't been one of those ex-wives people like to talk about here who get the preferential treatment over husbands. Yet, I still acknowledge that does in family court happen and may have happened in my case if our details were different, and I do not mock those who wish they could also have fair treatment in court.

Having privilege and mocking those who don't for wanting to have it too is a really sad and strange thing to do.

But it is pretty common for those who have privilege to not know that they do, because they have not experienced the lack of it. 

Claiming that minorities and homosexuals want "perks not equality" is pure ignorance, IMO.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

BetrayedDad said:


> Keep living the fairytale that I give someone the "secret white guy handshake" and my life instantly becomes peaches and dandelions.
> 
> Guess what? Life's not fair. Get over yourself and work harder than the next person. I've had my share of bullsh!t to deal with too. Look at my username.


The fact that I had white, middle class parents in a good neighborhood in a developed country means I started out with more privilege than a kid brought up in a single parent poverty home, or a minority race or sexual orientation. It does not mean life is peaches and flowers or that I've never struggled. 
You can play the pity card all you want but having a hard time does not mean you do not also have privilege and it's that kind of thinking that makes me feel like you don't understand what it even is. 

If you don't risk getting beat up in the street for kissing your spouse like a homosexual couple does, that's privilege. It can be as "simple" as that. Little things that people take for granted every day that other people don't have.


----------



## BetrayedDad

@Faithful Wife @SlowlyGoingCrazy

Please.... for the ignorant men here. 

DEFINE EXACTLY how this privilege of mine works and how I directly benefit from it.

I'd love to know so I can start using this benefit right away. I'm ALL ears.

I'm really hoping you don't spew more abstract nonsense..... about how I don't get picked on.

I'd rather be called a slur by a stranger than have the person I trust the most stab me in the back.

In my option that is far worse so boo hoo where's my affirmative action? Or gender quotas?


----------



## MEM2020

How come 'beauty' isn't listed as a type of privilege?

It's universally beneficial. How come it never shows up on any of these lists? 




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The fact that I had white, middle class parents in a good neighborhood in a developed country means I started out with more privilege than a kid brought up in a single parent poverty home, or a minority race or sexual orientation. It does not mean life is peaches and flowers or that I've never struggled.
> You can play the pity card all you want but having a hard time does not mean you do not also have privilege and it's that kind of thinking that makes me feel like you don't understand what it even is.
> 
> If you don't risk getting beat up in the street for kissing your spouse like a homosexual couple does, that's privilege. It can be as "simple" as that. Little things that people take for granted every day that other people don't have.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MEM11363 said:


> How come 'beauty' isn't listed as a type of privilege?
> 
> It's universally beneficial. How come it never shows up on any of these lists?


It usually is, it is listed in the quiz I posted. Beauty and weight.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Oh? I thought men were super happy with their seed-spreader role. Isn't that how you justify sleeping with as many women as possible while avoiding getting locked down by evil marriage and commitment?
> 
> Indeed, I thought seed-spreader was the male ideal? Do I have that wrong?


I dare you to find one post from me that has said as much. 

Or you can just tilt at your windmills there Don Quixote


----------



## azteca1986

MgtowMaster said:


> Actual naive beta losers form alliance with their emasculating gynocentric overlords and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well - hoping to curry favor of misandrist rulers. MGTOW laugh at them knowing they live under constant threat of cupcake NAWALT self-actualizing, going AWALT (going their own way) and destroying said men's lives. Anti-male, pro-marriage propagandists hate on MGTOW to stem tide of global mass exodus from marriage. Too late.


Your worldview appears to be driven by cynicism and fear. 


> Prince proposes to princess - princess refuses - prince lives happily ever after. End.


You don't come across as happy.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I thought porn would have better story lines by now. Guess not. Here I thought MGTOW guys were supposed to be cutting their penis off to avoid being controlled by us horrible, horrible women because they are too weak to resist us otherwise. The whole point is that because they can't get sex from anyone who actually wants them, they decide to opt out vs. have to buy one who will eventually take their money and leave for someone they really want.


They don't take an oath of celibacy. They just opt not to become entangled with women in any sort of supportive way. There are plenty of women available for sex without commitment to take care of the sex.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

BetrayedDad said:


> @Faithful Wife @SlowlyGoingCrazy
> 
> Please.... for the ignorant men here.
> 
> DEFINE EXACTLY how this privilege of mine works and how I directly benefit from it.
> 
> I'd love to know so I can start using this benefit right away. I'm ALL ears.
> 
> I'm really hoping you don't spew more abstract nonsense..... about how I don't get picked on.
> 
> I'd rather be called a slur by a stranger than have the person I trust the most stab me in the back.
> 
> In my option that is far worse so boo hoo where's my affirmative action? Or gender quotas?


Privilege is not a prize you get. You benefit in little ways that you probably don't even notice. If you were on the other side of things, you would be more likely to. 

You're straight- you don't feel you have to hide your sexual orientation from others. You don't have to "come out" to friends and family that you are straight. You don't risk as much violence or hatred towards you or your partner. You have been able to marry the partner of your choice for a lot longer than a gay man. 

There is a small portion of your privilege. I bet you don't notice it as you go about your life and it does not mean you've never been picked on. Privilege does not = no struggle. I suggest you read more into it if you really want to know. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5f8GuNuGQ


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> They don't take an oath of celibacy. They just opt not to become entangled with women in any sort of supportive way. There are plenty of women available for sex without commitment to take care of the sex.


There were some quotes posted in either this one or the other that said just that, to never sleep with any woman because they are all horrible and wanting sex from them is just another way they manipulate you.


----------



## BetrayedDad

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Privilege is not a prize you get. You benefit in little ways that you probably don't even notice. If you were on the other side of things, you would be more likely to.
> 
> You're straight- you don't feel you have to hide your sexual orientation from others. You don't have to "come out" to friends and family that you are straight. You don't risk as much violence or hatred towards you or your partner. You have been able to marry the partner of your choice for a lot longer than a gay man.
> 
> There is a small portion of your privilege. I bet you don't notice it as you go about your life and it does not mean you've never been picked on. Privilege does not = no struggle. I suggest you read more into it if you really want to know.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5f8GuNuGQ


Do I give a fvck if someone is gay? NO.

So how does this make me privileged? Because others are ignorant I should be lumped into them? 

I can't have a straight parade but gays can have one. I can't run around claiming I'm proud to be straight because people will accuse me of being a zealot. I have to celebrate gay pride but there will be NO straight pride!

They get perks, I don't. If there was true equality I would get a parade too.


----------



## BetrayedDad

MEM11363 said:


> How come 'beauty' isn't listed as a type of privilege?
> 
> It's universally beneficial. How come it never shows up on any of these lists?


Excellent point. I see more of this bias in the real world than anything else. Gender, racial or otherwise.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> @Faithful Wife @SlowlyGoingCrazy
> 
> Please.... for the ignorant men here.
> 
> DEFINE EXACTLY how this privilege of mine works and how I directly benefit from it.
> 
> I'd love to know so I can start using this benefit right away. I'm ALL ears.
> 
> ?


Since I don't know you, how about I will list my own privilege. 

I have privilege because I am:

*white

*not impoverished 

*able bodied 

*attractive (not saying I am beautiful, I just acknowledge that I do receive beauty privilege when some do not)

*straight (looking...I'm not actually straight but people treat me as if I am based on appearance)

*female (which carries privilege in some things even though also a lack of privilege in other things)

*born in a developed country 

*cis-gendered

If we can't even acknowledge our own privilege, it is pretty crappy to mock others who don't have it. Just shows ignorance, IMO.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You benefit in little ways that you probably don't even notice. If you were on the other side of things, you would be more likely to.


Don't be baited into a logical fallacy. 

How do we know, for example, that a "white" person's grandparents weren't given a Zyklon-B shower and now lie in some god-awful mass grave somewhere? We don't. Not unless they tell us. 

Why do you think it was such an eye-opener when Norah Vincent, a feminist on the LGBT spectrum spent a year disguised as a white male and came back basically saying, Yeah the "privileges" are real, but they're counterbalanced by a whole bunch of other things that we never even thought of."


----------



## naiveonedave

how in the heck is being white a privilege? What exactly do you get with that? I mean, I still have to pay for my fries at McD's.

None of the things you listed, @faithfulwife, are privileges, they are all just stuff you think "may" give you an advantage over others, but they are not privileges.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> Since I don't know you, how about I will list my own privilege.
> 
> I have privilege because I am:
> 
> *white
> 
> *not impoverished
> 
> *able bodied
> 
> *attractive (not saying I am beautiful, I just acknowledge that I do receive beauty privilege when some do not)
> 
> *straight (looking...I'm not actually straight but people treat me as if I am based on appearance)
> 
> *female (which carries privilege in some things even though also a lack of privilege in other things)
> 
> *born in a developed country
> 
> If we can't even acknowledge our own privilege, it is pretty crappy to mock others who don't have it. Just shows ignorance, IMO.



So:

If you are any other race other than white you are not privileged?

If you are born outside the US or Europe you are not privileged?

If you are females sometime you are privileged and sometimes you are not?

Etc. Etc. Etc.


You believe this??? What an insult to other people on this planet. I'm so glad you think you are so privileged and special.

Please don't include me into your group. I want no part of it. I consider myself equal to everyone else. Nothing more.


----------



## BetrayedDad

naiveonedave said:


> how in the heck is being white a privilege? What exactly do you get with that? I mean, I still have to pay for my fries at McD's.
> 
> None of the things you listed, @faithfulwife, are privileges, they are all just stuff you think "may" give you an advantage over others, but they are not privileges.


What? You don't recognize the liberal talking points? They are brainwashed to be made to feel sorry for who they are... Ignorance, IMO.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> how in the heck is being white a privilege? What exactly do you get with that? I mean, I still have to pay for my fries at McD's.
> 
> None of the things you listed, @faithfulwife, are privileges,* they are all just stuff you think "may" give you an advantage over others*, but they are not privileges.


So no one wants to actually read about privilege what it is and why it's important?



Privilege, as understood and described by researchers, is a function of multiple variables of varying importance, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship, religion, physical ability, health, level of education, and others. Race, gender and social class are generally felt by sociologists to be the most determinative of a person's overall level of privilege.[10] Privilege theory argues that each individual is embedded in a matrix of categories and contexts, and will be in some ways privileged and other ways disadvantaged, with privileged attributes lessening disadvantage and membership in a disadvantaged group lessening the benefits of privilege.[11] For example a white lesbian university professor benefits from racial and educational privilege, but is disadvantaged due to her gender and sexual orientation.[12] Some attributes of privilege are ordinarily fairly visible, such as race and gender, and others, such as citizenship status and birth order, are not. Some such as social class are relatively stable and others, such as age, wealth, religion and attractiveness, will or may change over time.[13] Some attributes of privilege are at least partly determined by the individual, such as level of education, whereas others such as race or class background are entirely involuntary.


..




Some academics highlight a pattern where those who benefit from a type of privilege are unwilling to acknowledge it.[2][11][15] American sociologist Michael S. Kimmel describes the state of having privilege as being "like running with the wind at your back", unaware of invisible sustenance, support and propulsion.[2] The argument may follow that such a denial constitutes a further injustice against those who do not benefit from the same form of privilege. One writer has referred to such denial as a form of "microaggression" or microinvalidation that negates the experiences of people who don't have privilege and minimizes the impediments they face.[16]


----------



## MgtowMaster

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I thought porn would have better story lines by now. Guess not. Here I thought MGTOW guys were supposed to be cutting their penis off to avoid being controlled by us horrible, horrible women because they are too weak to resist us otherwise. The whole point is that because they can't get sex from anyone who actually wants them, they decide to opt out vs. have to buy one who will eventually take their money and leave for someone they really want.


See how wrong you were? Good thing I showed up, right? The basis of MGTOW is to NOT give a woman the ring of power - that thing that has destroyed so many countless millions of men's lives.

An old flame contacted me recently and asked that I show her around the metro area in which I live. She painted the average picture of domesticated bliss in our initial conversations. You know- "I live here. I work with these. Here's my husband. Here are the flowers I plant." However, after she arrived, thereafter, it was all about dinner, drinks and spring break-in boning. Rarr!

This site really needs a MGTOW mod. I volunteer. Any backers?


----------



## tom67

Ask Greg Elliot what he thinks of his privilege. Women conspired to get him arrested it's so blatant yet the crown proceeded with this farce.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...twitter-constitutes-criminal-harassment.shtml


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MgtowMaster said:


> An old flame contacted me recently and asked that I show her around the metro area in which I live. She painted the average picture of domesticated bliss in our initial conversations. You know- "I live here. I work with these. Here's my husband. Here are the flowers I plant." However, after she arrived, thereafter, it was all about dinner, drinks and spring break-in boning. Rarr!
> 
> This site really needs a MGTOW mod. I volunteer. Any backers?


You'll be back in school from Christmas break soon, I don't think you'll have the time to be a mod.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> So:
> 
> If you are any other race other than white you are not privileged?
> 
> If you are born outside the US or Europe you are not privileged?
> 
> If you are females sometime you are privileged and sometimes you are not?
> 
> Etc. Etc. Etc.
> 
> 
> You believe this??? What an insult to other people on this planet. I'm so glad you think you are so privileged and special.
> 
> Please don't include me into your group. I want no part of it. I consider myself equal to everyone else. Nothing more.


You honestly don't know what privilege means in the sense of the word we are using here? You think I'm just making a list of how awesome I am or something or that I made up the concept of privilege myself?

Wow.

I guess it is no wonder you have no issues with mocking those who are less privileged.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MgtowMaster said:


> An old flame contacted me recently and asked that I show her around the metro area in which I live. She painted the average picture of domesticated bliss in our initial conversations. You know- "I live here. I work with these. Here's my husband. Here are the flowers I plant." However, after she arrived, thereafter, it was all about dinner, drinks and spring break-in boning. Rarr!
> 
> This site really needs a MGTOW mod. I volunteer. Any backers?


Yeah sure, we should make you a mod down in the CWI section. People just LOVE guys who bone other men's wives down there.


----------



## MgtowMaster

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah sure, we should make you a mod down in the CWI section. People just LOVE guys who bone other men's wives down there.


I know, right? So many guys enjoy watching their wives being boned by other guys these days. It's the fluffing and what what.


----------



## knobcreek

"White" is only a privilege if you equate white to rich or middle class exclusively. Growing up middle class to rich is definitely a privilege, however there are a TON of whites in poverty, they make up the largest portion of those on government assistance. Plenty of rural poor whites who likely don't feel like their skin color is getting them over the hump.

My privilege's would be:

1. Grew up middle class in a safe neighborhood
2. Decent looking with a good personality, in IT that's a tough combo to find and I know it has gotten me promotion opportunities against other candidates who lacked the social skills for management
3. Live and work in the USA, IMO the greatest nation in history, anyone who lives here and grew up here is extremely privileged whether they see it or not

Other than that I have 100K in student loans once my MBA is done, I paid for my undergrad with 5 years in the Marines and two deployments, I've worked since I was eleven years old, I don't owe anyone anything.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MgtowMaster said:


> I know, right? So many guys enjoy watching their wives being boned by other guys these days. It's the fluffing and what what.


Yeah you should *TOTALLY* go start a thread down there and tell people all about your adventures in being a home wrecker. They will LOVE hearing all about it. Heck, they might even have a parade for you.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> 
> I only speak for myself when I say that when flying in an airplane: I only want to use products designed, built, operated and maintained by people (men or women) who are certified for those jobs.
> 
> That means they took and passed classes all the way up to and including college level courses.
> 
> SOME types of class work have a substantive degree of subjectivity to them. For instance reports or research papers.
> 
> That said, I'll point to my computer science degree as a counter example of grades being meaningless.
> 
> Lots of math. The answers were either right or wrong. Software we wrote for projects either worked correctly and executed efficiently or it didn't.
> 
> The psych class was multiple choice and the questions were framed precisely. My art history class grades were solely driven by the ability to recall names and dates.
> 
> Let me offer a meta analysis of the themes I have recently been hearing on TAM threads:
> - Grades are meaningless and arbitrary
> - Therefore education is meaningless and arbitrary
> - Degrees are far more correlated to family wealth than intelligence and ambition
> - Women, no even worse WIVES are necessary to succeed - to have social achievements and standing
> - Wifes are also needed for career success
> - Women are treacherous, violent critters who have the local paramilitary on speed dial and will have you arrested if you look at them cross eyed
> - Women will also take your assets and income from the marriage when they get bored of you. And will also file false charges of abuse to gain an edge in the divorce and use the kids as pawns to extract more concessions from you


MEM, I think you're a pretty sharp cat. We all say we want the most competent person for the job, but reality seems to show that is not the case. People are often picked more for how likable they are, and how good they look and how they dress than competency. Your post also seems to ignore the masses of people who trained to become good at something, self-taught to competency had a natural knack for it, had a desperate need etc. Most of the world's greatest advancements do not come from college diplomas. If you think they do, I'd love to see some statistics to back it up.

As a math person, you're well aware of the adage that if you've not made a theoretical breakthrough by 25, you're not going to, right? It's because the "schooled" aren't successful at breakthroughs. Schools dumb children down and promote groupthink; the opposite of innovation.

RE the rest of your post:

-Yes. They are a social signal, nothing more. Especially at early ages. 
-No. Education =/= Schooling. Even then, if you want a certain job, you may need the appropriate permission slip from a school. It doesn't make you good at your job, it means you got the permission slip.
-Degrees and wealth are demonstrably correlated. I made the shocking proposal that we've gotten the correlation backwards, and that degrees =/= wealth; rather, wealth = degrees. Which makes a lot of sense, since Degrees cost of $24,000/year ($48,000) I think it is obvious that wealth is the culprit. I would argue ambition is more of a cause of wealth than degrees. Especially since there's no real-correlation among deca millionaires. 
-Women / Wives can be useful for attaining certain status and opening certain doors. Like good dress. Like good manners. Like thousands of other things.
-Wives can be useful for career success. Like good dress. Like good manners. Like thousands of other things.
-People are treacherous things. Women are people. Most men underestimate them, and view them as more nurturing and loving, and somewhat harmless. And that is stupid. They're just as dangerous as anyone. More so if you underestimate them.
-Indeed they will. Welcome to divorce. And many women do cheat because they get bored. Technovelist posted this very in-depth link about divorce laws and proceedings in all the 50 states, here in the US. And you'll see, there are ample interviews with lawyers who attest that in contested divorces women almost always file a TRO without reason, file false abuse charges, alienate children from their fathers and even file false sexual molestation charges, all to gain a favorable outcome in court.

Hope I better explained that for ya.

On false charges from women:



> How common is domestic violence? Here are some data cited in Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues (Nielsen 2012): "no study to date using a representative sample and measuring severe violence has found more than two million women a year being abused, which is 1.5% of the female population over the age of 18 (Gelles, 2007). … *158 million of the 162 million females over the age of 12 are never—and never will be—physically abused by a man they are dating, living with, or married to. *Put differently, for those women who are married, 1% were reported as victims of domestic violence according to the U.S. Justice Department’s crime statistics." *How about in divorce court? Depending on the state, attorneys told us that 25-100 percent of divorce cases that they handle involve an allegation that one partner was somehow abusing the other and/or the children.*
> Accepting the broad definition of "abuse" that is used by family courts, are men more likely to abuse women or vice versa? Researchers at the University of Cumbria, led by Elizabeth Bates, reported in "Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence" (Aggressive Behavior, 40(1), January 2014) that *"women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were."* Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues (Nielsen 2012): *"females generally engage in more relational aggression than males (Baumeister, 2010; Chesler, 2001; Eliot, 2009). Relational aggression includes social ostracism, vicious gossip, verbal harassment, passive aggressive manipulation, and verbal bullying—the same kind of behavior that gatekeeping mothers often use to limit the father’s relationship with their daughter. *The victims of this relational aggression often become extremely anxious, depressed, insecure, withdrawn, and timid—again, the very behaviors we often find in fathers who want to be more involved with their daughters, but are being shut out by the mother’s gatekeeping. Relational aggression includes the kinds of tactics that many gatekeeping mothers use to demoralize and marginalize fathers."


----------



## Starstarfish

> In my neck of the woods teachers are overpaid, if anything.


Please tell me where that is, maybe I'll move there.

I made $25,000 last year. No benefits. Required pay in to state retirement that is being dismantled. My take home is less than $900 bi-weekly. So ... 

Yeah, I can understand why it's not something that a single young man would pursue as a career.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So no one wants to actually read about privilege what it is and why it's important?
> 
> 
> 
> Privilege, as understood and described by researchers, is a function of multiple variables of varying importance, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship, religion, physical ability, health, level of education, and others. Race, gender and social class are generally felt by sociologists to be the most determinative of a person's overall level of privilege.[10] Privilege theory argues that each individual is embedded in a matrix of categories and contexts, and will be in some ways privileged and other ways disadvantaged, with privileged attributes lessening disadvantage and membership in a disadvantaged group lessening the benefits of privilege.[11] For example a white lesbian university professor benefits from racial and educational privilege, but is disadvantaged due to her gender and sexual orientation.[12] Some attributes of privilege are ordinarily fairly visible, such as race and gender, and others, such as citizenship status and birth order, are not. Some such as social class are relatively stable and others, such as age, wealth, religion and attractiveness, will or may change over time.[13] Some attributes of privilege are at least partly determined by the individual, such as level of education, whereas others such as race or class background are entirely involuntary.
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some academics highlight a pattern where those who benefit from a type of privilege are unwilling to acknowledge it.[2][11][15] American sociologist Michael S. Kimmel describes the state of having privilege as being "like running with the wind at your back", unaware of invisible sustenance, support and propulsion.[2] The argument may follow that such a denial constitutes a further injustice against those who do not benefit from the same form of privilege. One writer has referred to such denial as a form of "microaggression" or microinvalidation that negates the experiences of people who don't have privilege and minimizes the impediments they face.[16]


Do me a favor, and everyone read this. Then replace the word with "Thetans". You sound like a loon from the Cult of Scientology. Prvilege Levels / Thetan Levels. LOL

It's just the Cult of Social Justice instead. 

:surprise:


----------



## MEM2020

Betrayed,
My daughters started getting on me about my white male priviledge. I just laughed. Said a trust fund is a priviledge. 

Everything else is an advantage. An advantage is like a tool. You actually need to apply effort to get a beneficial outcome. 

The reason I ended up doing ok was way more because of work ethic and willingness to handle high stress situations and take risks, than anything else. 

------------
In the spirit of balance here since there's been so much women blaming going on.......

1. M2 ran the house smooth as glass
2. Totally supported me when I had to travel for work - no whining - no emergency calls filled with synthetic drama
3. Put me to sleep via the rapture almost nightly for a good solid 15 years 
4. And last, but honestly should be first, she brought out my best

So - far from being subtractive - economically/financially M2 was a large net positive......




BetrayedDad said:


> Excellent point. I see more of this bias in the real world than anything else. Gender, racial or otherwise.


----------



## jld

I, too, tend to think of privilege in terms of wealth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I, too, tend to think of privilege in terms of wealth.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've always viewed it in this light: 

People around me have the privilege of basking in my radiant splendor. 

But I'm narcissistic like that :wink2:


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> Do me a favor, and everyone read this. Then replace the word with "Thetans". You sound like a loon from the Cult of Scientology. Prvilege Levels / Thetan Levels. LOL
> 
> It's just the Cult of Social Justice instead.
> 
> :surprise:


I think that is an insult to Scientology. :wink2:


----------



## MEM2020

Can I be a BEAUTIFUL thetan, please oh please?

And can I be smart too? Really smart. Cause I've been told that helps one navigate through the complex N dimensional environment within which we live.....

And ummm - if it's ok - can I be ambitious too? Because that sure seems helpful.....

In that list of all that stuff that is so very, very important, turns out that BEAUTY, like intelligence and ambition is listed under the category 'other'. 

How bout this. I get to be: beautiful, smart and ambitious and you can then map me into any other set of categories in terms of - race, gender and social class. 

We'll see who ends up with the most toys. 

Race, gender and social class matter the most - interesting. 

In that list - intelligence, ambition and beauty don't even make the core list. 







Kivlor said:


> Do me a favor, and everyone read this. Then replace the word with "Thetans". You sound like a loon from the Cult of Scientology. Prvilege Levels / Thetan Levels. LOL
> 
> It's just the Cult of Social Justice instead.
> 
> :surprise:


----------



## MEM2020

Solely in my capacity as a fellow contributor....
Not as a mod....

ROTFL





technovelist said:


> I think that is an insult to Scientology. :wink2:


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> Can I be a BEAUTIFUL thetan, please oh please?
> 
> And can I be smart too? Really smart. Cause I've been told that helps one navigate through the complex N dimensional environment within which we live.....
> 
> And ummm - if it's ok - can I be ambitious too? Because that sure seems helpful.....
> 
> In that list of all that stuff that is so very, very important, turns out that BEAUTY, like intelligence and ambition is listed under the category 'other'.
> 
> How bout this. I get to be: beautiful, smart and ambitious and you can then map me into any other set of categories in terms of - race, gender and social class.
> 
> We'll see who ends up with the most toys.
> 
> Race, gender and social class matter the most - interesting.
> 
> In that list - intelligence, ambition and beauty don't even make the core list.


No, because that is misogynistic victim blaming! >


----------



## Faithful Wife

It's always amusing to hear a bunch of white men talk about how "silly" the idea of privilege is and how they never had any.


----------



## GusPolinski

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of privilege.
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.deVaYOOaB


I'd agree w/ that.

We'd probably disagree w/ respect to WHO, though.


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm very aware of my privileges and try to be aware of the struggles of those who don't have it, rather than mock them for wanting the basic rights I enjoy.


To which specific privileges and rights are you referring?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

My main issue with this stuff is that it's based on WHAT I AM. And not what I DO. 

If someone wants to assess my behavior - have at it. 

But targeting me for being a straight white male is a bit much. 

And implying the things I most value in others are:
- color
- gender
- class 
- religion 

That's not me.





jld said:


> I, too, tend to think of privilege in terms of wealth.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

FrenchFry said:


> Super amusing! In fact, this whole thing is hilarious because for as much *****ing that they do about it not being real, they definitely demand to be taken seriously when it comes to MGTOW.
> 
> How dare you not take MGTOW seriously FW?! I mean, how daaare you. You better take my issues seriously, mine are so much more real than yours. SO MUCH MORE.


I'd think that any man _truly_ "going his own way" wouldn't care whether or not you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- took him seriously.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> Super amusing! In fact, this whole thing is hilarious because for as much *****ing that they do about it not being real, they definitely demand to be taken seriously when it comes to MGTOW.
> 
> How dare you not take MGTOW seriously FW?! I mean, how daaare you. You better take my issues seriously, mine are so much more real than yours. SO MUCH MORE.


Yeah they sure do know what female privilege is. But apparently that's as far as they look for privilege around them.


----------



## tech-novelist

GusPolinski said:


> I'd think that any man _truly_ "going his own way" wouldn't care whether or not you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- took him seriously.


Of course *that *is the reason that some people get their panties in a bunch about MGTOW... >


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> My main issue with this stuff is that it's based on WHAT I AM. And not what I DO.
> 
> If someone wants to assess my behavior - have at it.
> 
> But targeting me for being a straight white male is a bit much.
> 
> And implying the things I most value in others are:
> - color
> - gender
> - class
> - religion
> 
> That's not me.


MEM, do you honestly not know what the concept of privilege is about? Based on your post, I'm thinking not.

It is not about what we personally value in others or whether or not we are classists or racists, etc. It is not about how hard anyone works (all people may or may not work hard, privilege or not).

Who is "targeting you" for being a straight white male? Do you mean "targeting you" by pointing out your privilege? In what way does knowing you have privilege others do not and having it pointed out "target" you? "Target" you for what?

Meanwhile, "female privilege" is the constant and I mean CONSTANT cry of the RP/MGTOW camp.

Do you think that makes me feel targeted or sorry for myself?

It doesn't.

I know I have privilege. What things happen in my life as a result of this privilege are probably different than what these guys talk about all day (for instance, since I have never raped a schoolboy, I will not get to use my privilege of having a lighter sentence than a male rapist). Yet I do still know where my privilege lies. And I do my best to acknowledge where people are less privileged. To do otherwise is just cruel or ignorant of the struggles others have.

My black, disabled, impoverished, trans or gay friends and relatives do not have as much privilege as I do and this is obvious to me. Rather than rub their noses in the sh*t they already live in and mock them and tell them that THEY actually have more privilege than I do...I try to share my privilege in whatever way I can, to uplift them, protect them if possible, get them jobs at my company, give money at times (to family and friends in need), or generally build them up and be supportive in their struggles if that's all I can offer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GusPolinski said:


> To which specific privileges and rights are you referring?


I wrote them out in a list on a later post.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Can I be a BEAUTIFUL thetan, please oh please?
> 
> And can I be smart too? Really smart. Cause I've been told that helps one navigate through the complex N dimensional environment within which we live.....
> 
> And ummm - if it's ok - can I be ambitious too? Because that sure seems helpful.....
> 
> In that list of all that stuff that is so very, very important, turns out that BEAUTY, like intelligence and ambition is listed under the category 'other'.
> 
> How bout this. I get to be: beautiful, smart and ambitious and you can then map me into any other set of categories in terms of - race, gender and social class.
> 
> We'll see who ends up with the most toys.
> 
> Race, gender and social class matter the most - interesting.
> 
> In that list - *intelligence, ambition and beauty* don't even make the core list.


Yeah, I'd take those 3, and bet on them every time. Add sanity. It really matters. But maybe that goes with ambition...

Someone forgot to tell this guy about his White Male Privilege










Remember Gents, this is what happens when you lose your White Male Privilege Card. Do NOT ever let it out of your sight. And make sure your Wife never finds it. We all know that results in immediate revocation; and you'll be S.O.L.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> My main issue with this stuff is that it's based on WHAT I AM. And not what I DO.
> 
> If someone wants to assess my behavior - have at it.
> 
> But targeting me for being a straight white male is a bit much.
> 
> And implying the things I most value in others are:
> - color
> - gender
> - class
> - religion
> 
> That's not me.


I think it is the rich more than anyone who have privilege. Addressing income inequality would help.

And it could unite rather than divide people who feel unfairly treated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

naiveonedave said:


> there has to be a reason why this totally reversed course over the past 40 years. Few male teachers, no recess, expectation to be quiet and still in class all hurt the boys,.


Again this is not the experience my family is having. There would be equal numbers if not more male teachers at their school, there is recess and lunch break, they can climb tress, go across the road to the parklands or the local shops, they are encouraged to participate in class discussions and there is not a sit still expectation.

Maybe more effort needs to be put into choosing the schools you send your kids to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, I'd take those 3, and bet on them every time. Add sanity. It really matters. But maybe that goes with ambition...
> 
> Someone forgot to tell this guy about his White Male Privilege


National Coalition for the Homeless

According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population).

Veterans make up approximately one-third of the male homeless population. Among this population about 46% are white, 56% are African-American or Latino (Department of Veteran Affairs, 2005).


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
Yes I do. 

And what I see looks like one of those tourist maps where the locale in question is WILDLY out of scale with the rest of the geography on the map. 

When a group has a legitimate grievance it can and should raise that and make it visible. 

But here - this is the reverse approach. This is folks telling me that I quite literally am unwelcome to participate in the process because my white priviledge makes me blind to ..... Fill in the blank.

These folks are doing a hell of a job giving the impression that 'I'm the problem' as opposed to addressing the specifics of what they want. 





Faithful Wife said:


> MEM, do you honestly not know what the concept of privilege is about? Based on your post, I'm thinking not.
> 
> It is not about what we personally value in others or whether or not we are classists or racists, etc. It is not about how hard anyone works (all people may or may not work hard, privilege or not).
> 
> Who is "targeting you" for being a straight white male? Do you mean "targeting you" by pointing out your privilege? In what way does knowing you have privilege others do not and having it pointed out "target" you? "Target" you for what?
> 
> Meanwhile, "female privilege" is the constant and I mean CONSTANT cry of the RP/MGTOW camp.
> 
> Do you think that makes me feel targeted or sorry for myself?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> I know I have privilege. What things happen in my life as a result of this privilege are probably different than what these guys talk about all day (for instance, since I have never raped a schoolboy, I will not get to use my privilege of having a lighter sentence than a male rapist). Yet I do still know where my privilege lies. And I do my best to acknowledge where people are less privileged. To do otherwise is just cruel or ignorant of the struggles others have.
> 
> My black, disabled, impoverished, trans or gay friends and relatives do not have as much privilege as I do and this is obvious to me. Rather than rub their noses in the sh*t they already live in and mock them and tell them that THEY actually have more privilege than I do...I try to share my privilege in whatever way I can, to uplift them, protect them if possible, get them jobs at my company, give money at times (to family and friends in need), or generally build them up and be supportive in their struggles if that's all I can offer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> Yes I do.
> 
> And what I see looks like one of those tourist maps where the locale in question is WILDLY out of scale with the rest of the geography on the map.
> 
> When a group has a legitimate grievance it can and should raise that and make it visible.
> 
> But here - this is the reverse approach. This is *folks* telling me that I quite literally am unwelcome to participate in the *process* because my white priviledge makes me blind to ..... Fill in the blank.
> 
> These folks are doing a hell of a job giving the impression that *'I'm the problem'* as opposed to addressing the specifics of what they want.


What "folks"?

What "process"?

What "problem" are these "folks" giving you the impression that you are?


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> And implying the things I most value in others are:
> - color
> - gender
> - class
> - religion
> 
> That's not me.


Also....based on this...I kinda still don't think you do understand what privilege is. Otherwise, you would know it is not about what "you value".


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> National Coalition for the Homeless
> 
> According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population).
> 
> Veterans make up approximately one-third of the male homeless population. Among this population about 46% are white, 56% are African-American or Latino (Department of Veteran Affairs, 2005).


You got me FW. Because we all know that most White Men would rather die than lose their White Male Privilege® which as I said above, would be revoked. That's why they make up 70% of suicides. Death before dishonor!

By the way, Non-Hispanic Whites make up 63% of the population, not 76%. That means White males are ~31% of the US Population.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> You got me FW. Because we all know that most White Men would rather die than lose their White Male Privilege® which as I said above, would be revoked. That's why they make up 70% of suicides. Death before dishonor!
> 
> By the way, Non-Hispanic Whites make up 63% of the population, not 76%. That means White males are ~31% of the US Population.


Yes, you'll always have to try to find some way to prove that you have no privilege apparently. It just couldn't possibly be true that you do have some, right?

Meanwhile, you'll be happy to tell me and every other female all about our privilege, yeah?

As I have said a few times now, I own my privilege because I *know* it is there. Too bad you can't do the same.


----------



## ocotillo

HugePenis said:


> In the spirit of this MGTOW love fest:


LOL

There's two basic approaches you can take to mgtow. You can take the approach that arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh takes to feminism (And I hope I don't have to explain how wrong-headed that is...) 

Or

You can try to understand how social discontent erupts into pimples and then festers into boils. Mgtow (IMHO) has been given far too much ammunition and nobody seems to want to stop.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, you'll always have to try to find some way to prove that you have no privilege apparently. It just couldn't possibly be true that you do have some, right?
> 
> Meanwhile, you'll be happy to tell me and every other female all about our privilege, yeah?
> 
> As I have said a few times now, I own my privilege because I *know* it is there. Too bad you can't do the same.


You might have a case to make, if you were arguing that as a white man, the Justice system will go easier on me than if I were a black man accused of the same crime. But I'd like to see something that compares similarly dressed / mannered people of different colors, so we can actually discern between privilege and behavior. Because, I've a feeling the Justice System isn't very nice to white trash, just like it's not nice to black gangsters. 

But, I'm at a loss for any other privilege. I'd be glad to be enlightened. What about my birth makes me better than everyone else? I like the idea of my superiority, and I'd be glad to print off your endorsement, to rub in the faces of all and sundry. But I don't believe I was born better. I chose to be better.

The problem with the concept of privilege as advertised is it completely ignores how much things like etiquette, kindness, thrift, ambition, intelligence, dress, courage, temperance, prudence and other things you can actually control to a degree, play into peoples lives. It reduces people to caricatures. White Men have Privilege®. Black men are victims of the evil White Patriarchy® and it's oppression. By subscribing to this nonsense, you end up proposing very racist and sexist ideas. 

The difference between the discussions we've had about some of my and others' objections is that we don't view it as an inherent trait. Women aren't "privileged" by virtue of their birth as a woman. It is the choices of people, to prop up an unjust system that is complained about. Women merely act within the system. And none could blame them. 

Not women as being women. The actions of people, especially trends of behavior among large groups, is what we criticize. Not their birth.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
It's fairly obvious you are confused. I'll do my level best to help straighten you out. 

1. You tell me I'm part of the privileged ruling class - which is true enough. 
2. You then proceed to list the most critical elements of priviledge: see by definition those things are only critical if the ruling class deems them so.

So yeah when you define those elements as the most critical, what you mean is that the gate keepers to the ruling party use those filters to decide who to admit/reject. 

Except those aren't my core values. Nor those of my colleagues and peers. 

So yes - those sociologists ARE trying to speak for us. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Also....based on this...I kinda still don't think you do understand what privilege is. Otherwise, you would know it is not about what "you value".


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> It's fairly obvious you are confused. I'll do my level best to help straighten you out.
> 
> 1. *You* tell me I'm part of the privileged ruling class - which is true enough.
> 2. *You* then proceed to list the most critical elements of priviledge: see by definition those things are only critical if the ruling class deems them so.
> 
> So yeah when *you define those elements as the most critical*, what *you mean* is that the gate keepers to the ruling party use those filters to decide who to admit/reject.
> 
> Except those aren't my core values. Nor those of my colleagues and peers.
> 
> So yes - *those sociologists* ARE trying to speak for *us*.


Still confused. Do you think *I* personally have listed the most critical elements of privilege? You think *I* define those elements? You think *I* have decided who the gate keepers are?

Or you think "those sociologists" are the ones who have defined these things? 

And also just one more time...privilege is not about what *your* core values are. I still am not sure you understand the concept since you keep repeating this. Privilege does not mean YOU are a racist, YOU do not value things properly, YOU owe people stuff, or anything else. Privilege describes how society treats and values (or doesn't value) YOU, not how you treat others.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Not women as being women. The actions of people, especially trends of behavior among large groups, is what we criticize. Not their birth.


Gee that's news to me, since the actions of women AND how they abuse their female privilege is what is constantly discussed by RP/MGTOW types. Not saying you are one of those, but I am saying you've spent quite a bit of time talking about female privilege and women's actions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> You might have a case to make, if you were arguing that as a white man, the Justice system will go easier on me than if I were a black man accused of the same crime. *But I'd like to see something that compares similarly dressed / mannered people of different colors, so we can actually discern between privilege and behavior. Because, I've a feeling the Justice System isn't very nice to white trash, just like it's not nice to black gangsters.*
> 
> But, I'm at a loss for any other privilege. I'd be glad to be enlightened. What about my birth makes me better than everyone else? I like the idea of my superiority, and I'd be glad to print off your endorsement, to rub in the faces of all and sundry. But I don't believe I was born better. I chose to be better.
> 
> The problem with the concept of privilege as advertised is it completely ignores how much things like etiquette, kindness, thrift, ambition, intelligence, dress, courage, temperance, prudence and other things you can actually control to a degree, play into peoples lives. It reduces people to caricatures. White Men have Privilege®. Black men are victims of the evil White Patriarchy® and it's oppression. By subscribing to this nonsense, you end up proposing very racist and sexist ideas.
> 
> The difference between the discussions we've had about some of my and others' objections is that we don't view it as an inherent trait. Women aren't "privileged" by virtue of their birth as a woman. It is the choices of people, to prop up an unjust system that is complained about. Women merely act within the system. And none could blame them.
> 
> Not women as being women. The actions of people, especially trends of behavior among large groups, is what we criticize. Not their birth.


In reading this again, you don't apparently understand the concept, either. Privilege has nothing to do with YOUR individual values, work ethic, natural talents or ideas. 

Privilege has to do with how the world treats YOU based on what groups you are in, those groups usually being things you had/have no control over, at least at your birth (or at the time of being disabled, or becoming one of the under privileged groups). Privilege does not mean you are better than others, it means the world treats you better than others who don't have those privileges which are typically not things they can control.

You are thinking of the word as in the casual way of saying it, like "it has been my privilege to work with you, sir" or "I feel so privileged to have been given this national merit scholarship!"

That is not the same meaning of the word and the two meanings should not be combined when having this type of discussion.

But since you don't already know that....I don't see how you can actually discuss this topic until you understand it.

In knowing this, it is easy to see why you would say so many things in the above post that don't make sense.

One can be very privileged in the sociological sense yet be a total dirtbag, or be the nicest guy you know. He or she could be smarter than Bill Gates or dumber than a rock. He or she could be ethical or a scoundrel.

Do you get it now? I'm hoping so. Otherwise, its ok, the conversation is futile without an actual understanding of the terminology so I'll step out of this topic.

And btw, there is plenty of research that shows exactly who gets better treatment in the courts based on color, self presentation and economic background. Guess who comes out on top and who comes out on the bottom in every single study? You can easily find such studies yourself if you were open to the truth about these matters. But nah, there's no such thing as white privilege. What a nice fairy tale, I suppose.


----------



## Catherine602

There is no problem with relationships between men and women except the normal resistance by the previous generations to cultural change. In one generation, we have experienced more cultural change than at any time in history. Successful adaptation is up to the generations to come. Fortunately, humans have the flexibility to successfully adapt and change. Children who have parents that are flexible enough to adapt to change, will be the most successful. 

My husband and I concentrate on instilling values in our children that we believe will prepare them for an optimal life in our culture as it is now. We do it by example not just talk. I was influenced more by how my parents behaved than by what they said. The way they treated people, my fathers work ethic, their participation in my education and their positive adaptation to the changes in our culture. I was also influence by my peers. 

I don't think children are done a service by having a father who rails against women. It is more adaptive to figure out how to fit values into the existing culture and behave accordingly. Behave in a respectful way towards all people. What do boys internalize from the bitterness and anger they observe in their father? They may emulate their fathers behavior and attract peers that reenforce their feelings. The extent to which they act on those feelings will determine the course of their lives. In our culture, hostility towards women is considered maladaptive.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> Stop what?


It's fairly obvious that there is a malaise among young men today. (I can elaborate) They're not just mad at women, they're mad at men my age for not dying and opening up jobs for them, (As even a brief purview of Reddit and other social media shows) so I have an iron in this fire too. 

I've not agreed with the mgtow viewpoint. I've said it's misogyny. I've said that most of it is out beyond Pluto. I've strongly disagreed with the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations. It is a distortion of how human societies work.

But as one of the (apparently few) people on this thread with an active interest in sociology, I also seek to understand it.





FrenchFry said:


> Oh, and work on not ****ting on your allies.


Nobody is "sinless" here. I pointed out (On the other thread) that as a young boy in the 1960's I was exposed to a steady stream of bile and misdirected anger from a series of young, idealistic feminist teachers with a chip on their shoulder. It wasn't fun. 

Nobel Laureate, Doris Lessing acknowledged this phenomenon and condemned it for the idiocy it was, but try getting a gender warrior today to acknowledge it. You might as well try to reason with a Scientologist.... 

So in answer to your opening question, I would say, Quit being baited into validating their viewpoint.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> Baiting how?


Like I alluded to in the comment that you responded to, Rush Limbaugh was fond of saying that feminists, "..are ugly, overweight women who can't get dates" and that the only thing they hated more than men were "..women that men wanted to date"

This was a dirty trick to anger women into calling in and saying things that they probably would not have said in a calmer state of mind. He would then play the recording over and over to make feminists look bad. If I remember correctly, some of that stuff was even in his rejoinder music. 

I understand that a lot of the mgtow stuff is hard to stomach. I understand that it's offensives. Seriously, I do. But responding to them at a personal level [i.e. As Rush Limbaugh responded to feminists] validates their worldview. They don't just subscribe to the "80/20" rule. With them, it's more like 95/5. 

Or take privilege for example. Social inequality is a valid concept that sociologists generally agree on. But when someone on an internet forum says, "Tell *me* how *I'm* privileged" you are being invited to cross a line that sociologist don't cross themselves. Sociology also acknowledges the relative differences within groups (Antisemetism among whites being one of several examples) and you don't know what those difference might be on an internet forum.

Am I making any sense here at all?


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> You got me FW. Because we all know that most White Men would rather die than lose their White Male Privilege® which as I said above, would be revoked. That's why they make up 70% of suicides. Death before dishonor!
> 
> By the way, Non-Hispanic Whites make up 63% of the population, not 76%. That means White males are ~31% of the US Population.


By the way, what percentage of the homeless is Non-Hispanic white females, compared to their percentage of the population? Surely they must be way over-represented among the homeless due to their lack of privilege!


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
You're the one just listed all those key areas that you are privileged in. By definition you've bought into this nonsense. 

And you aren't disagreeing with SGC's prioritized list which doesn't even note beauty, brains and ambition. 

Hey it's ok. You're entitled to engage in - well - I don't have a polite term for this stuff - so I'll just say you're entitled to whatever viewpoint you want. 

And like most folks with an over abundance of zeal - you mistake my rejection of this philosophy as a lack of comprehension. 

I understand it just fine. Just find it ugly and lame. 

I know it's not PC to say so but unequal outcomes are not de facto proof of discrimination. Nobodies discriminating against white boys and yet black men are over represented in the NBA by sixfold in proportion to their share of the general population. 

Pure meritocracy. Six fold over representation. There are situations where blacks are fully and also one where they are under represented. 

Funny thing to - instead of being filled with resentment at those black chaps tearing up the court at an average of $5 million USD per year, I'm instead filled with admiration. 

They didn't get their via black priviledge any more than Stern became commissioner way back when because he was white or Jewish. They all got there via intense effort and discipline coupled with ADVANTAGES, not priviledges. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Still confused. Do you think *I* personally have listed the most critical elements of privilege? You think *I* define those elements? You think *I* have decided who the gate keepers are?
> 
> Or you think "those sociologists" are the ones who have defined these things?
> 
> And also just one more time...privilege is not about what *your* core values are. I still am not sure you understand the concept since you keep repeating this. Privilege does not mean YOU are a racist, YOU do not value things properly, YOU owe people stuff, or anything else. Privilege describes how society treats and values (or doesn't value) YOU, not how you treat others.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> You're the one just listed all those key areas that you are privileged in. By definition you've bought into this nonsense.
> 
> And you aren't disagreeing with SGC's prioritized list which doesn't even note beauty, brains and ambition.
> 
> Hey it's ok. You're entitled to engage in - well - I don't have a polite term for this stuff - so I'll just say you're entitled to whatever viewpoint you want.
> 
> And like most folks with an over abundance of zeal - you mistake my rejection of this philosophy as a lack of comprehension.
> 
> I understand it just fine. Just find it ugly and lame.
> 
> I know it's not PC to say so but unequal outcomes are not de facto proof of discrimination. Nobodies discriminating against white boys and yet black men are over represented in the NBA by sixfold in proportion to their share of the general population.
> 
> Pure meritocracy. Six fold over representation. There are situations where blacks are fully and also one where they are under represented.
> 
> Funny thing to - instead of being filled with resentment at those black chaps tearing up the court at an average of $5 million USD per year, I'm instead filled with admiration.
> 
> They didn't get their via black priviledge any more than Stern became commissioner way back when because he was white or Jewish. They all got there via intense effort and discipline coupled with ADVANTAGES, not priviledges.


QFT.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MEM11363 said:


> And you aren't disagreeing with SGC's prioritized list which doesn't even note beauty, brains and ambition.
> 
> .


It's not my list, it's a buzzfeed quiz, it's just a simple way to look at privilege. It also oesn't say it's listed based on priority. 

It DOES have, and I already mentioned it, beauty and intelligence.


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> It's fairly obvious that there is a malaise among young men today. (I can elaborate) They're not just mad at women, they're mad at men my age for not dying and opening up jobs for them, (As even a brief purview of Reddit and other social media shows) so I have an iron in this fire too.
> 
> I've not agreed with the mgtow viewpoint. I've said it's misogyny. I've said that most of it is out beyond Pluto. I've strongly disagreed with the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations. It is a distortion of how human societies work.
> 
> But as one of the (apparently few) people on this thread with an active interest in sociology, I also seek to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "sinless" here. I pointed out (On the other thread) that as a young boy in the 1960's I was exposed to a steady stream of bile and misdirected anger from a series of young, idealistic feminist teachers with a chip on their shoulder. It wasn't fun.
> 
> Nobel Laureate, Doris Lessing acknowledged this phenomenon and condemned it for the idiocy it was, but try getting a gender warrior today to acknowledge it. You might as well try to reason with a Scientologist....
> 
> So in answer to your opening question, I would say, Quit being baited into validating their viewpoint.


I teach adults in their early to late 20's. We take in 10 residents per year and the program is 3 yrs in duration. Each class forms a cohesive group. They socialize together, room together on trips, and work together with their studies. The faculty take them to dinner and have them over to our homes occasionally. If there was the hostility and malaise among the men, I would see it but I don't. 

The problems I have are with some of my middle aged male colleagues. The most problems are with the oldest men. They are not hostile, just not accustomed to working with women. This is in contrast to men in their 30 and 40's who I interact with extensively. A few are friends. 

I think I can explain why we feel differently. The world of the internet does not represent RL. You can search for and find blogs and internet groups for even the most obscure feelings. So much so that you may think that they represent the general population. I don't know your circumstances but if you had contact in RL with a cross-section of men in the youthful demographic, you would change your outlook. 

These people are self-selected. If you used TAM to characterize relationships between men and women, what would you conclude?


----------



## Thundarr

This thread is a portrait of harmony and understanding among the genders.

MGTOW is a natural landing spot for men who need to figure things out. I gave up on marriage and long term relationships in general after my first marriage ended because I figured if I couldn't fix the first marriage then I wouldn't fix the next one either.

But MGTOW land is different. It's a place where men don't think they have to be in a relationship. They like who they are, can raise their kids, can be a good friend, can be a good person, can have personal boundaries, and can be happy.

It seems like many MGTOW men are what women are looking for and they are available.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> I think I can explain why we feel differently. The world of the internet does not represent RL.


Gee Catherine. You make me sound like an arm-chair Googler without an inkling of observational bias.

Where should we start? Two women on this thread have asserted that girls are outperforming boys academically. Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Thundarr said:


> It seems like many MGTOW men are what women are looking for and they are available.


Women go for guys with good attitudes, respect, maturity. Any man who thinks the way MGTOW guys thinks about women has nothing to offer any of us.

There is a big difference between men who don't just don't care for marriage (totally fine), men who want a woman who can support herself (totally fine) and these creeps who think disgusting things about women, our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends, and blanket us into stereotypical groups because they are hurt and angry.

The whole reason behind WHY they are "going their own way" is their problem why they would never get a woman who actually wanted them. No one can attract a good woman with the attitudes that they have. 
Would you date a woman who thought all men were pigs and users and would just cheat on you anyway because they are animals who can't keep it in their pants? 
Would you think that woman has a lot to offer any man?

No one is against any man choosing not to marry. It's the insulting an entire gender that results in this kind of backlash.


----------



## GusPolinski

ocotillo said:


> Gee Catherine. You make me sound like an arm-chair Googler without an inkling of observational bias.
> 
> Where should we start? Two women on this thread have asserted that girls are outperforming boys academically. Do you agree or disagree?


I seem to recall reading that they do in certain age groups. Hell, maybe all of them. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me.

Though day-to-day life isn't as savage as it once was in much of the world, there are still remnants of a warrior culture to be found in many modern societies. As such, many young males are encouraged to pursue athletic interests, even to the detriment of their studies.

And it's true that -- generally speaking, anyway -- girls do mature faster than boys, which is to say that they reach certain milestones sooner than boys do. By the time they're in their pre-teens and teens, though, I'd imagine that they're on somewhat even footing... which is to say that they're ALL crazy. LOL.


----------



## tech-novelist

Thundarr said:


> This thread is a portrait of harmony and understanding among the genders.
> 
> MGTOW is a natural landing spot for men who need to figure things out. I gave up on marriage and long term relationships in general after my first marriage ended because I figured if I couldn't fix the first marriage then I wouldn't fix the next one either.
> 
> But MGTOW land is different. It's a place where men don't think they have to be in a relationship. They like who they are, can raise their kids, can be a good friend, can be a good person, can have personal boundaries, and can be happy.
> 
> It seems like many MGTOW men are what women are looking for and they are available.


Are you serious? I don't think so, but I could be wrong...


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> I wrote them out in a list on a later post.


Read it a little while ago. What I noted was mostly a lack of disadvantage, which doesn't quite equate to privilege.

Not in my book, anyway.


----------



## Thundarr

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Women go for guys with good attitudes, respect, maturity. Any man who thinks the way MGTOW guys thinks about women has nothing to offer any of us.
> 
> There is a big difference between men who don't just don't care for marriage (totally fine), men who want a woman who can support herself (totally fine) and these creeps who think disgusting things about women, our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends, and blanket us into stereotypical groups because they are hurt and angry.
> 
> The whole reason behind WHY they are "going their own way" is their problem why they would never get a woman who actually wanted them. No one can attract a good woman with the attitudes that they have.
> Would you date a woman who thought all men were pigs and users and would just cheat on you anyway because they are animals who can't keep it in their pants?
> Would you think that woman has a lot to offer any man?
> 
> No one is against any man choosing not to marry. It's the insulting an entire gender that results in this kind of backlash.


There are women haters in MGTOW I'm sure. But the message of *"men who go there own way"* is appealing to a lot of guys who are transitioning from boys and becoming men. They don't necessarily buy into to the fringe haters that are there as well.

So my thoughts are, bash the haters but not the message that has been hi-jacked by the haters.


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> Are you serious? I don't think so, but I could be wrong...


Lol I don't know if I'm serious. It depends on which part of the comment you're pondering about. No this thread isn't very understanding or nice. Yes MGTOW doesn't have to be a curse word.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry:



FrenchFry said:


> I have never seen a MGTOW be niced by women into changing his mind.


There is a big, big difference between being "nice" and engaging in very obvious rhetorical fallacies. Attack the idea. Leave the person and their attractiveness (Or lack thereof) alone. 

On a more general note though, I do agree with you. You can't undo the damage once it's been done. (Which is why we should stop.) 

I would never be able to convince Gloria Steinem that the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations is faulty. She's written too much and spoken too much at this point to ever retract it. 





FrenchFry said:


> Radical feminists didn't change their mind. They fell into irrelevancy by their own shrieking and refusal to come up with actual solutions to actual societal problems while moderate feminists and their allies passed legislation and made social progress.


I don't completely agree. The zealots of any movement eventually define it. They are the ones who write books, do studies and get papers published. Normal people have better things to do. 

My oldest taught a course on gender bias in language. She couldn't stomach the toxic environment at the university and had to transfer out. And this was not that long ago. Radical feminism is still alive and well. 




FrenchFry said:


> MGTOWs, if they stay isolated and angry.....will be entertainment for people and be outrage fuel while those who are actually affecting change will continue to do so.


Let's hope so. The best thing that could happen is for this to be only a flash in the pan.


----------



## tech-novelist

Thundarr said:


> Lol I don't know if I'm serious. It depends on which part of the comment you're pondering about. No this thread isn't very understanding or nice. Yes MGTOW doesn't have to be a curse word.


So part was serious and part not serious. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> So part was serious and part not serious. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!


To clarify, I figured it would be obvious that the following snippet was sarcastic based on the back and forth prior.
_This thread is a portrait of harmony and understanding among the genders._

The rest about MGTOW not being a terrible thing was my sincere opinion.


----------



## ocotillo

slowlygoingcrazy said:


> no one is against any man choosing not to marry. It's the insulting an entire gender that results in this kind of backlash.


qft


----------



## MEM2020

The entire structure is intended to gauge the degree to which you self perceive as a victim. 

And by treating all the answers as having equivalent weight it massively dilutes the short list of core attributes that drive a typical person's life experience. 

Besides the question are you physically attractive - doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. 

The way this questionnaire is designed is to identify situations where you were mistreated for one reason or another. 

Beauty creates its own reality distortion field. It's own priviledge. A beautiful but otherwise average woman can marry way up. 

Not so easy for a beatiful but otherwise average man.

So yes - in an analysis of priviledge - skipped right over an area that has a bigger positive impact for females than males. 








SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's not my list, it's a buzzfeed quiz, it's just a simple way to look at privilege. It also oesn't say it's listed based on priority.
> 
> It DOES have, and I already mentioned it, beauty and intelligence.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> The post below is in my persona as a fellow contributor NOT as a mod.
> 
> The sort of comical aspect to that Priviledge-O-Meter sort of goes like this.
> 
> Most successful/powerful white guys have either a long term GF or a wife who shares in all the privilege but doesn't have to navigate the buffet of shlt sandwiches required to become and remain successful.
> 
> By the way - for a moment I'll pick on Melinda Gates. I have a lot of respect for her. She is genuinely a woman of substance and is absolutely instrumental in the Gates foundations effort to transform Africa. That said, she is a multi billionaire solely courtesy of marriage. This path to wealth is simply not available to most men yet given the current demographics of the super rich.
> 
> But I'll come back to that in a minute. How come nobody asked me the following questions in that survey:
> - Have you ever been badly overworked?
> - Have you ever been badly overworked for an extended period of time?
> - Have you experienced any stress related issues due to chronic work stress?
> - Have you ever experienced intense financial stress as the sole breadwinner?
> - Have you been in a situation where you HATED your job but kept doing it to support the family?
> - Have you had extended periods at work where everything was going to shlt but you had to pretend otherwise?
> 
> Most highly successful folks are disciplined and hard working.
> 
> It only looks 'easy' from the outside.


It's kind of hard to see white male privilege if you're a white male. try being a white ethnic male and see how far you get up the corporate ladder...


----------



## tom67

This kid Ken is recovering from a four year old relationship and is doing great imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgDUeQRCqCM :smile2:


----------



## MEM2020

John,

My direct boss was born in the US. He was the son of two Turkish immigrants and was VERY dark skinned. 

Handsome, charismatic, intelligent and ambitious, he blew past any built in bias folks had against him. Terrific boss. 

He only cared about performance. Tim - ran development for us. He had just completed a difficult milestone on schedule. 

Boss: let's do something nice for Tim
Me: you already have an idea
Boss: a paid for 3 day getaway with his wife
Me: tiny shake of my head
Boss: girlfriend?
Me: boyfriend 
Boss: Well let's hope they have nice weather on their trip

How can you not love a guy like that. 




john117 said:


> It's kind of hard to see white male privilege if you're a white male. try being a white ethnic male and see how far you get up the corporate ladder...


----------



## john117

Anecdotal evidence isn't, MEM...

The corporate world is full of white privilege, and the occasional good Turk doesn't change it.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't, MEM...
> 
> The corporate world is full of white privilege, and the occasional good Turk doesn't change it.


I think MEM is just saying that personality plays a part, too. Not every native born white guy is successful in corporate culture, either.

Again, I think addressing income inequality overall would go a ways towards making all people feel treated more fairly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> And like most folks with an over abundance of zeal - you mistake my rejection of this philosophy as a lack of comprehension.
> 
> I understand it just fine. Just find it ugly and lame.


Ok fair enough. 

Question: do you also find it ugly and lame that MGTOW's *and a whole lot of other men around here* talk incessantly about female privilege and how they have been discriminated against and have lost out on opportunities, money, etc. due to females getting all the good stuff?

Or is it normal for men to be hyper-focused on anything they feel they are not treated equal about, yet anyone else wanting equality is actually just wanting "perks"?

Do you see the dilemma in that part of this?

Do you not notice them going on and on and on? 

See, when I'm saying I wish there was less social injustice, I'm not also crying about how much someone has taken away from me. I'm actually talking about groups who don't have as much privilege as I do and how I wish there was equality across the board. Even though I could point out plenty of ways that I personally was given no breaks and have worked my whole life and had no hand outs and no man has ever paid my way and blah blah blah...I don't bother saying those things because I'm not mired in self-pity. I'm more concerned about other groups who have it much much worse than I do.

But your boys who are so furious on this thread really ONLY want to talk about the inequality where women apparently constantly threaten, remove or reduce men's rights and how these same poor men are constantly down-trodden by women.

So...is that ugly and lame to discuss here as well? Do you also reject THEIR philosophy, where only men are downtrodden, versus other groups being downtrodden as well? Or are you in the camp who seems to think that white men are the most disadvantaged group of people anywhere, ever and therefore, you support THEIR constant discussion of said rights violations?


----------



## Dycedarg

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No one is against any man choosing not to marry. It's the insulting an entire gender that results in this kind of backlash.


Well, I'd have to agree but probably not in the way most would like. The first page of this thread is filled with insults, and they're not even presented in a helpful or constructive manner.

The author started a thread on an admittedly controversial topic, and from the getgo people opened fire. 

You don't have to insult an entire gender, or even a single person in order to receive some nasty backlash. I introduced myself over in the divorce threads and was accosted for politely sharing my life and philosophy. Other divorced people were, ironically, telling me that the reason I was divorced was because of my worldview. 

You don't have to insult anyone. All you have to do is have a differing opinion or worse, point out something wrong with theirs, and you will be marked for annihilation.


----------



## tech-novelist

Dycedarg said:


> Well, I'd have to agree but probably not in the way most would like. The first page of this thread is filled with insults, and they're not even presented in a helpful or constructive manner.
> 
> The author started a thread on an admittedly controversial topic, and from the getgo people opened fire.
> 
> You don't have to insult an entire gender, or even a single person in order to receive some nasty backlash. I introduced myself over in the divorce threads and was accosted for politely sharing my life and philosophy. Other divorced people were, ironically, telling me that the reason I was divorced was because of my worldview.
> 
> You don't have to insult anyone. All you have to do is have a differing opinion or worse, point out something wrong with theirs, and you will be marked for annihilation.


Exactly.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think MEM is just saying that personality plays a part, too. Not every native born white guy is successful in corporate culture, either.
> 
> Again, I think addressing income inequality overall would go a ways towards making all people feel treated more fairly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


MEM's falling for the good ole availability heuristic. He has no idea what it is to be a qualified non privileged person in the tech world. 

Wifey and I have a combined 60 years as such. When you receive "looks" and get passed over year after year...

Only superb education is the answer. Why do you think we went back to college at age 35?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MEM11363 said:


> The entire structure is intended to gauge the degree to which you self perceive as a victim.
> 
> And by treating all the answers as having equivalent weight it massively dilutes the short list of core attributes that drive a typical person's life experience.
> 
> Besides the question are you physically attractive - doesn't really get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> The way this questionnaire is designed is to identify situations where you were mistreated for one reason or another.
> 
> Beauty creates its own reality distortion field. It's own priviledge. A beautiful but otherwise average woman can marry way up.
> 
> Not so easy for a beatiful but otherwise average man.
> 
> So yes - in an analysis of priviledge - skipped right over an area that has a bigger positive impact for females than males.


It's buzzfeed, it's a dumbed down list. I had 3 links I was going back and forth about posting but picked it because it's just quick, simple. Based on the lack of understanding - or IMO the seemingly lack of even wanting to understand- I decided a listed basic set was the way to go vs. the long, essay type answer. 


You call them advantages, they (not me and FW, the people who studied this) call them privileges. It's the same thing when it comes down to it. 

When I was first being told of privileges it stung me. Here I was an ex-homeless ex-drug addict teen Mother and you're going to tell me I am privileged? So I get the initial reactions that we see on this thread. It's like being told that you never struggled, that nothing you did was because of your own hard work but that's not the case and that's not what it means. 

I can have respect for the people who have had more struggles, I can understand that we don't all start out on an equal playing field, I can see that poor households, minority race households, people with physical disabilities, homosexual couples - face things that I have the privilege of never having to. I can be humble to that.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> MEM's falling for the good ole availability heuristic. He has no idea what it is to be a qualified non privileged person in the tech world.
> 
> Wifey and I have a combined 60 years as such. When you receive "looks" and get passed over year after year...
> 
> Only superb education is the answer. Why do you think we went back to college at age 35?


You are saying that being a native born white male got MEM's foot in the door, correct?

That is huge. Not everyone gets that chance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Getting the foot in the door is relatively easy. It's what happens afterwards that shows the privileged classes in all their glory...

I'm not saying its impossible to crack the code, just a bit more difficult than one would like.

After 19 years dealing with the exact same people its not too difficult to spot privilege.


----------



## jld

I really think coming from money and personality, both, matter.

My sil is gay (my sister's partner). Her dad was a doctor, owned a clinic. She is a very positive, optimistic person who did well in the corporate world. My sister is doing well in real estate. They have a great life together.

What you come from and what you do with it both matter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

john117 said:


> MEM's falling for the good ole availability heuristic. He has no idea what it is to be a qualified non privileged person in the tech world.
> 
> Wifey and I have a combined 60 years as such. When you receive "looks" and get passed over year after year...
> 
> Only superb education is the answer. Why do you think we went back to college at age 35?


It is impossible to look at an individual situation and claim there is or there is not white privilege.

I would refer to the Jon Stewart / Bill O'Reilly debate (Rumble2012) when Jon Stewart remarks on Bill O'Reilly's childhood in subsidized housings. While O'Reilly's dad had access to it, black Americans were not allowed in. This racist policy is one of the major contributor of asset differences between black and whites today.

This is an example of white privilege.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

GusPolinski said:


> Read it a little while ago. What I noted was mostly a lack of disadvantage, which doesn't quite equate to privilege.
> 
> Not in my book, anyway.


It isn't my book. I did not define or create this concept.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't my book. I did not define or create this concept.


FW:

You are a bit too vocal and empassioned to sidestep.

Have you read Johns "Ink and Tentacles" posts or something?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

John, you don't think just getting a foot in the door is already a great opportunity?

I agree that what comes after that is revealing and challenging. What an intense game to play.

You have certainly done well for yourself, native born or not, John. You should be proud of that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> FW:
> 
> You are a bit too vocal and empassioned to sidestep.
> 
> Have you read Johns "Ink and Tentacles" posts or something?


No I don't know what posts of john's you are talking about.

Also not sure what you mean by sidestep. Gus had implied that I had listed my privileges as a declaration of my own that these things are privileges, but I was only stating which ones applied to me from the lists of privilege that sociologists have come up with when they created and studied these topics.


----------



## naiveonedave

Holland said:


> Again this is not the experience my family is having. There would be equal numbers if not more male teachers at their school, there is recess and lunch break, they can climb tress, go across the road to the parklands or the local shops, they are encouraged to participate in class discussions and there is not a sit still expectation.
> 
> Maybe more effort needs to be put into choosing the schools you send your kids to.


your post is almost funny given actual statistics: Fast Facts

You don't get many choices on where you send your kids to school. My kids schools are easily top 10% nationally, but the only male staff in the elementary school was the principle and the gym teacher. Better in middle school and HS.


----------



## naiveonedave

MEM11363 said:


> I know it's not PC to say so but unequal outcomes are not de facto proof of discrimination. Nobodies discriminating against white boys and yet black men are over represented in the NBA by sixfold in proportion to their share of the general population.
> 
> Pure meritocracy. Six fold over representation. There are situations where blacks are fully and also one where they are under represented.
> 
> 
> They didn't get their via black priviledge any more than Stern became commissioner way back when because he was white or Jewish. They all got there via intense effort and discipline coupled with ADVANTAGES, not priviledges.


I can't like this enough, needs to be stated over and over.


----------



## MEM2020

I guess you missed the posts where I told them that blaming women - as a general strategy was lame.

The whole bit about needing a wife for social achievement. And then how that sane wife would take you to the cleaners.




QUOTE=Faithful Wife;14470930]Ok fair enough. 

Question: do you also find it ugly and lame that MGTOW's *and a whole lot of other men around here* talk incessantly about female privilege and how they have been discriminated against and have lost out on opportunities, money, etc. due to females getting all the good stuff?

Or is it normal for men to be hyper-focused on anything they feel they are not treated equal about, yet anyone else wanting equality is actually just wanting "perks"?

Do you see the dilemma in that part of this?

Do you not notice them going on and on and on? 

See, when I'm saying I wish there was less social injustice, I'm not also crying about how much someone has taken away from me. I'm actually talking about groups who don't have as much privilege as I do and how I wish there was equality across the board. Even though I could point out plenty of ways that I personally was given no breaks and have worked my whole life and had no hand outs and no man has ever paid my way and blah blah blah...I don't bother saying those things because I'm not mired in self-pity. I'm more concerned about other groups who have it much much worse than I do.

But your boys who are so furious on this thread really ONLY want to talk about the inequality where women apparently constantly threaten, remove or reduce men's rights and how these same poor men are constantly down-trodden by women.

So...is that ugly and lame to discuss here as well? Do you also reject THEIR philosophy, where only men are downtrodden, versus other groups being downtrodden as well? Or are you in the camp who seems to think that white men are the most disadvantaged group of people anywhere, ever and therefore, you support THEIR constant discussion of said rights violations?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> I guess you missed the posts where I told them that blaming women - as a general strategy was lame.
> 
> The whole bit about needing a wife for social achievement. And then how that sane wife would take you to the cleaners.


Yes I guess I did miss that post.

Thank you for saying it. I agree it is lame. I'm glad you have the balls to call them out on that. I made it extra big in my quote so they might see it this time. Not that it will make any difference, but I do think that many of the guys here who go on and on with blaming women think that any man who doesn't agree with them is just sucking up to women.


----------



## jld

I remember those posts, MEM. It did seem like you felt things went too far the other way at one point. Is that what happened?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> I guess you missed the posts where I told them that blaming women - as a general strategy was lame.
> 
> The whole bit about needing a wife for social achievement. And then how that *sane *wife would take you to the cleaners.


I hope you meant "same". :surprise:


----------



## naiveonedave

just my opinion:
Where MGTOW is good: points out where men do still get screwed in D. Points out to men that marriage is not mandatory. How education is stacked against men to some extent and is getting worse.

Where MGTOW is bad: lots of mad people there, probably because they got screwed in D or never had success with women.

Most of this thread is a fight between how relevant the 'good' is versus the bad. I see both sides.


----------



## MEM2020

John,
Let me get this straight - a 6,000 ft^2 house in the US and an apartment in Europe, 2 kids in college and you're complaining you got a raw deal? 

Plus - you must be the highest paid person I know on hourly pay. I always wondered about that. You insist on staying hourly to prevent big bad company from squeezing any free hours from you?

If so - ever occur to you that it shows a lack of trust. 






john117 said:


> It's kind of hard to see white male privilege if you're a white male. try being a white ethnic male and see how far you get up the corporate ladder...


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> just my opinion:
> Where MGTOW is good: points out where men do still get screwed in D. Points out to men that marriage is not mandatory. How education is stacked against men to some extent and is getting worse.
> 
> Where MGTOW is bad: lots of mad people there, probably because they got screwed in D or never had success with women.
> 
> Most of this thread is a fight between how relevant the 'good' is versus the bad. I see both sides.


What I have learned from this discussion about MGTOW is that many men are marrying women for other than healthy reasons, and then getting resentful when things don't go as they expected.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I guess I did miss that post.
> 
> Thank you for saying it. I agree it is lame. I'm glad you have the balls to call them out on that. I made it extra big in my quote so they might see it this time. Not that it will make any difference, but I do think that many of the guys here who go on and on with blaming women think that any man who doesn't agree with them is just sucking up to women.


That is the problem with movements like MGTOW, they need an enemy. Women aren't the enemy for their issues. It is current law and application of law and the fact that we are not teaching boys how to be men.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> That is the problem with movements like MGTOW, they need an enemy. Women aren't the enemy for their issues. It is current law and application of law and the fact that we are not teaching boys how to be men.


Not everyone agrees that the law favors women. With "parental alienation" arguments, abusive men have found a way to get custody and have child support paid to them. 

Do courts use a controversial theory to punish mothers who allege abuse? | Al Jazeera America
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> That is the problem with movements like MGTOW, they need an enemy. Women aren't the enemy for their issues. It is current law and application of law and the fact that we are not teaching boys how to be men.


So boys and men are the only group of people who are disadvantaged in life?


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> So boys and men are the only group of people who are disadvantaged in life?


I didn't read that anywhere in his statement, FW. That is mostly (entirely) because it was not anywhere in his post.

Why would you try to get him defend something he did not say rather than just accept his opinion?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Not everyone agrees that the law favors women. With "parental alienation" arguments, abusive men have found a way to get custody and have child support paid to them.
> 
> Do courts use a controversial theory to punish mothers who allege abuse? | Al Jazeera America
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Justice is not 100% infallible. 

All we can do is try to fight for what we believe in.

In this entire thread, JLD, have you acknowledged even once that outcomes frequently favor women in divorce?

Or have you just invalidated the opinion by showing counter arguments?

And in fairness, that article illustrates a travesty. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Justice is not 100% infallible.
> 
> All we can do is try to fight for what we believe in.
> 
> In this entire thread, JLD, have you acknowledged even once that outcomes frequently favor women in divorce?
> 
> Or have you just invalidated the opinion by showing counter arguments?
> 
> And in fairness, that article illustrates a travesty.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I honestly don't know enough about divorce and child custody to say, far. When my sister got divorced, her boys chose to live with their dad. I think they were 9 and 12. 

And yes, using "parental alienation" to be able to continue abusing a child without interference is indeed a travesty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> I didn't read that anywhere in his statement, FW. That is mostly (entirely) because it was not anywhere in his post.
> 
> Why would you try to get him defend something he did not say rather than just accept his opinion?


far...Why don't you just talk to me and say what is on your mind rather than jumping in to defend others from scary little ol' me? What are you really trying to say to me? You can take it to PM, if you want.

If dave wants to reply to my question or get clarification, or if Gus does on the other post, I will converse with them. But I'm asking you (without thread jacking, like I said, lets take it to PM or a new thread) if there's a reason you are engaging me like this when I've not been addressing you. I'm not bugged by it, just curious what you are getting at.


----------



## farsidejunky

FW, I am trying to understand why you take someone's opinion one or two steps farther that they themselves take it, rather than just simply acknowledging and/or debating the point they are actually making.

In fairness, I have been guilty of it too. I am trying very hard to not do it, because it invalidates the original opinion from the person, and it escalates things by leading someone to feel like they are having words put into their mouth.

I understand logically and emotionally how it happens, having done it myself. My question to you is if you know you are doing it, or if it is unconscious. And if you do know that you are doing it, why?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> So boys and men are the only group of people who are disadvantaged in life?


please don't put words in my mouth and get off your high horse. I don't agree with much of the MGTOW, other than D laws still favor women, and men (or women for that matter) should be allowed to go their own way if they choose. 

I also think education of boys in the west is failing to turn them into men, for many reasons (though this is societies issue, not a gender issue.)


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Not everyone agrees that the law favors women. With "parental alienation" arguments, abusive men have found a way to get custody and have child support paid to them.
> 
> Do courts use a controversial theory to punish mothers who allege abuse? | Al Jazeera America
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Seriously JLD - on average, way more men get screwed in D, than women do. It has changed for the better. But one offs don't change the average. I am sure many women have and continue to get screwed in D, but to think that in the US, on *average *men do better is laughable. Quoting al Jazeera is almost funny. Not a politically motivated anti-west group there?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> What I have learned from this discussion about MGTOW is that many men are marrying women for other than healthy reasons, and then getting resentful when things don't go as they expected.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I disagree. People choose their spouses for many reasons. Included in those reasons are picking those who will them meet their life goals. This has gone on forever. It is not unhealthy to pick a mate who will help you get promoted. That you see this as unhealthy cracks me up. They still do arranged marriages all over the world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> how in the heck is being white a privilege? What exactly do you get with that? I mean, I still have to pay for my fries at McD's.
> 
> None of the things you listed, @faithfulwife, are privileges, they are all just stuff you think "may" give you an advantage over others, but they are not privileges.


Here's another post of dave's that also plays into the question I asked him. 

It genuinely confuses me when white people don't understand the privileges they have by simply being white.

It also confuses me very much when white men *seem* to be saying that they have no privilege and further, that they are actually under-privileged. 

Like you dave and like you far, I am entitled to my opinions, right? I've taken a few posts of dave into consideration when I asked him that question. From what I am reading on the post I quoted and others, that dave (among others here) really does think that white men are under-privileged, yet I do not hear dave (amoung others here) saying that he's aware of any other under-privileged group.

Again...to me this is shocking and odd. That's my point. You don't have to care about my point or what I have to say. If you want to criticize the way I say things, um, ok then. I'm not here trying to score friends.

(ETA: far...it isn't totally obvious but this post is in response to your last one to me, just thought I'd make it more clear).


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I honestly don't know enough about divorce and child custody to say, far. When my sister got divorced, her boys chose to live with their dad. I think they were 9 and 12.
> 
> And yes, using "parental alienation" to be able to continue abusing a child without interference is indeed a travesty.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Based on anything published, you sister either got screwed by the system (possible, but abnormal for a woman to not get the kids in the western world) or she was not 'fit'. Since I don't know her, there is no way for me to tell. It is obvious that you are using this one example to 'prove' what is not true.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> John, you don't think just getting a foot in the door is already a great opportunity?
> 
> I agree that what comes after that is revealing and challenging. What an intense game to play.
> 
> You have certainly done well for yourself, native born or not, John. You should be proud of that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


At least I haven't received death threats unlike a former coworker from Iraq (Chaldean Christian)...

I've done "well enough"... Not " well". Well is the guy next door, Mickey Mouse business degree and regional VP of a failing retailer... Total loser intellectually... But nice six figures...


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another post of dave's that also plays into the question I asked him.
> 
> It genuinely confuses me when white people don't understand the privileges they have by simply being white.
> 
> It also confuses me very much when white men *seem* to be saying that they have no privilege and further, that they are actually under-privileged.
> 
> Like you dave and like you far, I am entitled to my opinions, right? I've taken a few posts of dave into consideration when I asked him that question. From what I am reading on the post I quoted and others, that dave (among others here) really does think that white men are under-privileged, yet I do not hear dave (amoung others here) saying that he's aware of any other under-privileged group.
> 
> Again...to me this is shocking and odd. That's my point. You don't have to care about my point or what I have to say. If you want to criticize the way I say things, um, ok then. I'm not here trying to score friends.


because imo, privilege is incredibly over estimated in its value. IMO, in the US, it is up to the individual to do or not do. Has little to do with privilege or anything else. This is why we still claim racism at every corner, because we can't get past the fact that you have to actually go and make your own life.

Sure the average white middle/upper class guy has some advantages: Parents who try to get them to get good grades and force education and generally live in a crime free environment, for example. They also lose some due to gender/racial bias in education and hiring (and men in general in D and in criminal court). So what privilege there is, is a mixed bag.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another post of dave's that also plays into the question I asked him.
> 
> It genuinely confuses me when white people don't understand the privileges they have by simply being white.
> 
> It also confuses me very much when white men *seem* to be saying that they have no privilege and further, that they are actually under-privileged.
> 
> Like you dave and like you far, I am entitled to my opinions, right? I've taken a few posts of dave into consideration when I asked him that question. From what I am reading on the post I quoted and others, that dave (among others here) really does think that white men are under-privileged, yet I do not hear dave (amoung others here) saying that he's aware of any other under-privileged group.
> 
> Again...to me this is shocking and odd. That's my point. You don't have to care about my point or what I have to say. If you want to criticize the way I say things, um, ok then. I'm not here trying to score friends.
> 
> (ETA: far...it isn't totally obvious but this post is in response to your last one to me, just thought I'd make it more clear).


I, too, am not here to score friends, FW. But I am also not here to make TAM worse, either.

And I am sure after we type enough words into a computer, that we will eventually contradict ourselves. I know I have done it, especially when I have been more emotional while typing.

I guess I just have this approach of trying first to do no harm. That, to me, seems to be the happy medium between not caring and caring too much. 

My posts to you were about that and nothing more. I'll stop thread jacking now.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> I, too, am not here to score friends, FW. But I am also not here to make TAM worse, either.
> 
> And I am sure after we type enough words into a computer, that we will eventually contradict ourselves. I know I have done it, especially when I have been more emotional while typing.
> 
> I guess I just have this approach of trying first to do no harm. That, to me, seems to be the happy medium between not caring and caring too much.
> 
> My posts to you were about that and nothing more. I'll stop thread jacking now.


I'm sorry you perceive me as "doing harm" and possibly "making TAM worse", but I really don't think dave is afraid of or hurt by little 'ol me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> because imo, privilege is incredibly over estimated in its value. IMO, in the US, it is up to the individual to do or not do. Has little to do with privilege or anything else. This is why we still claim racism at every corner, because we can't get past the fact that you have to actually go and make your own life.
> 
> Sure the average white middle/upper class guy has some advantages: Parents who try to get them to get good grades and force education and generally live in a crime free environment, for example. They also lose some due to gender/racial bias in education and hiring (and men in general in D and in criminal court). So what privilege there is, is a mixed bag.


Alright, your opinion.

But doesn't it at least seem odd to you to try to speak for a group you are not a part of? If someone is not a minority and says "minorities are not discriminated against, there is no racism, and those minorities are always getting perks others are not getting", I typically can't take that person seriously because, they really wouldn't know, would they?


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Seriously JLD - on average, way more men get screwed in D, than women do. It has changed for the better. But one offs don't change the average. I am sure many women have and continue to get screwed in D, but to think that in the US, on *average *men do better is laughable.


Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Guardian


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Alright, your opinion.
> 
> But doesn't it at least seem odd to you to try to speak for a group you are not a part of? If someone is not a minority and says "minorities are not discriminated against, there is no racism, and those minorities are always getting perks others are not getting", I typically can't take that person seriously because, they really wouldn't know, would they?


because I empathize with some of them. I have several friends and know of many men, who really got screwed in D. And I fell victim to not being taught how to be a man until relatively recently. I get where they are coming from, but my solution isn't to whine about it, it is to do something about it.

I am sure racism exists and minorities don't have some of the privilege. But the solution to that is not whine about it or demand Obama phones. The solution for the individual is to work hard. Achievement in this country is available if you work hard.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> because I empathize with some of them. I have several friends and know of many men, who really got screwed in D. And I fell victim to not being taught how to be a man until relatively recently. I get where they are coming from, but my solution isn't to whine about it, it is to do something about it.
> 
> I am sure racism exists and minorities don't have some of the privilege. But the solution to that is not whine about it or demand Obama phones. The solution for the individual is to work hard. Achievement in this country is available if you work hard.


It just seems to me that there is a LOT of whining about men being down trodden and women having all the advantages. I agree whining about this is no solution but it is so prevalent here. It comes up constantly, not just on this thread. Why don't you or others say "the solution isn't to whine about it" to those guys?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

A lot of guys who feel they are getting screwed is because they are looking at the money and possessions in a marriage as theirs. 
I've seen the way some guys talk "she'll get half MY house, half MY money, half MY stuff" 

That's not the way it works in marriage. It's all both of yours no matter who was being paid more. But many men feel that if they are the sole provider, it's theirs. They don't look at it like she is also losing half her stuff because they don't think any of it is hers.

Statistically very few women end up with more than half of assets and income.

Add to that the average amount of child support doesn't cover half the cost of the child and many women end up in a much worse place after a divorce than their ex-husbands.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> It just seems to me that there is a LOT of whining about men being down trodden and women having all the advantages. I agree whining about this is no solution but it is so prevalent here. It comes up constantly, not just on this thread. Why don't you or others say "the solution isn't to whine about it" to those guys?


this is a good point.

My posts in this thread have come more from a perspective of trying to show why MGTOW exists, not as a means to change MGTOW or even agree with it other than the few common beliefs I have with why MGTOW exists..

TBH, I think the movement is nutso, I much prefer spending time with mixed company. I appreciate most women (and most men). I luv being married. I don't like NSA sex, married/monogamous sex is best, imo.

When I encounter friends who think about this type of stuff, my answer is what are you going to do about it and what can I do to help?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree. People choose their spouses for many reasons. Included in those reasons are picking those who will them meet their life goals. This has gone on forever. It is not unhealthy to pick a mate who will help you get promoted. That you see this as unhealthy cracks me up. They still do arranged marriages all over the world.


I don't think marrying for looks and money is a healthy way to go. 

Choosing a mate based on shared interests and values, and mutual goals, as well as just really enjoying being together, is a healthier route.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> A lot of guys who feel they are getting screwed is because they are looking at the money and possessions in a marriage as theirs.
> I've seen the way some guys talk "she'll get half MY house, half MY money, half MY stuff"
> 
> That's not the way it works in marriage. It's all both of yours no matter who was being paid more. But many men feel that if they are the sole provider, it's theirs. They don't look at it like she is also losing half her stuff because they don't think any of it is hers.
> 
> Statistically very few women end up with more than half of assets and income.
> 
> Add to that the average amount of child support doesn't cover half the cost of the child and many women end up in a much worse place after a divorce than their ex-husbands.


This is fairly true now, but not so much even 5 or 10 years ago.

Also, there are enough dead beat dads to sway the statistics.

Abuse of child support is much more rampant than people think. There should be some minimal amount of accountability, but the government doesn't want to take that, as it would take resource to monitor and those would be from the same pool going after dead beats, which from the governments perspective are worse. IMO they are equally selfish acts.

Basically, when a D with children happens, the standard of living of all involved almost has to go down, because the income won't go up as much as the costs of two of everything (houses, interment, cable, utilities, etc.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I don't think marrying for looks and money is a healthy way to go.
> 
> Choosing a mate based on shared interests and values, and mutual goals, as well as just really enjoying being together, is a healthier route.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


those things are more intertwined than you think, imo.

It just is not looks, it is attraction. You should not marry someone you are not attracted to. Some people won't enjoy being with someone who isn't attractive enough. If you want to be rich, marry wealth is smart. probably for both the H and the W, as wealth allows the to have mutual interests.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> Basically, when a D with children happens, the standard of living of all involved almost has to go down, because the income won't go up as much as the costs of two of everything (houses, *interment*, cable, utilities, etc.


Wow, I didn't know that even interment costs more after a divorce! Talk about discrimination!


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Based on anything published, you sister either got screwed by the system (possible, but abnormal for a woman to not get the kids in the western world) or she was not 'fit'. Since I don't know her, there is no way for me to tell. It is obvious that you are using this one example to 'prove' what is not true.


They may have had joint the first year. After that my sister remarried and her ex moved to another state. The boys wanted to live with their dad. My sister remarried and they probably preferred living with their dad than their stepdad, too. My sister accepted their decision. 

Why would you think she is unfit?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

And with the subject of "teach boys how to be men" - In what ways?

My H was taught the manly way. Don't cry, don't show emotions. Be strong, tough, fight, man up. Fix cars and learn about tools. 
Sure he's a tough guy now, he's certainly manly but it's didn't do him any favours in learning how to be a good, caring, expressive husband.

He doesn't really know how to show emotion. He has happy and he has angry. 

After seeing what "be a man" ended up resulting with in my husband, I'm teaching my son empathy, compassion, love, emotions, care and first and foremost- confidence. He's just such a sweet and nice kid with great confidence. Always the first to offer help and ask if you're ok, is amazing with his sister. 
I forgot to be the tooth fairy one night and the kids were at home the next day while I had to work. My daughter woke up sad that the toothfairy didn't come, my son waited until she went to the bathroom, snuck in her room and used his own money to do it himself. THAT is what being a man means to me. One of my proudest Mommy moments. 

H can teach him how to use tools and fix cars, as is also is our daughter, and he's been teaching him about what kind of partners to stay away from, as he will also for our daughter.

Confidence and self esteem is the key, along with a good picker and understanding of what a good partnership looks like. You can be as nice and caring and sweet as you want because if you have enough confidence and pick the right partner, you won't be taken for granted, used, and just end up with someone who only wants you for one thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Also, there are enough dead beat dads to sway the statistics.
> 
> Abuse of child support is much more rampant than people think. *There should be some minimal amount of accountability, but the government doesn't want to take that, as it would take resource to monitor and those would be from the same pool going after dead beats, which from the governments perspective are worse*. IMO they are equally selfish acts.
> 
> Basically, when a D with children happens, the standard of living of all involved almost has to go down, because the income won't go up as much as the costs of two of everything (houses, interment, cable, utilities, etc.


My state takes action by requiring that child support is always pulled straight from the payer's paycheck, versus being paid voluntarily. Every employer has to provide the state with a list of all new employees, as soon as they are hired. That way the state immediately sends the employer instructions on how much child support to withhold if an employee owes it. This does cut down on uncollected child support issues.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> those things are more intertwined than you think, imo.
> 
> It just is not looks, it is attraction. You should not marry someone you are not attracted to. Some people won't enjoy being with someone who isn't attractive enough. If you want to be rich, marry wealth is smart. probably for both the H and the W, as wealth allows the to have mutual interests.


Certainly there is a ground floor for attraction. And we all need money to live.

But I think kindness and maturity will yield a happier marriage than good looks and wealth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> You honestly don't know what privilege means in the sense of the word we are using here? You think I'm just making a list of how awesome I am or something or that I made up the concept of privilege myself?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I guess it is no wonder you have no issues with mocking those who are less privileged.


I get it... Because I don't see the world through YOUR eyes doesn't make me ignorant or lacking in comprehension.

Is Michael Jordan privileged? Why not? He was born the greatest basketball player of all time and he's filty rich.

Does that make me underprivileged compared to him? Why not? I suck at basketball and I'd never make it in the NBA.

White guilt is a BULLSH!T concept I don't prescribe too. That's what you really mean when you say privilege. You can sugar coat it all you want. I think it's pathetic notion.

Moving on....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> They may have had joint the first year. After that my sister remarried and her ex moved to another state. The boys wanted to live with their dad. My sister remarried and they probably preferred living with their dad than their stepdad, too. My sister accepted their decision.
> 
> Why would you think she is unfit?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


you didn't give enough back story, so I had to guess. Women almost always get more custody, so if your sister got less (or none in this case), it would go to figure that she had issues or, as it turns out, there was a lot more to the story. 

Your sisters example is why D just sux. I feel for her, that had to be a horrible decision to have to make.


----------



## tech-novelist

The whole point of "white male privilege" is to disguise who is actually the most pampered class of people ever known, with the possible exception of royalty.

1000 internet points to anyone who figures out who is in that class.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> My state takes action by requiring that child support is always pulled straight from the payer's paycheck, versus being paid voluntarily. Every employer has to provide the state with a list of all new employees, as soon as they are hired. That way the state immediately sends the employer instructions on how much child support to withhold if an employee owes it. This does cut down on uncollected child support issues.


Unfortunately this doesn't nab them all.:grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> White guilt is a BULLSH!T concept I don't prescribe too. That's what you really mean when you say privilege. You can sugar coat it all you want. I think it's pathetic notion.


I can see why you would call it white guilt.

I feel bad for minorities when I hear blatant racist remarks from white people, and it makes me feel ashamed on their behalf. I have relatives (who live far away, thankfully) who openly use the N word, loudly and in public, anytime a black person enters a building they are in. They literally try to make sure the black person or people hear and see them mocking or insulting them. I have no idea what they think they are accomplishing, like are they trying to tell these people "hey you over there, I don't like YOU or anyone else who has skin like YOU and I hope you feel bad about that!" I mean, wtf? I just don't get it. The male relative of mine in particular I think is dangerous, and I could see him starting a bar fight just because he "hates black people" for some inexplicable reason.

So yeah, call it white guilt. I have no better word for it. But I certainly can't imagine just witnessing this type of thing and not seeing the incredible lack of humanity that created this dynamic to begin with.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> Certainly there is a ground floor for attraction. And we all need money to live.
> 
> But I think kindness and maturity will yield a happier marriage than good looks and wealth.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep, and many couples make wealth in ways that take away from any time they have to build and maintain their marriage. 

If spouses are working 10,12 hours a day just to get nice stuff they might as well count of having to just split it all when the divorce happens due to no actual time together. 

There's a line, below the line you are so stressed about money that it can cause problems. You need to make enough to be comfortable but you don't need fancy things as much as you need time together as a couple and family.


----------



## farsidejunky

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> A lot of guys who feel they are getting screwed is because they are looking at the money and possessions in a marriage as theirs.
> I've seen the way some guys talk "she'll get half MY house, half MY money, half MY stuff"
> 
> That's not the way it works in marriage. It's all both of yours no matter who was being paid more. But many men feel that if they are the sole provider, it's theirs. They don't look at it like she is also losing half her stuff because they don't think any of it is hers.
> 
> Statistically very few women end up with more than half of assets and income.
> 
> Add to that the average amount of child support doesn't cover half the cost of the child and many women end up in a much worse place after a divorce than their ex-husbands.


This is true, SGC. 

Let me paint a slightly different picture, though, using most of your words.

_"A lot of *girls* who feel they are getting screwed is because they are looking at the *children* in a marriage as theirs. 
I've seen the way some *girls* talk "*he'll* get *custody of MY kids*." 

That's not the way it works in marriage. It's all both of yours no matter who *primarily raised the kids*. But many *women* feel that if they are the *mother*, it's theirs. They don't look at it like *he* is also losing *custody* because they don't think any of it is *his*.

Statistically very few *men* end up with more than half *custody*."_

So... Are we still having a contest to see who the bigger victim is? Or should we recognize that the real victims of divorce are children, who cannot control what their frequently immature fathers AND mothers do?


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And with the subject of "teach boys how to be men" - In what ways?
> 
> My H was taught the manly way. Don't cry, don't show emotions. Be strong, tough, fight, man up. Fix cars and learn about tools.
> Sure he's a tough guy now, he's certainly manly but it's didn't do him any favours in learning how to be a good, caring, expressive husband.
> 
> He doesn't really know how to show emotion. He has happy and he has angry.
> 
> After seeing what "be a man" ended up resulting with in my husband, I'm teaching my son empathy, compassion, love, emotions, care and first and foremost- confidence. He's just such a sweet and nice kid with great confidence. Always the first to offer help and ask if you're ok, is amazing with his sister.
> I forgot to be the tooth fairy one night and the kids were at home the next day while I had to work. My daughter woke up sad that the toothfairy didn't come, my son waited until she went to the bathroom, snuck in her room and used his own money to do it himself. THAT is what being a man means to me. One of my proudest Mommy moments.
> 
> H can teach him how to use tools and fix cars, as is also is our daughter, and he's been teaching him about what kind of partners to stay away from, as he will also for our daughter.
> 
> Confidence and self esteem is the key, along with a good picker and understanding of what a good partnership looks like. You can be as nice and caring and sweet as you want because if you have enough confidence and pick the right partner, you won't be taken for granted, used, and just end up with someone who only wants you for one thing.


this is a thread of its own.....

Most boys are taught to please women above all else (this leads to the 'nice guy' syndrome). This is due to many things, primarily single parent households (dead beat dads or court forced minimal dad time), mostly female elementary ed teachers who don't tolerate normal boy stuff at school, constant put downs of men as wimps and idiots on TV, etc. 

There is not much man/son interaction, as the man of the house is gone all the time. 150 years ago, most boys tagged along with dad and uncles on the farm, giving them observation of what a man is. Society has not figured this out yet.

A lot of your post is stuff everyone needs, but the how to be a man doesn't work coming from a woman.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

farsidejunky said:


> This is true, SGC.
> 
> Let me paint a slightly different picture, though, using most of your words.
> 
> _"A lot of *girls* who feel they are getting screwed is because they are looking at the *children* in a marriage as theirs.
> I've seen the way some *girls* talk "*he'll* get *custody of MY kids*."
> 
> That's not the way it works in marriage. It's all both of yours no matter who was being paid more. But many *women* feel that if they are the *mother*, it's theirs. They don't look at it like *he* is also losing *custody* because they don't think any of it is *his*.
> 
> Statistically very few *men* end up with more than half *custody*."_
> 
> So... Are we still having a contest to see who the bigger victim is? Or should we recognize that the real victims of divorce are children, who cannot control what their frequently immature fathers AND mothers do?


I hate this kind of thinking just as much. 
I think a 50/50 default should be put in place everywhere. Kids need both parents. Mom is not more important than Dad. 

And yes, divorce sucks most for the kids.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Unfortunately this doesn't nab them all.:grin2:


Well, they can move or work out of state to get away from the payments, true. Is that what you mean? 

I don't have any stats on it but I have heard that this process has reduced unpaid CS and also has reduced some amount of public assistance. That was the original goal of the plan. They had studies which suggested mandatory payroll deductions of CS would reduce public assistance needs and that has shown to be true.

Also, I hear the complaint that the payer has no way to verify what the payee spends the CS money on. In my state, there is always a 2 year renewal, and both parties must provide details of ALL of their income and expenses for a new CS calculation. So if a payee is trying to say they are spending $500 a month on child care or lessons and is asking to split the cost, for instance, they have to provide proof that they paid this cost. This goes on down the line with all expenses and income. If there is a big change in one partner's life, like the loss of a job, they can ask for a new CS calculation sooner than the 2 year mark.

All of the single moms I know are not spending CS money on vacations to Europe, and not a single one of them is getting spousal support. I do acknowledge there are men and women who hide income or expenses to screw each other in this way and that they are jerks. I just don't think *most* people, men or women, are jerks. I think most people are devastated emotionally after divorce and are just trying to cope.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> The whole point of "white male privilege" is to disguise who is actually the most pampered class of people ever known, with the possible exception of royalty.
> 
> 1000 internet points to anyone who figures out who is in that class.


It is I, your gynocentric overlord! >


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> It is I, your gynocentric overlord! >


All hail the mighty vagina


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, they can move or work out of state to get away from the payments, true. Is that what you mean?
> 
> I don't have any stats on it but I have heard that this process has reduced unpaid CS and also has reduced some amount of public assistance. That was the original goal of the plan. They had studies which suggested mandatory payroll deductions of CS would reduce public assistance needs and that has shown to be true.
> 
> Also, I hear the complaint that the payer has no way to verify what the payee spends the CS money on. In my state, there is always a 2 year renewal, and both parties must provide details of ALL of their income and expenses for a new CS calculation. So if a payee is trying to say they are spending $500 a month on child care or lessons and is asking to split the cost, for instance, they have to provide proof that they paid this cost. This goes on down the line with all expenses and income. If there is a big change in one partner's life, like the loss of a job, they can ask for a new CS calculation sooner than the 2 year mark.
> 
> All of the single moms I know are not spending CS money on vacations to Europe, and not a single one of them is getting spousal support. I do acknowledge there are men and women who hide income or expenses to screw each other in this way and that they are jerks. I just don't think *most* people, men or women, are jerks. I think most people are devastated emotionally after divorce and are just trying to cope.


Enough people make enough money as cash or find other ways to avoid CS. So there are loopholes. AND I THINK THAT NOT PAYING FOR YOU KID IS AS WRONG AS A PERSON CAN BE IN LIFE (sorry for the all caps).

I don't know what the laws are in any state, but renewal makes sense. I don't think this happens vey universally. 

I do know of moms who did literally take vacations to Europe while the ex-husband was living in his car. Probably a rarity, but did/does happen.

I agree with your last sentence. Sometimes coping brings out the worst, sometimes the best in people.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> I can see why you would call it white guilt.
> 
> I feel bad for minorities when I hear blatant racist remarks from white people, and it makes me feel ashamed on their behalf. I have relatives (who live far away, thankfully) who openly use the N word, loudly and in public, anytime a black person enters a building they are in. They literally try to make sure the black person or people hear and see them mocking or insulting them. I have no idea what they think they are accomplishing, like are they trying to tell these people "hey you over there, I don't like YOU or anyone else who has skin like YOU and I hope you feel bad about that!" I mean, wtf? I just don't get it. The male relative of mine in particular I think is dangerous, and I could see him starting a bar fight just because he "hates black people" for some inexplicable reason.
> 
> So yeah, call it white guilt. I have no better word for it. But I certainly can't imagine just witnessing this type of thing and not seeing the incredible lack of humanity that created this dynamic to begin with.


Howard Zinn said that rich people pitted poor whites and poor blacks against each other. By their focusing on each other, the rich were able to distract them from the real issue: the unequal distribution of wealth.

_"The greatest fear of wealthy southern planters was that black slaves and poor whites would combine in another uprising like Bacon's Rebellion. One tool to keep blacks and whites from uniting was racism. Edmund Morgan , a historian of slavery in Virginia , wrote in his American Slavery, American Freedom that racism was not a "natural" feeling about the differ*ences between black and white. Instead, white leaders encouraged a negative view of blacks. If poor whites felt contempt for African Americans, they were less likely to join with them in rebellion."_

Howard*Zinn ? A Young People's History Of The United States - Chapter 3: Who Were The Colonists? | Genius

If you have not read Zinn's _A People's History of the United States,_ please so. It is a real eye opener. 

I have not read the whole thing. Even a little bit is pretty overwhelming.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

That is some very disturbing stuff. 

And I'd be lying if I said I've never seen it done. I have. Beyond bizarre and beyond ugly. 

That said - when I hear these protestors talking about white priviledge - what I hear is hostility. Hostility against me for being white. Not for what I have done or not done. But solely based on my skin tone and then to add to it - my gender. 

And my reaction to THAT isn't very positive. 

Every woman I know has dated a guy who - at first glance - she wasn't overwhelmed by. A guy who she wasn't secretly hoping would ask her out. 

What did that guy do? He overcame her initial bias. Whatever that bias was. He found away around, over or through it. 

We all have biases. Including those based on color, culture, gender and religion. 

And yet almost everyone I know has a more open mind about such matters than even they might think. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I can see why you would call it white guilt.
> 
> I feel bad for minorities when I hear blatant racist remarks from white people, and it makes me feel ashamed on their behalf. I have relatives (who live far away, thankfully) who openly use the N word, loudly and in public, anytime a black person enters a building they are in. They literally try to make sure the black person or people hear and see them mocking or insulting them. I have no idea what they think they are accomplishing, like are they trying to tell these people "hey you over there, I don't like YOU or anyone else who has skin like YOU and I hope you feel bad about that!" I mean, wtf? I just don't get it. The male relative of mine in particular I think is dangerous, and I could see him starting a bar fight just because he "hates black people" for some inexplicable reason.
> 
> So yeah, call it white guilt. I have no better word for it. But I certainly can't imagine just witnessing this type of thing and not seeing the incredible lack of humanity that created this dynamic to begin with.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> Let me get this straight - a 6,000 ft^2 house in the US and an apartment in Europe, 2 kids in college and you're complaining you got a raw deal?
> 
> Plus - you must be the highest paid person I know on hourly pay. I always wondered about that. You insist on staying hourly to prevent big bad company from squeezing any free hours from you?
> 
> If so - ever occur to you that it shows a lack of trust.


Forgot a 3000 sq ft dacha in the mountains 

The raw deal is how you're being treated thru the journey, not what you have amassed. I've had Amazon try to recruit me on a monthly basis but the tech culture is all about young white or Asian kids, not mid 50's quasi European geezers...

Compared to my WASP neighbors, they have achieved just as much or more doing BS sales or management type work. 

Go to the right college, play the right games, and you're in for serious money. You're 40, 4 years of college, a nice management job, and you make as much as I do, more even, doing what? Selling the little plastic condiment containers and such.

Sorry MEM that's privilege right there. 

Women have an edge getting hired in tech as my wife found out but once in, its generally downhill from there, a few examples in low positions not making up for the all male upper layers.

I'm not hourly pay BTW. We do get paid overtime up to my level (technical lead). Anything over me doesn't get paid overtime.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> That said - when I hear these protestors talking about white priviledge - what I hear is hostility. Hostility against me for being white. Not for what I have done or not done. But solely based on my skin tone and then to add to it - my gender.
> 
> And my reaction to THAT isn't very positive.


I don't know who you mean by "these protestors" and so I'm unsure how much hostility has actually been directed at you personally. But yeah if people are saying things to you that indicate that because you are in a privileged class, you are also part of the problem that makes others under-privileged, then this is not an accurate statement. Any of us can be in a privileged class yet not be part of the problem. Any of us could also be in a privileged class and be unaware of the privileges they are receiving by being in that class. In my posts here, I have never assumed or implied that you personally are responsible for any of it.

I just don't think it is right for anyone who is not in an under privileged class to make claims that sound like they understand what the people in that class encounter in life. I brought up privilege originally on this thread in response to betrayed dad saying that gays and minorities don't want equality, they just want "perks". I don't see how he can speak for them, and I don't see how it is right to label an entire class of people as not wanting equality, while implying they are lazy at the same time. If an individual example of a person known to him personally who was trying to "get perks" was given, I could see making such a statement about that one person. But ALL of them? 

I also think it is wise to understand our privileges and do our best to understand what problems occur for those who don't have them.

You keep bringing up beauty privilege. I included that on my list of my own privileges. I learned about beauty privilege a long time ago, when someone hit me with a clue bat about it. It was in a conversation about how nice people are, and this person said "people are probably nicer to you than others". I was like, huh? Why in the world would that be true? Then they explained the halo effect to me and I did some reading on that and then also about beauty privilege. 

At first I was like "Hey! It takes a lot of money to look this cheap!" and wanted to deny my own privilege because I "work hard" for what I've got....some is genetics but a lot is good self-care (including spending my own hard earned money on my appearance, clothes, fitness, hair, etc).

But the more I learned and the more I watched the world, I could see that people really do treat others less nice based on general attractiveness, and I then watched more closely and saw and heard a lot of really mean behavior toward those who are less attractive. That made me feel like sh*t. 

Since then I have tried to simply be aware of this privilege and understand that it gives me advantages I may not have otherwise, and I try not to exploit any situation where I can see others are not getting fair and equal treatment. I also try to use my privilege to generate more general kindness toward others (this is done by lots of little interactions and some bigger ones).

It still doesn't feel that good to know I get preferential treatment in certain ways...because I know, for certain, that if someone judges me a nicer or better person based on my appearance, they really aren't reacting to the real person inside of me. So even though I may be beautiful on the inside, this is not what a stranger is reacting to in an interaction with me. In fact, they don't even care if I'm beautiful on the inside or not and even if I was, if I wasn't attractive on the outside they wouldn't be as kind to me.

I am doing my best to responsibly own my privilege while understanding the lack of advantages others may receive. It stings but I'm doing my best with it. I do wish people were nice to everyone regardless of appearance, but I can't stop that from happening. I do not feel I am part of the "cause" of the hardships less privileged people experience, but I do feel very unsettled that they have those hardships.

I could write more about my other areas of privilege and how I try to own them. But in no area do I feel blamed for my privilege or blamed for the under privilege of others.

Except....here at TAM. Where I (and most women here) am taken to task almost daily for the ways men have less privilege in criminal justice compared to women, and custody issues.

Even though I fully support equal punishment for equal crimes, and fair custody for dads...I am still told daily that I'm part of the problem.


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't my book. I did not define or create this concept.


And yet you're basically defending the ideals that it puts forth...?


----------



## Faithful Wife

GusPolinski said:


> And yet you're basically defending the ideals that it puts forth...?


Um, well yes. I have never denied that, nor would I. The ideals the concept of privilege put forth as I understand them, is that it would be a good thing for everyone to understand and own their own privilege, while doing their best to understand the hardships of those who are less privileged. There's something wrong with this?


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

My objections are as follows: 
- Just because no one has denied me a job based on color, doesn't mean I fail to grasp the sting of rejection. Of failure. 
- The way these topics are framed by sociologists tends toward a model of victimization.

For instance, sociologist might say: you're black, poor and female - game over. 

A positive pragmatist might say: 
With a little bit of money and a lot of effort - no one will have a clue that you are poor. 

And if you present as smart, prepared and ambitious, people will give you a chance. 

One of the most famous quote in modern history: The way that an Englishman speaks, absolutely classifies him.

That remains true to this day. 






Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know who you mean by "these protestors" and so I'm unsure how much hostility has actually been directed at you personally. But yeah if people are saying things to you that indicate that because you are in a privileged class, you are also part of the problem that makes others under-privileged, then this is not an accurate statement. Any of us can be in a privileged class yet not be part of the problem. Any of us could also be in a privileged class and be unaware of the privileges they are receiving by being in that class. In my posts here, I have never assumed or implied that you personally are responsible for any of it.
> 
> I just don't think it is right for anyone who is not in an under privileged class to make claims that sound like they understand what the people in that class encounter in life. I brought up privilege originally on this thread in response to betrayed dad saying that gays and minorities don't want equality, they just want "perks". I don't see how he can speak for them, and I don't see how it is right to label an entire class of people as not wanting equality, while implying they are lazy at the same time. If an individual example of a person known to him personally who was trying to "get perks" was given, I could see making such a statement about that one person. But ALL of them?
> 
> I also think it is wise to understand our privileges and do our best to understand what problems occur for those who don't have them.
> 
> You keep bringing up beauty privilege. I included that on my list of my own privileges. I learned about beauty privilege a long time ago, when someone hit me with a clue bat about it. It was in a conversation about how nice people are, and this person said "people are probably nicer to you than others". I was like, huh? Why in the world would that be true? Then they explained the halo effect to me and I did some reading on that and then also about beauty privilege.
> 
> At first I was like "Hey! It takes a lot of money to look this cheap!" and wanted to deny my own privilege because I "work hard" for what I've got....some is genetics but a lot is good self-care (including spending my own hard earned money on my appearance, clothes, fitness, hair, etc).
> 
> But the more I learned and the more I watched the world, I could see that people really do treat others less nice based on general attractiveness, and I then watched more closely and saw and heard a lot of really mean behavior toward those who are less attractive. That made me feel like sh*t.
> 
> Since then I have tried to simply be aware of this privilege and understand that it gives me advantages I may not have otherwise, and I try not to exploit any situation where I can see others are not getting fair and equal treatment. I also try to use my privilege to generate more general kindness toward others (this is done by lots of little interactions and some bigger ones).
> 
> It still doesn't feel that good to know I get preferential treatment in certain ways...because I know, for certain, that if someone judges me a nicer or better person based on my appearance, they really aren't reacting to the real person inside of me. So even though I may be beautiful on the inside, this is not what a stranger is reacting to in an interaction with me. In fact, they don't even care if I'm beautiful on the inside or not and even if I was, if I wasn't attractive on the outside they wouldn't be as kind to me.
> 
> I am doing my best to responsibly own my privilege while understanding the lack of advantages others may receive. It stings but I'm doing my best with it. I do wish people were nice to everyone regardless of appearance, but I can't stop that from happening. I do not feel I am part of the "cause" of the hardships less privileged people experience, but I do feel very unsettled that they have those hardships.
> 
> I could write more about my other areas of privilege and how I try to own them. But in no area do I feel blamed for my privilege or blamed for the under privilege of others.
> 
> Except....here at TAM. Where I (and most women here) am taken to task almost daily for the ways men have less privilege in criminal justice compared to women, and custody issues.
> 
> Even though I fully support equal punishment for equal crimes, and fair custody for dads...I am still told daily that I'm part of the problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> My objections are as follows:
> - Just because no one has denied me a job based on color, *doesn't mean I fail to grasp the sting of rejection. Of failure*.
> - The way these topics are framed by sociologists tends toward a model of victimization.
> 
> For instance, sociologist might say: you're black, poor and female - game over.
> 
> A positive pragmatist might say:
> With a little bit of money and a lot of effort - no one will have a clue that you are poor.
> 
> And if you present as smart, prepared and ambitious, people will give you a chance. .


I just think these are two separate topics you are I are on, then.

To me, the topic of privilege in the way I'm using it is not about individuals and whether or not they may succeed in their lives. I and others have said here that having privilege in no way guarantees anyone success or freedom from pain, rejection, loss, etc.

You could be the richest most privileged child in the world living in a mansion, and yet still be emotionally abused by psycho parents so deeply that you never recover from it. Or you could be the most under privileged child and end up at the top of the food chain.

You seem to be discussing that topic. So on that topic, I'm sure you and I both agree, right?

The topic I am discussing is on a social awareness level and is not about any one person's abilities or advantages or even privileges. It is about society and how the mass wave of certain ideas has created different areas of privilege for different groups, and that awareness of your own privilege should hopefully encourage compassion for others you may not have had otherwise.

I do not expect you or anyone in anyway to feel bad or responsible for your privilege, nor do I assume anyone who has privilege has not experienced pain equal or greater than others who don't have privilege.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> In reading this again, you don't apparently understand the concept, either. Privilege has nothing to do with YOUR individual values, work ethic, natural talents or ideas.
> 
> Privilege has to do with how the world treats YOU based on what groups you are in, those groups usually being things you had/have no control over, at least at your birth (or at the time of being disabled, or becoming one of the under privileged groups). Privilege does not mean you are better than others, it means the world treats you better than others who don't have those privileges which are typically not things they can control.
> 
> You are thinking of the word as in the casual way of saying it, like "it has been my privilege to work with you, sir" or "I feel so privileged to have been given this national merit scholarship!"
> 
> That is not the same meaning of the word and the two meanings should not be combined when having this type of discussion.
> 
> But since you don't already know that....I don't see how you can actually discuss this topic until you understand it.
> 
> In knowing this, it is easy to see why you would say so many things in the above post that don't make sense.
> 
> One can be very privileged in the sociological sense yet be a total dirtbag, or be the nicest guy you know. He or she could be smarter than Bill Gates or dumber than a rock. He or she could be ethical or a scoundrel.
> 
> Do you get it now? I'm hoping so. Otherwise, its ok, the conversation is futile without an actual understanding of the terminology so I'll step out of this topic.
> 
> And btw, there is plenty of research that shows exactly who gets better treatment in the courts based on color, self presentation and economic background. Guess who comes out on top and who comes out on the bottom in every single study? You can easily find such studies yourself if you were open to the truth about these matters. But nah, there's no such thing as white privilege. What a nice fairy tale, I suppose.


I'm very aware of the concept FW. And I'm also aware of how much of it is petty and frivolous. Not based in anything remotely substantial or meaningful.

If we want to talk about court biases, I'm glad to do so. I don't have a problem with that at all. As I said, I'll agree that the courts probably treat white folks better than black ones. However, there's also substantial evidence that in the West, Asians receive even better treatment than whites. Still, you'll always hear me supporting a justice system that treats people fairly and equally.

But most of this isn't legal. It's about preference. And people have biases in preference, and they should. Maybe you love black guys, and wouldn't ever date an Asian one. Your choice. It's not that black men are privileged, it's that you find them attractive. Switch that around however you like. 

The concept of "Privilege" as promoted by SJW's is inherently racist and inherently sexist. It is a terrible ideology and I would stamp it out. Different people are treated differently based on where they are and how they behave / interact with others. 

The entire concept of "White Male Privilege"® crumbles if I move to a different city in this country. Or if I enter factors like behavior, dress and etiquette. People in the US tend to assume that folks with a "Southern" accent in the US are stupid. So, does that mean that non-southerners are privileged? No. It just means some folks are dumb enough to make assumptions without evidence.

Here, let's start with some education on our Male White Privilege.

ETA: I may not be back to engage this discussion till after I celebrate Christmas. So if I don't return, I hope you all have a Merry Christmas. Even those of you with whom I vocally disagree.


----------



## ocotillo

MEM11363 said:


> For instance, sociologist might say: you're black, poor and female - game over.


Unlikely. That would would a fallacy of division


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> Um, well yes. I have never denied that, nor would I. The ideals the concept of privilege put forth as I understand them, is that it would be a good thing for everyone to understand and own their own privilege, while doing their best to understand the hardships of those who are less privileged. There's something wrong with this?


You wrote this...



Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't my book. I did not define or create this concept.


...and then I replied w/ this...



GusPolinski said:


> And yet you're basically defending the ideals that it puts forth...?


...because your reply seemed like a huge cop-out to me.

Either way, I suppose I don't view a lack of disadvantage as privilege, because that would seem to suggest that disadvantage is somehow the default state.

Racially speaking, I am what is typically referred to as "white". Having grown up in largely "white" areas, though, I don't know that it's ever gotten me anything, at least not within those areas.

Want to know what it got me in a predominantly "black" area once?

Fired.


----------



## EllisRedding

Out of curiosity since the term has been thrown around, who falls into the "white" group? I guess my point based on some comments here, it would seem with how the term is being used one group is made up of African Americans/blacks and all others fit into the "white" group, is that how people look at it?


----------



## azteca1986

MEM11363 said:


> My objections are as follows:
> - Just because no one has denied me a job based on color, doesn't mean I fail to grasp the sting of rejection. Of failure.


So, so many words. Such little understanding.

From this side if the pond it's hard to fathom how some Americans - from a country formed of the genocide of one people and on the buying and selling of another - fail to even acknowledge the white man's privilege.

This is #yesallwomen/#notallmen being played out with race. If you're white and male, it's NOT about YOU _specifically_.

Merry Christmas to you all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GusPolinski said:


> You wrote this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then I replied w/ this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...because your reply seemed like a huge cop-out to me.
> 
> Either way, I suppose I don't view a lack of disadvantage as privilege, because that would seem to suggest that disadvantage is somehow the default state.


Because the list I made was not about "here are the things that have helped me get to where I am right now", it was a list of "here are the groups I belong to which have privilege".

I don't know if this is the same one that was posted before, but please (am sincerely asking you) read this link. You don't have to take the test, but at least read it so that you will understand what my list was about versus what you thought it was about.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.soAk5W525


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I'm very aware of the concept FW. And I'm also aware of how much of it is petty and frivolous. Not based in anything remotely substantial or meaningful.


Ok, your opinion is duly noted. My opinion is that this is not petty or frivolous and that it is based on factual data (which can be provided in many ways by many sources), and I believe the reason it is important is because it can help spread compassion for others by knowing the challenges they face. Once I started reading more about the basis of privilege, I learned so much about so many other groups I would not have learned without reading up on it.

And I'll just throw out there one more time...I am daily told (here at TAM) that I am part of the problem that causes men to be less privileged than women. Why do some of you guys not get bothered by all of that happening all the time? You do seem to get fired up about any OTHER group who says they under privileged and you are quick to point out how they are simply lazy (or worse) and that you got all you have by your own means. Yet, it is ok for men to go on and on and on about it to women, just because they are women, with an accusatory stance? I don't get that. If it is wrong to whine about your own lack of privilege when minorities do it, why is it not wrong when men here at TAM do it (all day long)? 

I'm not saying you do think it is ok, but I don't know if you do or not. I am just so confused by the huge hypocrisy.


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> Because the list I made was not about "here are the things that have helped me get to where I am right now", it was a list of "here are the groups I belong to which have privilege".
> 
> I don't know if this is the same one that was posted before, but please (am sincerely asking you) read this link. You don't have to take the test, but at least read it so that you will understand what my list was about versus what you thought it was about.
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you#.soAk5W525


Ugh. Couldn't get through it. It might as well have been titled "Reasons That I Am A Victim".


----------



## tech-novelist

GusPolinski said:


> Ugh. Couldn't get through it. It might as well have been titled "Reasons That I Am A Victim".


Yes, of course, the status of victim is highly prized among some people.

By an amazing coincidence, those are the same people who throw around this notion of "privilege".

So let's recap the bidding (as RAH would say):

1. Only white males are privileged.
2. Not privileged = victim.
3. Therefore everyone who is not a white male is by definition a victim.
5. For anyone not a victim to try to explain why the victim is a victim is called "blaming the victim" and is not allowed for the sake of fairness.
6. However, for victims to explain why their aggressors are aggressors is therapeutic for the victims... and who cares about the feelings of the aggressors?

Therefore, women have every right to tell men how the men are and what the men are feeling, as well as (of course) what the men should for the women.

Any attempt of the men to respond in kind is of course not allowed. See "Blaming the victim" above.

Hope this helps.


----------



## john117

EllisRedding said:


> Out of curiosity since the term has been thrown around, who falls into the "white" group? I guess my point based on some comments here, it would seem with how the term is being used one group is made up of African Americans/blacks and all others fit into the "white" group, is that how people look at it?


I'm white but not that shade of white, you know... l can trace my arrival on a TWA flight, not the Mayflower...


----------



## john117

Sorry, technovelist, privilege depends on circumstances. If you're working in a group with mostly H1-B visa holders from India, and you're a US citizen. You're not privileged if the home office only looks at costs. 

The last place my wife worked at was notorious for hiring non privileged folk to show how benevolent they were, but give them no mentoring or having unrealistic expectations, setting them up to fail and having play layoff canon fodder... Saving the spots for the privileged classes needless to say.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Sorry, technovelist, privilege depends on circumstances. If you're working in a group with mostly H1-B visa holders from India, and you're a US citizen. You're not privileged if the home office only looks at costs.
> 
> The last place my wife worked at was notorious for hiring non privileged folk to show how benevolent they were, but give them no mentoring or having unrealistic expectations, setting them up to fail and having play layoff canon fodder... Saving the spots for the privileged classes needless to say.


I think "privileged" is an overly broad term that is thrown around in order to play the victim card.

I have been treated like [email protected] at a number of jobs despite my highly privileged state of being a white male. Luckily, I haven't had to put up with this much recently because I was in a financial position to leave, thanks to decades of saving.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GusPolinski said:


> Ugh. Couldn't get through it. It might as well have been titled "Reasons That I Am A Victim".


No problem, but hopefully now you understand what I meant by I didn't write the list and did not invent the concept of privilege.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, of course, the status of victim is highly prized among some people.
> 
> ......
> 
> Therefore, women have every right to tell men how the men are and what the men are feeling, as well as (of course) what the men should for the women.
> .


Like I have been saying....there are some around here who don't see the irony in how they go on and on about being male victims of female privilege and then painting all women with the same brush.

It doesn't matter that I have never once talked about myself or women as victims at TAM (even though tech talks about how men are victims daily) nor have I ever said that I have any idea how men are feeling or what they should "do for women" (even though tech talks daily about how women feel, what they say, and how they victimize men) and yet, I am targeted by a man or men telling me I am part of the problem of their victimization daily.

I really don't understand why the men here think this is not hypocrisy when it blatently is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> Sorry, technovelist, privilege depends on circumstances. If you're working in a group with mostly H1-B visa holders from India, and you're a US citizen. You're not privileged if the home office only looks at costs.
> 
> The last place my wife worked at was notorious for hiring non privileged folk to show how benevolent they were, but give them no mentoring or having unrealistic expectations, setting them up to fail and having play layoff canon fodder... Saving the spots for the privileged classes needless to say.


tech, who is not a minority, would like you, who are a minority, to know that HE knows how YOU feel and that your words here are simply victim whining that have no basis.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

naiveonedave said:


> just my opinion:
> Where MGTOW is good: points out where men do still get screwed in D. Points out to men that marriage is not mandatory. *How education is stacked against men to some extent and is getting worse.*


This is just something I have observed having sons taking Engineering in College.. Orientation day...all the parents gathered in a BIg room... Speaker asks how many parents here have a daughter taking Engineering...to raise their hands.. then they let them know to be sure to take advantage of the $4,000 scholarship available to them... Just cause they are female... 

A couple weeks ago, son tells me he can get a summer Job working in Philadelphia for STEM students.. he'd like to do that, they pay for your place to stay...it's great experience...... I ask to see the ad to get more details, he finds it on his Ipod for me.... it literally spelled it out that they encourage minorities, women and those with disabilities to apply....

I was excited for the opportunity till I read that... I looked at son & said "you're screwed...your a white Male"....you'll be at the bottom of the list to get in... "F*** it" .. I was rather upset about it..


----------



## john117

Mega lolz, FW. 

I haven't seen these many incorrections since Dan Quayle...

I'm not a minority. Being a not born here is not enough to bestow legit minority status. 

I've never felt like a victim. Observing that you're getting shafted on a regular basis because you don't attend the right church, volunteer at the right places, live in the right house, etc doesn't mean I feel victimized. Crap, in my birth country things are a LOT harder if you're not an EU citizen...

Do I whine? after hearing the same old tired jokes about my country or my name or accent... You grow immune and talk back. 

Have no basis? Not sure. The law is the law. Do I have money for a good lawyer? My friend had her car scratched and threats left on her desk because she was Iraqi. My wife worked on the manufacturing floor and had to overcome major odds to gain the trust of the workers, something a WASP would have no issue with. 

I have accepted that America is just as messed up in this manner as any other place so things are easier.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, I have never heard you whine....(about lack of privilege). 

Also I must have read you wrong and thought you are a minority...but perhaps I was reading a post about your wife, not yourself, when talking about being a minority. Sorry for that mixup.

In any case, you had a couple of posts here where you were describing white male privilege (even if you also are included in that group) which I thought were very good posts, and you were told that none of what you were saying mattered and that it was victim-y and whiny. Meanwhile, the constant drone of "I'm a male victim of female privilege!" by some of the other guys here beats on and on and on.


----------



## Thundarr

This thread just keeps on giving. If I grow a beard then I look middle eastern (maybe I am). If I shave and put on a toboggan then I look straight up Mexican (maybe I am). If I shave my head and face then I definitely look Russian (maybe I am). I'm sure to many I look Italian or Greek (maybe I am). Yet genetics would likely say I'm probably just British decent.

Oddly enough, none of these looks matter if I can solve a quadratic equation.


----------



## jld

Dug is a foreigner, but I never felt he was discriminated against in any way for that. Not even in the build up to the Iraq war did he get any grief about being French. He is a good guy, a hard worker, and people respect him. 

Does his accent give him away? Sure. Is he often the only Democratic voter in a company full of Republicans? Yep. But people respect his skills and his work ethic, and know that he treats them with respect, too. That is enough to bridge any cultural gaps, I guess.

If anything, he said he felt more discriminated against in France than here in America. 

Dug is from a lower middle class, rural family. His parents did not go past the 8th grade. He did not eat in a restaurant until he was 21 years old. He did not go on a vacation until he had graduated from engineering school (the first in his extended family to graduate from high school, and even more significantly, to then go on to college). In engineering school, only 6% of students came from families where the parents were not professionals. All his friends in college were like him, the children of uneducated parents. Those guys understood each other.

For Dug, America is truly a land of opportunity. He does not deny that there are challenges here, and that there is privilege in being a white man, accent or not. But he also believes that it is easier to achieve goals here than in other countries. Americans are pleasant to work with and results-oriented. That results focus is much more efficient than the process focus often followed in Europe.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I would add that Dug is not looking for ways he is possibly discriminated against, either. He is just generally happy with his life. He feels grateful for what he has.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

My bosses boss is French too. At that level you really are not affected as much. But if he or you thinks he can be one of the guys, it doesn't quite work this way.

It helps to have real European genes and not the quasi European ( underdeveloped, is-that-part-of-the-EU) genes... The real test is if he makes it into the upper echelons... 

My company has subsidiaries and operations in many European countries and I have visited a few. I don't think we are as open in the USA as they are in terms of acceptance.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I would add that Dug is not looking for ways he is possibly discriminated against, either. He is just generally happy with his life. He feels grateful for what he has.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ignorance is bliss in this case... I know a lot of Asian tech workers who make good money and are respected but as I said earlier the signs are very subtle.


----------



## jld

Dug is not going to make it into the upper echelons. He might go one step up, but I think that is realistically it. He is not a corporate guy. 

I am sure not only ignorance, but a lack of overreaching ambition, is a blessing. We want a good family life. Dug loves his work, has always loved working. As long as he likes what he is doing, and makes enough money to provide decently for us, that is enough for us.


----------



## ocotillo

The BuzzFeed questionnaire probably does more harm than good. The authors commit the fallacy of illicit transference on the very first question and therefore don't seem to fully grasp privilege theory themselves. -Either that or they are pandering to popular misconception. 

Dug said it several pages ago. Maybe it's more palatable coming from him than coming from me. (Emphasis is mine)



Duguesclin said:


> It is impossible to look at an *individual* situation and claim there is or there is not white privilege.


I don't know if anybody here remembers the Civil Rights March on Washington in August of 1963. 

At the time, there were still signs at the entrances to beaches in the area that said, "White gentiles only" The signs were old and rusty and the policy had not been enforced for quite a while, but they were a stark reminder of the way things had been in the fairly recent past. Dr. King's famous sppech can be Googled and if you do, you will see a fair number of Jewish people in the audience too. 

One of the peculiarities of human beings is that sub-groups that might appear similar to outsiders can absolutely hate each other. Hopis and Navajos. You can cut the tension with a knife when the two groups are together in numbers greater than two's and threes. Japanese and Chinese. There is a lingering animosity and if you've ever read _The Rape of Nanking_, you know why. 

Is white privilege real? Hell, yeah it's real. It's not as sharp today as it was fifty years ago and hopefully, fifty years from now it will have dulled even further. But because humans invent so many other ways to divide up into "Us" and "Them" white privilege can't be assessed in a simple binary fashion. (i.e. *If* you are white *Then* you are privileged) 

People reject it when it gets presented that way.


----------



## Starstarfish

White privilege is when anyone besides a white male is the main character of a movie it's bemoaned as "PC crap." Because it's just not a natural assumption that someone else could be important or matter.


----------



## MEM2020

Vintage John,

Amazon is trying to hire you - in spite of their racism and ageism.

Okay now. 




john117 said:


> Forgot a 3000 sq ft dacha in the mountains
> 
> The raw deal is how you're being treated thru the journey, not what you have amassed. I've had Amazon try to recruit me on a monthly basis but the tech culture is all about young white or Asian kids, not mid 50's quasi European geezers...
> 
> Compared to my WASP neighbors, they have achieved just as much or more doing BS sales or management type work.
> 
> Go to the right college, play the right games, and you're in for serious money. You're 40, 4 years of college, a nice management job, and you make as much as I do, more even, doing what? Selling the little plastic condiment containers and such.
> 
> Sorry MEM that's privilege right there.
> 
> Women have an edge getting hired in tech as my wife found out but once in, its generally downhill from there, a few examples in low positions not making up for the all male upper layers.
> 
> I'm not hourly pay BTW. We do get paid overtime up to my level (technical lead). Anything over me doesn't get paid overtime.


----------



## MEM2020

FW,
Speaking for the maternal (Old testament) side of my family. 

Hand on the bibles (Old AND New Testament). I'll give you my totally unfiltered view of privilege. I seek the privilege to be:
- Judged on the merits of my works - at the office and in my home
- Free from the tyranny of the majority (while I'm fond of the concept of Christianty - I'm also keenly aware that nominally Christian countries like Germany and Russia have sought to eradicate my folk). 
- I don't want to be cooked (alive I might add) in giant industrial ovens.
- Don't want the local equestrian paramilitary (Cossacks) set free to rape and murder my kin, my neighbors solely because we are an advantaged minority. 

So yes. That is the privilege I seek. The privilege not to be terrorized or murdered by the majority.....




Faithful Wife said:


> I just think these are two separate topics you are I are on, then.
> 
> To me, the topic of privilege in the way I'm using it is not about individuals and whether or not they may succeed in their lives. I and others have said here that having privilege in no way guarantees anyone success or freedom from pain, rejection, loss, etc.
> 
> You could be the richest most privileged child in the world living in a mansion, and yet still be emotionally abused by psycho parents so deeply that you never recover from it. Or you could be the most under privileged child and end up at the top of the food chain.
> 
> You seem to be discussing that topic. So on that topic, I'm sure you and I both agree, right?
> 
> The topic I am discussing is on a social awareness level and is not about any one person's abilities or advantages or even privileges. It is about society and how the mass wave of certain ideas has created different areas of privilege for different groups, and that awareness of your own privilege should hopefully encourage compassion for others you may not have had otherwise.
> 
> I do not expect you or anyone in anyway to feel bad or responsible for your privilege, nor do I assume anyone who has privilege has not experienced pain equal or greater than others who don't have privilege.


----------



## john117

Getting in to such places is not the problem with my credentials. LinkedIn brings lots of headhunter mails my way weekly.

Unfortunately the job positions they ask me invariably involve shepherding H1B's, not as much design or analysis work... And money, while excellent, is not enough to cover the cost of living difference esp housing. 

Advancing is the big issue and the one I'm more concerned about...


----------



## Thundarr

Privilege talk is part of the problem. It's a crutch to blame shift when things aren't going like someone wants. Gender and race are minor compared to most attributes when it comes to privilege. But for someone who's not a white male it sure is easy to throw around the privilege card.

Hey I don't have drive and ambition; if only I were a white man because they can be lazy. My parents didn't help instill a sense of responsibility or accountability; if only I were a white man because they can be irresponsible and aren't held accountable. Hey I'm introverted but I'd really like to have a sales job; if only I were a white man because white man hermits get sales jobs all of the time. I'd really like to get into this Ivy league but my test scores and IQ aren't all that high; If only I were a white man because Harvard and Yale don't care about their test scores or IQ.

Privilege talk is harmful for people who buy it. Show me any young person with drive, ambition, responsibility, accountability, and average or higher intelligence and I'll show you a young person who is going to be very successful.


----------



## john117

Privilege depends on level. At entry level there's a bit of inverse privilege during hiring but down the road it becomes obvious.

It's at my level, or 15+ years into it, that it becomes more subtle. I have far more qualifications than my boss. But when he retires I won't take his job. Likewise my position opened up when my predecessor retired much to everyone's relief. 

Once you acknowledge that the USA is not a meritocracy things become a LOT easier


----------



## john117

The above was incredibly easy to demonstrate at my wife's last job. The company was notorious for hiring non privileged classes, quickly promote them to show how great they are, and cut them like Tim Tebow at the slightest sign of trouble (which was early and often as they often had no mentoring or support). The few who survived via Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome methods were generally awful, mistrusting, and a pain to work for.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Privilege depends on level. At entry level there's a bit of inverse privilege during hiring but down the road it becomes obvious.
> 
> It's at my level, or 15+ years into it, that it becomes more subtle. I have far more qualifications than my boss. But when he retires I won't take his job. Likewise my position opened up when my predecessor retired much to everyone's relief.
> 
> Once you acknowledge that the USA is not a meritocracy things become a LOT easier


Of course merit based on ability is subjective. Especially when we're judging our own merit against others. 9 or 10 times when a person is selected for a job from a pool, the other members in the pool think they had more merit. Usually they don't.


----------



## john117

Depends on one's definition of merit...

Which is the whole point of privileged classes.

In the design professions you can judge what one candidate vs another can accomplish, because we require portfolios  same for college admissions.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Getting in to such places is not the problem with my credentials. LinkedIn brings lots of headhunter mails my way weekly.
> 
> Unfortunately the job positions they ask me invariably involve shepherding H1B's, not as much design or analysis work... And money, while excellent, is not enough to cover the cost of living difference esp housing.
> 
> Advancing is the big issue and the one I'm more concerned about...


You don't want to work for Amazon anyway. They are a fine place to buy from but a terrible place to work, from what I've read.


----------



## john117

My boss's kid works there. He likes it well enough. I personally can't stand Seattle, a bit too gloomy and hip. Nice place to visit, tho. Lots of Asian people in the Bellevue area especially. That is one nice place BTW...

Hopefully Zuck or Jony will keep me in mind .


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> My boss's kid works there. He likes it well enough. I personally can't stand Seattle, a bit too gloomy and hip. Nice place to visit, tho. Lots of Asian people in the Bellevue area especially. That is one nice place BTW...
> 
> Hopefully Zuck or Jony will keep me in mind .


I like Seattle a lot but the cost of living there is astronomical, at least compared to rural east Texas where I live.

I did interview once at Amazon some years ago and I got to the final interview where they told me how much the pay was. I said "How could I live on that in this high-cost area?". The answer was "Oh, that's no problem thanks to financial technology!"


----------



## tom67

Listen there are exceptions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQRR8gXlpgg

They have 2 kids and both work a WTVA now in MS.
Hey I ca be a romantic. :grin2:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

naiveonedave said:


> this is a good point.
> 
> My posts in this thread have come more from a perspective of trying to show why MGTOW exists, not as a means to change MGTOW or even agree with it other than the few common beliefs I have with why MGTOW exists..
> 
> TBH, I think the movement is nutso, I much prefer spending time with mixed company. I appreciate most women (and most men).* I luv being married. I don't like NSA sex, married/monogamous sex is best, imo.
> *
> When I encounter friends who think about this type of stuff, my answer is what are you going to do about it and what can I do to help?










I want to elaborate on this posting... Even though I may sympathize with the gripes of some men... if they were once well intentioned giving men who gave their hearts/ lives to a woman (not neglecting her) but still got screwed over ... I sympathize..

Just as I also sympathize with women who have given their all to their man... only to be taken advantage of, cheated on.. betrayed... if she was an attentive wife, was there for him sexually, doing her part....that's very ugly behavior.. nothing is worse when you have given your ALL, trusted deeply... to have this person throw it away - like it was nothing....

These people are HURTING BADLY.. it taints their world.. It's very sad that it gets tainted to such an extreme to join the likes of MGTOW though....I've learned enough here to know such men would only look upon a woman to use her... this is no better than the Playboy ...even worse....There is contempt in their philosophy. 

This is how I feel too >









*ALL MEN ON THIS FORUM who believe in Monogamy, feel marriage is a higher ideal, and IS worth the effort ...(hopefully you married a woman who feels the same)...how can I look upon YOU badly.. I simply can't !! 

As you have NOT given up on women yet.. you may have some complaints but you still believe there are Good women out there, worthy to attach to, commit to & share a life with..

I very much appreciate such men...always will. * 

I had a brief conversation yesterday with a Nephew..he's never had a GF, he has a Great job, he's 27 now.. good looking, perfect body type.. he laid it out there in the kitchen.... he doesn't want to be committed - at all... to any woman...EVER..

Then we have our oldest son... he's also good looking...though not as high paying of a job as his cousin...Both Decent guys.. still single...what gives [email protected]#

I was mentally comparing their differences...Nephew obviously sees 0 incentive or care in any woman he's met to date...though he'll use them for his own pleasure ... he does the bar thing.. but he's responsible with it. 

Son is the monogamous one who very much hopes to find Love, settle down & marry one day... 

Unlike his cousin he's not commitment phobic....unfortunately he IS dismayed with the values , lifestyle choices of many women today, what he's rubbed up against in college & who's he's worked with (seems the majority party & hook up)....this just isn't his scene....

Meanwhile..Nephew is sleeping with all sorts of women but he's never going to commit to them (He's got more MGTOW against traditional values one could say)....

Men like our son does not want to date women who've engaged in this sort of lifestyle.. I can understand this. 

When I hear men speak on how women will sleep easily with the







guys in their wild years (those like nephew)...then seeking the marrying type after the partying gets old / what many term the Beta male.... (I see these as Family men, it's not necessarily a bad thing -to me anyway).... I can sympathize with where they are coming from...

When we have a society no longer holding up an importance of marriage/ family/ commitment ...there will be ramifications on both sides.. 

Again...just mentally comparing the differences between our nephew & son...


----------



## Starstarfish

How do define success is it making a lot of money? How much?

Because if that's the measure, then it's a fallacy that all hard working, intelligent people end up making a lot of money. You can find different labels like "cronyism" but there are indeed factors in many professions where talent or ethics or hard-work are congruent factors to "who you know" and other mundane things. 

That's not even considering the question if there are an appropriate amount of "successful" jobs for all hard working, intelligent people.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I want to elaborate on this posting... Even though I may sympathize with the gripes of some men... if they were once well intentioned giving men who gave their hearts/ lives to a woman (not neglecting her) but still got screwed over ... I sympathize..
> 
> Just as I also sympathize with women who have given their all to their man... only to be taken advantage of, cheated on.. betrayed... if she was an attentive wife, was there for him sexually, doing her part....that's very ugly behavior.. nothing is worse when you have given your ALL, trusted deeply... to have this person throw it away - like it was nothing....
> 
> These people are HURTING BADLY.. it taints their world.. It's very sad that it gets tainted to such an extreme to join the likes of MGTOW though....I've learned enough here to know such men would only look upon a woman to use her... this is no better than the Playboy ...even worse....There is contempt in their philosophy.
> 
> This is how I feel too >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL MEN ON THIS FORUM who believe in Monogamy, feel marriage is a higher ideal, and IS worth the effort ...(hopefully you married a woman who feels the same)...how can I look upon YOU badly.. I simply can't !!
> 
> As you have NOT given up on women yet.. you may have some complaints but you still believe there are Good women out there, worthy to attach to, commit to & share a life with..
> 
> I very much appreciate such men...always will. *
> 
> I had a brief conversation yesterday with a Nephew..he's never had a GF, he has a Great job, he's 27 now.. good looking, perfect body type.. he laid it out there in the kitchen.... he doesn't want to be committed - at all... to any woman...EVER..
> 
> Then we have our oldest son... he's also good looking...though not as high paying of a job as his cousin...Both Decent guys.. still single...what gives [email protected]#
> 
> I was mentally comparing their differences...Nephew obviously sees 0 incentive or care in any woman he's met to date...though he'll use them for his own pleasure ... he does the bar thing.. but he's responsible with it.
> 
> Son is the monogamous one who very much hopes to find Love, settle down & marry one day...
> 
> Unlike his cousin he's not commitment phobic....unfortunately he IS dismayed with the values , lifestyle choices of many women today, what he's rubbed up against in college & who's he's worked with (seems the majority party & hook up)....this just isn't his scene....
> 
> Meanwhile..Nephew is sleeping with all sorts of women but he's never going to commit to them (He's got more MGTOW against traditional values one could say)....
> 
> Men like our son does not want to date women who've engaged in this sort of lifestyle.. I can understand this.
> 
> When I hear men speak on how women will sleep easily with the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guys in their wild years (those like nephew)...then seeking the marrying type after the partying gets old / what many term the Beta male.... (I see these as Family men, it's not necessarily a bad thing -to me anyway).... I can sympathize with where they are coming from...
> 
> When we have a society no longer holding up an importance of marriage/ family/ commitment ...there will be ramifications on both sides..
> 
> Again...just mentally comparing the differences between our nephew & son...


It is posts like this that are the reason why I always read SA's posts, and still have some faith left in humanity lol :grin2:


----------



## techmom

10 Examples That Prove White Privilege Protects White People in Every Aspect Imaginable ? Everyday Feminism

Here's an excerpt from the article:



> 1. I Have the Privilege of (Generally) Having a Positive Relationship with the Police
> 
> Sure, the police who patrolled the affluent neighborhoods of my youth were an inconvenience to a few keggers and I maintain that a traffic violation from the late 90s was unfair, but I grew up thinking of the police officers as a source of safety if I were ever in danger; I certainly never viewed them as the source of danger.
> 
> In 1999, Amadou Diallo – and the 41 bullets that police officers in plainclothes discharged at this unarmed Black man with no criminal record – taught me that not all share this privilege. Diallo was for me what Michael Brown has been to some White people. Too many Black and Brown people are not safe with the police.
> 
> Not even if you are child, a lesson Tamir Rice and Dajerria Becton taught me.
> 
> Not even if you are seeking medical help, a lesson Jonathan Ferrell taught me.
> 
> Not even if you call the police for help with your mentally ill son, a lesson Paul Castaway’s mother taught me.
> 
> Not even if your back is turned, a lesson Rekia Boyd and Walter Scott taught me.
> 
> Not even if you tell the police you “can’t breathe,” a lesson Eric Garner taught me.
> 2. I Have the Privilege of Being Favored by School Authorities
> 
> Kiera Wilmot and Ahmed Mohamed, both of whom were arrested for bringing science projects to school while Black or Brown, helped teach me this lesson.
> 
> Recently, one Black twelve-year-old was suspended for intimidating a White girl through his staring – staring that took place during a staring contest. Huh?
> 
> Studies confirm such mistreatment of Black and Brown students. In one, White students who reported that they committed forty crimes in a year were “as likely to be imprisoned as black and Hispanic students who reported committing just five offenses.”
> 
> In my hometown of Seattle, Black middle school students are nearly four times as likely to be suspended as White students, a reality that has attracted an investigation by the federal government.
> 
> One federal study found similar disparities start as early has preschool. Preschool.
> 
> As a parent of a White four-year-old, I can’t fathom how such heavy-handed practices would ever help my child (who recently smacked my face because he didn’t want me to leave his room at bedtime).
> 
> But because we’re White, I’m unlikely to ever receive the call from school officials that Tunette Powell recounts in her article, “My son has been suspended five times. He’s three.”
> 
> 3. I Have the Privilege of Attending Segregated Schools of Affluence
> 
> That’s true, even if I’m White and poor, a demographic rarely forced to live in “concentrated poverty.” If you are Black and poor, however, you are nearly 19 times more likely to live in concentrated poverty than poor White Americans.
> 
> When I was growing up, Brown v. The Board of Education was more than history; it was a value. Civil Rights icon Thurgood Marshall taught me this lesson. And research shows that both people of Color and White people benefit from integrated schools.
> 
> Even though we “ended” segregation in 1954, segregation is the norm in 2015; integration has long ago been forced from the table of education reform.
> 
> Using fear tactics and coded language, White people continue to be the barrier to any attempt at integration, a fact that This American Life reminded us of last summer with its must-listen, two-part series “The Problem We All Live With.”
> 
> In Seattle, it was a White parent, unhappy she couldn’t get her daughter into a nearby (recently renovated) high school, who shut down a district’s efforts to integrate its public schools – which, not ironically, many White families had already fled because of previous integration efforts.
> 
> ****, in “progressive” Seattle, people of Color can’t even find a safe yoga class for POC without a White person crying discrimination.


This is just an example to illustrate that there is a thing such as white privilege, and white people cant imagine how it is to live as a non-white person. Because the experiences are vastly different.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> 10 Examples That Prove White Privilege Protects White People in Every Aspect Imaginable ? Everyday Feminism
> 
> Here's an excerpt from the article:
> 
> This is just an example to illustrate that there is a thing such as white privilege, and white people cant imagine how it is to live as a non-white person. Because the experiences are vastly different.


Assuming for the moment that there is such a thing as "white privilege", I think it is curious that I don't see any mention in the excerpt of the privilege of *white men* vs. *white women*, which seems very odd in an article from "everydayfeminism.com". Is that because white women in the US and other western cultures are much more privileged than white men in those cultures?

And by the way, where can white people in Seattle find a "safe yoga class" for *white *people without black people claiming discrimination?


----------



## techmom

Faithful Wife said:


> Like I have been saying....there are some around here who don't see the irony in how they go on and on about being male victims of female privilege and then painting all women with the same brush.
> 
> It doesn't matter that I have never once talked about myself or women as victims at TAM (even though tech talks about how men are victims daily) nor have I ever said that I have any idea how men are feeling or what they should "do for women" (even though tech talks daily about how women feel, what they say, and how they victimize men) and yet, I am targeted by a man or men telling me I am part of the problem of their victimization daily.
> 
> I really don't understand why the men here think this is not hypocrisy when it blatently is.


This is interesting, I guess this post will be brushed off as unimportant by those who choose to continue with their agendas...

This is why I state that the guys who are always complaining about how they are victimized want to go back to the time when women had no rights and they were privileged beyond belief. They don't want to lose their privileges, and to hell with protecting children in divorce, there shouldn't be divorced in the first place. These men must really hate the SAHMs, those b!chtes are good for nothing parasites according to them. They better be grateful for the paycheck they bring home, and show it too.

This attitude is why women like me will never depend on a man's support, if enough of us support ourselves then maybe MRAs will become obsolete, if we start out-earning them the tables will turn. No more money grubbing, gold diggers to complain about.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> 10 Examples That Prove White Privilege Protects White People in Every Aspect Imaginable ? Everyday Feminism
> 
> Here's an excerpt from the article:
> 
> This is just an example to illustrate that there is a thing such as white privilege, and white people cant imagine how it is to live as a non-white person. Because the experiences are vastly different.


Once again though, I assume we are just talking white vs black (so anyone who is not black gets lumped in as white?).

On the other side, i think it is also important to understand that to some extent you can see instances of reverse "White Privilege" where "whites" lose out on jobs, scholarships, college acceptance, etc... not because of their credentials but because of a quota that needs to be filled. Not claiming this goes beyond what folks here are calling "white privilege", but just don't want to make it seem like being born white you pop out of the womb with a golden ticket.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Starstarfish said:


> *How do define success is it making a lot of money? How much?*


 Everyone's answer to this will be different -on how they view "Successful".. ..I imagine for many there is some threshold of earning so much a year ($100,000 plus for financial success maybe)... achieving a lifestyle where one/ their family is thriving.... having a feeling of importance in their workplace... whatever they have aimed for... and achieved....

We all have our dreams.. what I wanted in life was ....Family.. being able to afford to live/ make it on our own.. living in the country to raise that family...and getting debt free as soon as possible... 

Our kids do not have cell phone plans (I still carry a tracfone, doesn't bother me at all)...we shop with coupons & only order water when we go out to eat..... the last car we bought was a '97 for $2,000 (only 89,000 miles, paid cash on the spot)..... Things like that .. we get excited about.. where as another would think "OMG that car is too old.. I'd never drive that!"..... 

When we meet Rich people.... I always wonder if they will look down on the non-college degreed blue collar worker.. as truly we'd never be hanging out at the Local Country Club, taking vacations to the Bahamas on a regular basis, or playing golf with Doctors & Lawyers..

We have some friends who make double plus what my husband does... they don't look down on us.. we've never felt it.. Always impressed when I see this in others of means... 



> Because if that's the measure, then it's a fallacy that all hard working, intelligent people end up making a lot of money. You can find different labels like "cronyism" but there are indeed factors in many professions where talent or ethics or hard-work are congruent factors to "who you know" and other mundane things.


 That's the world we live in.. lots of a** kissing to get where one wants to go....or you lucked out being born into a wealthy family... though many have destroyed themselves because it all came too easy...

This is a good article.. with some great quotes...

How Do You Define Success? | Inc.com



> Some of those answers, of course, depend on how you define success. Like many, I grew up equating money and power with success, and for a time, that framed my definition. But as I've matured, that has changed. You see, success is a very personal thing. What drives one entrepreneur may be radically different for another. And understanding how others measure success can help you better understand your own definition....
> 
> 
> ..... The one constant I found? We all long for daily joy and fulfillment in our work and beyond.
> 
> "To find and fully live your purpose in life, and to leave an enduring legacy of having made a difference in the world."


I liked this man's quote > "Success is looking back at your life, when you are in your final moments, and possessing a great amount of pride around your creations, accomplishments, and legacy, while possessing little to no regret about what you did not do and missed opportunities (i.e. your family still loves you). If I can die feeling this way, I believe this is success."

This resonates with me..

















@EllisRedding


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> Once again though, I assume we are just talking white vs black (so anyone who is not black gets lumped in as white?).
> 
> On the other side, i think it is also important to understand that to some extent you can see instances of reverse "White Privilege" where "whites" lose out on jobs, scholarships, college acceptance, etc... not because of their credentials but because of a quota that needs to be filled. Not claiming this goes beyond what folks here are calling "white privilege", but just don't want to make it seem like being born white you pop out of the womb with a golden ticket.


What I am trying to illustrate is the privileges that whites have over non-whites. Non-whites are incarcerated at higher rates than whites, when white college kids riot after losing/winning a football game, they are treated as "kids", even though the majority of them are over 18. If black kids celebrate after winning a game, how do you think they will be treated....


----------



## Runs like Dog

Western civilization was invented by nominally celibate clergy from the early Dark Ages to the 14th century. So on balance I think the jury's still out on how terrible celibacy is.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Assuming for the moment that there is such a thing as "white privilege", I think it is curious that I don't see any mention in the excerpt of the privilege of *white men* vs. *white women*, which seems very odd in an article from "everydayfeminism.com". Is that because white women in the US and other western cultures are much more privileged than white men in those cultures?
> 
> And by the way, where can white people in Seattle find a "safe yoga class" for *white *people without black people claiming discrimination?


You still don't get it, you still think that women have more power than men, yet men run the majority of governments in western cultures?

Really?

Some men think that by sharing some power with less privileged groups of people mean they lose ALL of their power. It shows a selfish mindset which is potentially dangerous.


----------



## techmom

9 Photos of White People Rioting That Put Ferguson into Perspective - Mic


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> You still don't get it, you still think that women have more power than men, yet men run the majority of governments in western cultures?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Some men think that by sharing some power with less privileged groups of people mean they lose ALL of their power. It shows a selfish mindset which is potentially dangerous.


This is another example of the apex fallacy.

A tiny fraction of men have any power in western culture. Most men have none.

Now to the privilege issue:

Women have legal rights men don't have, which I have documented on several occasions.

Men don't have legal rights that women don't have.

Ergo, women are legally privileged relative to men.

As for other privileges, women are incarcerated at far lower rates than men for the same crimes. They serve shorter sentences and are much less likely to serve any time at all. They are also less likely to be convicted of the same offense. 

Women who are the victims of statutory rape are never forced to support the children they have as a result of the rape.
Boys who are the victims of statutory rape are sometimes forced to support the children they have as a result of the rape.

Here's a reference work about the very serious issues men face: https://notehub.org/hpp2i.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> What I am trying to illustrate is the privileges that whites have over non-whites. Non-whites are incarcerated at higher rates than whites, when white college kids riot after losing/winning a football game, they are treated as "kids", even though the majority of them are over 18. If black kids celebrate after winning a game, how do you think they will be treated....


I understand what you are saying. My point is just not going as far as saying blacks have higher incarceration rates than whites simply b/c they are black. Yes, maybe being black alone sets them back, but then again, good parenting and accountability will help keep anyone out of jail, regardless of color.

I am not black but I am classified as a minority. Both my parents are classified as minorities. They did not let that get in their way and did very well with their careers through busting their ass. Likewise, I have done well with my career for the same exact reason. My parents would kick the snot out of me if I ever tried to fall back on being a minority as the reason why I failed in life. The fact is there is people who will always look to some excuse (skin color, race, etc..) when things don't go their way, and it as much comes down from parents instilling this same mentality in their kids.


----------



## Starstarfish

> Yes, maybe being black alone sets them back, but then again, good parenting and accountability will help keep anyone out of jail, regardless of color.


Good parenting only goes so far with anyone. Most mass shooters come from arguably "good" homes. Evidently, that wasn't enough to keep them from "going bad."


----------



## EllisRedding

Starstarfish said:


> Good parenting only goes so far with anyone. Most mass shooters come from arguably "good" homes. Evidently, that wasn't enough to keep them from "going bad."


Agreed, but you could also argue with the mass shooters there were additional variables at play (i.e. mental deficiencies, etc...) that may go beyond good parenting/good homes.


----------



## Thundarr

Starstarfish said:


> How do define success is it making a lot of money? How much?
> 
> Because if that's the measure, then it's a fallacy that all hard working, intelligent people end up making a lot of money. You can find different labels like "cronyism" but there are indeed factors in many professions where talent or ethics or hard-work are congruent factors to "who you know" and other mundane things.
> 
> That's not even considering the question if there are an appropriate amount of "successful" jobs for all hard working, intelligent people.


Some amount lets us provide for our kids, not live pay check to pay check, and help family sometimes seems like success to me. At least that's the choice I made and I'm happy with it. I considered becoming a contractor but running your own business is so much work and time away from family it didn't seem worth it.

I can't argue that some people don't have advantages in life unrelated to talent but I still think gender and race don't play much of a factor in this regard. There were a lot of avenues that would have been very hard for me to do well with due to ADHD. Some jobs like sales would be pretty difficult for introverts. And just being attractive gives people an advantage. So yea I agree with the notion of privilege to a degree.

I think a big factor in our opportunity for financial success (not necessarily personal success) is that so many of us are okay doing enough to live comfortably or just enough to get by. That leaves room for those willing to make sacrifices and take risks to really excel financially IMO. Like I mentioned, I chose not to put in 70-80 hour weeks building a business. The CEO and founder of the company I work for though made a lot of sacrifices over the years and he's build a solid small company. Had I not really considered and studied what it would take for me to do the same, I might not appreciate the risks and sacrifices he made over the years.


----------



## techmom

On Male Privilege ? Everyday Feminism


----------



## techmom




----------



## farsidejunky

techmom said:


>


Nothing like the hypocrisy of illustrating a stereotype by using...wait for it...a stereotype.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## techmom

farsidejunky said:


> Nothing like the hypocrisy of illustrating a stereotype by using...wait for it...a stereotype.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Cool, you don't have to agree, but some posters like to minimize other people's burdens while crying about their own. Some posters insist that women have more rights than they do while highlighting their point that only a few men hold most of the power. What they fail to realize is that it is still _men_ who hold this power, not women. 

Thus, they become angry at women for gaining power by way of feminism, but they don't become angry at the few men with most of the power. I guess, because women are safer targets and you can't bite the hand that feeds you via patriarchy.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Re cartoon..

so that's the 0.1%'ers what about the other white folk ... they don't even get a minority position


----------



## tech-novelist

farsidejunky said:


> Nothing like the hypocrisy of illustrating a stereotype by using...wait for it...a stereotype.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


No, that's different! Remember, white men are the oppressors, so it is impossible to be prejudiced against them!

I'm sure your re-education camp counselor will help you understand that better...


----------



## farsidejunky

I keep waiting for Principal P.C. from South Park to invade the thread and beat up the dissenters...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## techmom

I guess that well known fact that most of the world's wealth is held by white men is lost on some posters. It is a few white men, but nonetheless they are white men


----------



## jld

techmom said:


> Cool, you don't have to agree, but some posters like to minimize other people's burdens while crying about their own. Some posters insist that women have more rights than they do while highlighting their point that only a few men hold most of the power. What they fail to realize is that it is still _men_ who hold this power, not women.
> 
> Thus, they become angry at women for gaining power by way of feminism, but they don't become angry at the few men with most of the power. I guess, because women are safer targets and you can't bite the hand that feeds you via patriarchy.


And because they think they can identify with them. More appealing than identifying with less privileged folks, I guess.


----------



## techmom

**crickets**


----------



## farsidejunky

Angling for who can be the largest victim, whether it is MGTOW, or the p.c. micro aggression crowd, is still just angling to justify victim hood. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## techmom

Another article for you to chew on: 

"That's Racist Against White People!" A Discussion on Power and Privilege ? Everyday Feminism

:grin2:


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> I guess that well known fact that most of the world's wealth is held by white men is lost on some posters. It is a few white men, but nonetheless they are white men


I don't understand this point. So you are taking the 0.0001% of all white males and extrapolating that to all white males i.e. white privilege


----------



## techmom

farsidejunky said:


> Angling for who can be the largest victim, whether it is MGTOW, or the p.c. micro aggression crowd, is still just angling to justify victim hood.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It is one thing to say that groups of people are just complaining uselessly about their victim hood.

It is another thing entirely when that same group attempts to empower themselves out of being merely victims they get backlash from members of the group with most of the power. 

We can't dismiss feminism and other forms of empowerment when they make us feel uncomfortable while they point out injustices committed in the past and present. We can't pretend that white men belong to the same group, the most powerful group in the world, even though some are poor and won't hold that power. But, by default, they have more access to that power than women and minorities.

To be angry at feminists for oppressing men? Ludicrous, I say.

Let's do a thought exercise:

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Europe?

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Africa?

And try to be honest....


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> I don't understand this point. So you are taking the 0.0001% of all white males and extrapolating that to all white males i.e. white privilege


I was answering Technovelists' point of women holding the most power in western society. When I answered him with the fact that white men hold the most power in western governments, he stated that it was held by a FEW white men. My point is, they are still WHITE MEN. 

Just because it is just a few of them doesn't negate the fact that WOMEN DON'T CONTROL THE GOVERNMENTS, MEN DO.

So to say that women have more rights than men in the western world, who is giving them that power, if men run the governements?

But, wait, feminism granted women power but men still run government? We have lots of work left to do then...


----------



## jld

Europe--culture

Africa--poverty


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Once again though, I assume we are just talking white vs black (so anyone who is not black gets lumped in as white?).
> 
> On the other side, i think it is also important to understand that to some extent you can see instances of reverse "White Privilege" where "whites" lose out on jobs, scholarships, college acceptance, etc... not because of their credentials but because of a quota that needs to be filled. Not claiming this goes beyond what folks here are calling "white privilege", but just don't want to make it seem like being born white you pop out of the womb with a golden ticket.


I LIKE how the hiring quad at my husband's job weeded the lazy out.. he has one of the best blue collar jobs in our area.. they had a large "Hiring AD" in the local newspaper 17 years ago..a flood of people came...we live in a high unemployment area.... he was thinking "Oh hell .. I'll never get in... too many people here!!" 

Then the Reps went on about the positions they needed to fill... they literally made it sound like you'd be working outside in adverse weather conditions, rain, sleet, snow, ice..... you'd have no building to sit in..... if you were freezing...the picture they painted was -you'd be standing outside.. around a fire ring or something huddled together.... they just made it sound BAADDDD.... my husband WANTED THIS JOB BADLY.. even if all of that were true.. he'd still JUMP at the chance.. 

Some people got up & walked out.. Then they spoke how the test would be a couple hours long... physiological, all that.. more got up & walked out ... then they announced there would be DRUG TESTING....husband said Literally half of them got up & walked out... I was thinking "REALLLLY....Seriously" [email protected]#

But I was happy as hell to hear it.. more chances for him to get hired.. and he did.. I think more prospective employees should paint the absolute worst picture possible to weed the lazy out..like played out that day... 

It had nothing to do with black or white or anything like this.. as it should be.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Europe--culture
> 
> Africa--poverty


Largely because of Europe


----------



## jld

True, John.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> I don't understand this point. So you are taking the 0.0001% of all white males and extrapolating that to all white males i.e. white privilege


Obviously you don't understand logic.

Since a tiny number of men have lots of power, that means that *all *men have lots of power.

Let me give a more concrete example.

Bill Gates is a billionaire. He is a white man.

Therefore, all white men are billionaires!


----------



## john117

Not quite.

White privilege is not about who has power but more about perceived values and qualities. 

Remember the numerous hiring studies where the samely qualified applicant sports an obvious non white vs white name...


----------



## Duguesclin

The reality of life is that there are levels of privilege. Most of us have children living in a privileged home. We all make sure we protect them as much as we can.

What is problematic is not recognizing our own privileges.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

The ongoing Privilege talk ...it just seems to me like more Stereotyping.. each side is feeding into feeling victimized....we see our side above the others ... very typical...

I tend to see this forum as more liberal in nature over conservative.. but those who are liberal feel it's too conservative.. so there you have it ! This is what people DO.. 

I've probably been around more men who are very gracious to women and helpful over the other.. (sure we could all name Bad apples of our own sex, color, religion, etc..)...this is enough to be fully aware there is good & bad in nearly every group, ism, etc. 

When I meet others who speak freely in a demeaning way about someone JUST BECAUSE of their color (for example)... who know nothing about them/ nada ... I immediately say to myself.. "this person is an idiot (the proper word is bigot)...they are pre-judging what they do not know, it's UNFAIR & UGLY"....truth is... they may have A LOT in common.. but they SQUASH IT, trample it...never allowing it's opportunity to be known.. to build a bridge. 

Common problem among man (meaning women too!) 

*Everyone has a foundation in their judgement...What is yours.. is the question??*

IN hiring.. it's probably a little different.. we want the SHARKS who will eat everyone else & grow a company.. The Scrooges are good for "bottom lines"..

Outside of this though...in our interpersonal relationships... I would surely hope we care most about *the ethics of an individual*....or do we place more importance on the external... assuming others are like *the stereotype *they have played in their head over & over- due to previous experiences or knowing others who've had bad experiences.. etc... this is why we are initially prone to lump certain groups in boxes & label them...to dismiss them....

I sincerely TRY to NOT DO THIS.... for instance.. if I learn someone comes from a Family with a Bad reputation (Fathers in jail, brothers a bully, drugs, etc).... I wouldn't tell our sons to never bring him home.. but I would be very CAUTIOUS....my antenna would be UP...I'd allow the kid to come to our house to get to know him better.. some of us learn from our parents mistakes & want a better life.. and some REPEAT the cycle...not good. 

I would not want judged on something I could not control.. (our color, if my family members were F'cked up - yep...we all have a couple of those , don't we).... or if I was unlucky enough to be born in poverty...

However... I do JUDGE people on their ETHICS...they don't have to subscribe to a certain religion, I don't care if they are Atheist...but I DO CARE how they live...and treat others...are they honest people.. are they outraged by unfair treatment -no matter the gender, do they have empathy.. is it genuine.....this is where I "camp" people in my life... who we'd choose as friends, or trust with our secrets, etc..

It's true though....every one of us do a certain amount of INITIAL stereotyping...I tried to explain this in my Stereotyping thread ...all Psychologists know this.. but still people will argue...(typical)...

I was just reading this.. it's what happens on all these threads here.. between the men & women.. it's as clear as day.. but how many can admit they too are guilty of it ? 



> Stereotyping is especially prevalent -- and problematic -- in conflicts. Groups tend to define themselves according to who they are and who they are not. And "others," especially "enemies" or "opponents" are often viewed in very negative ways. The opponent is expected to be aggressive, self-serving, and deceitful, for example, while people in one's own group are seen in generally positive ways.
> 
> Similarly, if problems occur, blame is often placed on "the enemy," while one's own contribution to the problem is ignored. For example, problems may be attributed to the opponent's lack of cooperativeness, not one's own; or the enemy's aggressiveness, not their fear of one's own aggressive stance. Even similarities between parties can be viewed differently: one's own competitiveness may be seen in a positive light as "tough, effective negotiating," while the opponent's competitive actions are seen as "hostile and deceptive."
> 
> Such stereotypes tend to be self-perpetuating. If one side assumes the other side is deceitful and aggressive, they will tend to respond deceitfully and aggressively themselves.
> 
> The opponent will then develop a similar image of the first party and respond deceptively, thus confirming the initial stereotype. The stereotypes may even grow worse, as communication shuts down and escalation heightens emotions and tension.


For instance...I would refuse to drive through a high crime neighborhood....if I am watching random shootings on the news every night... you damn well better believe we'll take a longer route to avoid that area.....That's common sense.. does this mean that If we met an individual from this area that He or she is a part of the bad people there.. of course not.. but sure our antennas would be up ..... there are many decent people who'd give anything to get out of there...find a new life.. such people deserve a chance.. but if you **** it up time & time & time again.. you're not sincere.. ya know... 

The same goes for Christians, for Feminists, for Republicans, for Democrats.. for whatever "group" ..

I consider myself on the Conservative scale in a # of areas....there are people here who, initially hearing one is a conservative would want to throw up..







why.. they have stereotyped *me* as their enemy.. 

I'm not anyone's enemy.. I have opinions like everyone else here.. But ya know.. even me.. I wouldn't agree with all Conservatives....heck NO!....I have taken liberal views against them...oh yeah. 

We're all individual, unique and should be looked upon as a "person on our own merit"... as it should be for interviews..getting hired...relationships... all of it.. 

I was almost jumped by a group of black men hovering around our car with a newborn baby once.. while my husband was buying a Christmas tree he found in the paper....these men were taunting me.. I was scared to death... I started praying.. ..it was a known bad section of town... never again...

But guess what...one of my husband's BEST friends was a black man he worked with many yrs ago.. he broke down at his funeral... at the end of the day.. it's never about the color of one's skin.... but it's always about HOW YOU LIVE and TREAT OTHER PEOPLE...

That's our foundation anyway..


----------



## techmom

john117 said:


> Not quite.
> 
> White privilege is not about who has power but more about perceived values and qualities.
> 
> Remember the numerous hiring studies where the samely qualified applicant sports an obvious non white vs white name...


José vs Joe: Who Gets a Job? ? Everyday Feminism


----------



## john117

To better understand white privilege you need to see it not from a minority perspective but from a near white perspective

Nobody will tell you in your face of course. It's all subtle things. 

Some privileges cancel out . Female or minority privilege at hiring vs advancing... Young vs old... Old boys club vs hoi polloi.


----------



## Runs like Dog

techmom said:


> 9 Photos of White People Rioting That Put Ferguson into Perspective - Mic


----------



## techmom

Runs like Dog said:


>


I guess marginalized people will have to "riot" this way to be taken seriously and to prevent hurt feelings, smh.


----------



## tom67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6LE250Y3XM

:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## techmom

http://youtu.be/j4m3AJamQYM

http://youtu.be/ELvVZ6sm-88


----------



## FalconKing

Whenever I see threads about MGTOW or guys feeling like they are getting a raw deal in the dating market I always get that uneasy feeling that it's coming...



BetrayedDad said:


> I see it but I think it's much worse with minorities and homosexuals.
> 
> No one really wants equality. They all want perks and special treatment.


And there it is... Once someone goes there then you see how people really feel. 

I'm a black man. My contention has always been that some people here try not to acknowledge that with dealing with women, men are usually at a disadvantage per the legal system. I also feel that men in general should empower themselves and not feel validated by women. Once you are the best you that you can be, the women will come. Many guys never find the best them and they tolerate way more than they should, I feel. I don't think men are entitled to women and I don't subscribe to that 80/20 idea of only 20 % of men get all the women. I just don't not think that is true. I believe in a brotherhood for all men and I believe that most of us just want to be understood. 

now then:
My great grandfather had his own land and farm. A white man wanted it, so he killed him and took it. My grandfather, his mother, and sisters were all essentially homeless. My grandfather's friends were killed for sport and one of his friends had his testicles removed for a joke. My dad was a kid during desegregation. He was beat up in school daily and one time he was choked out until he passed out in the bathroom. Once he came to, he got his books off the floor and didn't say anything to anyone. The first time I was called n*gger I was 5. I've been pulled over the by the cops "just because.." at least 7 times. I can tell you so much more. But the point i'm trying to make is.. Everyone deserves a chance to be friend, brother or ally. My dad isn't angry. My grandfather wasn't angry. I am not angry. But YOU are? WTF? Just because someone who is the same color as you does and says terrible things that has no bearing on you. I don't go around making sweeping generalizations about white people. And I wouldn't let anyone talk bad about any of my white friends. 

The thing is that once all these laws came into play about equal rights, people didn't automatically stop being racist. What incentive would you have to hire minorities when generation after generation it was passed down verbally that you were better than these people? A lot of those perks you speak of were just ways to give people opportunities they wouldn't normally have. Your tone suggest that you feel minorities and homosexuals are getting special treatments. So given the opportunity, if you were a boss you probably would hire a white man over them because you feel they already got all the breaks and didn't actually earn anything. Correct? Also, you talk about not understanding white privilege but lets refer to your above post that I have quoted:

This is a public forum with many different nationalities and races. Some of whom have agreed with you and supported you when you have posted here. You have no problem alienating them because you feel that without a doubt they have it easier than you. You are not an ignorant man. You are very intelligent. So for you to say what you did, it means you are ok with offending and disrespecting people that are not white. You don't care to understand them and doing so in no way improves your quality of life. How arrogant is that? 

Now I do think there some things that we have in place that are no longer necessary. I for one am firmly against historically black colleges. I think they cultivate ignorance. You go to a school in a environment where everyone looks and acts like you, and you feel like that is how the whole world is. Whatever negative thoughts you have about people not like you, get enhanced in these environments. That's because you don't have common abundance of examples to counter your views and everyone else helps you ramp things up to extreme prejudices. When you leave this environment and interact with people of different races, you have no idea how to relate to them. You refer to stereotypes or hostile views you've cultivated over the years. You are proud of yourself if you can manage to be nice to them, but there is definitely a wall there. No matter how well you can put on for appearance sake, you know deep down inside this person will never be a brother to you. And you vehemently tell your black kids that if they ever bring home *insert whatever* you will disown them. 

Interesting thought isn't it?

But hey, if some of you white dudes really need a white only male space maybe discuss it with the mods. I am more about men internalizing their value so it's cool if i'm not allowed in the country club.


----------



## techmom

Profound...

http://youtu.be/w6CCePrJlaU


----------



## techmom

FalconKing said:


> Whenever I see threads about MGTOW or guys feeling like they are are getting a raw deal in the dating market I always get that uneasy feeling that it's coming...
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is... Once someone goes there then you see how people really feel.
> 
> I'm a black man. My contention has always been that some people here try not to acknowledge that with dealing with women, men are usually at a disadvantage per the legal system. I also feel that men in general should empower themselves and not feel validated by women. Once you are the best you that you can be, the women will come. Many guys never find the best them and they tolerate way more than they should, I feel. I don't think men are entitled to women and I don't subscribe to that 80/20 idea of only 20 % of men get all the women. I just don't not think that is true. I believe in a brotherhood for all men and I believe that most of us just want to be understood.
> 
> now then:
> My great grandfather has his own land and farm. A white man wanted it, so he killed him and took it. My grandfather, his mother, and sisters were all essentially homeless. My grandfather's friends were killed for sport and one of his friends had his testicles removed for a joke. My dad was a kid during desegregation. He was beat up in school daily and one time he was choked out until he passed out in the bathroom. Once he came to, he got his books off the floor and didn't say anything to anyone. The first time I was called n*gger I was 5. I've been pulled over the by the cops "just because.." at least 7 times. I can tell you so much more. But the point i'm trying to make is.. Everyone deserves a chance to be friend, brother or ally. My dad isn't angry. My grandfather wasn't angry. I am not angry. But YOU are? WTF? Just because someone who is the same color as you does and says terrible things that has no bearing on you. I don't go around making sweeping generalizations about white people. And I wouldn't let anyone talk bad about any of my white friends. T
> 
> The thing is that once all these laws came into play about equal rights, people didn't automatically stop being racist. What incentive would you have to hire minorities when generation after generation it was passed down verbally that you were better than these people? A lot of those perks you speak of were just ways to give people opportunities they wouldn't normally have. Your tone suggest that you feel minorities and homosexuals are getting special treatments. So given the opportunity, if you were a boss you probably would hire a white man over them because you feel they already got all the breaks and didn't actually earn anything. Correct? Also, you talk about not understanding white privilege but lets refer to your above post that I have quoted:
> 
> This is a public forum with many different nationalities and races. Some of whom have agreed with you and supported you when you have posted here. You have no problem alienating them because you feel that without a doubt they have it easier than you. You are not an ignorant man. You are very intelligent. So for you to say what you did, it means you are ok with offending and disrespecting people that are not white. You don't care to understand them and doing so in no way improves your quality of life. How arrogant is that?
> 
> Now I do think there some things that we have in place that are no longer necessary. I for one am firmly against historically black colleges. I think they cultivate ignorance. You go to a school in a environment where everyone looks and acts like you, and you feel like that is how the whole world is. Whatever negative thoughts you have about people not like you, get enhanced in these environments. That's because you don't have common abundance of examples to counter your views and everyone else helps you ramp things up to extreme prejudices. When you leave this environment and interact with people of different races, you have no idea how to relate to them. You refer to stereotypes or hostile views you've cultivated over the years. You are proud of yourself if you can manage to be nice to them, but there is definitely a wall there. No matter how well you can put on for appearance sake, you know deep down inside this person will never be a brother to you. And you vehemently tell your black kids that if they ever bring home *insert whatever* you will disown them.
> 
> Interesting thought isn't it?
> 
> But hey, if some of you white dudes really need a white only male space maybe discuss it with the mods. I am more about men internalizing their value so it's cool if i'm not allowed in the country club.


Damn, QFT.


----------



## MEM2020

Falcon,

Thank you for sharing your story. That is profoundly disturbing and sad. 




QUOTE=FalconKing;14497881]Whenever I see threads about MGTOW or guys feeling like they are getting a raw deal in the dating market I always get that uneasy feeling that it's coming...



And there it is... Once someone goes there then you see how people really feel. 

I'm a black man. My contention has always been that some people here try not to acknowledge that with dealing with women, men are usually at a disadvantage per the legal system. I also feel that men in general should empower themselves and not feel validated by women. Once you are the best you that you can be, the women will come. Many guys never find the best them and they tolerate way more than they should, I feel. I don't think men are entitled to women and I don't subscribe to that 80/20 idea of only 20 % of men get all the women. I just don't not think that is true. I believe in a brotherhood for all men and I believe that most of us just want to be understood. 

now then:
My great grandfather had his own land and farm. A white man wanted it, so he killed him and took it. My grandfather, his mother, and sisters were all essentially homeless. My grandfather's friends were killed for sport and one of his friends had his testicles removed for a joke. My dad was a kid during desegregation. He was beat up in school daily and one time he was choked out until he passed out in the bathroom. Once he came to, he got his books off the floor and didn't say anything to anyone. The first time I was called n*gger I was 5. I've been pulled over the by the cops "just because.." at least 7 times. I can tell you so much more. But the point i'm trying to make is.. Everyone deserves a chance to be friend, brother or ally. My dad isn't angry. My grandfather wasn't angry. I am not angry. But YOU are? WTF? Just because someone who is the same color as you does and says terrible things that has no bearing on you. I don't go around making sweeping generalizations about white people. And I wouldn't let anyone talk bad about any of my white friends. 

The thing is that once all these laws came into play about equal rights, people didn't automatically stop being racist. What incentive would you have to hire minorities when generation after generation it was passed down verbally that you were better than these people? A lot of those perks you speak of were just ways to give people opportunities they wouldn't normally have. Your tone suggest that you feel minorities and homosexuals are getting special treatments. So given the opportunity, if you were a boss you probably would hire a white man over them because you feel they already got all the breaks and didn't actually earn anything. Correct? Also, you talk about not understanding white privilege but lets refer to your above post that I have quoted:

This is a public forum with many different nationalities and races. Some of whom have agreed with you and supported you when you have posted here. You have no problem alienating them because you feel that without a doubt they have it easier than you. You are not an ignorant man. You are very intelligent. So for you to say what you did, it means you are ok with offending and disrespecting people that are not white. You don't care to understand them and doing so in no way improves your quality of life. How arrogant is that? 

Now I do think there some things that we have in place that are no longer necessary. I for one am firmly against historically black colleges. I think they cultivate ignorance. You go to a school in a environment where everyone looks and acts like you, and you feel like that is how the whole world is. Whatever negative thoughts you have about people not like you, get enhanced in these environments. That's because you don't have common abundance of examples to counter your views and everyone else helps you ramp things up to extreme prejudices. When you leave this environment and interact with people of different races, you have no idea how to relate to them. You refer to stereotypes or hostile views you've cultivated over the years. You are proud of yourself if you can manage to be nice to them, but there is definitely a wall there. No matter how well you can put on for appearance sake, you know deep down inside this person will never be a brother to you. And you vehemently tell your black kids that if they ever bring home *insert whatever* you will disown them. 

Interesting thought isn't it?

But hey, if some of you white dudes really need a white only male space maybe discuss it with the mods. I am more about men internalizing their value so it's cool if i'm not allowed in the country club.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Thundarr

Thank you Falcon. You make me challenge myself to see things from a different perspective.


----------



## EllisRedding

Thanks for sharing @FalconKing

Here is something interesting I observed growing up. I am hispanic, grew up (and still live in) areas where "minorities" make up an incredibly small % of the population (low single digits). On one side, the moment a "non minority" wanted to take a shot at me they always went right for race card. One of my favorites was telling me I should fly back to where I came from. The irony in that was a) I was born here so really any flight would be a quick 10 minute flight lol, b) my parents were born here, and c) odds are my family line has been here just as long as theirs (so technically I could argue they should fly back to where they came from as well lol).

The interesting part, I actually used to get crap from some hispanics b/c I wasn't "hispanic" enough. I didn't fit into the stereotypes. It seems that since I did very well academically, didn't dress a certain way, didn't have an accent, didn't walk around with the "home" flag", wasn't fluent in Spanish, didn't hang out with the small group of hispanics in our schools, etc... I was looked down on. 

Now, understand that I definitely did not have it that bad growing up, a lot of people dealt with far worse (such as Falcon), and really at the end of the day I could care less about anything negative directed my way. Just made for a unique experience getting $h1t on from both sides lol.


----------



## john117

My daughters are multi ethnic and are often looked down by the Asian side of their ethnic heritage. They self identify as mudbloods from Harry Potter


----------



## BetrayedDad

FalconKing said:


> And there it is... Once someone goes there then you see how people really feel.
> 
> I'm a black man.


 

Here we go. I know because I want equal treatment, you want to insinuate I am some sort of closet racist. In a utopian society, wouldn't what I want hold true? That no one cares what anyone else is gender, color or otherwise and that everyone was on a level playing field??? No special parades, holidays or awards for being something I'm not??? In your boss example you know who I would hire? The PERSON I thought would make me the most fvcking money. Guy, girl, black, or Klingon. All I care about in business is the green.

You feel like you need "opportunities" to give you a leg up? I don't. I think you should compete like everyone else and who ever does the best wins. We already have amendments to the constitution protecting your rights so if you think you were cheated out of a job, contract or something because of gender or skin color SUE. You would have my blessing. 

What you don't have is my sympathy that I'm supposed to have white guilt because of things I had nothing to do with that occurred mostly before I was born. That because of this, affirmative action and your example "black schools" should be allowed to exist. I truly find the whole concept an INSULT to blacks. That they need "help" because essentially they can't do it on their own. 

Equality destroys racism. Assimilation and desegregation kills racism. As long as any minority group continues to demand "special treatment" they will continue to have resentment from others who don't get these perks. You're right, racism will not disappear overnight nor will it ever disappear 100%. It has existed as long as people have along with war, famine and poverty.

White privilege is a stupid concept because it exists in a bubble (ie western society). You speak of arrogance, yet liberals push policy under the assumption the world revolves around them. Let's go to North Korea and see what my white privilege would get me besides a bullet to the head. 

I'm not a MGTOW guy... I enjoy women too much. Diversity is just code for reverse racism. Why should I have to celebrate it? It would be a natural byproduct of fair society. Not artificially manipulated by government policy. I'm just tired of hearing certain segments blame these "outside forces beyond their control" because their lives suck. It's virtually impossible not to succeed in MODERN DAY USA, if you bust just your ass. It's really that simple. Most of these people crying disparity are professional victims looking for more "social justice". It's this thirst for justice that seems endless which I take umbrage with.

When does the self accountability start??? In the next generation? Next lifetime? A black president wasn't enough. Oprahs and Jay-Z's of the world aren't enough. Clear proof that any minority or woman can become rich and powerful from poverty isn't enough. How much longer do we have to blame the white guys?


----------



## gouge_away

Did some body say vagina privilege?
Oh I must be hearing things, obviously that would be a myth.

I can't remember the last time anybody opened a door for me, let me cut in line at sbux, offered me a ride home.

Maybe that isn't privilege, right, people go out of their way for nice looking women because deep down they just want a piece of that...

Well, maybe it's the same for the fairer skin, maybe people go out of their way to offer more opportunities to white males because deep down they believe it will benefit them to do so. They offer privileged because they expect more in return from whites.

The fact anybody even cries about "white man being privileged" and "we need equality" is BECAUSE THEY EXPECT MORE FROM WHITES, and WHITES DELIVER.

end of rant...


----------



## FalconKing

BetrayedDad said:


> Here we go. I know because I want equal treatment, you want to insinuate I am some sort of closet racist. In a utopian society, wouldn't what I want hold true? That no one cares what anyone else is gender, color or otherwise and that everyone was on a level playing field??? No special parades, holidays or awards for being something I'm not??? In your boss example you know who I would hire? The PERSON I thought would make me the most fvcking money. Guy, girl, black, or Klingon. All I care about in business is the green.
> 
> You feel like you need "opportunities" to give you a leg up? I don't. I think you should compete like everyone else and who ever does the best wins. We already have amendments to the constitution protecting your rights so if you think you were cheated out of a job, contract or something because of gender or skin color SUE. You would have my blessing.
> 
> What you don't have is sympathy that I'm supposed to have white guilt because of things I had nothing to do with that occurred mostly before I was born. That because of this, affirmative action and your example "black schools" should be allowed to exist. I truly find the whole concept an INSULT to blacks. That they need "help" because essentially they can't do it on their own.
> 
> Equality destroys racism. Assimilation and desegregation kills racism. As long as any minority group continues to demand "special treatment" they will continue to have resentment from others who don't get these perks. You're right, racism will not disappear overnight nor will it ever disappear 100%. It has existed as long as people have along with war, famine and poverty.
> 
> White privilege is a stupid concept because it exists in a bubble (ie western society). You speak of arrogance, yet liberals push policy under the assumption the world revolves around them. Let's go to North Korea and see what my white privilege would get me besides a bullet to the head.
> 
> I'm not a MGTOW guy... I enjoy woman too much. Diversity is just code for reverse racism. Why should I have to celebrate it? It would be a natural byproduct of fair society. Not artificially manipulated by government policy. I'm just tired of hearing certain segments blame these "outside forces beyond their control" because their lives suck. It's virtually impossible not to succeed in MODERN DAY USA, if you bust just your ass. It's really that simple. Most of these people crying disparity are professional victims looking for more "social justice". It's this thirst for justice that seems endless which I take umbrage with.
> 
> When does the self accountability start??? In the next generation? Next lifetime? A black president wasn't enough. Oprahs and Jay-Z's of the world aren't enough. Clear proof that any minority or woman can become rich and powerful from poverty isn't enough. How much longer to we have to blame the white guys?


I like how you only quoted that I was black and then went on a tirade about liberals and unfairness. Sorry that "triggered" you. My post was about unity and understanding. I can be just as angry as you or more. But you sit there everyday and rage while watching media propaganda that convinces there is some secret war on white people. You are too hostile to be taken seriously and only see what you want to. What have you been denied? What has physically been taken out of your hand and been giving to someone else? You no idea what other people's lives are like. If you have ever clashed with minorities or homosexuals it's because you have displayed this adversarial view and battle lines were drawn. You don't even see that. You don't even see you are part of the problem.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

FalconKing said:


> I like how you only quoted that I was black and then went on a tyraid about liberals and unfairness. Sorry that "triggered" you. My post was about unity and understanding. I can be just as angry as you or more. But you sit there everyday and rage while watching media propaganda that convinces there is some secret war on white people. You are too hostile to be taken seriously and only see what you want to. What have you been denied? What has physically been taken out of your hand and been giving to someone else? You no idea what other people's lives are like. If you have ever clashed with minorities or homosexuals it's because you have displayed this adversarial view and battle lines were drawn. You don't even see that. You don't even see you are part of the problem.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Keep pretending you're a victim of an unjust "white" society.

Whatever justifies your self righteous opinion of me.

I'm not mad at all. Actually, I feel sorry for you.

Edit: I'm done with this thread. I won't reply again.

I've explained my position clearly. Enjoy your pity party.


----------



## techmom

I'm not going to quote Betrayed's post, because I don't want to give it any validation, I'm just going to post this article by Tim Wise...

Tim Wise » White Denial: America?s Persistent and Increasingly Dangerous Pastime



> But although white denial has been a constant throughout American history, one thing about today’s version of it seems potentially more dangerous than that of past generations, and it is this fact more than any other which should give us pause. In the past, white obliviousness was of a more genuinely naive sort — in other words, most white folks really did think, absurd though it sounds, that everything was just fine, not only for ourselves but for black folks too — but today’s denial comes wrapped in a patina of resentment and anxiety. Today, it is not just that whites fail to see the obstacles still faced by persons of color; rather, too many of us apparently believe the tables have turned and now it is we who face those obstacles. Denial mixed with perceived victimhood and an unhealthy dose of nostalgia is far worse than denial of a purely ignorant type. For whites to not know black and brown reality is bad enough; but for us to literally invert black and brown reality with our own, and to believe that we are the ones who are being victimized, is a recipe for increased tension and acrimony. It is certainly no way to build multiracial democracy.


For some white people to cling onto their privilege with a firm grip indicates that they have privilege to cling to... People of color don't.

It is like watching a person with 2 loaves of bread become resentful after being asked to share with a starving person. If these people feel that they will lose everything they own just because a person other than themselves gain opportunity.

Concerning perks:

*White society had the perks of slavery, people working for them for free, if they had to pay wages do you think white society would have gained as much as they did? I doubt it, would have been difficult tending to those cash crops (cotton, tobacco, etc.) with paid staff. Couldn't work them from dawn until dusk without the crack of the whip and systematic discrimination....


----------



## john117

BetrayedDad, I'm white but not THAT kind of white  and have 30 years worth of seeing (but not benefiting from) white privilege to show for it...


----------



## FalconKing

BetrayedDad said:


> Keep pretending you're a victim of an unjust "white" society.
> 
> Whatever justifies your self righteous opinion of me.
> 
> I'm not mad at all. Actually, I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Edit: I'm done with this thread. I won't reply again.
> 
> I've explained my position clearly. Enjoy your pity party.


Farewell Dude,

I believe i've said that self belief was important, and all i've asked was that you try to understand people not like you. But rather than that, you just walk away from this thread in disgust. You can't be reached. But I don't feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for a non-white person who dares to confide to you about some struggles specific to them.


----------



## FalconKing

Man I can't believe it was the ladies who backed me up...:crying: 


So much for my utopia of brotherhood. Guess i'll close that Wikipedia page:yawn2:


----------



## techmom

FalconKing said:


> Man I can't believe it was the ladies who backed me up...:crying:
> 
> 
> So much for my utopia of brotherhood. Guess i'll close that Wikipedia page:yawn2:


The ladies understand being discriminated against, then being told that our struggles are nothing. 

I'm not surprised at what happened in this thread, those who are used to privilege don't know what it is like not to have it, and they don't want to find out. 

Which is why some of them will fight to the death to keep it.

While there are whites who understand and emphatize, like Tim Wise they know what impact slavery had on society and how they benefitted. I have many friends who understand this, don't know why other white people feel so threatened? I know I don't.


----------



## FalconKing

techmom said:


> For some white people to cling onto their privilege with a firm grip indicates that they have privilege to cling to... People of color don't.
> 
> It is like watching a person with 2 loaves of bread become resentful after being asked to share with a starving person. If these people feel that they will lose everything they own just because a person other than themselves gain opportunity.


This is interesting. I think this explains why some people have a visceral reaction to the removal of the confederate flag. That war is an embarrassment in our history. But for some it symbolizes a time when being a certain race made you a clear winner and there was no question of your superiority. Even now, many have this romanticized view of plantations. People are getting married at them and everything. I seriously doubt people speak fondly of nazi death camps. Can you imagine getting a invitation? 

*You are cordially invited to join our union at Flossenbürg! Save the date!* 

Like wtf?


----------



## tom67

techmom said:


> Profound...
> 
> http://youtu.be/w6CCePrJlaU


Eh...
Mental masturbation?

Awe shucks I'm triggered.


----------



## techmom

This thread taught me a lot, I ended up agreeing with posters I would normally debate with (john117, falcon king). This started as a discussion about men who choose not to marry, then the ladies became involved when we felt that, once again, we are being blamed for everything wrong in society. Then, it turned into a discussion about race. From what I know about the MRA movement, they are mostly white. The people who are most visible in the movement are white, and they feel they are being attacked for just being white and male.

White males have dominated the world for the last 600 years, they colonized the native peoples of the new world and Africa. As a result of this history, most white males are accustomed to being the voice of authority, being validated and catered to. The civil rights movements and feminism is threatening their identity as the ones with the last word and authority.

Most white men understand equality, they can emphatize with the struggles of others and will fight and die for others to gain equality. They are the Angels, some have been killed alongside minorities because they dared to fight against the established order. Some have posted in this thread, and I love them for their understanding and empathy (thundarr and mem, and others).

Some other white men fear the anger of the people who were oppressed under their ancestors. They fear retribution. These guys will tend to fan the flames of hatred and misunderstanding, and exacerbate the situation. Let's hope they learn the error of their ways.


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> Obviously you don't understand logic.
> 
> Since a tiny number of men have lots of power, that means that *all *men have lots of power.
> 
> Let me give a more concrete example.
> 
> Bill Gates is a billionaire. He is a white man.
> 
> Therefore, all white men are billionaires!


Stop it's all about feelings don't you know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0Pp2n6ooE


----------



## john117

There's a good analogy from where I see it. The "NormalPeople marriage" dwellers can't possibly comprehend what we of the "NotNormalPeople marriage" veterans go thru. Not any more than a privileged class member comprehends the non privileged folk. Except the non privilege group is a bit harder to get out of 

The rest is just icing on the cake.


----------



## tech-novelist

FalconKing said:


> This is interesting. I think this explains why some people have a visceral reaction to the removal of the confederate flag. That war is an embarrassment in our history. But for some it symbolizes a time when being a certain race made you a clear winner and there was no question of your superiority. Even now, many have this romanticized view of plantations. People are getting married at them and everything. I seriously doubt people speak fondly of nazi death camps. Can you imagine getting a invitation?
> 
> *You are cordially invited to join our union at Flossenbürg! Save the date!*
> 
> Like wtf?


The difference between WWII and the War Between the States is that there is no narrative that anyone agrees with by which what the Nazis did was legitimate.

The War Between the States, on the other hand, does have a narrative by which the Southern states had a right to secede. 

Of course most people don't agree with that narrative, but that is the difference between the two situations.


----------



## techmom

FalconKing said:


> This is interesting. I think this explains why some people have a visceral reaction to the removal of the confederate flag. That war is an embarrassment in our history. *But for some it symbolizes a time when being a certain race made you a clear winner and there was no question of your superiority.* Even now, many have this romanticized view of plantations. People are getting married at them and everything. I seriously doubt people speak fondly of nazi death camps. Can you imagine getting a invitation?
> 
> You are cordially invited to join our union at Flossenbürg! Save the date!
> 
> Like wtf?


As humans, when we are accustomed to receiving privileges, the moment there is a threat of them being taken away there is a negative reaction. Most of the people who feel most threatened by globalization and equality is poor whites. These people depended on white privilege, without it they don't have much and are equal with poor people of other races. Which is jarring to them, they are used to having that advantage over others.


----------



## FalconKing

techmom said:


> The ladies understand being discriminated against, then being told that our struggles are nothing.
> 
> I'm not surprised at what happened in this thread, those who are used to privilege don't know what it is like not to have it, and they don't want to find out.
> 
> Which is why some of them will fight to the death to keep it.
> 
> While there are whites who understand and emphatize, like Tim Wise they know what impact slavery had on society and how they benefitted. I have many friends who understand this, don't know why other white people feel so threatened? I know I don't.


I was a on a few other sites before I came back to TAM. I've read about marriage and legal pitfalls as well as trying to understand social dynamics. But often times I would see that a lot of these guys only felt the issues concerned white men. And they want to take back the country. It doesn't have to be any of that. A lot of men in general have the same struggles and the same questions. I don't hold everyone of a race accountable for the bad apples. I know some guys here have a delusional sense of bitterness and entitlement. I try to bow out unless I find their points to be logical or valid. But when some posters feel like i'm their enemy too man that's just too bad. 

At least when the women here disagree it's not about race or background:yawn2:

So I think our goal here is for guys to strive to not like each other based purely on personality. That's progress:toast:


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> The difference between WWII and the War Between the States is that there is no narrative that anyone agrees with by which what the Nazis did was legitimate.
> 
> The War Between the States, on the other hand, does have a narrative by which the Southern states had a right to secede.
> 
> Of course most people don't agree with that narrative, but that is the difference between the two situations.


Your narrative is false. The Nazis took control of the German government when Hitler became Fuhrer, thus they became the government. As a sovernign nation, they had the right to overtake other nations and to oppress any ethnic group within their borders, because the Nazi beliefs became the law. Anybody or any nation who seemed weak was ripe for the taking.

This is why having a fringe political group with radical ideologies take over your government is dangerous. They can change your laws to suit their views.

Which is why the comparison was made between WWII and the Civil War.


----------



## tom67

The good doctor is in blowing up the I'm a **** chick. :grin2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN4dxQsQc4


----------



## FalconKing

technovelist said:


> The difference between WWII and the War Between the States is that there is no narrative that anyone agrees with by which what the Nazis did was legitimate.
> 
> The War Between the States, on the other hand, does have a narrative by which the Southern states *had a right to secede.
> *
> Of course most people don't agree with that narrative, but that is the difference between the two situations.


Is that a nice way of saying you are sympathetic towards the southern states? Just curious.

Are you going to tell me how slavery was wrong but then tell me how it was necessary and stuff? It's ok man. I obviously won't share that view.


----------



## tech-novelist

FalconKing said:


> Is that a nice way of saying you are sympathetic towards the southern states? Just curious.
> 
> Are you going to tell me how slavery was wrong but then tell me how it was necessary and stuff? It's ok man. I obviously won't share that view.


Slavery was both wrong and unnecessary.

However, the War Between the States was not about slavery, at least according to Lincoln, who I would consider an expert on that topic. Here's a quote from the famous letter he wrote to Horace Greeley about this topic:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." (from Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley)

And of course, the famous "Emancipation Proclamation" freed only those slaves that Lincoln had no power to free, namely the ones in states in rebellion. Slaves in states loyal to Lincoln remained enslaved.


----------



## EllisRedding

WTF happened to all the male sexuality talk ... lol


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> Slavery was both wrong and unnecessary.
> 
> However, the War Between the States was not about slavery, at least according to Lincoln, who I would consider an expert on that topic. Here's a quote from the famous letter he wrote to Horace Greeley about this topic:
> 
> "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." (from Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley)
> 
> And of course, the famous "Emancipation Proclamation" freed only those slaves that Lincoln had no power to free, namely the ones in states in rebellion. Slaves in states loyal to Lincoln remained enslaved.


Don't forget Lincoln tried to arrest the mayor of Baltimore Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus
And the morrill act unfairly taxed the south Dear Harry:


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Slavery was both wrong and unnecessary.
> 
> However, the War Between the States was not about slavery, at least according to Lincoln, who I would consider an expert on that topic. Here's a quote from the famous letter he wrote to Horace Greeley about this topic:
> 
> "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." (from Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley)
> 
> And of course, the famous "Emancipation Proclamation" freed only those slaves that Lincoln had no power to free, namely the ones in states in rebellion. Slaves in states loyal to Lincoln remained enslaved.


Which proves that most white men of that time wrestled with the issue of freeing the slaves, doing so eroded at their white privilege.

Just like some white men cling to the notion that they are the victims and every minority group just want perks.

Anyway, Lincoln saw that the southern states had a resource that the north didn't have, free labor(slavery). He knew that the south had cash crops as well, which they could possibly sell to Europe. The only way he could negate this is by eliminating the south' trump card, so he freed the slaves.

Blacks rushed up North and the ones who stayed in the south were freed. Not for the sake of freeing the slaves, but for crippling the south by eliminating their source of free labor.


----------



## tech-novelist

tom67 said:


> Don't forget Lincoln tried to arrest the mayor of Baltimore Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus
> And the morrill act unfairly taxed the south Dear Harry:


Yes, I know about his other depredations, but they are slightly off topic even for this threadjack. >


----------



## FalconKing

technovelist said:


> Slavery was both wrong and unnecessary.
> 
> However, the War Between the States was not about slavery, at least according to Lincoln, who I would consider an expert on that topic. Here's a quote from the famous letter he wrote to Horace Greeley about this topic:
> 
> "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." (from Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley)
> 
> And of course, the famous "Emancipation Proclamation" freed only those slaves that Lincoln had no power to free, namely the ones in states in rebellion. Slaves in states loyal to Lincoln remained enslaved.


It's always sad how paramount things that have happened in history are usually the indirect result of other issues. 

Howard Smith who was Chairman of the House Committee on Rules was a devout racist and some speculated that he added 'sex" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he thought the bill wouldn't pass if it included women as well as blacks. Guess that blew up in his face...and here we are.


----------



## techmom

FalconKing said:


> It's always sad how paramount things that have happened in history are usually the indirect result of other issues.
> 
> Howard Smith who was Chairman of the House Committee on Rules was a devout racist and some speculated that he added 'sex" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he thought the bill wouldn't pass if it included women as well as blacks. Guess that blew up in his face...and here we are.


Interesting...

Just as the MRAs you encountered, they felt that if they concentrate solely on how the wimmins are taking away the rights of men then that alone would win you over. They tend to think in terms of oppressing women, in that way they feel they would have easier access to sex, because an oppressed woman would have to automatically spread her legs like they did in the past. They win you over with this, or they try to.

What they forgot is that you were also tired of having his boot on your neck as well, civil rights and feminism went hand in hand in that respect. Minorities were too smart for that "bait and switch".


----------



## tom67

Oh TFM nails it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeD4B8Xsxbo


----------



## techmom

Some white people say, well gee you have millionaires in sports, aren't you satisfied?.....

Tim Wise » Flashback: Tim Wise in 2006 Discussing Bill Rhoden?s ?40 Million Dollar Slaves? (Race and Sports) on ESPN


----------



## techmom

13 Ways White Male Privilege Shows Up as Early as Elementary School ? Everyday Feminism


----------



## techmom

An excerpt from the article I quoted from my last post:



> Have you noticed how white male privilege shapes our US educational system? For someone like me – Black, girl, and nerd – it’s hard to miss.
> 
> I got an early start in being a nerd. From the time I was three years old, even before kindergarten began, I was thrilled about the idea of going to school.
> 
> My parents stressed the importance of education as the key to success, and I was eager to build my knowledge.
> 
> But then, white male privilege got in the way.
> 
> There’s a fourth grade assignment that sticks with me. I remember it well because I couldn’t complete it and – being the nerd that I was – I felt like a failure.
> 
> The assignment was a family tree. Like many Black Americans, records of my ancestry have been erased through slavery, Jim Crow, and other horrible acts of white supremacy, so my family tree had bare branches.
> 
> Now I know I wasn’t a failure – though my teacher’s lack of racial justice, cultural awareness, and general forethought was absolutely a major failure – but that moment of exclusion was a hard realization for eight-year-old me.
> 
> My only regret is that I wasn’t as bold as the irritated Black sixth grader who recently filled out a worksheet with honest answers about her family’s origins.
> 
> These assignments aren’t created with students like us in mind, one of many failures of an educational system that lets children of color down every day.
> 
> I’ve never completely lost my love for school. But I have had my heart broken by the reality that the US educational system doesn’t have love for me.
> 
> Though I didn’t learn about terms like “white supremacy” or “patriarchy” until much later, these systems were already affecting my life.
> 
> The family tree assignment, like so many others, assumes that everyone has the same experience – one that doesn’t include having your heritage ripped apart by colonization, slavery, imperialism, and other oppressive forces.
> 
> It doesn’t recognize that some students have white US privilege – which gives them a quality of education that other students can’t access.
> 
> This plays out in lots of other ways in the academic system.
> 
> For instance, a video of a police officer physically attacking a Black girl at Spring Valley High recently went viral as part of a nation-wide conversation about how often violence and criminalization targets students of color. It’s outrageous that these students have to carry trauma and fear in order to get an education.
> 
> Because many people try to avoid conversations that work to address and disrupt white male privilege, it feels critical to enter this conversation with pointing out that discussing privilege in school isn’t about demonizing teachers or white male children.
> 
> Privilege works as a system, and that system shows up throughout our lives, including in childhood. People can participate without even meaning to.
> 
> It’s important to look at everything that creates and upholds these systems in our K-12 schools – from textbooks to school administration to the everyday, often invisible ways we follow society’s expectations of race and gender.
> 
> Addressing bias in our places of learning can create a huge shift toward equality in the future youth are helping create, and teaching children to think critically and interrogate systems that aren’t working should be a goal of education.
> 
> We need to challenge the educational system itself when it’s letting down students who are children of color, girls, and gender nonconforming.
> 
> Here’s how white cisgender male students get the benefits of systems of oppression more than anyone else in elementary and high schools.
> 
> 1. White Students Are More Likely to Go to Schools with More Resources
> 
> The quality of education that students get often depends on the amount of funding their school has.
> 
> School districts in low-income neighborhoods get less funding. These are also the areas where more children of color are likely to live – Black, Latinx, and Native children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than white children.
> 
> The racial disparity in school funding goes even deeper than an overlap with poverty.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, for instance, districts with a higher proportion of white students get much more funding “at any given poverty level.”
> 
> Growing up poor hurts cognitive ability and emotional processing, and increases the chances of mental health issues. On top of these challenges, school districts with more students of color have fewer resources to provide an education that can help students break out of the cycle of poverty.
> 
> 2. Most of the Literature Taught in School Is Written by White Male Authors
> 
> I’ve always dreamed of writing, and my dream has come true – I’m a writer now. But as a child, it took me a long time to realize that I could even be a writer, simply because I was a Black girl.
> 
> It seems silly, I know. There are lots of women writers and writers of color alive now and throughout history.
> 
> However, in elementary and high school, I read books from the Western literary canon – which mostly consists of white men.
> 
> For me, this wasn’t an impossible barrier to overcome. But this preference for writing by white men did more than threaten my dreams. It also limited the perspective that I learned from.
> 
> What our society considers neutral writing, objective writing, even the best writing, is written primarily by one demographic.
> 
> By excluding books from marginalized communities, we’re teaching children that writing well means writing like a white man.
> 
> It took finding the books my teacher didn’t assign to learn that there are many, many more literary traditions from all around the world.
> 
> 3. Students Are Taught Only Western Culture’s Approach to Math and Science
> 
> Students learn that the approach they learn in school is the “right” way to do things. When it comes to subjects like math and science, many of us accept what we learn in school as the objective way to get the right answers.
> 
> But it’s not the only way.
> 
> Many non-Western cultures have other approaches, and some Western concepts of math and science come from other cultures that go unrecognized.
> 
> Some students suffer when their lessons favor Western ways as the only way.
> 
> For example, by the time Native students begin formal schooling, many of them already have scientific knowledge from indigenous traditions. When their school curriculum ignores this knowledge and Native learning strategies, many of these students struggle.
> 
> Native students have the highest drop-out rate of any ethnic group. According to research, they would benefit greatly from education that centered their needs, instead of requiring them to disconnect from their culture.
> 
> 4. White Students Can Experiment Without Being Criminalized Based on Race
> 
> Creativity and exploration are important parts of the learning process for children. Some of the most innovative and successful adults started out as children with the freedom to experiment (think Steve Jobs).
> 
> So it’s unfortunate that students of color who experiment can be racially profiled and treated like criminals just for doing so.
> 
> Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, a Sudanese Muslim teenager, built a clock at home. When he brought it to school to show his teacher, he was arrested and accused of bringing a bomb.
> 
> Before him, Keira Wilmot, a Black teenager, conducted an experiment with two household chemicals in a bottle. The chemicals caused the top of the bottle to pop off and created smoke. Kiera was also arrested, expelled, and charged with two felonies.
> 
> Both of these cases got coverage in the media, and public pressure helped lead authorities to drop the charges against them. But they’re just two examples of many children of color who are routinely criminalized in school, making creativity a risk.
> 
> 5. White Male Students Aren’t Told That STEM Fields Aren’t for Them
> 
> It’s no coincidence that Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math fields are largely dominated by white men.
> 
> Spend time in an elementary or high school classroom, and you might witness lots of ways girls and children of color are treated like they’re not capable in STEM subjects.
> 
> A study of physics doctorates over 39 years showed that 22,172 degrees went to white men – and 66 to Black women.
> 
> Many of those women started out as girls who were discouraged from participating in STEM.
> 
> They beat the odds against them, but this clearly has a big impact on many children from their demographic.
> 
> 6. Native English Speakers Can Speak Their Native Language in School
> 
> In the United States, there are over 300 languages spoken as a first language, with more than 60 million people speaking a language other than English at home.
> 
> While schools are required to have ESL classes for students learning English, these students are left behind with materials and standardized tests all given in English.
> 
> The US has no official language – but we often treat American Standard English as if everyone should speak it.
> 
> But it’s not just a matter of students needing to learn English. Some students are even criminalized for speaking their native language.
> 
> For instance, students have been suspended for speaking indigenous languages. This oppressive practice is even more terrifying when you realize where it comes from.
> 
> In the late 1800s, the US government began forcing Native children to attend boarding schools designed to assimilate into white culture. The experience was horrifying, and it’s supposedly over – but those awful practices still show up with rules banning things like indigenous languages.
> 
> These rules continue to force marginalized students to assimilate or face punishment.
> 
> 7. Anglicized Names Aren’t Mocked and Othered
> 
> Brad, David, Timothy – call out these names on a classroom roster, and you’ll probably just have a kid call out “here.”
> 
> But call out a name that’s not Western European or Anglicized, and at many schools, people – including teachers – will laugh.
> 
> As a result, many students of color end up taking on nicknames or having them bestowed on them. Or they have to put up with other people mispronouncing or making fun of their names.
> 
> It’s one of many ways white US culture is normalized in schools, while everyone else’s culture is othered. Students of color can end up internalizing racism and xenophobia against their culture, and feeling like they’re inferior because of their heritage.
> 
> 8. White Male Students Aren’t Ostracized, Bullied, or Punished for Their Style of Dress
> 
> “Distracting.” “Gang-affiliated.” “A fad.”
> 
> These terms are often used to ban certain styles, clothing, and other forms of expression in schools.
> 
> And sure, it sounds like anything fitting those descriptions would interfere with students’ academic focus, so banning these things might seem justified.
> 
> But what about when school administrators use these terms to describe the culturally specific ways children of color dress and express themselves?
> 
> For instance, Black children with afros and cornrows and Native children with traditional braids and mohawks have all been punished for their hairstyles. Some have also been bullied by other children who picked up on the “othering” of their hair.
> 
> These children are basically being told that they have to be more like their white peers, or they’ll be ostracized, or even treated like they’re a threat to those around them.
> 
> Girls also get treated with a double standard when it comes to dress codes – they often get the message that it’s up to them to cover up, or they’re to blame for objectification and sexual violence. Many students are now protesting sexist dress codes.
> 
> Because all children – not just the white boys – should be able to get dressed for school without the pressure of worrying that their appearance is judged as a “distraction.”
> 
> 9. White Students Can Have Outbursts and Be Labeled ‘Rowdy’ – Not ‘Dangerous’
> 
> Of course, many school rules are in place for a reason. If you’ve been in a classroom, you know that requirements like staying seated or waiting your turn to speak can help maintain order that’s helpful for learning.
> 
> But after being around a group of children, you’ll also know that these rules are not always followed. Children’s minds are still growing, so they’re still learning about the consequences of their actions.
> 
> Some kids have a hard time sitting still. Some kids have outbursts when they get excited or upset. Some kids break the rules. This is a natural part of childhood.
> 
> Society accepts that this is true for white children, and even expect troublemaking from boys with common phrases like “boys will be boys.”
> 
> But children of color are often treated like criminals for the same behavior that’s considered normal for white students – they get harsher punishments, and are more likely to get suspended or expelled.
> 
> And even the youngest students of color are more likely to have the police called on them, to be arrested, and to be put into the traumatizing school-to-prison pipeline that incarcerates them at a young age and never lets them go from the racist criminal justice system.
> 
> 10. Boys Are More Likely to Be Called on When They Raise Their Hands
> 
> Teachers are more likely to call on boys than girls when they raise their hands, and they’re also more likely to listen when boys call out answers without being called on.
> 
> When girls do the same, teachers are more likely to remind them to follow the rules and raise their hand.
> 
> That means boys get to participate more in class, and they gain confidence in their abilities with positive reinforcement for giving answers.
> 
> In addition to calling on the boys, teachers are more likely to give them other “esteem building” attention, like more constructive feedback and compliments on achievements instead of appearance.
> 
> More interaction, attention, and encouragement means boys get more positive engagement in class. They get more direct support and can build more confidence.
> 
> Girls get lower quality and quantity of attention, resulting in lower self-esteem and achievement. When teachers expect more from boys – especially white boys – the discouragement of other students shows.
> 
> 11. White Male Students Are More Likely to Get Treatment for Neurodivergence
> 
> Many of the obstacles listed here also affect children with disabilities, mental health problems, and neurodivergence. But among students who would benefit from diagnosis and treatment, girls and students of color are often overlooked.
> 
> For instance, 80% of people diagnosed on the autism spectrum in the US are male. Studies suggest that girls must exhibit more severe symptoms to be diagnosed – and more subtle symptoms might be dismissed because of society’s expectations of girls’ behavior.
> 
> In another example, Black children are less likely than white children to be diagnosed with ADHD, and those diagnosed are less likely to get treatment. For some, expectations of low achievement lead professionals to dismiss their symptoms.
> 
> Others follow the common trend of criminalizing Black and Latinx youth and seeing their symptoms as “problem” behavior.
> 
> It’s telling that society is so quick to discuss the mental health of white male school shooters. We’re used to evaluating white boys’ mental wellness, but blaming other children for the disruptive symptoms of their own health problems.
> 
> 12. White Students Aren’t Learning Romanticized Versions of Terrible Things That Happened to Their Ancestors
> 
> There’s a saying that “history is written by the victors.” So when you’re taught a version of history describing your ancestors as the victors, learning can be pretty sweet.
> 
> That’s not the case for students of color.
> 
> They have to sit through lessons that show their ancestors being killed, colonized, and enslaved – and then applaud the attackers as heroes.
> 
> Elementary school textbooks show outrageous examples of this: Christopher Columbus – who’s responsible for raping, displacing, and killing so many Native people – hailed as a great discoverer who befriended and helped indigenous people.
> 
> African people who were violently kidnapped, chained, and enslaved described as “workers” who immigrated to this land.
> 
> History books gloss over the racism and sexism in the US Constitution to tell a glorious version of how the Founding Fathers brought our country into being.
> 
> If we’re teaching our children that America is the great “land of the free,” shouldn’t students learn what it takes for oppressed people to fight for their freedom in this country? We need to rethink what we’re teaching our children about what it means to be a hero.
> 
> 13. White Students Don’t Have Their Culture Objectified
> 
> Another perk of being a white student is that people like you – especially men – are presented as human beings.
> 
> It doesn’t seem like much to ask, but it’s more than Native students, for instance, can expect. Many can attest to having Indigenous people portrayed as relics of the past.
> 
> It’s not uncommon to have school children participate in activities like “dressing up like Indians” around Thanksgiving time.
> 
> This activity may not have sinister intentions, but it’s one of the many ways we’re taught that “appreciating” other cultures means dehumanizing the people of that culture.
> 
> Imagine if a teacher said, “Let’s dress up as white people for a day!” It’s an absurd idea, because we’re used to whiteness being normalized in school. Learning about white people’s accomplishments is what we in the US tend to call learning about “history.”
> 
> But learning about Native history requires a special unit that romanticizes the horrific genocide against their people. Black history looks like incomplete stories told in February about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. Latinx, Asian, and Pacific Islander students are lucky if they learn anything about their history at all.
> 
> Being invisible or objectified is not enough to learn about your history. When schools don’t recognize this bias, they present whitewashed versions of history as if that’s all there is to know – missing vital opportunities to show students of color that they can be heroes, too.
> 
> ***
> 
> I could go on – this is really only the beginning of all the ways our schools center students who are white, cisgender boys.
> 
> My hope is that reading these examples can help you start to recognize when privilege shows up for some students and hurts those without it.
> 
> And I don’t know about you, but after going through all of this disheartening information, I’m ready for a change in our educational system.
> 
> Not to demonize white male children or to say that they don’t earn their success – but to give all children a chance at the same achievements.
> 
> All of our children deserve support, encouragement, and empowerment – their racial or gender identity shouldn’t take away from that.
> 
> I’ve got some ideas for how you can help. If you’re a teacher, you can work on recognizing and unlearning your own biases, so you don’t inadvertently bring racism or sexism into your classroom.
> 
> If you’re a parent, you can pay attention to your child’s assignments and demand better when they’re learning oppressive lies.
> 
> No matter who you are, you’re probably familiar with these common ways of defaulting to the status quo that favors white males.
> 
> That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person – it means you have the power to help change these oppressive habits in your life and with the people around you.


----------



## FalconKing

techmom said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Just as the MRAs you encountered, they felt that if they concentrate solely on how the wimmins are taking away the rights of men then that alone would win you over. *They tend to think in terms of oppressing women, in that way they feel they would have easier access to sex, because an oppressed woman would have to automatically spread her legs like they did in the past. They win you over with this, or they try to.*
> 
> What they forgot is that you were also tired of having his boot on your neck as well, civil rights and feminism went hand in hand in that respect. Minorities were too smart for that "bait and switch".


hmmm.. I think for me it was more so the mixed messages I received from women. Also, I just felt like if I was ever in a physical altercation with a woman, it wouldn't matter if I never touched her I was going to jail. And then seeing men having longer sentences and higher conviction rates for the same crimes as women. Those are the things that attracted me. Things like that attracted me to MRAs. I felt that when I voiced my concerns about frustrations and challenges specific for men to women, many dismissed them. So it just feels good to be understood by other men who have the same concerns and challenges. Personally, though I think all me should avoid drunken sex. It's just too much at stake with that. 

I do think that a lot of women may not be sympathetic to white men because of the views some posters may have expressed. So a lot of white guys who are just frustrated in the dating/romantic world probably get unfairly labeled and they are stuck. I just imagine a white guy that was hurt really bad by a woman and now he is kind of bitter. But anything he may say could be perceived of him coming from a sense of entitlement. 

I dunno. I really really don't want this to turn into let's bash white dudes. I just didn't appreciate the views expressed by certain posters.


----------



## tom67

Sticks and stones may brake my bones but names will never hurt me.

Remember that phrase???

I do.

:wtf::wtf:
Enough with communism/feminism good grief the p^ssification of the western world it is truly sad.
Carry on. :frown2:


----------



## techmom

The world needs more empathy and nurturing...you know... More *****fication...


----------



## Thundarr

FalconKing said:


> Is that a nice way of saying you are sympathetic towards the southern states? Just curious.
> 
> Are you going to tell me how slavery was wrong but then tell me how it was necessary and stuff? It's ok man. I obviously won't share that view.


This reminds me of a friend's facebook thread I posted to on June 24th when the rebel flag was being removed from the South Carolina state house where I live. Below is my comment which essentially ended the thread.



> Imagine being the property of another man to be sold and deeded as he pleases. Imagine your wife and your kids are each also property of this other man to be sold and deeded as he pleases. Maybe he sells your wife and kids because he feels like it. Think about that for just a second. You get to pick cotton or tobacco while your wife has been sold to someone else, while your sons and daughters have been sold to someone else. And it's all legal? I'm sorry but no matter how many other things the civil war was about, it was also about slavery and is an embarrassment to the south.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

techmom said:


> Which proves that most white men of that time wrestled with the issue of freeing the slaves, doing so eroded at their white privilege.
> 
> Just like some white men cling to the notion that they are the victims and every minority group just want perks.
> 
> Anyway, Lincoln saw that the southern states had a resource that the north didn't have, free labor(slavery). He knew that the south had cash crops as well, which they could possibly sell to Europe. The only way he could negate this is by eliminating the south' trump card, so he freed the slaves.
> 
> Blacks rushed up North and the ones who stayed in the south were freed. Not for the sake of freeing the slaves, but for crippling the south by eliminating their source of free labor.


Slavery was very common in many parts of the world.
US was one of the few that rejected it - indeed there is still plenty of slavery in many nations for labor in mines and fields nad for the sex trade.

Also historically speaking slavery was one of the few cost-effective ways of getting labor out of a civilisation's population. Especially in communal or government/king owned property (aka third world property laws) .. as a free person would not do good work or reinvest wealth they didn't have unless there was a reason to do so. With threat of violence, imprisonment, and starvation there was motivation for the lowest social classes to do the labor. And in places like the Roman empire there was even payment facilities for slaves to buy their freedom; likewise in Celtic slavery and Scandinavian slavery systems, there were formal rules similar to modern employment regulations.

One of the reasons the African trade was so successful is that many African tribes were willing to sell their own slaves, or people they didn't like, or troublesome neighbors for a quick profit.


----------



## FalconKing

spotthedeaddog said:


> Slavery was very common in many parts of the world.
> US was one of the few that rejected it - indeed there is still plenty of slavery in many nations for labor in mines and fields nad for the sex trade.
> 
> Also historically speaking slavery was one of the few cost-effective ways of getting labor out of a civilisation's population. Especially in communal or government/king owned property (aka third world property laws) .. as a free person would not do good work or reinvest wealth they didn't have unless there was a reason to do so. With threat of violence, imprisonment, and starvation there was motivation for the lowest social classes to do the labor. And in places like the Roman empire there was even payment facilities for slaves to buy their freedom; likewise in Celtic slavery and Scandinavian slavery systems, there were formal rules similar to modern employment regulations.
> 
> One of the reasons the African trade was so successful is that many African tribes were willing to sell their own slaves, or people they didn't like, or troublesome neighbors for a quick profit.


This is the same talking points everyone uses when they defend slavery. But please tell me why you are defending slavery?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tom67

MGTOW in a nutshell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Cpl2rVmnw


----------



## john117

techmom said:


> The world needs more empathy and nurturing...you know... More *****fication...


Works for my interns


----------



## Faithful Wife

tom67 said:


> MGTOW in a nutshell...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Cpl2rVmnw


Does anyone else listen to these? Some of them are just...really gross and stupid.

This one is a 15 minute victim rant by a guy about women.

At one point the guy quotes someone else and says "women will no longer be able to use their c*nt for abuse". There's lots of other lovely stuff like that. Such as how these nasty ho's whose daddies left them when they were young and they end up in prostitution...now think they have the right to feel entitled to men showing them lust, but these ho's be dreamin', yo. No one would touch their skanky sh*t. And all she does is dates losers. They knock her up, then they're gone...next thing you know she's 42 and all busted because she's hit the wall. And on and on and on from there...he doesn't actually play the clip of the woman who supposedly went crazy about a man not giving her money in this video. It is just his one man victim rant.

Tom, do you really want to portray all men as victims of women?

ETA: or are you only portraying MGTOW's as victims of women?


----------



## soccermom2three

Husband and I were watching Parks & Rec reruns tonight. This clip reminded me of this thread and it made us both LOL. The 1:00 mark is funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFVH5QBDM5Y


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

techmom said:


> An excerpt from the article I quoted from my last post:
> 
> ....
> Have you noticed how white male privilege shapes our US educational system? For someone like me – Black, girl, and nerd – it’s hard to miss.
> 
> I got an early start in being a nerd. From the time I was three years old, even before kindergarten began, I was thrilled about the idea of going to school.
> .....


The rest of the mostly racist speech deleted.....

Many of those things are not racial biased. Yeah your american bias perhaps.

"English" (or should I say _American_ English, since your US English is actually different to the English I was brought up with) is actually a trade language, not a cultural-roots one. That's why it has so many adopted words. It makes sense to use it in day to day use to cross cultural and other barriers (such as typed ones) as that's what it's use is. It is so successful in general communication (especially in the written form) that it supplanted the native languages in many of it's originating countries. Oddly enough we actually have Mr Thomas Cromwell and his "Plowman's Bible" for the spread of English (otherwise we'd be speaking German/French/Latin/Portuguese/Celtic derivatives/Old English/Saxon/ or one of the various Scandinavian dialects.

Plenty of Anglo-Saxon names get bastardised and othered.

As for poor whites and rich whites... Greasers, Teddys... And that's without even going into the Irish, Scots, French, Herman the Germans (or even Polish across the top of Asia) which have genetic descendant discord.

Yes there are some legitimate color and race barriers.
Plenty of outright corruption too.
So pull your socks up - work hard for ten generations, save it all, stick to laws and rules that make you nothing, unless you follow _exactly_ what is written, be the slave of your family matriarch and patriarch, and in ten generations your kids might have a bit of that Jewish "privilege"..... or you could be thankful you got to escape some of your enslavement - others still have generations of it riding on their backs. (Not that I'm jewish, but I had a boyfriend that was... dare he breath without permission....or proper form)


----------



## EllisRedding

john117 said:


> Works for my interns


Lol, one of the younger guys at work was sensitive (part of the whole youth entitlement movement). Needless to say he didn't last long and will have quite a few challenges ahead of him in the real world (first step, learn not to cry at work when you get yelled at ...)


----------



## Kivlor

@techmom

1.	White Students Are More Likely to Go to Schools with More Resources
a.	Schools are funded by the tax base in the District. If you don’t like this, promote a new method of taxation. It’s not white privilege, it’s income privilege.

2.	Most of the Literature Taught in School Is Written by White Male Authors
a.	Isn’t this really a regional thing? If you grow up in Nigeria, do they primarily focus on African authors?

3.	Students Are Taught Only Western Culture’s Approach to Math and Science
a.	The way Math and Science are taught is a form of White Privilege? Really? Do you listen to yourself say these things? We are a Western Nation. We teach the Western Way. Arab Nations teach Arab Methods, and if the Maya were still around, I’m sure they’d teach a base 12 math system. We are a Greco-Roman-descended culture, we teach their systems. Also, this is a great moment to point out that Greco-Roman is not Anglican. Because not all white folk are the same. 

4.	White Students Can Experiment Without Being Criminalized Based on Race
a.	No, we just don’t make it a news sensation (OMG WHITE BOY ARRESTED!) when they are in trouble for it. Happens all the time. White kids in my neighborhood get arrested for petty crap at school regularly. White folk are more likely to sue and fight I think—don’t know, just a guess.

5.	White Male Students Aren’t Told That STEM Fields Aren’t for Them
a.	No, they are told other things aren’t for them? Men are steered toward some fields, women steered towards others. 

6.	Native English Speakers Can Speak Their Native Language in School
a.	Which is the case in any country. The Native language is spoken in the classroom. This isn’t controversial, nor a “privilege”. If I go to France, I must speak French. If I go to Finland, they actually will offer me free college if I learn their language. Also, English is not the only language of whites. So isn’t this more of an “English” privilege?

7.	Anglicized Names Aren’t Mocked and Othered
a.	Because Irish kids aren’t made fun of. And again, “Anglicized” is a very singular form of “white”. You’re othering people like John117 now.

8.	White Male Students Aren’t Ostracized, Bullied, or Punished for Their Style of Dress
a.	Oh, how you lie. How you lie.

9.	White Students Can Have Outbursts and Be Labeled ‘Rowdy’ – Not ‘Dangerous’
a.	Or arrested. Which happens regularly to white kids too. Because we live in a pvssified society that can’t deal with a few hoodlums and thinks the cops should be called at every turn. Also, can you provide me a major news source that labeled those kids as “Rowdy” or “’Not Dagerous’”?

10.	Boys Are More Likely to Be Called on When They Raise Their Hands.
a.	I cannot access the original source document they cite. Do you have a link to it so we can review methodology?

11.	White Male Students Are More Likely to Get Treatment for Neurodivergence
a.	Actually I think this is an advantage to minorities. I’m opposed to drugging little boys with powerful mind-altering drugs that can cause psychosis, just because they’re acting like boys.

12.	White Students Aren’t Learning Romanticized Versions of Terrible Things That Happened to Their Ancestors.
a.	No, we’re taught that just because they did great things isn’t enough, they weren’t perfect, and we should be ashamed of them. And that’s bull. No one’s perfect, but we can certainly revere some of the great achievements of our forbearers, whose shoulders we stand on today.

13.	White Students Don’t Have Their Culture Objectified
a.	No, we are told we don’t have a culture to objectify. By your own example though, who would get upset if the children were – and we did in my school – told to dress up as pilgrims? It’s not like Natives dress like that today, their culture is different; as is ours. We dress up like previous generations to act out Shakespeare. We do this all the time. It only offends you and the rest of the Perpetual Victim Crowd.

“Everything is sexist. Everything is racist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out.” –Anita Saarkesian. 

This is essentially the POV of you folks. I pity you.

ETA: We are getting waaaaay off base and far from the Original Topic. I'm not going to address any more of these ridiculous thread jacks.


----------



## EllisRedding

Speaking of privilege, looks like that teen (Ethan Couch) who killed 4 people driving drunk but was only given probation (attorneys argued "Affluenza", since he grew up with wealthy/affluent parents he was never taught the difference between right and wrong) has been caught in Mexico. Him and his mom had fled after he got caught in a beer pong video which was a violation of his probation.


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> Speaking of privilege, looks like that teen (Ethan Couch) who killed 4 people driving drunk but was only given probation (attorneys argued "Affluenza", since he grew up with wealthy/affluent parents he was never taught the difference between right and wrong) has been caught in Mexico. Him and his mom had fled after he got caught in a beer pong video which was a violation of his probation.


Affluenza, that's a new one, LOl. If he was black with rich parents, would he have received the same treatment? 

My guess is no.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

@ kivlor:

It's funny how some white men insist that there kind is the only one who is so hard working, which is how they achieved their privilege, when they gained it on the backs of the peoples who were enslaved by them. I guess you can achieve anything with guns. Free labor anyone?

If that's what you call hard work, then I feel sorry for you lol.

You're response to my post shows that you need to do some research.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

One unintended consequence of all this, as I have stated before there are people who will use their "differences" whether it be age, race, gender, etc.... as a crutch and go directly to it when things don't go their way or why they have been wronged. One example I can think of, I have seen this mentioned before, as a guy in a workplace you should/need to be extra careful when interacting with women, especially if you are in a position of managing/supervising. So basically, keep all conversations strictly professional, do not be in a position where you are left alone with her, and if you have a closed door meeting with her make sure there is an additional person in there. This may sound foolish, but I know personally of several instances where a female was let go for purely performance reasons, but ended up claiming sexism based on side conversations she had with her male supervisor (emails or personal conversations that she was taking out of context to fit her claim). Since it became a he said / she said claim it would have cost more for the company to fight, and instead these females ended up walking away with a much nicer compensation package.

Now, to clarify, I am not specifically targeting women as this can apply to many different people (could be a female supervisor firing a male, different races, etc...), just an example I know of personally (and no, this is not a story about me lol). My point is, there are people who will look to game the system, and in the end it ends up hurting the people who are legitimately wronged. What happens if certain people aren't hired simply because of the fear of the potential liability associated with it?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Does anyone else listen to these? Some of them are just...really gross and stupid.


I gave it the "college try" but most (99.5%) of it is pretty awful.


----------



## Kivlor

techmom said:


> @ kivlor:
> 
> It's funny how some white men insist that there kind is the only one who is so hard working, which is how they achieved their privilege, when they gained it on the backs of the peoples who were enslaved by them. I guess you can achieve anything with guns. Free labor anyone?
> 
> If that's what you call hard work, then I feel sorry for you lol.
> 
> You're response to my post shows that you need to do some research.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why don't you PM me, and we'll take this discussion elsewhere--civilly--before we completely derail this thread and get it locked. Other people shouldn't be punished and have their discussion overtaken or silenced because of an insistence on these talking points. You could also start a thread in the Off Topic forums, and PM me a link to it (I don't really go over there).

Heck, I'll send you a PM to kick it off. You can decide which way you want to go from there.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> @techmom
> 
> 1.	White Students Are More Likely to Go to Schools with More Resources
> a.	Schools are funded by the tax base in the District. If you don’t like this, promote a new method of taxation. It’s not white privilege, it’s income privilege.
> 
> 2.	Most of the Literature Taught in School Is Written by White Male Authors
> a.	Isn’t this really a regional thing? If you grow up in Nigeria, do they primarily focus on African authors?
> 
> 3.	Students Are Taught Only Western Culture’s Approach to Math and Science
> a.	The way Math and Science are taught is a form of White Privilege? Really? Do you listen to yourself say these things? We are a Western Nation. We teach the Western Way. Arab Nations teach Arab Methods, and if the Maya were still around, I’m sure they’d teach a base 12 math system. We are a Greco-Roman-descended culture, we teach their systems. Also, this is a great moment to point out that Greco-Roman is not Anglican. Because not all white folk are the same.
> 
> 4.	White Students Can Experiment Without Being Criminalized Based on Race
> a.	No, we just don’t make it a news sensation (OMG WHITE BOY ARRESTED!) when they are in trouble for it. Happens all the time. White kids in my neighborhood get arrested for petty crap at school regularly. White folk are more likely to sue and fight I think—don’t know, just a guess.
> 
> 5.	White Male Students Aren’t Told That STEM Fields Aren’t for Them
> a.	No, they are told other things aren’t for them? Men are steered toward some fields, women steered towards others.
> 
> 6.	Native English Speakers Can Speak Their Native Language in School
> a.	Which is the case in any country. The Native language is spoken in the classroom. This isn’t controversial, nor a “privilege”. If I go to France, I must speak French. If I go to Finland, they actually will offer me free college if I learn their language. Also, English is not the only language of whites. So isn’t this more of an “English” privilege?
> 
> 7.	Anglicized Names Aren’t Mocked and Othered
> a.	Because Irish kids aren’t made fun of. And again, “Anglicized” is a very singular form of “white”. You’re othering people like John117 now.
> 
> 8.	White Male Students Aren’t Ostracized, Bullied, or Punished for Their Style of Dress
> a.	Oh, how you lie. How you lie.
> 
> 9.	White Students Can Have Outbursts and Be Labeled ‘Rowdy’ – Not ‘Dangerous’
> a.	Or arrested. Which happens regularly to white kids too. Because we live in a pvssified society that can’t deal with a few hoodlums and thinks the cops should be called at every turn. Also, can you provide me a major news source that labeled those kids as “Rowdy” or “’Not Dagerous’”?
> 
> 10.	Boys Are More Likely to Be Called on When They Raise Their Hands.
> a.	I cannot access the original source document they cite. Do you have a link to it so we can review methodology?
> 
> 11.	White Male Students Are More Likely to Get Treatment for Neurodivergence
> a.	Actually I think this is an advantage to minorities. I’m opposed to drugging little boys with powerful mind-altering drugs that can cause psychosis, just because they’re acting like boys.
> 
> 12.	White Students Aren’t Learning Romanticized Versions of Terrible Things That Happened to Their Ancestors.
> a.	No, we’re taught that just because they did great things isn’t enough, they weren’t perfect, and we should be ashamed of them. And that’s bull. No one’s perfect, but we can certainly revere some of the great achievements of our forbearers, whose shoulders we stand on today.
> 
> 13.	White Students Don’t Have Their Culture Objectified
> a.	No, we are told we don’t have a culture to objectify. By your own example though, who would get upset if the children were – and we did in my school – told to dress up as pilgrims? It’s not like Natives dress like that today, their culture is different; as is ours. We dress up like previous generations to act out Shakespeare. We do this all the time. It only offends you and the rest of the Perpetual Victim Crowd.
> 
> “Everything is sexist. Everything is racist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out.” –Anita Saarkesian.
> 
> This is essentially the POV of you folks. I pity you.
> 
> ETA: We are getting waaaaay off base and far from the Original Topic. I'm not going to address any more of these ridiculous thread jacks.


Actually, as the original poster, I don't think this post is really off-topic, as it includes a fair amount of imaginary "white male privilege" as well as more general imaginary "white privilege". It's an excellent example of the victimization beloved by "minorities" (quoted because women are a *majority*, not a minority) who are unable to achieve on their own. Have you noticed how many Jews and Asians claim victimization in the US? Me neither... because they aren't failures, so they neither want nor are "entitled" to that status.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> One example I can think of, I have seen this mentioned before, as a guy in a workplace you should/need to be extra careful when interacting with women, especially if you are in a position of managing/supervising. So basically, keep all conversations strictly professional, do not be in a position where you are left alone with her, and if you have a closed door meeting with her make sure there is an additional person in there. This may sound foolish, but I know personally of several instances where a female was let go for purely performance reasons, but ended up claiming sexism based on side conversations she had with her male supervisor (emails or personal conversations that she was taking out of context to fit her claim).


If I were working in a position where I was supervising women, I would follow this policy to the letter. It is far too easy to be accused and be unable to defend oneself regardless of the facts.


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> If I were working in a position where I was supervising women, I would follow this policy to the letter. It is far too easy to be accused and be unable to defend oneself regardless of the facts.


So... Playing "Cards Against Humanity" with the interns would be out of the question 

Good thing we don't invite HR in our intern, ehem, activities...


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> So... Playing "Cards Against Humanity" with the interns would be out of the question
> 
> Good thing we don't invite HR in our intern, ehem, activities...


As Leon Trotsky didn't write, "You may not be interested in HR, but that doesn't mean HR isn't interested in you."


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Does anyone else listen to these? Some of them are just...really gross and stupid.
> 
> This one is a 15 minute victim rant by a guy about women.
> 
> At one point the guy quotes someone else and says "women will no longer be able to use their c*nt for abuse". There's lots of other lovely stuff like that. Such as how these nasty ho's whose daddies left them when they were young and they end up in prostitution...now think they have the right to feel entitled to men showing them lust, but these ho's be dreamin', yo. No one would touch their skanky sh*t. And all she does is dates losers. They knock her up, then they're gone...next thing you know she's 42 and all busted because she's hit the wall. And on and on and on from there...he doesn't actually play the clip of the woman who supposedly went crazy about a man not giving her money in this video. It is just his one man victim rant.
> 
> Tom, do you really want to portray all men as victims of women?
> 
> ETA: or are you only portraying MGTOW's as victims of women?


There are a lot of people like this out there. They claim the acronym MGTOW, and since I'll not commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I'll say they can claim it. But they're not representative of all MGTOW, just like you would oppose me picking the worst feminists to represent feminism.

I've recommended Thinking Ape before. He has a Youtube Channel, and although I don't agree with him often--as I'm not a MGTOW--I think he is representative of the more thoughtful end.

He rambles on, but he's definitely not an angry guy, full of vitriol and hate for women.


----------



## gouge_away

Didn't white people end slavery, is our union not the product of that means?

So we aren't the same nation, we are the state that fought against it, we took over the state that fought for it, we ended slavery, freed the slaves, and now we are to blame for enslaving them because we share the same skin color of the state that enslaved them.

If anything, America sees the world in grey.

The victims still see it the way the south saw it, black and white.


----------



## john117

I spent a few years in the Deep South, and both my kids went to or are in South schools. If you live in a nice antebellum mansion yea, its all a looooong time ago and if we bring it up we are victims...

That's basically proving "our" point, whatever "our" may be. If you think America is gray you need to look harder generally.


----------



## MEM2020

The deep rooted, pervasive human fondness for slavery and genocide are uncorrelated to skin tone. 

That's why ISIS has been so successful recruiting. 




techmom said:


> Which proves that most white men of that time wrestled with the issue of freeing the slaves, doing so eroded at their white privilege.
> 
> Just like some white men cling to the notion that they are the victims and every minority group just want perks.
> 
> Anyway, Lincoln saw that the southern states had a resource that the north didn't have, free labor(slavery). He knew that the south had cash crops as well, which they could possibly sell to Europe. The only way he could negate this is by eliminating the south' trump card, so he freed the slaves.
> 
> Blacks rushed up North and the ones who stayed in the south were freed. Not for the sake of freeing the slaves, but for crippling the south by eliminating their source of free labor.


----------



## techmom

I responded to the accusations of some posters who were stating that women and minorities get special treatment in society, and white men don't. Didn't mean to threadjack, but certain posters act like righteous victims when they have their complaints but don't care to be emphatic with others. They do this in numerous threads. I will bow out of this thread, I have been asked to create a new thread.

Bye.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FalconKing

john117 said:


> I spent a few years in the Deep South, and both my kids went to or are in South schools. If you live in a nice antebellum mansion yea, its all a looooong time ago and if we bring it up we are victims...
> 
> That's basically proving "our" point, whatever "our" may be. If you think America is gray you need to look harder generally.


I live in the deep south and you have accurately described my experiences. Nobody wants to hear it or they try to make it sound like the whole thing wasn't that bad. And then why you try to be heard the more you look like a victim or you are just an "angry black person". You are allowed talk about anything you want in regards to history accept that. But it was just 50 years ago blacks were second class citizens. And since then things haven't suddenly gotten better. The crack laws, housing policies... 

I'm not going to get on some sounding board. But if someone talks about the golden age of the 1950s, or the roaring 20s... What the fvk are you offended about if I tell you I think all of that sucks ass?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> There are a lot of people like this out there. They claim the acronym MGTOW, and since I'll not commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I'll say they can claim it. But they're not representative of all MGTOW, just like you would oppose me picking the worst feminists to represent feminism..


My point was about tom67 specifically posting these whacked out videos, over and over. Many of them are straight up scary psychos. Yet he has over 10K posts here...more than half of them links to scary psycho videos.

I asked tom a specific question: does he want to paint all men as victims of women, or just MGTOW's?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> If I were working in a position where I was supervising women, I would follow this policy to the letter. It is far too easy to be accused and be unable to defend oneself regardless of the facts.


Here we go again....men as victims of women....apparently all women everywhere are just clamoring to file those false charges. Anything we can do to screw over some man in some way, that's what tech thinks of women.

(I've worked in HR for more than a dozen years and have never had a formal complaint made and I've been with 3 different companies during that time....but according to tech, it happens like, every day with every woman against every man). 

Men = victim

Women = horrible people who do things to men

Poor helpless menz.

Yet this type of victim whining is encouraged and supported here? It really gives the rest of you guys a bad name for some of these guys doing all this whining on your behalf.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Here we go again....men as victims of women....apparently all women everywhere are just clamoring to file those false charges. Anything we can do to screw over some man in some way, that's what tech thinks of women.
> 
> (I've worked in HR for more than a dozen years and have never had a formal complaint made and I've been with 3 different companies during that time....but according to tech, it happens like, every day with every woman against every man).
> 
> Men = victim
> 
> Women = horrible people who do things to men
> 
> Poor helpless menz.
> 
> Yet this type of victim whining is encouraged and supported here? It really gives the rest of you guys a bad name for some of these guys doing all this whining on your behalf.


I don't believe tech was saying that all men are victims to horrible women. He was responding to an example I gave (which I clearly stated was not pointed directly at women, just an example of a scenario you see play out when people abuse the victim card). It could also impact hiring practices, especially for smaller companies who want to minimize possible liability (and can't sustain the hit a larger company could). Not saying right or wrong here, but it is a reality to some extent.

However, why would you not want to protect yourself where the risk (albeit it could be small) is your career getting ruined, family impacted, etc... Yes, the odds may be small, but tell that to the people who did get burned by this.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Here we go again....men as victims of women....apparently all women everywhere are just clamoring to file those false charges. Anything we can do to screw over some man in some way, that's what tech thinks of women.
> 
> *(I've worked in HR for more than a dozen years and have never had a formal complaint made and I've been with 3 different companies during that time....but according to tech, it happens like, every day with every woman against every man).*
> 
> Men = victim
> 
> Women = horrible people who do things to men
> 
> Poor helpless menz.
> 
> Yet this type of victim whining is encouraged and supported here? It really gives the rest of you guys a bad name for some of these guys doing all this whining on your behalf.


You're taking Tech's comment way out of context. It happens often enough to be a concern and a man would be a fool not to take such advice. You must be one very lucky HR gal. I've watched it in person regularly since being a teenager. 

My sister is an HR manager over a couple of factories, and the stories she tells about minorities and women abusing their 'privileged' status are endless. The steps necessary to fire a woman / minority are far different from those firing a white person, if she's interested in not being prosecuted in a federal investigation. And she's been investigated more than once. 

I once saw a muslim woman claim discrimination because a new girl whose office neighbored hers was a graduate of the University of Arkansas and had a "Razorback" picture in said office. It was "intimidation" because it was a 'mean, scary pig'; and 'was intentionally placed because the girl knew she was muslim.' Seriously. I've been on the receiving end of a sexual harassment investigation because a gal overheard me exclaim "Fvck!" after a heated conversation with an attorney. 

No one is saying AWALT; we're saying that there are inherent risks in dealing with women at the workplace. You don't know if the new girl is cool or crazy. And even if she seems cool, you don't know if it's her crazy week of the month. And because of the risks, men should proceed with caution.


----------



## Kivlor

techmom said:


> I responded to the accusations of some posters who were stating that women and minorities get special treatment in society, and white men don't. Didn't mean to threadjack, but certain posters act like righteous victims when they have their complaints but don't care to be emphatic with others. They do this in numerous threads. I will bow out of this thread, I have been asked to create a new thread.
> 
> Bye.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Apparently, the OP isn't bothered by it, so post on. 

I just was concerned you and I and others were getting out of bounds. MGTOW isn't really about race, it's about gender. But, by all means, since Technovelist is okay with it, post away. You're also welcome to take me up on the PM convo, as I mentioned before.


----------



## MEM2020

Falcon,
It is a bit surprising - what you learn from broad based reading. 

And fwiw - I don't think the McGraw Hill textbook was a 'mistake'. It was an outrageous attempt to whitewash history. 

Textbooks are expensive to print. They go through numerous rounds of editing. 






FalconKing said:


> I live in the deep south and you have accurately described my experiences. Nobody wants to hear it or they try to make it sound like the whole thing wasn't that bad. And then why you try to be heard the more you look like a victim or you are just an "angry black person". You are allowed talk about anything you want in regards to history accept that. But it was just 50 years ago blacks were second class citizens. And since then things haven't suddenly gotten better. The crack laws, housing policies...
> 
> I'm not going to get on some sounding board. But if someone talks about the golden age of the 1950s, or the roaring 20s... What the fvk are you offended about if I tell you I think all of that sucks ass?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FalconKing

MEM11363 said:


> Falcon,
> It is a bit surprising - what you learn from broad based reading.
> 
> And fwiw - I don't think the McGraw Hill textbook was a 'mistake'. It was an outrageous attempt to whitewash history.
> 
> Textbooks are expensive to print. They go through numerous rounds of editing.


I was doing an online graduate program a few years ago. Didn't finish because it got too expensive. Anyway, one textbook I had seem to explain things under the pretext that I and everyone else in the world was female. I assumed it was done in jest as previous older textbooks may have never acknowledged women. I don't know but I was curious to their motivation. 

Also I remember a story that was going around Facebook about a mother that was helping her kid with homework and she noticed the textbook addressed slaves as migrant workers. She wrote the publishing company and they issued an apology and changed it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> You're taking Tech's comment way out of context. It happens often enough to be a concern and a man would be a fool not to take such advice. You must be one very lucky HR gal. I've watched it in person regularly since being a teenager.


Of course she wouldn't see it because it doesn't apply to her. That's like saying that white people don't see discrimination against them for being black. 

On the other hand, I've worked in some fairly large companies where women in relatively high positions were untouchable at review time because the company didn't want any attention from the EEOC for not having met their quotas, er, I mean "targets". Men, on the other hand, were disposable.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> I don't believe tech was saying that all men are victims to horrible women. He was responding to an example I gave (which I clearly stated was not pointed directly at women, just an example of a scenario you see play out when people abuse the victim card). It could also impact hiring practices, especially for smaller companies who want to minimize possible liability (and can't sustain the hit a larger company could). Not saying right or wrong here, but it is a reality to some extent.
> 
> However, why would you not want to protect yourself where the risk (albeit it could be small) is your career getting ruined, family impacted, etc... Yes, the odds may be small, but tell that to the people who did get burned by this.


Right, and furthermore some of the victims of such policies are *women *who would never consider doing such a thing but miss out on mentoring possibilities from men who can't know that and are acting to protect themselves and their families.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Right, and furthermore some of the victims of such policies are *women *who would never consider doing such a thing but miss out on mentoring possibilities from men who can't know that and are acting to protect themselves and their families.


So....bug, or feature?


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> So....bug, or feature?


Feature, for those women who want to be retained and promoted solely because of their gender.

Bug, for those women who want to rise by their own merit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> I don't believe tech was saying that all men are victims to horrible women. He was responding to an example I gave (which I clearly stated was not pointed directly at women, just an example of a scenario you see play out when people abuse the victim card). It could also impact hiring practices, especially for smaller companies who want to minimize possible liability (and can't sustain the hit a larger company could). Not saying right or wrong here, but it is a reality to some extent.
> 
> However, why would you not want to protect yourself where the risk (albeit it could be small) is your career getting ruined, family impacted, etc... Yes, the odds may be small, but tell that to the people who did get burned by this.


Right. But we all know there are hundreds of ways men or just _people_ will take advantage of other people, of systems, of rules, of privilege, etc.

I could make 75% of my posts about how women are victims of men, specifically, the way tech does. But I don't. Why? Because I don't feel like a victim of anyone.

I get it that tech and some other men very much do feel like victims of a system that favors women.

But when a minority or someone from any other group talks about how they are victims of another system that favors everyone but them, or of discrimination of any kind, the same men who make 75% of their posts about how men are victims of women will mock them for being "whiny victims who just want perks".

Here we are, given opportunities to succeed, and if we don't it is on us. Right? That's what these same guys say over and over. We all have to work hard to get anywhere in life. This is the answer they give to anyone who has struggled in anyway...EXCEPT men who feel victimized by gynocentricism. Those guys pat each other on the back over and over for their victimhood here at TAM, every day.

It really doesn't make sense.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> *You're taking Tech's comment way out of context.* It happens often enough to be a concern and a man would be a fool not to take such advice. You must be one very lucky HR gal. I've watched it in person regularly since being a teenager.
> 
> My sister is an HR manager over a couple of factories, and the stories she tells about minorities and women abusing their 'privileged' status are endless. The steps necessary to fire a woman / minority are far different from those firing a white person, if she's interested in not being prosecuted in a federal investigation. And she's been investigated more than once.
> 
> I once saw a muslim woman claim discrimination because a new girl whose office neighbored hers was a graduate of the University of Arkansas and had a "Razorback" picture in said office. It was "intimidation" because it was a 'mean, scary pig'; and 'was intentionally placed because the girl knew she was muslim.' Seriously. I've been on the receiving end of a sexual harassment investigation because a gal overheard me exclaim "Fvck!" after a heated conversation with an attorney.
> 
> No one is saying AWALT; we're saying that there are inherent risks in dealing with women at the workplace. You don't know if the new girl is cool or crazy. And even if she seems cool, you don't know if it's her crazy week of the month. And because of the risks, men should proceed with caution.


I am not taking tech's comment "way out of context". The context is his hundreds and hundreds of posts, like that one, that point out how men are victims of women.

As to the rest of your post...I could cite dozens of examples I have witnessed personally in my life and examples my friends and relatives have told me of straight up racism, sexism, harassment and other hateful sh*t in the world...the workplace, grocery stores, on the street, in restaurants...should I do that? List them all out? My comment about working in HR was specific to these supposed constant sexual harassment complaints being filed. I have seen none. That was my point. This does not mean I am saying I have never seen things like oh say, a group of white men constantly mocking and making racial slurs about the hispanic employees they work with behind their backs, or oh say, women who have actually been harassed at work. There are victims of real discrimination and intimidation, and there are victims of false charges. I think everyone here would agree to that, right?

Except all tech and a few other men want to talk about is how men are victims of women.

How is this not seen as just plain whiny, by now? I mean, seriously.


----------



## FalconKing

Man i'm sooo torn right now. I want to back up @technovelist on some of his points but 

@Faithful Wife has a point:


> But when a minority or someone from any other group talks about how they are victims of another system that favors everyone but them, or of discrimination of any kind, the same men who make 75% of their posts about how men are victims of women will mock them for being "whiny victims who just want perks".


hmmm.. 75% may be a bit high though.. 
Nevertheless 









I think I can relate to this chick...


----------



## EllisRedding

I am sorry guys/gals, once we start posting pics from Twilight it is probably time for me to bail out :grin2:


----------



## MEM2020

Yes - slaves as 'migrant workers', that is the event I was referring to. They changed the online edition, but I'm not sure if they recalled and reprinted the hard copy versions of that textbook. 




FalconKing said:


> I was doing an online graduate program a few years ago. Didn't finish because it got too expensive. Anyway, one textbook I had seem to explain things under the pretext that I and everyone else in the world was female. I assumed it was done in jest as previous older textbooks may have never acknowledged women. I don't know but I was curious to their motivation.
> 
> Also I remember a story that was going around Facebook about a mother that was helping her kid with homework and she noticed the textbook addressed slaves as migrant workers. She wrote the publishing company and they issued an apology and changed it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gouge_away

Kivlor said:


> You're taking Tech's comment way out of context. It happens often enough to be a concern and a man would be a fool not to take such advice. You must be one very lucky HR gal. I've watched it in person regularly since being a teenager.
> 
> My sister is an HR manager over a couple of factories, and the stories she tells about minorities and women abusing their 'privileged' status are endless. The steps necessary to fire a woman / minority are far different from those firing a white person, if she's interested in not being prosecuted in a federal investigation. And she's been investigated more than once.
> 
> I once saw a muslim woman claim discrimination because a new girl whose office neighbored hers was a graduate of the University of Arkansas and had a "Razorback" picture in said office. It was "intimidation" because it was a 'mean, scary pig'; and 'was intentionally placed because the girl knew she was muslim.' Seriously. I've been on the receiving end of a sexual harassment investigation because a gal overheard me exclaim "Fvck!" after a heated conversation with an attorney.
> 
> No one is saying AWALT; we're saying that there are inherent risks in dealing with women at the workplace. You don't know if the new girl is cool or crazy. And even if she seems cool, you don't know if it's her crazy week of the month. And because of the risks, men should proceed with caution.


I cant speak for MGTOW but i can speak for men, "AWALT..." I'm not a victim to women, I'm a victim to the fairy tails that AWANLT. I have no reason to be bitter, cause all men are pigs too (no offense to any Muslims).

I've yet to meet a woman that isn't emotionally reactive, some more damaging than others, some without shame, but I whole heartily believe AWALT.

How often do we see post where a guy cheated and wants to know how to save his marriage... Quite a few.

How often does a ww come here looking for help to save her marriage... How often does she actually hold herself solely accountable for cheating, that means not blaming alcohol, or the OM, or her BS...


----------



## tech-novelist

gouge_away said:


> I cant speak for MGTOW but i can speak for men, "AWALT..." I'm not a victim to women, I'm a victim to the fairy tails that AWANLT. I have no reason to be bitter, cause all men are pigs too (no offense to any Muslims).
> 
> I've yet to meet a woman that isn't emotionally reactive, some more damaging than others, some without shame, but I whole heartily believe AWALT.


I wouldn't say that AWALT. For example, I don't believe my wife would ever make false accusations of sexual harassment to get a better severance package.

But the problem is that it is impossible to be sure that any particular woman you don't know very well won't do that, and the law and society are all on their side if they do. So it is too dangerous to put yourself in a vulnerable situation.


----------



## Catherine602

We have a right to our feelings no mater how unpleasant damaging or unloving they are. But I think the base feeling that every human is prey to should not be nurtured. I don't know what it is like to be a man but I can attempt to put myself in a man's place and get just a taste of what they see. I think a little less self-interest and more compassion helps. 

I don't run down men in my conversation with anyone. When I hear it, I point out that I don't feel the same way and I don't want to hear that kind of talk. It is good practice, keeps my mind working in the right direction towards my goal of being a good person. It does not always work but I know when I mess up and that I need to do better. 

It really does not matter which gender suffers the most, it is that people suffer at all. If the excuse for inaction is that men have it worse or women have it worse or that women lie or that men lie or that everybody whines, don't expect sympathy when unfairness effects you personally. 

Men and women have different challenges. I know that women face discrimination and unwanted sexual attention. I am a woman and I am not a liar or whiner. I know that men get on the work treadmill and are driven like pack mules until they are sick or dead. Women can get off if they want without feeling shame. They face the unceasing labor to bear children and nurture them. I know that because that's describes the situation with my husband and I. 

The gender hostility we experience is natural but I think we need to rise above it. Look at the issue from both sides and remember you are married to the opposite gender and you have children. More importantly, each person experiences privileges and unfairness in life.


----------



## gouge_away

Catherine602 said:


> We have a right to our feelings no mater how unpleasant damaging or unloving they are. But I think the base feeling that every human is prey to should not be nurtured. I don't know what it is like to be a man but I can attempt to put myself in a man's place and get just a taste of what they see. I think a little less self-interest and more compassion helps.
> 
> I don't run down men in my conversation with anyone. When I hear it, I point out that I don't feel the same way and I don't want to hear that kind of talk. It is good practice, keeps my mind working in the right direction towards my goal of being a good person. It does not always work but I know when I mess up and that I need to do better.
> 
> It really does not matter which gender suffers the most, it is that people suffer at all. If the excuse for inaction is that men have it worse or women have it worse or that women lie or that men lie or that everybody whines, don't expect sympathy when unfairness effects you personally.
> 
> Men and women have different challenges. I know that women face discrimination and unwanted sexual attention. I am a woman and I am not a liar or whiner. I know that men get on the work treadmill and are driven like pack mules until they are sick or dead. Women can get off if they want without feeling shame. They face the unceasing labor to bear children and nurture them. I know that because that's describes the situation with my husband and I.
> 
> The gender hostility we experience is natural but I think we need to rise above it. Look at the issue from both sides and remember you are married to the opposite gender and you have children. More importantly, each person experiences privileges and unfairness in life.


What do you mean by rise above it, to me rising above it is accepting it is what it is, stop whining, and get on with YOUR life. I've wasted my whole childhood letting women define who I am, or should be. That's my fault, not my mother's, not my sister's, or teacher's, all my fault. I turned out to be a chump, totally unsuccessful at everything. I'm glad I'm being divorce raped, maybe I wouldn't be so accepting if I spent 10,20,30 years with the woman, but I learned in the last 5 years of my life, I define myself, if that isn't good enough for somebody else they can move on, cause I'm more content now not caring if I'm the right kind of guy.

Would I go mgtow? No I enjoy women too much, even if they are a little crazy, or a lot of crazy, at least I can move on too... NEXT!


----------



## Catherine602

gouge_away said:


> What do you mean by rise above it, to me rising above it is accepting it is what it is, stop whining, and get on with YOUR life. I've wasted my whole childhood letting women define who I am, or should be. That's my fault, not my mother's, not my sister's, or teacher's, all my fault. I turned out to be a chump, totally unsuccessful at everything. I'm glad I'm being divorce raped, maybe I wouldn't be so accepting if I spent 10,20,30 years with the woman, but I learned in the last 5 years of my life, I define myself, if that isn't good enough for somebody else they can move on, cause I'm more content now not caring if I'm the right kind of guy.
> 
> Would I go mgtow? No I enjoy women too much, even if they are a little crazy, or a lot of crazy, at least I can move on too... NEXT!


I don't expect you to understand what I wrote at this point in your life. I disliked my father for a long time for being more involved with OW's than his own 4 children and his wife. I watched my mother be destroyed by despair till she could not care for us. 

That is in the past. I forgave him. There were many things he got right. They were monumental in the development of some of my good qualities. 

I don't know what made him the way he was. I can imagine that something went wrong in his life. He told some stories about his childhood but they did not reveal much. His 6 siblings were secretive too. 

I could ask "why me" about the bad things. But I could equally as well ask "why me" for the good. That's why I was able to forgive him. He did the best he could and gave as much as he had. Some sins against children are so evil that they are absolutely unforgivable. Some are not. I had it good compare to some of the stories I have read. 

It will take you time to forgive your mother, if you chose. That is the only way you will be able to love yourself just the way you are. You'll have no problem protecting yourself from predatory women because you will know your own value.


----------



## gouge_away

Catherine602 said:


> I don't expect you to understand what I wrote at this point in your life. I disliked my father for a long time for being more involved with OW's than his own 4 children and his wife. I watched my mother be destroyed by despair till she could not care for us.
> 
> That is in the past. I forgave him. There were many things he got right. They were monumental in the development of some of my good qualities.
> 
> I don't know what made him the way he was. I can imagine that something went wrong in his life. He told some stories about his childhood but they did not reveal much. His 6 siblings were secretive too.
> 
> I could ask "why me" about the bad things. But I could equally as well ask "why me" for the good. That's why I was able to forgive him. He did the best he could and gave as much as he had. Some sins against children are so evil that they are absolutely unforgivable. Some are not. I had it good compare to some of the stories I have read.
> 
> It will take you time to forgive your mother, if you chose. That is the only way you will be able to love yourself just the way you are. You'll have no problem protecting yourself from predatory women because you will know your own value.


I've got nothing against my mother, she was a single mom, raising 3 on her own. I wouldn't expect any woman to be able to raise a man on her own, they do the best that they can, they raise their boys to be what woman want boys to be, I don't think any woman can truly define what manhood is.

I wasn't allowed to express emotions, if I did I was told that I am abusive like her ex husband, who wasn't my father, I never met the guy, but carried his name until I was 17.

So I ended up an emotionally unavailable "boy" that shaves, and the only way he knows how to be a "man" is when he is in control of emotionally unstable women.

Here is a simile, think Pinocchio, I was aplayers created by my mother, lacking morals and male role models, life was great as long as I could keep the old lady happy.

Now I'm a real boy! And can still fake it to keep a woman happy, naturally the ones that have little control over their own happiness, I'm eager to liberate them, so I can be the "man" I was meant to be.

Some women you just can't help, and opening veins for them is a dying game. That's why we play with them, and get called "players," we don't care for their emotions as much as we lead them on to believe we do.

And there are millions of us in the world, almost half the men born between 1969 and today were raised by their mothers, some of those mothers are emotionally unstable man haters.

It is what it is... I move on with my life and quit whining about the past.
For me its not a reason to hate women, or hate myself, or give up on relationships; relationships aren't what they used to be, and Hollywood is not mentor; it cant teach me family values.


----------



## Holland

gouge_away said:


> ...............
> And there are millions of us in the world, almost half the men born between 1969 and today were raised by their mothers, some of those mothers are emotionally unstable man haters.
> 
> It is what it is... I move on with my life and quit whining about the past.
> For me its not a reason to hate women, or hate myself, or give up on relationships; relationships aren't what they used to be, and Hollywood is not mentor; it cant teach me family values.


The flip side is that there would also be millions of women in the world raised without their father around and girls need good father figures. So instead of going on and on (the general you, not specific) how about being better men than the generation before you and instead of dropping out strive to be decent humans that do not abandon their kids but instead parent them properly.


As for the whole men going their own way, just do it. I know of a few men and women that have actively chosen not to partner for life or have kids but they do it with some dignity and still participate in daily life with their fellow humans without the need to be bitter and twisted. Take some responsibility for yourselves without blaming others for your failings.


----------



## gouge_away

I know my value, I still believe someone will recognize it.

Over all I have had a very good track record with relationships. I've broken up a few short ones for no other reason than I got bored, never cheated, I can only remember two occasions where I told my wife to "f off," I've never called a girl names, with exception to my mother and sisters in my early teens, that still bothers me to this day, though they deny me ever being verbally abusive.

The thing is, every long term relationship I've been in (2) went from being awesome to a living hell within a few years, to the point where I'm not sure if I ever could have "loved them." Most people that get to know me say that I am self righteous, I believe that, it seems to get worse and worse over the course of the relationships. Eventually I end up resenting being in one.

Right now I'm bouncing back and forth, partly because I don't want to get too attached to one person, but I'm finding I am getting too attached to too many women.

They are all aware of what I am doing, but they aren't making this easy, lol. Eventually this train is going to come to a screeching halt, and I'm going to have a harum of pissed off women... If any of them are as bat **** crazy as my ex-wife, I'm a goner.


----------



## Holland

No idea of your age gouge away but here is what my dad does, he tells any new partner up front that he is not interested in a life long relationship, his average is about 7 years give or take. 

I like his honesty and he has not had anyone come after him with a pair of scissors. He does not want to co habitate (he is very difficult to live with by his own omission) so he just tells the woman up front, no living together, no marriage ever.


----------



## gouge_away

Holland said:


> No idea of your age gouge away but here is what my dad does, he tells any new partner up front that he is not interested in a life long relationship, his average is about 7 years give or take.
> 
> I like his honesty and he has not had anyone come after him with a pair of scissors. He does not want to co habitate (he is very difficult to live with by his own omission) so he just tells the woman up front, no living together, no marriage ever.


I'm 33.
Nobody my age wants that, I have flat out said that I am not looking for serious commitment at this time. Just acknowledging that pisses them off.

The younger ones 20-28ish are totally OK with it, but I'd be lucky to get a month or two before they fall off the face of the earth, like no contact, its exhausting meeting someone new every two weeks, lol.

The older ones, there interesting because they have usually been through the ringer, they aren't in a rush for anything (except sex, because then they expect exclusivity)

I've kept my pants on, once those come off, with the rate I am dating and building connections, I'd be a huge sloot in a hurry. Someday I would like to settle down, I don't want her thinking I slept with the whole town.

How bittersweet is this, "out of hundreds of women, I chose you!"


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> I am not taking tech's comment "way out of context". The context is his hundreds and hundreds of posts, like that one, that point out how men are victims of women.
> 
> As to the rest of your post...I could cite dozens of examples I have witnessed personally in my life and examples my friends and relatives have told me of straight up racism, sexism, harassment and other hateful sh*t in the world...the workplace, grocery stores, on the street, in restaurants...should I do that? List them all out? My comment about working in HR was specific to these supposed constant sexual harassment complaints being filed. I have seen none. That was my point. This does not mean I am saying I have never seen things like oh say, a group of white men constantly mocking and making racial slurs about the hispanic employees they work with behind their backs, or oh say, women who have actually been harassed at work. There are victims of real discrimination and intimidation, and there are victims of false charges. I think everyone here would agree to that, right?
> 
> Except all tech and a few other men want to talk about is how men are victims of women.
> 
> How is this not seen as just plain whiny, by now? I mean, seriously.


I guess you and I are reading it very differently FW. When I read what Tech posts, what I generally get is this:

1.Women have certain legal "privileges" available that are not available to men.
2._Many_ women use these legal "privileges" to abuse men in the workplace and at home.
3. One of these legal "privileges" is the ability to claim "sexual harassment" and get a man fired, or "sexual discrimination" against a man and receive a court award of thousands of dollars. 
4.Men are especially vulnerable to false sexually-charged claims in the workplace.
5.There is no simple way to tell if a woman is the kind of gal who will or will not abuse such things to gain something or out of spite.
6.Therefore Men should--in general--be very careful when dealing with women in the workplace. Use the buddy system, only deal with them professionally etc.

This is a very non-controversial series of statements. The conclusion is logical. It is not whining. Nowhere does it say "all men are victims of all women". It's in line with the thought that if you want more of a behavior, you reward that behavior. Women are rewarded for this behavior, so of course many will abuse it. 

I don't know you and as I said, perhaps you're very lucky and have not encountered these situations. I find it hard to believe, but certainly it could be the case. Or you could be biased to believe allegations from women against men--as Tech suggested. Or maybe you've dismissed the obviously false allegations when they've come in, and not really considered it a problem--moved on to real problems and forgotten them etc. 

As to the racism comments; sure plenty of folks are racist. White folks, black folks, asians, hispanics etc. It's probably the natural state of mankind--in fact probably for most species. The truth is that most people are more comfortable being around people who look and speak like they do. You are comparing someone saying 'mean wittle things' to someone using the force of law. They are incomparable. 

When people call me mean names, I just go on. I don't get to hide behind anti-discrimination laws since I'm white; I have to deal with it and step forward. And I'm a better man for it. 

You see, I have neither care nor concern for the "hurtful words" we all endure. I could list off the terrible racist things minorities I've dealt with say about white folk. I could go on and on too. But I don't, because they're just words, and rather than letting them bother me, I just disassociate with those people. 

*Words* don't hurt adults unless we actively choose to let them. 

We belittle the real problems people face in this world, when we compare "mean words" with violent force.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I guess you and I are reading it very differently FW. When I read what Tech posts, what I generally get is this:
> 
> .... .....
> 
> *Words* don't hurt adults unless we actively choose to let them.
> 
> We belittle the real problems people face in this world, when we compare "mean words" with violent force.


Yes, we do read it differently, Kivlor. I've been here awhile now and tech and I have gone rounds for much longer than what you've seen. I know where he's coming from and what he's saying. It is always the same story with him, I've read the same blogs he has read, and I've heard all his complaints. You are free to interpret him differently, but it won't change how I interpret him at all.

And I'm not sure where your "word rant" came from. I have never made some big point about "mean words". I have described two instances of outright racial slurs and intimidation I have seen myself. It seems you simply want to mock me because I spoke of those things and demean my point as just "wahhhh, words hurt someone". I never "went on and on" about anything, either and you implying that I did just points out that you want to assign words and meaning to what I have said so you can twist it into the view that have made of me.

That's fine and that can be your view of what I'm saying if you want. Though by you mocking me in this way, I know now that I don't have anything further to discuss with you since usually the only people who mock things like what I spoke of are the ones who speak that way themselves.

So...peace out.

And meanwhile....the whiny victim droning chant by tech and some of these others guys will continue on and on and on....


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, we do read it differently, Kivlor. I've been here awhile now and tech and I have gone rounds for much longer than what you've seen. I know where he's coming from and what he's saying. It is always the same story with him, I've read the same blogs he has read, and I've heard all his complaints. You are free to interpret him differently, but it won't change how I interpret him at all.
> 
> And I'm not sure where your "word rant" came from. I have never made some big point about "mean words". I have described two instances of outright racial slurs and intimidation I have seen myself. It seems you simply want to mock me because I spoke of those things and demean my point as just "wahhhh, words hurt someone". I never "went on and on" about anything, either and you implying that I did just points out that you want to assign words and meaning to what I have said so you can twist it into the view that have made of me.
> 
> That's fine and that can be your view of what I'm saying if you want. Though by you mocking me in this way, I know now that I don't have anything further to discuss with you since usually the only people who mock things like what I spoke of are the ones who speak that way themselves.
> 
> So...peace out.
> 
> And meanwhile....the whiny victim droning chant by tech and some of these others guys will continue on and on and on....


FW, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm sorry you think I did. You said you can go on and on listing the mean racist things you've seen white people say. To which I responded I can go on and on about the mean racist things I've seen minorities say as well. Except I don't care about the "mean things" (racist things) people (white or otherwise) say--nor should anyone. People say mean things to me all the time, and as I said, I just toughen up and move on. Everyone should.

If you've seen legitimate issues of harassment / intimidation--which I'm sure you have--then I hope you helped get them sorted out. But the whole point of my post was that "mean things said" (behind someone's back, according to you) are completely different from "mean things done" and not even remotely equitable. I was discussing mean things people do to people. You brought up the "mean words" stuff, and I responded.

I mocked anyone who has their "feelings" hurt by "mean words." They need to grow up and face some real adversity or at least learn to cultivate a little gratitude for how easy a life they have if that's their great burden to bear. Things like what Falcon said his family went through--that's real, nasty, horrible racism. Calling me a "Cracker"? Meh. 

Calling someone a mean name, that's elementary school, and by the time we've reached adulthood, it's best to have moved on.



> As to the rest of your post...I could cite dozens of examples I have witnessed personally in my life and examples my friends and relatives have told me of straight up racism, sexism, harassment and other hateful sh*t in the world...the workplace, grocery stores, on the street, in restaurants...should I do that? List them all out?


----------



## FalconKing

Holland said:


> No idea of your age gouge away but here is what my dad does, he tells any new partner up front that he is not interested in a life long relationship, his average is about 7 years give or take.
> 
> I like his honesty and he has not had anyone come after him with a pair of scissors. He does not want to co habitate (he is very difficult to live with by his own omission) so he just tells the woman up front, no living together, no marriage ever.


How old are the women your dad usually dates? I'm just curious.


----------



## Holland

FalconKing said:


> How old are the women your dad usually dates? I'm just curious.


Yep that is why I asked GA what his age group is. Dad's first marriage was till he was 30, second divorce I think he was around late 40's and then has been having monogamous medium term relationships since.

So starting with women in their 40's, all post divorce. 

I really do admire his honesty, he is just an interesting and very self assured man. He is firm but fair, loving but strong and that is his parenting style as well.

Post divorce I would have head down the same lifestyle path but for running into a very tall and handsome man. I think it is a valid lifestyle to choose but yes much harder with younger people that are looking to have a family and who have not yet crossed the threshold of reality into the post divorce world.

Happy New Year to you FK, hoping it is a magnificent one for you.


----------



## tech-novelist

:iagree:
(This was meant for @Kivlor's post #650 but I was a bit behind the curve.)


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> :iagree:
> (This was meant for @Kivlor's post #650 but I was a bit behind the curve.)


That's OK Tech, is NYE down under and I'm in a festive spirit so I will take the "agree" for myself. Cheers and all the best for the NY


----------



## FalconKing

Holland said:


> Yep that is why I asked GA what his age group is. Dad's first marriage was till he was 30, second divorce I think he was around late 40's and then has been having monogamous medium term relationships since.
> 
> So starting with women in their 40's, all post divorce.
> 
> I really do admire his honesty, he is just an interesting and very self assured man. He is firm but fair, loving but strong and that is his parenting style as well.
> 
> Post divorce I would have head down the same lifestyle path but for running into a very tall and handsome man. I think it is a valid lifestyle to choose but yes much harder with younger people that are looking to have a family and who have not yet crossed the threshold of reality into the post divorce world.
> 
> Happy New Year to you FK, hoping it is a magnificent one for you.


You hit the nail on the head. I'm 32 and you know right now i'm transitioning in life. I don't want anything serious because I just don't have the energy and focus to commit to it. Most people my age are looking for marriage and kids. Many would probably feel like a relationship that may not lead to that would be a waste of time. It seems older post divorce people have already been there and done and alot to seem to just appreciate human connection and company. It also seems like everyone is in a rat race to have sex(myself included..). I do believe the best relationships are where you can put off sex for a while and just connect in other ways. But I don't see many people doing that. And no one want's to be courting someone and taking things slow, while they are screwing other people on the side. But until it's serious they don't really owe you any explanation for anything. So I think many people move for sex quickly either for just because it may be all they want or just to negotiate exclusivity.


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> Yep that is why I asked GA what his age group is. Dad's first marriage was till he was 30, second divorce I think he was around late 40's and then has been having monogamous medium term relationships since.
> 
> So starting with women in their 40's, all post divorce.
> 
> I really do admire his honesty, he is just an interesting and very self assured man. He is firm but fair, loving but strong and that is his parenting style as well.
> 
> Post divorce I would have head down the same lifestyle path but for running into a very tall and handsome man. I think it is a valid lifestyle to choose but yes much harder with younger people that are looking to have a family and who have not yet crossed the threshold of reality into the post divorce world.
> 
> Happy New Year to you FK, hoping it is a magnificent one for you.


This post just makes me smile. Not based on content or subject matter but based on a daughter expressing how she feels about her dad.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Yep that is why I asked GA what his age group is. Dad's first marriage was till he was 30, second divorce I think he was around late 40's and then has been having monogamous medium term relationships since.
> 
> So starting with women in their 40's, all post divorce.
> 
> I really do admire his honesty, he is just an interesting and very self assured man. He is firm but fair, loving but strong and that is his parenting style as well.
> 
> Post divorce I would have head down the same lifestyle path but for running into a *very tall and handsome man*.


And here I thought men were supposed to be the shallow ones. >


----------



## Holland

I'm as deep as a puddle.

Oh and very sneaky as well, is 39deg (about 104) outside so I am sitting under the air con while the big guy is out shopping for our BBQ tonight. I'm supposed to be cleaning the house >


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> *I'm as deep as a puddle.
> *
> Oh and very sneaky as well, is 39deg (about 104) outside so I am sitting under the air con while the big guy is out shopping for our BBQ tonight. I'm supposed to be cleaning the house >


Oh jeez. "I'm as deep as a puddle" is going to be my signature soon.


----------



## gouge_away

Holland said:


> I'm as deep as a puddle.
> 
> Oh and very sneaky as well, is 39deg (about 104) outside so I am sitting under the air con while the big guy is out shopping for our BBQ tonight. I'm supposed to be cleaning the house >


It's 19° (about -7) outside. I'm spooning my dog, not because I'm lonely but because he's cold.


----------



## badbane

MGTOW started off as a mens movement but the shrill minority have ruined it. Just like the shrill minority have made 3rd wave feminism a joke. Most people who are MGTOW really just moderates that think that women have more advantages. Yes there are always going to be extremists on both sides. for feminists you have women like this lady https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80. For mGTow I was going to link mgtowunited channel on Youtube but he wisely closed his account and ran. Personally the point is not no to sex but no to marriage. Both extreme MGTOw and extreme 3rd wave feminism ignore reality and facts to shape a false narrative. The reason it is harder for average men to get with above average women is simply because there are more men and women have a lot more men to choose from. Go back to the 40's- 50's (the baby boomers) the reason is was easier for men to get women back then was millions of them were killed in two world wars. So there were more women and less men meaning women had to take what they could get. It really is pretty much that simple. After all most of society's decision making boils down to supply and demand.


----------



## gouge_away

badbane said:


> MGTOW started off as a mens movement but the shrill minority have ruined it. Just like the shrill minority have made 3rd wave feminism a joke. Most people who are MGTOW really just moderates that think that women have more advantages. Yes there are always going to be extremists on both sides. for feminists you have women like this lady https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80. For mGTow I was going to link mgtowunited channel on Youtube but he wisely closed his account and ran. Personally the point is not no to sex but no to marriage. Both extreme MGTOw and extreme 3rd wave feminism ignore reality and facts to shape a false narrative. The reason it is harder for average men to get with above average women is simply because there are more men and women have a lot more men to choose from. Go back to the 40's- 50's (the baby boomers) the reason is was easier for men to get women back then was millions of them were killed in two world wars. So there were more women and less men meaning women had to take what they could get. It really is pretty much that simple. After all most of society's decision making boils down to supply and demand.


First I believe your confusing mgtow with mens rights activism.
Mgtow isn't a movement at all, its a lifestyle, or set of guidelines to navigate an environment that for the most part "pisses on their shoes." MRA is a movement, and many individual MGTOW and MRA subscribe to the same.

Secondly,
I do believe that there are more women than men, take out the married couples and it multiplies the spread single women to single men, across the board.

Demographically in large metropolitan areas such as Manhattan and L.A. women vastly out number men.

Much to the same effect in Urban America, their are more than twice as many households where single woman are head compared to male head of households, this gap is widening with each consecutive census.

Within the dating market the statistics get a little misleading. The quickest and, without a doubt, easiest way to gather information is the vast online dating databases.

Online, men vastly outnumber women. Men get pretty much ignored by women of lower status because there is ample validation online, hundreds to thirsty males that could care less about personality, education, job status and even marital status. They're fishing for attractive women, while the majority of low status women are fishing for validation and a place among the most desired.

Take those motives, add internet anonymity, deceptive camera angles, your best selfie, and you get a whole world of amazingly beautiful women, getting validation overload from higher status males, who otherwise wouldn't give them the time of day should they actually step out into the real world.

Then you have the low status males that can't attract women because they don't really have the assets women are attracted to, (job, stability, residence, bicepts, chisled jawlines, and a razor) these men can be just as deceptive.

I'd say that from my experience reading profiles more than half of the women complain that the men are all liars and cheats, that it's impossible to find a guy online that has his **** together.

Also from my experience meeting the womynz, body type: average, really means 50-100lbs overweight.

my OLD


----------



## techmom

This will be my absolute last post on this thread...

I wish everyone a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

http://youtu.be/gOk_qxkBphY


----------



## moco82

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Those men need to stop chasing the girls at the bar trying to get with the hot guys. Find the girl who sits alone at the coffee shop reading a book while she waits for the men to stop chasing the girls at the bar.


Those are the most terrifying girls to talk to, at least if they're attractive. Attractive and smart? Their standards must be quite high.


----------



## tom67

techmom said:


> This will be my absolute last post on this thread...
> 
> I wish everyone a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
> 
> http://youtu.be/gOk_qxkBphY


Yep it's always the rapey man lol.

Paul Elam's response to this cupcake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOp4J2tauUA

But hey it's the holiday season...

A one a two a three 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxyjkXrUzdE


----------



## norajane

badbane said:


> MGTOW started off as a mens movement but the shrill minority have ruined it. Just like the shrill minority have made 3rd wave feminism a joke. Most people who are MGTOW really just moderates that think that women have more advantages. Yes there are always going to be extremists on both sides. for feminists you have women like this lady https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80. For mGTow I was going to link mgtowunited channel on Youtube but he wisely closed his account and ran. Personally the point is not no to sex but no to marriage. Both extreme MGTOw and extreme 3rd wave feminism ignore reality and facts to shape a false narrative. *The reason it is harder for average men to get with above average women is simply because *there are more men and women have a lot more men to choose from. Go back to the 40's- 50's (the baby boomers) the reason is was easier for men to get women back then was millions of them were killed in two world wars. So there were more women and less men meaning women had to take what they could get. It really is pretty much that simple. After all most of society's decision making boils down to supply and demand.


Maybe it's harder for average men to get with above average women because above average women are also looking for above average men? 

I don't understand why it's supposed to be easy for average men to get with above average women.


----------



## Ripper

techmom said:


> This will be my absolute last post on this thread...
> 
> I wish everyone a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
> 
> http://youtu.be/gOk_qxkBphY


For those who don't want to watch the video: Basically if you let teenage boys call teenage girls names, other boys will grow up and think its okay to rape her and nearly beat her to death.

Women as victims, not a whiff of female agency, all men painted as rapists or abusers who have to be taught otherwise. Normal rad-fem propaganda. Basically the same thing women posters are complaining about with MRA/MGTOW videos. The difference being, the MGTOW type videos will have been seen a few thousand times, this video, a few million.

Looking around the web, the majority is seeing it for what it is. In the few places where the comments haven't been disabled it is being panned. Perhaps sanity will eventually prevail?


----------



## tom67

Ripper said:


> For those who don't want to watch the video: Basically if you let teenage boys call teenage girls names, other boys will grow up and think its okay to rape her and nearly beat her to death.
> 
> Women as victims, not a whiff of female agency, all men painted as rapists or abusers who have to be taught otherwise. Normal rad-fem propaganda. Basically the same thing women posters are complaining about with MRA/MGTOW videos. The difference being, the MGTOW type videos will have been seen a few thousand times, this video, a few million.
> 
> Looking around the web, the majority is seeing it for what it is. In the few places where the comments haven't been disabled it is being panned. Perhaps sanity will eventually prevail?


This is why that Canadian case is so important.
If disagreeing is hate speech we are all in trouble.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...twitter-constitutes-criminal-harassment.shtml


----------



## Kivlor

Ripper said:


> For those who don't want to watch the video: Basically if you let teenage boys call teenage girls names, other boys will grow up and think its okay to rape her and nearly beat her to death.
> 
> Women as victims, not a whiff of female agency, all men painted as rapists or abusers who have to be taught otherwise. Normal rad-fem propaganda. Basically the same thing women posters are complaining about with MRA/MGTOW videos. The difference being, the MGTOW type videos will have been seen a few thousand times, this video, a few million.
> 
> Looking around the web, the majority is seeing it for what it is. In the few places where the comments haven't been disabled it is being panned. Perhaps sanity will eventually prevail?


This video was pretty funny to me. Paul Elam's response video was hilarious. 

I thought it was a perfect example of what I was talking about in the last couple of posts: Equating someone calling another person mean names with actual violence. Grow up, words can't hurt you if you don't let them.

This is like seeing a video that says "because 'Jimbo' down the road told a racist joke, 'his son's gonna go lynch some colored folks.' And if someone had just stopped Jimbo telling his 'mean jokes' it never would've happened." Preposterous. 



> Take away thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, "I have been harmed." Take away the complaint, "I have been harmed," and the harm is taken away.
> 
> That which does not make a man worse than he was, also does not make his life worse, nor does it harm him either from without or from within.


 --Book IV, Meditations, M. Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, c. 161 AD. 

Oh well. Happy New Year as well everybody!


----------



## tom67

Kivlor said:


> This video was pretty funny to me. Paul Elam's response video was hilarious.
> 
> I thought it was a perfect example of what I was talking about in the last couple of posts: Equating someone calling another person mean names with actual violence. Grow up, words can't hurt you if you don't let them.
> 
> This is like seeing a video that says "because 'Jimbo' down the road told a racist joke, 'his son's gonna go lynch some colored folks.' And if someone had just stopped Jimbo telling his 'mean jokes' it never would've happened." Preposterous.
> 
> --Book IV, Meditations, M. Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, c. 161 AD.
> 
> Oh well. Happy New Year as well everybody!


:iagree::iagree:
Have a good time but be safe.


----------



## gouge_away

Well that explains why I never raped anyone.


----------



## Forest

technovelist said:


> And here I thought men were supposed to be the shallow ones. >


Shallow, or just efficient?

If all it takes is loyalty, leg, and looks to please someone, that seems like a good system.


----------



## Lon

norajane said:


> Maybe it's harder for average men to get with above average women because above average women are also looking for above average men?
> 
> I don't understand why it's supposed to be easy for average men to get with above average women.


Entitlement and disconnect from reality, for both sexes. Expectations are unrealistic and there is so much pressure on men, women, boys and girls to try to meet it.


----------



## always_alone

While y'all were having this interesting conversation about privilege, I was traveling through a developing country. The people there work very hard, 16-18 hours a day, six days a week. They are smart and talented, and can jury-rig repairs on complex machinery with chewing gum and scrap metal. They are ambitious, seeking and capitalizing on opportunity whenever they see it. They are entrepreneurial, risk-taking, and tireless. Many are beautiful.

Despite all of this, they will never be in the top 1%, 10% or even 20%. Most will live in small cement shacks, crowded in with their families. They do not have the time or the infrastructure to spend hours online discussing privilege, nor do they whine about their "victimhood". Indeed on average, they do considerably less whining than the tourists who flock to their country.

It was my privilege to be able to climb aboard a jet plane and fly thousands of miles to their country. It was my privilege to bring in 10 kilos of medical supplies, an insignificant drop in the bucket of need. It was my privilege to spend more money in a day than the average person makes in a month. 

Meritocracy, IMHO, is a word the privileged use to console themselves that they deserve all they have. I too am relatively smart and have a few small talents. I have worked hard for what I have. But I have also had opportunities and open doors that others do not. I did not earn these things, they were happenstance, what I was born into. 

The differences that constitute privilege are economic, political, and sociological.

Divorce laws were crafted at a time when women were universally shafted by separation. Being property, they were not entitled to any, and so when left alone to look after children had nothing at all, except stigma and hardship. Now that the climate has changed, and women have rights and money, these laws are changing. Most if not all states have updated, as have many countries around the globe. In many ways MGTOW are late to their own party, if it is divorce laws that concern them.

As for not being taught to be men, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. For every bumbling idiot character, there is the super hero Rambo type that saves the world from extinction. Or the super smart detective that solves the most difficult crimes. 

The men I know seem to have figured out for themselves what they think it means to be a man


----------



## StilltheStudent

Why do I get the feeling that the kind of people who use the word privilege in the way AA just did have actually lived privileged lives?

It took 30-years of hard work and personal sacrifices for my family to pull itself up from lower-class, cannot pay the bills, living next-door to prostitutes and drug-dealers, to eventually having my parents my sister, and myself all holding college degrees, owning their own cars, and actually seeing my folks finally have the ability to buy a house by the age of 51.

People who dispute the concept of meritocracy only do so in order to make excuses for those who either fail or refuse to try.

As far as the whole "taught to be men thing."

I interact with quite a few young men from the ages of 18-25. Many of them seem confused as to what being a man actually means.

And Sherlock and Iron Man do not help them figure out how to reconcile masculinity and their lives, seeing as none of them are brilliant multi-billionaires.


----------



## MEM2020

Still,
That's impressive. 

Who were your role models?




StilltheStudent said:


> Why do I get the feeling that the kind of people who use the word privilege in the way AA just did have actually lived privileged lives?
> 
> It took 30-years of hard work and personal sacrifices for my family to pull itself up from lower-class, cannot pay the bills, living next-door to prostitutes and drug-dealers, to eventually having my parents my sister, and myself all holding college degrees, owning their own cars, and actually seeing my folks finally have the ability to buy a house by the age of 51.
> 
> People who dispute the concept of meritocracy only do so in order to make excuses for those who either fail or refuse to try.
> 
> As far as the whole "taught to be men thing."
> 
> I interact with quite a few young men from the ages of 18-25. Many of them seem confused as to what being a man actually means.
> 
> And Sherlock and Iron Man do not help them figure out how to reconcile masculinity and their lives, seeing as none of them are brilliant multi-billionaires.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> People who dispute the concept of meritocracy only do so in order to make excuses for those who either fail or refuse to try.


And so do you also believe that those to whom a college education and home ownership was a given, easily paid for, are somehow more deserving than your family?

Because that's what meritocracy means: those who deserve get, and those who do not fail. 

Most wealth is not earned, but inherited. Do you really think that those born into the wealthy elite are automatically more meritorious than everyone else? 

True, what you do with what you have makes a difference. I once knew a guy who was born with that proverbial silver spoon and he managed to piss away his opportunities, choosing instead to keep shoving a needle in his arm. Even so, he had a soft landing: the best rehab money could buy, a nice, clean, paid for, place to live, everything a person could want simply handed to him because his parents could afford it and didn"t want the scandal. Is he somehow more "meritorious" than the crack addicts you used to live next to? 

I have had a privileged life in many ways. I was born in a country that has modern infrastructure. I don't have to worry about getting blown up by daily bombs, and I can wander through the countryside without fear of stepping on a stray landmine. I can exercise my human rights, have freedom of speech and religion, and am no one's property or slave. I can dress how I want, flirt outrageously without fear of being stoned to death by my own family. I have easy access to information, and lots of opportunities to educate myself in most any field I care about. 

I was not born with a silver spoon, and like you have worked hard to be where I am, pulling myself up by my bootstraps, as it were. But because of culture, time period and geography, I've also faced a whole lot less obstacles than most people, and for that I try to remember to remain grateful.

Meritocracy presumes the playing field is somewhat even, but the fact is that the odds are heavily stacked. I think it's important to remember this and not look down on those we perceive to be "failures" because they haven't got what we have.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> And so do you also believe that those to whom a college education and home ownership was a given, easily paid for, are somehow more deserving than your family?
> 
> Because that's what meritocracy means: those who deserve get, and those who do not fail.
> 
> Most wealth is not earned, but inherited. Do you really think that those born into the wealthy elite are automatically more meritorious than everyone else?
> 
> True, what you do with what you have makes a difference. I once knew a guy who was born with that proverbial silver spoon and he managed to piss away his opportunities, choosing instead to keep shoving a needle in his arm. Even so, he had a soft landing: the best rehab money could buy, a nice, clean, paid for, place to live, everything a person could want simply handed to him because his parents could afford it and didn"t want the scandal. Is he somehow more "meritorious" than the crack addicts you used to live next to?
> 
> I have had a privileged life in many ways. I was born in a country that has modern infrastructure. I don't have to worry about getting blown up by daily bombs, and I can wander through the countryside without fear of stepping on a stray landmine. I can exercise my human rights, have freedom of speech and religion, and am no one's property or slave. I can dress how I want, flirt outrageously without fear of being stoned to death by my own family. I have easy access to information, and lots of opportunities to educate myself in most any field I care about.
> 
> I was not born with a silver spoon, and like you have worked hard to be where I am, pulling myself up by my bootstraps, as it were. But because of culture, time period and geography, I've also faced a whole lot less obstacles than most people, and for that I try to remember to remain grateful.
> 
> Meritocracy presumes the playing field is somewhat even, but the fact is that the odds are heavily stacked. I think it's important to remember this and not look down on those we perceive to be "failures" because they haven't got what we have.


No, what meritocracy means is that wherever you start, you can rise from there if you are willing to do what it takes *and *if you have the basic ability to do so. It does *not *mean that whoever comes out on top has the most merit, because people start out at different places, nor does it mean that whoever works the hardest will come out on top; some people are just more able than others due to intrinsic factors such as IQ.

I'm the first one in my immediate family (parents, grandparents) to graduate from college, paying for it myself with loans (repaid) and work. So I'm not one of those born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I have made it myself, but I do know that I was lucky in that I have abilities that make it possible for me to earn a good living.


----------



## always_alone

meritocracy
/ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsɪ/
noun (pl) -cies
1.
rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect
2.
the persons constituting such a group
3.
a social system formed on such a basis


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a HUGE difference between 'can't get laid' and 'can't get the attractive women they think they deserve even though they are only average themselves'
> 
> And yes, every man I know would laugh their butts off at this stuff too.
> 
> Even if these guys were attractive, their desirability would go way down because they are whiny and entitled with bad self confidence.


I don't know the extent that this is true as I am older and not in the dating pool, but you are not understanding the argument. Here is how this argument goes:

_My Paraphrase_
_
"Women are now sleeping around "just for sex" much more than ever in history. These women are choosing only the most attractive and exciting male sexual partners who, being guys, are happy to keep getting laid as much as possible and they don't all have to be super models.

This leads to the situation where the most attractive alpha males are getting laid by average to good looking women constantly--like a mouse in sexual exhaustion experiment. And average even decent looking guys are having trouble finding any partners except those that are so unattractive that the "alphas" will reject them.

It is your average good looking healthy and employed young man that is not getting attention from women because women do not need them for anything. In the past women would invest in a relationship with these average good looking healthy employed guys to build a family. They are not doing that until their 30's, but that is another discussion."
_​

Again this is not my argument but think i understand it. It is not founded on men feeling entitled to women.


----------



## tech-novelist

ScrambledEggs said:


> I don't know the extent that this is true as I am older and not in the dating pool, but you are not understanding the argument. Here is how this argument goes:
> 
> _My Paraphrase_
> _
> "Women are now sleeping around "just for sex" much more than ever in history. These women are choosing only the most attractive and exciting male sexual partners who, being guys, are happy to keep getting laid as much as possible and they don't all have to be super models.
> 
> This leads to the situation where the most attractive alpha males are getting laid by average to good looking women constantly--like a mouse in sexual exhaustion experiment. And average even decent looking guys are having trouble finding any partners except those that are so unattractive that the "alphas" will reject them.
> 
> It is your average good looking healthy and employed young man that is not getting attention from women because women do not need them for anything. In the past women would invest in a relationship with these average good looking healthy employed guys to build a family. They are not doing that until their 30's, but that is another discussion."
> _​
> 
> Again this is not my argument but think i understand it. It is not founded on men feeling entitled to women.


Yep, this is exactly right.


----------



## MEM2020

Wealth as measured through childhood is a fascinating topic. 

Read some article by a financial reporter with the WSJ said:
- During the Middle Ages better born rich than smart
- In the developed world of today, the reverse is true

Turn 18 with 3 kinds of wealth:
- Genetic
- Cultural / familial taught values and skills 
- Actual money





Personal said:


> There are plenty of aesthetically challenged men sans much money who enjoy plenty of sex because they have attractive personalities.
> 
> I will also add when I say an attractive personality, I'm not describing self entitled, whiney, needy, covert contract types who erroneously believe they have an attractive personality.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Wealth as measured through childhood is a fascinating topic.
> 
> Read some article by a financial reporter with the WSJ said:
> - During the Middle Ages better born rich than smart
> - In the developed world of today, the reverse is true
> 
> Turn 18 with 3 kinds of wealth:
> - Genetic
> - Cultural / familial taught values and skills
> - Actual money


The second and third are generally mutually exclusive.


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> IAgain this is not my argument but think i understand it. It is not founded on men feeling entitled to women.


Isn't it? It sure sounds a lot like simple complaining that decent looking woman won't give them enough attention. 

And MGTOW is starting to sound a whole lot like sour grapes: "why those women don't think I'm good enough? Well, too bad for them, I'm going my own way. Women are all crazy trouble!"


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Read some article by a financial reporter with the WSJ said:
> - During the Middle Ages better born rich than smart
> - In the developed world of today, the reverse is true


I think smart may get you more mileage these days, but in terms of overall success, wealth, advantage, privilege, it's still much better to be born rich than smart.

The American dream tells us all we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to become anything we want, but while there may be a few rags to riches stories, it's more myth than reality. Those who have it all tend to do their utmost best to keep it all. And if you look at economic trends these days, they are very good at it: income disparity is growing, not shrinking. Fewer and fewer people control most of the wealth in the world, while the middle class is sliding back into poverty.


----------



## john117

Case in point - my kids. They're both quite smart, especially the younger one. But a good part of their smarts came from having the money to cultivate their skills and abilities. Without money (and I'm eager to hear from the proletariat side of the peanut gallery about how I flaunt my wealth once again  ) they would be in a ho hum college getting ready for a ho hum career. Instead, they're both in top ten schools and have not a worry in the world about the tuition fairy paying the bills.

Without such silver plated bootstraps there's little chance they would replicate their parents' American Dream success story. Well, their father's, as mom had a near infinite supply of money for college...

The key to "success" should be to replicate or improve upon their parents' accomplishments. Without some serious parental starter dough, it ain't happening unless one is extraordinarily lucky or gifted.


----------



## Justinian

always_alone said:


> ... The American dream tells us all we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to become anything we want, but while there may be a few rags to riches stories, it's more myth than reality ...


According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. 

The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. 

IF Stanley's facts are correct, most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died - they worked for the money.


----------



## john117

Depends on your definition of wealthy. 

My idea of a millionaire is someone who earns this yearly - liquid assets. I probably have a million dollars in real estate assets in Europe - but sales there are iffy at best. So is it really a million? 

Maybe someone has a million in a retirement account. Not useful as it's not as liquid.

A million is a paycheck, business income, trust fund, or investment income. In my book at least. Money you can spend. Even half of that annually, or a quarter in a low cost area can give a serious advantage to ones kids.


----------



## Starstarfish

I just want to get to the point I have more than a million dollars in real estate and start debating if that really counts.


----------



## Justinian

john117 said:


> ... My idea of a millionaire is someone who earns this yearly - liquid assets ...


That's a pretty small group. According to an article in Forbes, only about one tenth of the "top 1%" earn a million or more annually.


----------



## john117

Exactly. Most of my neighbors earn a quarter to half of that at best annually, yet their kids have access to the best everything, and so on. 

No need for sizable trust funds


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> meritocracy
> /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsɪ/
> noun (pl) -cies
> 1.
> rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect
> 2.
> the persons constituting such a group
> 3.
> a social system formed on such a basis


I'll be the among the first to admit that we aren't a meritocracy in the US (or in any country). Meritocracy rules out nepotism, and to be honest, there's no way around it: human nature is to want to convey any and all possible advantages to ones children; nepotism can't really be rooted out. We are closer to a "meritocratic" society here than in many other places, as we place so much value on success. 

Still, I'd take the system originally set out by our Founding Fathers over the one we are moving to, or any existing country's system today. I've always heard the dream laid out for those coming to the US as this: "If you're lucky; if you've got guts; can take what life throws at you, if you can get here, you _might_ rise"

When compared to the old system of "You will never rise. Your grandparents were serfs, your grandchildren will be serfs, and my heel will always be on your neck" I'll take the first one, every time.

Almost no one in the world makes over $1,000,000 per year for years on end. The odds are ridiculously low. It's part luck, part cunning, part nepotism, but it can be done by a select few. 

Me, I just want to provide my children with a better life, and the knowledge of how to provide an even better one for their children.


----------



## Justinian

Kivlor said:


> ... Still, I'd take the system originally set out by our Founding Fathers over the one we are moving to, or any existing country's system today.* I've always heard the dream laid out for those coming to the US as this: "If you're lucky; if you've got guts; can take what life throws at you, if you can get here, you might rise" ...*


I have lived that dream.

I came to the U.S. as a young child, lived for years in a very small house with seven other family members. We never went without, but everything was always in short supply.

I had to quit school in my teens to help support the family, and I never went back. I spent my whole working life in "blue collar" jobs.

My wife and I have worked hard, lived modestly, and kept our family to one child. We saved our money and invested wisely, and we are now financially VERY comfortable.

We have lived the American dream, and it didn't involve any silver spoons or nepotism. We owe it to a lot of hard work, and a lot of good luck. The best luck of course was the opportunity to come to the U.S. in the first place.


----------



## john117

"Very comfortable" is in the eye of the beholder 

I came to America for graduate school thirty four years ago. Started with a Masters, got a job, then got the company to pay for my PhD. Wifey did all her college in the USA ending with a PhD as well. Our definition of "very comfortable" is a bit more materialistic  partially because wifey was a bona fide 1℅er in her birth country and partially because I, born dirt poor, wanted to enjoy a bit of the material culture.

(I can hear the peanut gallery clearing their throats...)

Was it hard work? Fvck No. I barely work 40 hrs a week. I spent a decade in college to avoid working more than i have to... It was foresight to study stuff nobody cared for back then (but care for now) and continue to learn at age 40+ or 50+.


----------



## Justinian

john117 said:


> "Very comfortable" is in the eye of the beholder  ...


Very true. 

To me, it means not working anymore, and still living well.


----------



## john117

See, that's the part I could not do. I'm 56 almost and my line of work is just now getting interesting. Consumer Electronics is a young man's game but experience is something you can't buy. Maybe by 65 I'll get tired of it and retire. My father retired at 80 (35 years army, 15 politics), my father in law works part time at 85 (engineer)...


----------



## Justinian

john117 said:


> ... Maybe by 65 I'll get tired of it and retire. My father retired at 80 (35 years army, 15 politics), my father in law works part time at 85 (engineer)...


I retired at 60, and quickly found that I liked goofing off more than working. 

(Of course that's after many years of working long, long hours)


----------



## MattMatt

Years ago they were called cumudgeons and they lived by themselves.

Now they have a PR outfit and a website and they are called MGTOWers and they live by themselves.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

Justinian said:


> Very true.
> 
> To me, it means not working anymore, and still living well.


It's still pretty subjective. I'm naturally averse to spending money, so for me $40,000 a year is comfortable. But I also have no debt, so that $40,000 would be spent purely on taxes food, utilities, gasoline and fun.

Very comfortable... well that'd take a sight more. But I've come to realize that if one can just amass enough capital, it's really not hard to maintain a pretty good living. Me, I'm confident in my ability to make a 15 to 25% return on my investments, so it's just a matter of time until my investments outperform my work.


----------



## Red Sonja

Justinian said:


> The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved and lived within their means to generate their wealth - think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day.


Yup, this would be me and many other professionals in my industry (STEM) that I know personally.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> Isn't it? It sure sounds a lot like simple complaining that decent looking woman won't give them enough attention.
> 
> And MGTOW is starting to sound a whole lot like sour grapes: "why those women don't think I'm good enough? Well, too bad for them, I'm going my own way. Women are all crazy trouble!"


This is problem for 20 somethings I understand and it relates to guys being rejected for things they really can't control.

Simplistically said, let's 80/20 this.

80% of women in their 20's are sleeping with 20% of the men in their 20's and 30's. Those 20% of guys in two generations are getting laid like crazy because because women in their 20's don't want them for relationships and can choose to sleep with just "hot" guys.

That leaves 90% of men in their 20's competing for 20% of the women.

As the theory goes, the tables turns when women hit their 30's. The hottest guys, even in their late 30's, can continue to get a piece of 25 year old a$$ and women start think about settling down. The effect is the sexual market place becomes flooded with women looking for life partners and all of sudden those disenfranchised normal guys are in higher demand. 

Women in their thirties are wondering why they can't find a great guy to settle down with even though they slept with a rock star every Saturday night they wanted to in their 20's.

Again, its no my theory but it certainly sounds viable. It needs some empirical studies around it to validate. What is clearly true is the many young men feel this true and believe it is their experience.


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> This
> Again, its no my theory but it certainly sounds viable. It needs some empirical studies around it to validate. What is clearly true is the many young men feel this true and believe it is their experience.


Viable? It doesn't sound so at all to me.

According to the theory, some 80-90% of men cannot get a sexual partner in their 20s. And yet, the stats clearly show that the average age for boys to lose their virginity is 17, that a majority of 18-25 year old men report having multiple serial sexual partners, and that some 50% are married or cohabitating by age 29. 

And, according to the theory, women in their 20s are sleeping with stock star every night, and yet, they report overall fewer partners than men do in that same age group.

I really don't know where guys get this 80/20 thing, but there is nothing viable about it. What makes it extra interesting is just how many men assert it to be true, and yet not a single one will ever cop to being a part of that 80%. Somehow, they are all alpha enough to have had plenty of relationships and sexual partners. 

I guess we're all just above average? Go figure!


----------



## always_alone

Justinian said:


> According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches.


I haven't read that book, but I did see a splash in Forbes touting how all the rich billionaires were "self made".

I think we have to be a bit careful when parsing figures like this. Take a look at the Forbes list, and they cite folks like Donald Trump as "self made". Did he work for what he has? Well, sure. But he also had some pretty serious helping hands. It's easier to become a "self-made" entrepreneur when Daddy gives you a nice starter company.

The strict inheritance stats, on the other hand, only factor in what is passed on after death, as opposed to what is freely given while the benefactor is still alive.

Also, when it comes to millionaires, I think it important to remember that in some places, simply owning a home and having a decent salary with a retirement plan can be enough to get one there. Which is not to diminish these accomplishments, but just to point out that this is the first time in history when this was true. Welcome to inflation!


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> Viable? It doesn't sound so at all to me.
> 
> According to the theory, some 80-90% of men cannot get a sexual partner in their 20s. And yet, the stats clearly show that the average age for boys to lose their virginity is 17, that a majority of 18-25 year old men report having multiple serial sexual partners, and that some 50% are married or cohabitating by age 29.
> 
> And, according to the theory, women in their 20s are sleeping with stock star every night, and yet, they report overall fewer partners than men do in that same age group.
> 
> I really don't know where guys get this 80/20 thing, but there is nothing viable about it. What makes it extra interesting is just how many men assert it to be true, and yet not a single one will ever cop to being a part of that 80%. Somehow, they are all alpha enough to have had plenty of relationships and sexual partners.
> 
> I guess we're all just above average? Go figure!


I think part of the point is that not many studies are going to apply to kids in their early 20's. I am sure the numbers you mention are in line but might be dated for the demographic making this claim. Remember, this is not some sort of complaint about the the history of relationships, this is an emerging perspective among young 20 somethings. I guess time will tell if this bears to be wingeing spoiled brats or if there is something to it. 

80/20 comes from here. Its commonly used to rhetorically describe unequal portions even when the actual science behind pareto do not really apply, as is probably the case here.


----------



## StilltheStudent

MEM11363 said:


> Still,
> That's impressive.
> 
> Who were your role models?


Only ever had two, my parents.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Viable? It doesn't sound so at all to me.
> 
> According to the theory, some 80-90% of men cannot get a sexual partner in their 20s. And yet, the stats clearly show that the average age for boys to lose their virginity is 17, that a majority of 18-25 year old men report having multiple serial sexual partners, and that some 50% are married or cohabitating by age 29.
> 
> And, according to the theory, women in their 20s are sleeping with stock star every night, and yet, they report overall fewer partners than men do in that same age group.
> 
> I really don't know where guys get this 80/20 thing, but there is nothing viable about it. What makes it extra interesting is just how many men assert it to be true, and yet not a single one will ever cop to being a part of that 80%. Somehow, they are all alpha enough to have had plenty of relationships and sexual partners.
> 
> I guess we're all just above average? Go figure!


80/20 is probably not the reality, but I would not be shocked if it is truly 80/50. So that 1/2 of the young men out there really only have a shot at 20% of the women. 80/20 is random statistic often used to describe how to find interactions. Only work on the 20% that does 80% of the damage. This rough figure seems to work in many situations, though not all.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> And so do you also believe that those to whom a college education and home ownership was a given, easily paid for, are somehow more deserving than your family?


Complete misunderstanding of what meritocracy is or means.

For individuals for whom a college education or home ownership was a given is a family that, at some point, sacrificed and worked its tail off in order to provide

One person's "privilege" is the hard work of another.



always_alone said:


> Because that's what meritocracy means: those who deserve get, and those who do not fail.


You do not seem to understand how merit works.

It has nothing to do with the entitlement of "deserving" anything.

It means your own merit, as in a willingness to put in the work and sacrifice to achieve something, is what will produce your best opportunity for long-term success.

People who throw around the word "privilege" do so in order to minimize the abilities of successful people because, for some reason, they need to take away from that success in their own minds.

They need to be sure that successful people "did not earn it," but were in fact "privileged and provided for."

Well the reality is that outside of the richest individuals in America, wealth is earned, not inherited.

Even if your SES is better off than your neighbors, unless your family is quite literally rich, you still need to work and earn your way to success and comfort.



always_alone said:


> Meritocracy presumes the playing field is somewhat even, but the fact is that the odds are heavily stacked. I think it's important to remember this and not look down on those we perceive to be "failures" because they haven't got what we have.


Meritocracy presumes that the only reliable way to make progress in life is through your own hard work and sacrifices.

It is not a guarantee of success because you worked hard however.

You can still fail because you were not good enough at whatever you attempted to do.

But repeated failure means you are aiming too high sometimes. Building up yourself and your family is often a long step-by-step process.

Of course, there are people who use words like "privilege" to make excuses for why they don't even try.

It has the lovely dual usefulness of dismissing the efforts of highly successful individuals as not their own and also creating a narrative to explain away the failures of others who refuse to put in the work.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Viable? It doesn't sound so at all to me.
> 
> According to the theory, some 80-90% of men cannot get a sexual partner in their 20s. And yet, the stats clearly show that the average age for boys to lose their virginity is 17, that a majority of 18-25 year old men report having multiple serial sexual partners, and that some 50% are married or cohabitating by age 29.
> 
> And, according to the theory, women in their 20s are sleeping with stock star every night, and yet, they report overall fewer partners than men do in that same age group.
> 
> I really don't know where guys get this 80/20 thing, but there is nothing viable about it. What makes it extra interesting is just how many men assert it to be true, and yet not a single one will ever cop to being a part of that 80%. Somehow, they are all alpha enough to have had plenty of relationships and sexual partners.
> 
> I guess we're all just above average? Go figure!


There is a difference between "had sex, no longer a virgin," (which is what most studies I have known focus on) and "in college, can find a sexually active relationship," (which is what the 80/20 thing is referring to).

What we would really need is to look at studies of the sexual-frequency and number of sexual partners had by different age groups and gender in college.

Don't know of any studies like that though.

Anecdotally, there does seem to be a lot of average guys who, while they have had sex in the past, cannot seem to find a LTR in the college hook-up culture.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I think smart may get you more mileage these days, but in terms of overall success, wealth, advantage, privilege, it's still much better to be born rich than smart.
> 
> The American dream tells us all we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to become anything we want, but while there may be a few rags to riches stories, it's more myth than reality. Those who have it all tend to do their utmost best to keep it all. And if you look at economic trends these days, they are very good at it: income disparity is growing, not shrinking. Fewer and fewer people control most of the wealth in the world, while the middle class is sliding back into poverty.


Oh, I don't know about that. I have both first- and second-hand familiarity with rags to riches stories, or at least lower class to upper middle class stories. In all of those cases it was intelligence and hard work that did the job.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Depends on your definition of wealthy.
> 
> My idea of a millionaire is someone who earns this yearly - liquid assets. I probably have a million dollars in real estate assets in Europe - but sales there are iffy at best. So is it really a million?
> 
> Maybe someone has a million in a retirement account. Not useful as it's not as liquid.
> 
> A million is a paycheck, business income, trust fund, or investment income. In my book at least. Money you can spend. Even half of that annually, or a quarter in a low cost area can give a serious advantage to ones kids.


Those are quite incompatible measures. $1 million in assets is very dissimilar to $1 million earned per year. Of course $1 million also is quite dissimilar to what it was 50 years ago.

As for me, I use *financial *assets as the measure. A house you live in doesn't count due to illiquidity, lack of knowledge of the actual value, and the fact that you have to live somewhere.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> It's still pretty subjective. I'm naturally averse to spending money, so for me $40,000 a year is comfortable. But I also have no debt, so that $40,000 would be spent purely on taxes food, utilities, gasoline and fun.
> 
> Very comfortable... well that'd take a sight more. But I've come to realize that if one can just amass enough capital, it's really not hard to maintain a pretty good living. Me, I'm confident in my ability to make a 15 to 25% return on my investments, so it's just a matter of time until my investments outperform my work.


What do you invest in where you can be confident of that return? If you can really get 15% reliably, you should start a hedge fund and you will be extremely wealthy.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I haven't read that book, but I did see a splash in Forbes touting how all the rich billionaires were "self made".
> 
> I think we have to be a bit careful when parsing figures like this. Take a look at the Forbes list, and they cite folks like Donald Trump as "self made". Did he work for what he has? Well, sure. But he also had some pretty serious helping hands. It's easier to become a "self-made" entrepreneur when Daddy gives you a nice starter company.
> 
> The strict inheritance stats, on the other hand, only factor in what is passed on after death, as opposed to what is freely given while the benefactor is still alive.
> 
> Also, when it comes to millionaires, I think it important to remember that in some places, simply owning a home and having a decent salary with a retirement plan can be enough to get one there. Which is not to diminish these accomplishments, but just to point out that this is the first time in history when this was true. Welcome to inflation!


It's even easier in Zimbabwe.

In other words, a "US dollar" is not a stable unit that can be compared over long periods of time.

Yes, I know nothing has stable value, as everything fluctuates in value all the time. But this particular unit (like all other paper "money"), has gone down tremendously in value over time. I estimate that in the last 100 years, the "US dollar" has lost a minimum of 95% of its value, so $1 million today would be worth only as much as $50,000 100 year ago, if that.


----------



## azteca1986

ScrambledEggs said:


> Again, its no my theory but it certainly sounds viable.


Viable? Really? It sounds like nonsense.


> It needs some empirical studies around it to validate. What is clearly true is the many young men feel this true and believe it is their experience.


People have given this pseudo-science the label of theory where there aren't studies to back it up. And then some desperate young men have gone and based their world view on it. Tragic. 

That 80/20 theory, assigning ranks and "value" to human beings based on their appearance is not only juvenile and frighteningly superficial it has low self-esteem written all over it.


> *Low self-esteem. *Feeling that you’re not good enough or comparing yourself to others are signs of low self-esteem. The tricky thing about self-esteem is that some people think highly of themselves, but it’s only a disguise — they actually feel unlovable or inadequate. Underneath, usually hidden from consciousness, are feelings of shame.Guilt and perfectionism often go along with low self-esteem. If everything is perfect, you don’t feel bad about yourself.


Symptoms of Codependency | Psych Central

Question to the floor: Are then any places on the internet that demonstrate the flip side of the 80/20 theory - where the 80% of women admit to, or share strategies to sleep with the 20% of men? (I wouldn't know where to look and I thought this would be the best place to ask).


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> What do you invest in where you can be confident of that return? If you can really get 15% reliably, you should start a hedge fund and you will be extremely wealthy.


I develop real estate with those kind of yearly returns. The problem is I'm not liquid enough to do more than the occasional one, and I refuse to borrow money, so it really limits me. 

My father did the same, but he borrowed. He went a lot farther a lot faster (you can accelerate those rates by leveraging). I just refuse the risk. Each investment for me takes about $500,000 cash. Not an easy thing to pull together after taxes. They're not always easily seen. I had one on my desk 2 years ago--when I had 0 capital--and it was about a 28% ROI. Cost was ~$500,000. 

Most people don't believe the numbers are available, because they limit their view. It's out there if you want it, have the cash, the vision and the know-how.

Personally, I only invest in real estate, but that's my family's expertise. I benefited from my father's experience, and his mother before him.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> It's even easier in Zimbabwe.
> 
> In other words, a "US dollar" is not a stable unit that can be compared over long periods of time.
> 
> Yes, I know nothing has stable value, as everything fluctuates in value all the time. But this particular unit (like all other paper "money"), has gone down tremendously in value over time. I estimate that in the last 100 years, the "US dollar" has lost a minimum of 95% of its value, so $1 million today would be worth only as much as $50,000 100 year ago, if that.


Yep, you're right. Central banking and inflation ftw (or ftl lol) 

$42,500 in 1915 = 1,000,000 today. $1,000,000 then would be the equivalent of $23,500,000

Of course, that's according to the BLS, and I have a personal bias against them--I think they have an interest in downplaying inflation and unemployment statistics.

It's quite possible that it was even more back then. 
1915 Commodities: 
1 Gallon Gasoline: $0.15 = $3.54/gal today (not far off from the price pre-crash)
1 Gallon Milk: $0.36 = $8.46 today (today's price is $3.73/gal)
1 Loaf of Bread: $0.07 = $1.64 today (average now is $2.31)
1 lb Steak: $0.11 = $6.11/lb (today it is $8.72/lb average)
Typical house was ~750SF and cost $3200. Today the average house is 2300 SF and costs $177,000. 3 x's the house for 2.3 x's the price.

Median family income in 1915: $687/year = $16,143/year today (Slightly *above* the minimum wage today!).
Today's median family income is ~$53,600/year. We're doing better on average. Even the poor are less poor on an income basis.

@always_alone Here's a great explanation of why I favor free-market capitalism over socialism or government programs and intervention. It's not short, but it's in episodes, so it can be digested at leisure. You very well may enjoy the short debates at the end of each episode, I know I did.


----------



## MEM2020

Tech,
This is actually an important point. 

If you can get a steady 8% return on invested assets, your 'true' return after taxes and inflation would be around 5%. 

So a million in assets produces a 'real income' of 50k. An income of a million dollars produces an after tax of around 600K. 

To produce a steady after tax income equivalent to a paycheck of 1 million, you need 12 million in assets. 

While there have been years where large company stock values grew at 18%, those were huge anomalies to the norm. 




technovelist said:


> Those are quite incompatible measures. $1 million in assets is very dissimilar to $1 million earned per year. Of course $1 million also is quite dissimilar to what it was 50 years ago.
> 
> As for me, I use *financial *assets as the measure. A house you live in doesn't count due to illiquidity, lack of knowledge of the actual value, and the fact that you have to live somewhere.


----------



## anonmd

Too much talk about rich, most who consider themselves sucessfull are not 'rich' by this new billionaire standard.

My mom had a college degree which she traded in for a Mrs. degree and never used again. She did work later on, not minimum wage but not highly comped. My dad was a high school dropout, got his GED and worked construction for 34 years. Lower middle class, nice neighborhood with decent schools but a struggle at times. 4 kids. As far as M&D were concerned you should go to college if you had the smarts. There was some college savings to start you off but it was not paid for. I personally got enough for about 1 year at a state school and did the rest myself working my way through over 7 years.

3 of us went to college, 1 was basically a delinquent for about 6 years and did not go to college but he did eventually come around. To a certain extent I am filling in numbers here because I do not do everyone's taxes but I'd guestimate that all four families have incomes ranging from low 1xx,xxx to upper 1xx,xxx and one in the well over 200k range.

We ALL worked hard for what we have. The most "successful" in income terms is actually the non-college grad. One of us took many years of underemployment and a later Masters degree before finally 'making it'. Nobody handed us anything other than being born in the USA.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> You do not seem to understand how merit works.
> 
> It has nothing to do with the entitlement of "deserving" anything.
> 
> It means your own merit, as in a willingness to put in the work and sacrifice to achieve something, is what will produce your best opportunity for long-term success.


Let's compare, then, the stories of two guys, Donald and Ted.

Donald and Ted went to the same college. Donald comes from a wealthy background, and his tuition was guaranteed and fully paid for. Ted comes from a working class background, obtained a scholarship that will fund part of his tuition, and he worked part time and relied on student loans to cover the rest. Both graduated with a solid B average.

Upon graduation, Donald is given a company company, instantly becomes CEO of an already successful and generating good profits business. He is connected to a network of successful people with very deep pockets in order to generate capital for new ventures, and can rely on his family name to convince people to trust his investment know-how.

Ted graduates with a diploma and student debt. He starts pounding the pavement. He's already invested heavily into his education and has no start up capital, and while his family connections can garner him some work as a labourer, he cannot expect them to invest in him or his projects.

Having grown up wealthy, Donald is comfortable with the jet-set lifestyle. He travels, attends events, and socialized with other elites. No one ever questions his rights and freedoms to get on a plane, hang out in fancy hotels and restaurants, or move about freely. Ted, on the other hand, was once prohibited from boarding a plane because fellow passengers had decided he was a terrorist. Another time, police felt the need to question him as to why he would be "loitering" on the grounds of the school he was attending, assuming he must be up to "no good".

Donald draws on all of his connections, tapping them for investments and makes some of them a fantastic amount of money. He also makes a series of poor investments that result in him declaring corporate bankruptcy, while of course still retaining his personal wealth. Ted finds himself a good job with decent pay and benefits, and starts saving up for his retirement.

Despite a spotty track record that includes allegations of fraud, impropriety in reporting earnings, and even multiple bankruptcy claims, Donald is still able to draw on his monied network to fund his new projects. He becomes a billionaire, rich, famous, on TV. He makes a bid for the presidency of a world class nation. Ted works tirelessly, makes some sound investments, and is by his rather different standards, quite successful.

Tell me: does Donald really have so much more merit than Ted that he deserves all of the breaks and opportunities? Or maybe, just maybe, does he have some things going on that rather stack the odds in his favour?


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Let's compare, then, the stories of two guys, Donald and Ted.
> 
> Donald and Ted went to the same college. Donald comes from a wealthy background, and his tuition was guaranteed and fully paid for. Ted comes from a working class background, obtained a scholarship that will fund part of his tuition, and he worked part time and relied on student loans to cover the rest. Both graduated with a solid B average.
> 
> Upon graduation, Donald is given a company company, instantly becomes CEO of an already successful and generating good profits business. He is connected to a network of successful people with very deep pockets in order to generate capital for new ventures, and can rely on his family name to convince people to trust his investment know-how.
> 
> Ted graduates with a diploma and student debt. He starts pounding the pavement. He's already invested heavily into his education and has no start up capital, and while his family connections can garner him some work as a labourer, he cannot expect them to invest in him or his projects.
> 
> Having grown up wealthy, Donald is comfortable with the jet-set lifestyle. He travels, attends events, and socialized with other elites. No one ever questions his rights and freedoms to get on a plane, hang out in fancy hotels and restaurants, or move about freely. Ted, on the other hand, was once prohibited from boarding a plane because fellow passengers had decided he was a terrorist. Another time, police felt the need to question him as to why he would be "loitering" on the grounds of the school he was attending, assuming he must be up to "no good".
> 
> Donald draws on all of his connections, tapping them for investments and makes some of them a fantastic amount of money. He also makes a series of poor investments that result in him declaring corporate bankruptcy, while of course still retaining his personal wealth. Ted finds himself a good job with decent pay and benefits, and starts saving up for his retirement.
> 
> Despite a spotty track record that includes allegations of fraud, impropriety in reporting earnings, and even multiple bankruptcy claims, Donald is still able to draw on his monied network to fund his new projects. He becomes a billionaire, rich, famous, on TV. He makes a bid for the presidency of a world class nation. Ted works tirelessly, makes some sound investments, and is by his rather different standards, quite successful.
> 
> Tell me: does Donald really have so much more merit than Ted that he deserves all of the breaks and opportunities? Or maybe, just maybe, does he have some things going on that rather stack the odds in his favour?


I don't get it…are you unhappy that life is unfair? 

Some people have advantages in life. So what?

At some point in the history of Donald's family an individual started with nothing, worked his butt off, and made his kids' lives better than his own. 

That person created an amount of wealth that he guaranteed would, if managed correctly, serve to take care of his family for generations to come.

Whereas you want to take away from Donald, I am willing to recognize the accomplishments of his family, and also recognize that if he f***s up royally he can sink them all.

And I also think that Ted should bust his butt and be more like Donald's great-whatever.

Only people who want to make excuses for failure complain about how someone else has it "easy."

And for every Donald in America there are literally thousands, if not millions, of Ted's.

Some of those Ted's will achieve.

And some of those Donald's will fail.

Welcome to reality, where nothing is guaranteed and nothing is truly fair.

As an individual confident in his intelligence, work ethic, and abilities, I prefer to live in a society where merit still provides success…and I dare not disparage latter generations for enjoying their forbearer's success because I would absolutely love if my hard work meant generations of my children and their children had something to fall back on.

While you are busy disparaging successful individuals for enjoying the fruits of either their of their family's labors I tip my hat to them and work my butt off to achieve something approximating success in my life.

And anyone who wants to tell me I achieved in life because I had "privilege" can go fly a kite.

Seriously.

That is the only thing the privilege discussion is about…disparaging those who found success because you don't think it's fair that others have succeeded where you have not.

Get over it.

"Privilege" politics is about demonizing those who work to make those who do not feel better about themselves.

My first bed was a kitchen table.

Today me and my wife live in a lovely apartment while I peruse a graduate degree because the hard work and sacrifices of my family made that possible.

The only "privilege" I ever had was the privilege of watching a mother work 2-jobs while my father dedicated his every waking hour to a debt-ridden college education upon which the entire future of my family depended.

I know where "privilege" politics comes from because I saw what America can be when people give up their egos and put everything on the line.

And I refuse to disparage any person who benefits from the hard work of their family.

What you call privilege I call the fruits of labor and sacrifice.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

azteca1986 said:


> That 80/20 theory, assigning ranks and "value" to human beings based on their appearance is not only juvenile and frighteningly superficial it has low self-esteem written all over it.


This is a fundamentally unrealistic view with respect to college hook up culture.



azteca1986 said:


> Question to the floor: Are then any places on the internet that demonstrate the flip side of the 80/20 theory - where the 80% of women admit to, or share strategies to sleep with the 20% of men? (I wouldn't know where to look and I thought this would be the best place to ask).


Why would they have a forum to talk about it. They have Tinder to assess and choose a hot guy for sex anytime they want it. Women don't need to "share strategies" to get laid. lol


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Well I thought that this thread was about something called the Sexodus but it's turned into a discussion about meritocracy. Not sure what the connection is but for some of the posts here there is an insidious idea that seems to be behind them:

The poor deserve to be poor because they didn't work hard enough, and all they do is complain about others being rich and priviledged when all they want is a free handout. 

Poverty is a moral failing, in other words, and I am the example of the fact that the meritocracy works.

You know, I'm really glad you worked hard and were successful, those of you who posted your stories. But this "I pulled myself up by the boostraps" is a narrative that's been repeated millions of times, and in most cases when you start to look into it, it turns out to be something a bit different than what you say it is. It takes a lot more dumb luck often times than the self-made men of this country will usually admit. IN meantime, cut social welfare, it's money going to the undeserving, right??

It's great that you are successful. Good for you. It's one thing to criticize others' for being resentful about it, I won't disagree with you about that. It's another thing to call all those who don't make it out of poverty a bunch of do-nothings living off welfare. And the politics it leads to is even worse.

I found this opinion piece written by a fellow who pulled himself up by the bootstraps pretty interesting.

Republicans Get Poverty All Wrong. Trust Me, I?ve Lived It. - POLITICO Magazine


----------



## azteca1986

ScrambledEggs said:


> This is a fundamentally unrealistic view with respect to college hook up culture.


What do you mean by fundamentally unrealistic?



> Why would they have a forum to talk about it. They have Tinder to assess and choose a hot guy for sex anytime they want it. Women don't need to "share strategies" to get laid. lol


Okay, let me try again. Is there any evidence whatsoever _from a female perspective_ that 80% of young women only sleep with 20% of young men?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

azteca1986 said:


> What do you mean by fundamentally unrealistic?


It is unrealistic because college kids in the very large and vibrant hook up culture, screw each other over their looks not the depth of their character. 



azteca1986 said:


> Okay, let me try again. Is there any evidence whatsoever _from a female perspective_ that 80% of young women only sleep with 20% of young men?


80/20 was a rhetorical device to explain the concept, it was not a claim. I already said that. I thought you where looking for anecdotal evidence online of women talking about only sleeping with hot guys. 

If someone is going to hook up, for just one night, they are going to do that with someone that is physically and socially attractive and not worry about their broader suitability for a long term relationship. Does there really need to be study cited to accept this?


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> I don't get it…are you unhappy that life is unfair?
> 
> Some people have advantages in life. So what?
> 
> At some point in the history of Donald's family an individual started with nothing, worked his butt off, and made his kids' lives better than his own.


I am not trying to take anything away from Donald, and I am not trying to take anything away from you. Merely pointing out that,.yes, some people have advantages in life, and these advantages are economic, political, and sociological. And these advantages mean, quite literally, that it is not just hard work that leads to success, and that we can't assume that those who have worked hard and those who didn't did not.

Donald has actually failed time and time again, going into bankruptcy many, many times, playing fast and loose with other people's money, and not really giving a damn because, well, it was other people's money. And yet he always bounces back. He basically can't fail, and would have to work very, very hard at it. Ted, on the other hand, never failed, worked just as hard, and yet by most measures of success is much further down the chain.

Sorry, but you can't trace everything back to individual sweat equity. Economic predctions are now saying that this next generation will be the first to fare worse than their parents, that is they will be less likely to own homes, will achieve less wealth, and generally have a much harder life.

Will you call this whole generation "lazy" and "failures"? Or will you acknowledge that economic and other forces play a significant role in how successful we are?


----------



## always_alone

azteca1986 said:


> Okay, let me try again. Is there any evidence whatsoever _from a female perspective_ that 80% of young women only sleep with 20% of young men?


Of course not. Anyone who makes these sorts of claims has little if any understanding of women.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> I would not be shocked if it is truly 80/50. So that 1/2 of the young men out there really only have a shot at 20% of the women.


I'm confused: If half of men are chasing 20% of women, does that mean the other half get 80%? And if so, shouldn't the first half simply broaden their horizons a little? Or is that 80% of women just too ugly to bear?


----------



## always_alone

ScrambledEggs said:


> I think part of the point is that not many studies are going to apply to kids in their early 20's. I am sure the numbers you mention are in line but might be dated for the demographic making this claim. Remember, this is not some sort of complaint about the the history of relationships, this is an emerging perspective among young 20 somethings. I guess time will tell if this bears to be wingeing spoiled brats or if there is something to it.


Because women have only recently decided that exciting and attractive men are generally speaking more desirable? Umm, sure.

It strikes me as just the same old story, and is absolutely no different in kind than guys ranking women and deciding that some are clearly more exciting and desirable than others. If these guys can see and accept it in themselves, and their right to reject all those gross ugly women, why can't they accept that women too have a right to choose?

As for the numbers, all of the real statistics, including the 2006 General Social Survey, and National Health Statistics in the US, plus other official surveys in the UK and elsewhere show that a majority of 18-25 year older are sexually active, with one or more partners, and frequently in LTR. The numbers for both men and women are pretty similar. 

If guys want to find a woman, they need only look around them. If they want to go their own way, they should. But perhaps they'd be more convincing if they spent less time fixated on who women want to sleep with.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I'm confused: If half of men are chasing 20% of women, does that mean the other half get 80%? And if so, shouldn't the first half simply broaden their horizons a little? Or is that 80% of women just too ugly to bear?


He's saying he wouldn't be shocked if roughly 80% of women are sleeping with about half of men. The other half of the guys only have a shot with the remaining 20% and they either A) aren't chasing them (pining after the 80%) or B) the 20% aren't interested in them


----------



## anonmd

always_alone said:


> I'm confused: If half of men are chasing 20% of women, does that mean the other half get 80%? And if so, shouldn't the first half simply broaden their horizons a little? Or is that 80% of women just too ugly to bear?


You are not the only confused one. :grin2:

If there is some scale of desirability why should any more the 20% of men have a shot with whatever the "top" 20% of women are?

Personally I never had much of an issue finding a women when I put my mind to it and I am not some alpha male shark - LOL! Some turned me down, some didn't, the ratio was not all that discouraging. I actually think most women, including many of the hot ones, are far more open minded than the average younger male when it comes to looks at least. 

As far as 80% being to ugly to bear goes, I know you are exaggerating. But my take is there are hot women I am generally attracted to at a high rate and then there is the rest. I am attracted to a wide range of the rest but at a much lesser rate. Like 25 of the less than hot pass by on the street and a handful would ding my bell. I think that's OK.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Will you call this whole generation "lazy" and "failures"? Or will you acknowledge that economic and other forces play a significant role in how successful we are?


Of course there are influences at play which provide advantages to some.

Those advantages are the result of *someone's work*.

Success and wealth do not come out of thin air, they are created by someone.

All you are doing here is attempting to argue that successful people did not earn success.

You have this need to disparage successful individuals. Not sure why, but it seems more of a way to advance an excuse to those who have failed or refuse to try.

And, yes, I would catalogue a rather large portion of this generation as lazy, entitled in fact.

I do not recall my mother demanding $30,000 and Free Health Care to flip burgers while demanding the right to be on her phone checking Facebook and texting with her friends whenever she wanted.

I do recall my mother recognizing that a McDonalds night-shift was only enough money to support her family if it was her second job and then diving headfirst into yet more debt-ridden college education to go after an expanding career opportunity which could improve the lot of her family.

This generation is going to be the first that is worse off from its parents, not because this economy is just so poor, but because, unlike previous generations in the 30s, 40s, and 70s who buckled down and worked harder this generation decided it would rather sit at home and enjoy the largess of others.

This may be the first generation where the idea of getting free-handouts from our Social Welfare systems is seen as a great idea instead of a temporary last resort.

*That* is a huge problem.

And people who want to make excuses for those who do not try by disparaging those who are enjoying the fruits of their or their family's labors are only coddling them.


----------



## StilltheStudent

In an attempt to understand the whole 80/20 thing better I went on over to the "Red" and "Purple" places and actually looked over a few of those conversations.

This is what seemed to be core to the argument:


Some Red Pill Dude said:


> The manosphere definition of hypergamy is that women are generally attracted to men whom they perceive as superior or higher status within their environment. Social status is context based, and therefore hypergamy can manifest in a wide variety of different ways, many of which may not be immediately obvious. *The 80/20 rule means that the top 20% of men within a given social environment have the majority of casual sex opportunities which they take advantage of to varying degrees, but the majority of sex, period, is still had within relationships.*


So it is not that 80% of men are involuntarily celibate, which we know to be provably false due to statistics, it is just that the vast majority of men do not have access to large amounts of casual sex.

This, I think, is where the whole "entitlement" and "privilege" discussion comes back around.

A lot of the guys complaining about the 80/20 issue assume that, despite them not working to achieve higher status, they should nonetheless be entitled to the same kind of casual sex that the higher status guys clearly have access to.

Where it gets murky is the argument that, while most women will of course never succeed in creating a LTR with the top 20% of men, they will nonetheless keep their standards sighted on that upper echelon of success, thereby diminishing the chances for success (for sex or LTRs or both) amongst a majority of men.

All of this seems to only make sense in the College Hook-Up culture to me.

A bunch of unsuccessful guys complaining that they would be sexually successful if not for those damnable high standards of the women they're interested in.


----------



## tech-novelist

StilltheStudent said:


> A lot of the guys complaining about the 80/20 issue assume that, despite them not working to achieve higher status, they should nonetheless be entitled to the same kind of casual sex that the higher status guys clearly have access to.
> 
> Where it gets murky is the argument that, while most women will of course never succeed in creating a LTR with the top 20% of men, they will nonetheless keep their standards sighted on that upper echelon of success, thereby diminishing the chances for success (for sex or LTRs or both) amongst a majority of men.
> 
> All of this seems to only make sense in the College Hook-Up culture to me.
> 
> A bunch of unsuccessful guys complaining that they would be sexually successful if not for those damnable high standards of the women they're interested in.


So that's how the meritocracy discussion fits in! >


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> I'm confused: If half of men are chasing 20% of women, does that mean the other half get 80%? And if so, shouldn't the first half simply broaden their horizons a little? Or is that 80% of women just too ugly to bear?


In theory, 20% of the guys get sex from whomever/whenever they want (exaggeration). The other 80% have to 'fight' for what's left. 

JMO, but when I was in college, I observed that there was a fraction of men who really had no problem pulling chicks at will, however, they typically only had long term relationships with the top ~20% of women. When not exclusive, they would/could hook up with pretty much most women. This sets up a weird social dynamic. Some pretty average looking women tended to think they 'deserved' hotter men, because they sporadically hooked up with the top good looking men. However, these men would NEVER date them. So you have a group of 30-70% of the female population who would not commit to date the average guy, in hopes their lack of attachment would allow them to get the top guys. Which didn't happen. Sure they may hook up with average guys, but would not date them. 

This is not nearly as universal as there is more than just attraction, but at some level, I see where an average looking guy would go through his teens/twenties hooking up with average looking women sporadically, but never actually getting into a long term relationship.

It is also not the fault of women, though the MGTOW group tends to blame them as a whole. It just is the way things are.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> All you are doing here is attempting to argue that successful people did not earn success.


Yes, with a couple of caveats. I'm not saying that no successful person ever earned it, just that many successful people did not. They were born to be successful, by virtue of their class, race, geographic location, and timing. 

You want to say that they still deserve this privilege because their father earned it, or perhaps their father's father, or their father's father's father. As long as someone, somewhere, sometime did something that generated some wealth, all descendents for all time deserve and have "earned" that wealth.

I disagree, and think it a pretty weird stretch to call someone who was born into wealth a "self-made" man. Not to mention denying the incredibly hard work and self-sacrifices of all of those you look down on and judge to be lazy failures because they and their families faced more obstacles and didn't have the advantage of a leg up.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Yes, with a couple of caveats. I'm not saying that no successful person ever earned it, just that many successful people did not. They were born to be successful, by virtue of their class, race, geographic location, and timing.


And what about you?

What in your life did you actually earn?

Because at this point, according to you, any advantage which you had at any stage of your life disqualifies your "achievements" as actual achievements.



always_alone said:


> You want to say that they still deserve this privilege because their father earned it, or perhaps their father's father, or their father's father's father. As long as someone, somewhere, sometime did something that generated some wealth, all descendents for all time deserve and have "earned" that wealth.


In other words, you will not be sharing any of your success with your children, you will not start them off in a good neighborhood, you will not provide for them as much financial support for an education as you can, and you will certainly not help them find high paying careers.

Right?

Or is it ok to do those things if you are not obscenely rich?

I'm confused.



always_alone said:


> I disagree, and think it a pretty weird stretch to call someone who was born into wealth a "self-made" man.


Yeah, that would be weird. Weirder still to accuse me of using words I never typed out.



always_alone said:


> Not to mention denying the incredibly hard work and self-sacrifices of all of those you look down on and judge to be lazy failures.


You want to paint this picture of all these extremely hard working, sacrificing at every turn, down on their luck people who only fail because they lack the "privileges" of others.

That is a fantasy created by people who are uncomfortable with the notion that hard work often leads to failure and that people often do not work as hard as you would like to pretend.

All this comes down to is you wanting to pat a failure on the head and say, "It's ok, you just didn't have the privileges of those mean, undeserving, successful people."

That is paternalistic coddling and it does no good.


----------



## anonmd

naiveonedave said:


> In theory, 20% of the guys get sex from whomever/whenever they want (exaggeration). The other 80% have to 'fight' for what's left.
> 
> JMO, but when I was in college, I observed that there was a fraction of men who really had no problem pulling chicks at will, however, they typically only had long term relationships with the top ~20% of women. When not exclusive, they would/could hook up with pretty much most women. This sets up a weird social dynamic. Some pretty average looking women tended to think they 'deserved' hotter men, because they sporadically hooked up with the top good looking men. However, these men would NEVER date them. So you have a group of 30-70% of the female population who would not commit to date the average guy, in hopes their lack of attachment would allow them to get the top guys. Which didn't happen. Sure they may hook up with average guys, but would not date them.


Just wait till you get out of college then, you know, when you've accomplished something...


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> In theory, 20% of the guys get sex from whomever/whenever they want (exaggeration). The other 80% have to 'fight' for what's left.
> 
> JMO, but when I was in college, I observed that there was a fraction of men who really had no problem pulling chicks at will, however, they typically only had long term relationships with the top ~20% of women. When not exclusive, they would/could hook up with pretty much most women. This sets up a weird social dynamic.


It works pretty much the same in the reverse too. Most guys only want the "top" women. They might sleep with an average woman to get their rocks off, but they won't date her. They will ditch her and hold out for something better. After all, only a handful will truly "ring their bell", and the rest are "meh".

My SO had a friend who constantly had women throwing themselves at him, and of course my SO wished he were so successful with the ladies. But even so, he had plenty of gfs, including both casual and LTR. Similarly, I had friends who guys would throw themselves at constantly, so much so that I felt invisible and value-less. 

Fact is, some people are more popular than others, and those who don't qualify will probably always feel pushed to the sidelines.


----------



## StilltheStudent

anonmd said:


> Just wait till you get out of college then, you know, when you've accomplished something...


Well, that is the problem then right?

We have a bunch of guys who were unsuccessful in college and did not have women interested in them until they achieved something (read, made more money).

And then you have that psychological issue of the guy trying to figure out 1) why she was not interested in him in college, 2) whether she is interested in him or his paycheck, etc.


----------



## anonmd

Why is that a problem? 

A bunch of guys unsuccessful in college, with women or with college? If that latter that is a looser. Move on to something else that doesn't require college and get good at that. Men need a mission to have confidence which attracts women. Not necessarily all $'s.

If you are unsuccessful in college with women because you haven't accomplished anything and don't have confidence time will fix that. Concentrate on what needs fixing not your lack of a girl friend.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> And what about you?
> 
> What in your life did you actually earn?
> 
> Because at this point, according to you, any advantage which you had at any stage of your life disqualifies your "achievements" as actual achievements.


Again, my point is not that the privileged people are disqualified from having achievements. 

But becoming CEO of a company is much less of an achievement if it is handed to you by your Daddy than if you start from the ground up, wouldn't you agree?

This is not to say that we shouldn't share our wealth and advantages with our children, just that we should be cognizant of those advantages when making judgements about different people's merit.

And while I closer to Ted than I am to Donald in terms of the privileges I have enjoyed, I still recognize those that I have. No one, for example, has accused me of "loitering" assuming I was up to no good, while hanging with my friends in a park or on the street. No one assumes I'm a terrorist and won't even stand in the same supermarket line-up as me. The cops don't pull me over "just because". I live in a country with a good standard of living, a decent economy and opportunities. I was supported in my career choices and decisions, instead of mocked and derided for having ambitions above my station. All of these things should not be taken for granted. Ted, for example, didn't have any of them, and their lack definitely made it much more difficult to succeed in school, in work, and in life in general.


----------



## StilltheStudent

anonmd said:


> Why is that a problem?
> 
> A bunch of guys unsuccessful in college, with women or with college? If that latter that is a looser. Move on to something else that doesn't require college and get good at that. Men need a mission to have confidence which attracts women. Not necessarily all $'s.


Confidence is helpful, money is as well. But I was referring to men who were unsuccessful with women in college.

This seems to be the common trope amongst the sexodus/mgtow/etc groups.	



anonmd said:


> If you are unsuccessful in college with women because you haven't accomplished anything and don't have confidence time will fix that. Concentrate on what needs fixing not your lack of a girl friend.


Which leads back to the question: what is the girl attracted to then? Him or his achievements?

There seems to be an underlying insecurity amongst a great deal of the Sexodus guys; it's a cost benefit analysis which is heavily stacked against women because these guys simply do not trust them.

And, honestly, given some of the behaviors I have personally seen, I can understand that.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Yes, with a couple of caveats. I'm not saying that no successful person ever earned it, just that many successful people did not. They were born to be successful, by virtue of their class, race, geographic location, and timing.
> 
> You want to say that they still deserve this privilege because their father earned it, or perhaps their father's father, or their father's father's father. As long as someone, somewhere, sometime did something that generated some wealth, all descendents for all time deserve and have "earned" that wealth.
> 
> I disagree, and think it a pretty weird stretch to call someone who was born into wealth a "self-made" man. Not to mention denying the incredibly hard work and self-sacrifices of all of those you look down on and judge to be lazy failures because they and their families faced more obstacles and didn't have the advantage of a leg up.


I think we all agree that some people have more advantages than others. Some are born blind, some not, some born with terminal or chronic illnesses, some not. Wealth is just another advantage to convey onto one's children. Like education. Like morality. Like industry. Like thrift. 

We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. It was *no accident* that I was born in the United States, and I doubt (unless you're 100% native american) that it was an accident for just about anyone else. It was *intentional*. Decisions made, risks taken, all for the hope of improving the lot of those who came, and the lot of their future generations. My existence was not *luck*. It was not a *lottery*. There's not some army of storks, who randomly drop children off throughout the world, without thought or intention. My parents didn't just "get lucky" that they were here. Their grandparents seized an opportunity and exploited it and conferred the fruits of their labor to their children.

I know, when we look at the sheer numbers (6 billion people, 300 million are here) it appears as though it is luck, but it is not. Such claims discount the agency, the work, the risks, the successes and the failures of all those who came before us.

Those in the West, who have nothing today, if they choose to live and work and save and strive as my forefathers will in a generation or two have the same benefits conferred to me by mine.

Instead of thinking life and wealth as a lottery, think of it as a marathon. Some folks started running earlier than others, and they'll be farther along at the end of the day. Today is always the day to start. 

And this ties in well to the MGTOW conversation, as sex with women is not "allotted". It is not a "lottery". Your parents can do things that teach you to be successful in relationships, just as they can confer wealth and knowledge of its acquisition. They can confer wealth, which can be used to achieve success with the other sex. Plus, maybe you'll just have a knack for it. 

At the end of the day though, most of that "80%" of guys, if they hang in there, if they try to learn about what makes women tick, and if they work hard, will be successful with them too.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> It works pretty much the same in the reverse too. Most guys only want the "top" women. They might sleep with an average woman to get their rocks off, but they won't date her. They will ditch her and hold out for something better. After all, only a handful will truly "ring their bell", and the rest are "meh".
> 
> My SO had a friend who constantly had women throwing themselves at him, and of course my SO wished he were so successful with the ladies. But even so, he had plenty of gfs, including both casual and LTR. Similarly, I had friends who guys would throw themselves at constantly, so much so that I felt invisible and value-less.
> 
> Fact is, some people are more popular than others, and those who don't qualify will probably always feel pushed to the sidelines.


I agree to some extent, though I think there is a difference in that, in general, the top men will fool around with 'lesser attractive women' more than the other way around.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Again, my point is not that the privileged people are disqualified from having achievements.


Actually, you are saying exactly that, explicitly…



always_alone said:


> Yes, with a couple of caveats. I'm not saying that no successful person ever earned it, just that many successful people did not. They were born to be successful, by virtue of their class, race, geographic location, and timing.


You are playing an identity politics game in which you discount the agency of the individual in order to disparage the successful and coddle the unsuccessful.

You are making *excuses*.

Your excuses have the dual purpose of disparaging the wealthy and successful as "priveleged" and not earning things while excusing those who fail to be successful as victims of items outside of their control



always_alone said:


> But becoming CEO of a company is much less of an achievement if it is handed to you by your Daddy than if you start from the ground up, wouldn't you agree?


Sure.

Just like how the things in your life are not really major achievements, because your gender, race, and the SES provided by your family gave you unfair advantages over someone like me. Right?



always_alone said:


> This is not to say that we shouldn't share our wealth and advantages with our children, just that we should be cognizant of those advantages when making judgements about different people's merit.


So, then why do you have a problem with successful individuals who made a lot of money providing advantages for their children?

Because you clearly have a class-warfare kind of issue with it when it happens with "Daddy the CEO" but seem to have no problem with it when it's your kids.



always_alone said:


> And while I closer to Ted than I am to Donald in terms of the privileges I have enjoyed, I still recognize those that I have.


Yet you clearly give yourself more credit for your achievements than you will give Donald. 



always_alone said:


> No one, for example, has accused me of "loitering" assuming I was up to no good, while hanging with my friends in a park or on the street. No one assumes I'm a terrorist and won't even stand in the same supermarket line-up as me. The cops don't pull me over "just because". I live in a country with a good standard of living, a decent economy and opportunities. I was supported in my career choices and decisions, instead of mocked and derided for having ambitions above my station. All of these things should not be taken for granted. Ted, for example, didn't have any of them, and their lack definitely made it much more difficult to succeed in school, in work, and in life in general.


This entire paragraph is loaded with identity politics rhetoric which uses the most sensational examples you can think of…but it gets to the real point.

You want to excuse unsuccessful people due to the color of their skin and the poverty of their family.

At the end of the day this is a racist argument which a previous generation would have recognized as *Paternalist Racism*.

You are removing agency from these people and explaining away all of the defects of their character or intelligence or their work effort due to some out of their control circumstance.

Yes, a lower socio-economic status makes life harder than a higher one.

But at the end of the day people in America succeed or fail based on their merit, their willingness to dedicate themselves to their improvement, and their work ethic. Coupled with realistic goals and long-term thinking impressive achievements can be made.

Paternalists destroy those drives in people by providing them with ready excuses.

I refuse to do so.

What I would find interesting is whether there is any consistency in your views here with the Sexodus topic.

Are you going to explain all of the "privileges" sexually successful people have and then make excuses for those without said privileges? 

Or are you going to demand the unsuccessful take responsibility for themselves and actually achieve something?

I wonder…


----------



## StilltheStudent

Kivlor said:


> I think we all agree that some people have more advantages than others. Some are born blind, some not, some born with terminal or chronic illnesses, some not. Wealth is just another advantage to convey onto one's children. Like education. Like morality. Like industry. Like thrift.
> 
> We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. It was *no accident* that I was born in the United States, and I doubt (unless you're 100% native american) that it was an accident for just about anyone else. It was *intentional*. Decisions made, risks taken, all for the hope of improving the lot of those who came, and the lot of their future generations. My existence was not *luck*. It was not a *lottery*. There's not some army of storks, who randomly drop children off throughout the world, without thought or intention. My parents didn't just "get lucky" that they were here. Their grandparents seized an opportunity and exploited it and conferred the fruits of their labor to their children.
> 
> I know, when we look at the sheer numbers (6 billion people, 300 million are here) it appears as though it is luck, but it is not. Such claims discount the agency, the work, the risks, the successes and the failures of all those who came before us.
> 
> Those in the West, who have nothing today, if they choose to live and work and save and strive as my forefathers will in a generation or two have the same benefits conferred to me by mine.
> 
> Instead of thinking life and wealth as a lottery, think of it as a marathon. Some folks started running earlier than others, and they'll be farther along at the end of the day. Today is always the day to start.
> 
> And this ties in well to the MGTOW conversation, as sex with women is not "allotted". It is not a "lottery". Your parents can do things that teach you to be successful in relationships, just as they can confer wealth and knowledge of its acquisition. They can confer wealth, which can be used to achieve success with the other sex. Plus, maybe you'll just have a knack for it.
> 
> At the end of the day though, most of that "80%" of guys, if they hang in there, if they try to learn about what makes women tick, and if they work hard, will be successful with them too.


Put it better than I did. :iagree:


----------



## Buddy400

StilltheStudent said:


> You are removing agency from these people and explaining away all of the defects of their character or intelligence or their work effort due to some out of their control circumstance.
> 
> Yes, a lower socio-economic status makes life harder than a higher one.
> 
> But at the end of the day people in America succeed or fail based on their merit, their willingness to dedicate themselves to their improvement, and their work ethic. Coupled with realistic goals and long-term thinking impressive achievements can be made.
> 
> Paternalists destroy those drives in people by providing them with ready excuses.
> 
> I refuse to do so.


Even if someone *is* the victim of prejudice, it behooves them to assume that isn't so. Otherwise one will just stop trying since there's nothing to be done to improve their situation. 

Telling someone that nothing they do matters will destroy them.



StilltheStudent said:


> What I would find interesting is whether there is any consistency in your views here with the Sexodus topic.
> 
> Are you going to explain all of the "privileges" sexually successful people have and then make excuses for those without said privileges?
> 
> Or are you going to demand the unsuccessful take responsibility for themselves and actually achieve something?
> 
> I wonder…


That's just perfect.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Instead of thinking life and wealth as a lottery, think of it as a marathon. Some folks started running earlier than others, and they'll be farther along at the end of the day. Today is always the day to start.


And of course, those who come from these wonderfully privileged world powers "earned" this privilege through colonialism,systematic genocide of entire cultures, and oppression and enslavement of other peoples.

I have to say it boggles my mind to think that one has "earned" their advantage because of something their ancestors did. If we were using the actual dictionary definition of what a meritocracy is, it would be clear that this is not even close to a meritocracy, and that that privilege, wealth and power has little to do with merit and much to do with birthright.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> And of course, those who come from these wonderfully privileged world powers "earned" this privilege through colonialism,systematic genocide of entire cultures, and oppression and enslavement of other peoples.


And that is all anyone needs to know about your views on this subject.

You hate people who have, make excuses for people who do not have, and make exceptions for yourself.

Victim Politics 101.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> What I would find interesting is whether there is any consistency in your views here with the Sexodus topic.
> 
> Are you going to explain all of the "privileges" sexually successful people have and then make excuses for those without said privileges?
> 
> Or are you going to demand the unsuccessful take responsibility for themselves and actually achieve something?
> 
> I wonder…


Did I not just point out that some people are more popular and desirable than others, and that those who didn't fit the measures would likely always feel pushed to the sidelines?

These are not excuses that I'm giving you, nor am I pretending that I have accomplished more than Donald. You readily admit that some people have advantages that others do not, but yet want to disparage me and call me all sorts of names for pointing out what those advantages are and where they come from. Why is that I wonder?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> And so do you also believe that those to whom a college education and home ownership was a given, easily paid for, are somehow more deserving than your family?
> 
> Because that's what meritocracy means: those who deserve get, and those who do not fail.
> 
> Most wealth is not earned, but inherited. Do you really think that those born into the wealthy elite are automatically more meritorious than everyone else?
> 
> True, what you do with what you have makes a difference. I once knew a guy who was born with that proverbial silver spoon and he managed to piss away his opportunities, choosing instead to keep shoving a needle in his arm. Even so, he had a soft landing: the best rehab money could buy, a nice, clean, paid for, place to live, everything a person could want simply handed to him because his parents could afford it and didn"t want the scandal. Is he somehow more "meritorious" than the crack addicts you used to live next to?
> 
> I have had a privileged life in many ways. I was born in a country that has modern infrastructure. I don't have to worry about getting blown up by daily bombs, and I can wander through the countryside without fear of stepping on a stray landmine. I can exercise my human rights, have freedom of speech and religion, and am no one's property or slave. I can dress how I want, flirt outrageously without fear of being stoned to death by my own family. I have easy access to information, and lots of opportunities to educate myself in most any field I care about.
> 
> I was not born with a silver spoon, and like you have worked hard to be where I am, pulling myself up by my bootstraps, as it were. But because of culture, time period and geography, I've also faced a whole lot less obstacles than most people, and for that I try to remember to remain grateful.
> 
> Meritocracy presumes the playing field is somewhat even, but the fact is that the odds are heavily stacked. I think it's important to remember this and not look down on those we perceive to be "failures" because they haven't got what we have.


Material success is due to part luck and part merit.

One could explain differences in material achievement as due primarily to merit. In this case, people would tend to see those more successful than themselves as people whose behaviors should be emulated. They would be encouraged to work hard and make the most of their capabilities. They would feel a sense of agency, as if there really was a change that they could improve their circumstances through their own effort. They would feel hopeful. All the hard work and making the most of one's potential would increase the size of the economic pie for everyone. There'd be more wealth to be taxed in order to provide for the truly unfortunate.

Or, one could explain the differences as due primarily to luck. In this case, people would be envious of those that have more than them. Since hard work has nothing to do with success, why bother? They would be encouraged to stop trying to better their condition. They would feel hopeless, as if nothing they do mattered. The economic "pie" would shrink. There would be less wealth to tax. Those that are unwilling to achieve would compete for resources that are aimed at the those who are truly unable to achieve.

Why in the world would we choose the second option over the first?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> And of course, those who come from these wonderfully privileged world powers "earned" this privilege through colonialism,systematic genocide of entire cultures, and oppression and enslavement of other peoples.


Do you contend that a history of "colonialism, genocide of entire cultures, oppression and enslavement of other peoples" is unique to the West?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Do you contend that a history of "colonialism, genocide of entire cultures, oppression and enslavement of other peoples" is unique to the West?


Of course not. That would be foolish.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Did I not just point out that some people are more popular and desirable than others, and that those who didn't fit the measures would likely always feel pushed to the sidelines?
> 
> These are not excuses that I'm giving you, nor am I pretending that I have accomplished more than Donald. You readily admit that some people have advantages that others do not, but yet want to disparage me and call me all sorts of names for pointing out what those advantages are and where they come from. Why is that I wonder?


So, you're okay with the fact that "some people are more popular and desirable" than others in the mating game. That's just the way it is; no sense in complaining about it.

Yet, when it comes to material wealth, the fact that some have "privileges" that give them a higher likelihood of success *should* be complained about?


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Did I not just point out that some people are more popular and desirable than others, and that those who didn't fit the measures would likely always feel pushed to the sidelines?


That is an observation. And one that is treading carefully around getting into detail, likely on purpose.

For sexually unsuccessful men do you think their lack of success is due primarily to their lack of access to similar privileges? Should those with said privileges do something about it?

Or is life just inherently unfair and the unsuccessful need to work if they want more?



always_alone said:


> These are not excuses that I'm giving you, nor am I pretending that I have accomplished more than Donald. You readily admit that some people have advantages that others do not, but yet want to disparage me and call me all sorts of names for pointing out what those advantages are and where they come from. Why is that I wonder?


You are not simply pointing out the existence of advantages.

You are expressing a moral judgment, ergo the use of the phrase privilege, designed to disparage successful individuals as inherently undeserving in a way to excuse the failures of less successful individuals whom you want to coddle in your own form of a Paternalistic world view.

You seem to come from the fundamental world view of, "Those who have, do not deserve what they have, and those who have not are not responsible for their lack."

It is a politically motivated ideology designed to validate your desire to take from those that have and give to those that do not, while denouncing those that have as not having truly earned it, and of course saving an exceptional place in the middle for yourself where your "awareness" somehow absolves you of having similar advantages, which you will of course dismiss as not so great anyway.

This is the fundamental ideology of an advocate of statist wealth redistribution which treats the have-nots as poor defenseless children who need to be taken care of or given a leg up while somehow not noticing that this is Paternalistic grandstanding.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Of course not. That would be foolish.


But you said: 

"And of course, those who come from these wonderfully privileged world powers "earned" this privilege through colonialism,systematic genocide of entire cultures, and oppression and enslavement of other peoples."

Which seemed to imply that the wonderfully privileged world powers achieved such due to colonialism, systemic genocide, and oppression and enslavement of other people.

If most cultures have participated in this sort of behavior and yet only the West is currently "privileged", maybe it's due to something other than what you mentioned.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Why in the world would we choose the second option over the first?


I am not choosing either option, nor am I trying to tell people how to live their lives. I am merely observing that some people face more obstacles than others do, and that these obstacles are not just issues of individual merit and sweat equity, but systemic, rooted in economics, politics and social structures.

To deny this seems to me to be sticking one's head in the sand. I absolutely wouldn't want to discourage people from pursuing their passions and dreams. But I also don't want to lay on guilt trips about how lazy and what failures they are for slogging a very tough road.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Yet, when it comes to material wealth, the fact that some have "privileges" that give them a higher likelihood of success *should* be complained about?


Why is observing the way things are automatically equated with complaining?

Why is it okay to disparage people as lazy failures when they haven't "succeeded", but it's not okay to recognize that some have travelled a much easier road than others?


----------



## StilltheStudent

If systemic economic, political, or social constraints can be overcome by hard work then those who fail to overcome them did not work hard enough.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> If most cultures have participated in this sort of behavior and yet only the West is currently "privileged", maybe it's due to something other than what you mentioned.


No, the West, more specifically the US, is just the current top dog. Likely soon to be superseded by China. And if/when that happens, I'm willing to bet that the song about meritocracy in the US changes quite markedly.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> If systemic economic, political, or social constraints can be overcome by hard work then those who fail to overcome them did not work hard enough.


That's a mighty big "if" there. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it's true. 

How hard do you suppose you have to work to overcome the systemic theft of everything you own, cultural repression, forced labour camps, or any number of other things that the British colonists imposed on both Native Americans as well as immigrants from other countries when founding the US?


----------



## Justinian

always_alone said:


> Why is observing the way things are automatically equated with complaining? ...


Speaking for myself only, I've taken most of what you've said here as expressions of contempt rather than observations or complaints.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Why is observing the way things are automatically equated with complaining?
> 
> Why is it okay to disparage people as lazy failures when they haven't "succeeded", but it's not okay to recognize that some have travelled a much easier road than others?


I think you see a lot more "disparaging people as lazy failures" than I do.

I see a lot of telling people that they do, in fact, have some control over their life.

I believe that over-emphasizing the role of "luck" and "privilege" in achievement and undervaluing hard work hurts the very people who's feelings you are trying to protect.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> No, the West, more specifically the US, is just the current top dog. Likely soon to be superseded by China. And if/when that happens, I'm willing to bet that the song about meritocracy in the US changes quite markedly.


Then why make the association between privilege and bad behavior?


----------



## anonmd

always_alone said:


> That's a mighty big "if" there. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it's true.
> 
> How hard do you suppose you have to work to overcome the systemic theft of everything you own, cultural repression, forced labour camps, or any number of other things that the British colonists imposed on both Native Americans as well as immigrants from other countries when founding the US?


Today, not at all. I could care less what happened 200 to 250 years ago when discussing current economic conditions.


----------



## Justinian

always_alone said:


> Despite a spotty track record that includes allegations of fraud, impropriety in reporting earnings, and even multiple bankruptcy claims, Donald is still able to draw on his monied network to fund his new projects. He becomes a billionaire, rich, famous, on TV. He makes a bid for the presidency of a world class nation. Ted works tirelessly, makes some sound investments, and is by his rather different standards, quite successful.
> 
> *Tell me: does Donald really have so much more merit than Ted that he deserves all of the breaks and opportunities? Or maybe, just maybe, does he have some things going on that rather stack the odds in his favour?*


I don't think that much about who merits or deserves what in the way of success, or how much wealth others have.

However, I do think the people who make the longest and toughest climbs up the ladder of success, deserve the most respect and admiration, no matter how high they get.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> That's a mighty big "if" there. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it's true.
> 
> How hard do you suppose you have to work to overcome the systemic theft of everything you own, cultural repression, forced labour camps, or any number of other things that the British colonists imposed on both Native Americans as well as immigrants from other countries when founding the US?


I am not sure if you noticed, but it's 2016, not 1616.

Your rhetoric and the sins you want to punish are centuries old.

And this is pretty far afield….it is almost like you don't want to answer the questions about the sexually unsuccessful men.

Because both you and I know you are going to hold them accountable in a way you would never hold one of your "victim status" groups.

Oh, and the answer from someone who actually knows the history is this: economic and political alliances built from a position of strength, cultural assimilation over time where you keep your core identity but discursively interact with and change the new one, etc etc.

Your understanding of American history is beyond flawed, it is designed specifically to legitimize what is coming across more and more as actual hate for successful white people.


----------



## StilltheStudent

Buddy400 said:


> Then why make the association between privilege and bad behavior?


At this point A_A is opening as many tangential gambits as possible in order not to be caught with the forthcoming concession that she holds a different standard for sexually unsuccessful men.


----------



## always_alone

Not sure why the concept of privilege is so threatening that the very mention of it means one is full of contempt and hatred.

Why would it be hard to acknowledge that some people face a tougher road than others? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that much of what we call success and wealth was built on other people's backs?


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> At this point A_A is opening as many tangential gambits as possible in order not to be caught with the forthcoming concession that she holds a different standard for sexually unsuccessful men.


Huh?

I think everyone should do the best they can with what they have. And that this is not just good enough, but admirable.

I also think some people have advantages and an easier road than others, and that such people should perhaps refrain from disparaging everyone else as "losers" and "failures."


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Not sure why the concept of privilege is so threatening that the very mention of it means one is full of contempt and hatred.


Considering you are the one who jumped into discussions of that "privilege" being the result of literal genocide, this attempt to flip the script is not going to work.



always_alone said:


> Why would it be hard to acknowledge that some people face a tougher road than others? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that much of what we call success and wealth *was built on other people's backs?*


Mainly because it was not "built on other people's backs," but by the back breaking labor of the successful themselves.

You clearly believe that to have something you need to steal it from someone else.

So who did you steal from?

And who do you think I stole from?


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I have to say it boggles my mind to think that one has "earned" their advantage because of something their ancestors did. If we were using the actual dictionary definition of what a meritocracy is, it would be clear that this is not even close to a meritocracy, and that that privilege, wealth and power has little to do with merit and much to do with birthright.


Please don't put words in my mouth. You are committing a straw man fallacy, by trying to force me to defend something I have not said. I have already refuted that we are a "meritocracy". In fact, what I said was:



> I'll be the among the first to admit that we aren't a meritocracy in the US (or in any country). Meritocracy rules out nepotism, and to be honest, there's no way around it: human nature is to want to convey any and all possible advantages to ones children; nepotism can't really be rooted out. We are closer to a "meritocratic" society here than in many other places, as we place so much value on success.


I didn't say that "I" earned what my forefathers left to me, I said that "they" earned it, and then conferred it to me. These are *tremendously* different statements. It was *not given by luck or lottery, they chose to amass their capital, to have children, and to pass on what meager benefits they can to those children.*

We are closer to a meritocracy than just about any culture or society. We are farther from feudalism, serfdom and slavery than any society may ever have been. In the end, if the "wealthy" who inherit their wealth (which we have established are not the majority of millionaires) are not careful with their assets, they will lose them. 

You want an example: look at the hedge funds that went bankrupt *overnight* last year when the Swiss Frank traded freely. Improper management can and does destroy wealth *en masse*. "Three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves" is a proverb for a reason. Most of those who achieve it generally fail to properly train their children, and the grandchildren lose it all.



> And of course, those who come from these wonderfully privileged world powers "earned" this privilege through colonialism,systematic genocide of entire cultures, and oppression and enslavement of other peoples.


Nearly all cultures historically were violent, genocidal, oppressive and engaged in slavery. The only real difference is that ours was the only culture to ban such things and to wage wars to end them.

You engage in some very nasty name-calling; the contempt is palpable (ad hominem fallacies), and humorously, I would wager you only hold up the Western world to such scrutiny. These are the people we conquered and annihilated AA. I do not mourn their passing.

The world is a dark and terrible place. Man's nature is quite devious, treacherous and violent. We are a more moral and just society than any before, offering opportunity to those who will take it and refusing to force people into castes. 

You seem caught on this subject, which is tangential to the MGTOW topic. And I can't help but think you have an emotional commitment to your argument.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Huh?
> 
> I think everyone should do the best they can with what they have. And that this is not just good enough, but admirable.
> 
> I also think some people have advantages and an easier road than others, and that such people should perhaps refrain from disparaging everyone else as "losers" and "failures."


So bring this back to the discussion of the topic.

Are sexually unsuccessful men victims of systemic disadvantages or not?


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> Considering you are the one who jumped into discussions of that "privilege" being the result of literal genocide, this attempt to flip the script is not going to work.


I am not flipping the script, although I will admit to being distracted by this discussion on privilege. The fact is, the West rose to power through colonialism and conquest, and systematic exploitation of other's resources. Yes, this is also true of other cultures that have risen to positions of power and privilege.

You do not have to steal from someone in order to have something, but in order to sustain the current and growing discrepancies in wealth, which are, BTW, the largest known in human history, you have to build a system that ensures that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is exactly what we've done.

And these massively unequal systems are also known to be incredibly unstable, so be sure to hang on to your hats.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Not sure why the concept of privilege is so threatening that the very mention of it means one is full of contempt and hatred.
> 
> *Why would it be hard to acknowledge that some people face a tougher road than others? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that much of what we call success and wealth was built on other people's backs?*


If all you intend to say is: Some folks have harder lives than others; well, you've said nothing novel nor contentious. Some folks get cancer. Some don't. Some folks die in car crashes. Some don't. We all agree that not all people are "created" equal, that each has different talents, different vices, and some are born with flat-out disabilities. A_A, what you've said in this post is fundamentally not what you are conveying in your previous posts. It comes across as disingenuous.

Your *posts* before this display contempt for anyone who believes that merit has value and contempt for the West.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> So bring this back to the discussion of the topic.
> 
> Are sexually unsuccessful men victims of systemic disadvantages or not?


No doubt some are. The ugly and the disabled for example are subject to the same sorts of prejudices that they are in other spheres.

But sometimes sexually unsuccessful happens just because you fail to meet people's expectations of what they want. That's where I see myself fitting in, and I wouldn't say it's a systemic disadvantage. More of a personality flaw. Or flaws.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> If all you intend to say is: Some folks have harder lives than others; well, you've said nothing novel nor contentious. Some folks get cancer. Some don't. Some folks die in car crashes. Some don't. We all agree that not all people are "created" equal, that each has different talents, different vices, and some are born with flat-out disabilities. A_A, what you've said in this post is fundamentally not what you are conveying in your previous posts. It comes across as disingenuous.
> 
> Your *posts* before this display contempt for anyone who believes that merit has value and contempt for the West.


Well all agree that not all people are equal, but as I see it, where we disagree as to whether any of these inequalities are systemic or not. I personally think that many are, and have a host of academic literature and empirical and historical research that can back that up.

I do not have contempt for merit, indeed quite the opposite. I just don't think it gets one as far as some people here seem to think. I am not contemptuous about the West, but I do think we should acknowledge it's darker side. Pretending it doesn't exist is to devalue and discredit the experience of millions of people.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> I am not flipping the script, although I will admit to being distracted by this discussion on privilege. The fact is, the West rose to power through colonialism and conquest, and systematic exploitation of other's resources. Yes, this is also true of other cultures that have risen to positions of power and privilege.


This is true for all major polities in the history of the world. Period.

Colonialism and conquest existed because in the pre-Capitalist world the concept of actually growing an economy from within, without the addition of foreign resources, was completely unheard of.



always_alone said:


> You do not have to steal from someone in order to have something, but in order to sustain the current and growing discrepancies in wealth, which are, BTW, the largest known in human history, you have to build a system that ensures that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is exactly what we've done.


This is absolute nonsense.

Since the advent of Market Capitalism in the United States at the turn of the 19th Century the necessity of exploitation has progressively disappeared and the development of a viable working and middle class capable of consuming the products and services that are the economy became a neccessity.

Modern, regulated, industrial capitalism has achieved what colonialists could never think of; we can grow the size of the economy from _within its own boundaries_.

Real, meaningful growth is what capitalism creates.

And people can take part in it in basically any way they want, so long as they are willing to work.

The reality is that people who talk about wealth disparity also conveniently leave out the reality that standards of living have increased massively across the board to the point where "poor" in America is basically a joke.

The fact that the greatest health issue amongst the poor in America *is obesity* should tip you off as to the change that has occurred.



always_alone said:


> And these massively unequal systems are also known to be incredibly unstable, so be sure to hang on to your hats.


Modern American Capitalism just experienced a massive financial crisis and has suffered literally 94-million people out of work for years.

And yet somehow the economy continues to grow, jobs continue to be added, and no great system-crash is coming down the pike.

You clearly ascribe to a class-warfare view that "the haves" are takers.

The thing about socialists (or neo-socialists, or whatever you would describe yourself as) is that they have always been proven wrong by history.

States which obliterate the drive for hard work and growth through paternalist ideologies and governments always end up coming to the industrialized market economies of the world and beg to be bailed out.

And the market economies are still going strong, their standards of living are increasing, and there is work available for those willing to get off their butts and take it.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> No doubt some are. The ugly and the disabled for example are subject to the same sorts of prejudices that they are in other spheres.
> 
> But sometimes sexually unsuccessful happens just because you fail to meet people's expectations of what they want. That's where I see myself fitting in, and I wouldn't say it's a systemic disadvantage. More of a personality flaw. Or flaws.


So in other words, with sexually unsuccessful individuals, you hold them responsible for their failures?


----------



## always_alone

Since 2000, incomes have been falling, not rising. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

Jobs are lower quality, costs of living are rising, and only a small portion of the population is enjoying economic gain.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/10/us-unemployment-rate-economy/


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Since 2000, incomes have been falling, not rising.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?_r=0


Indeed, we call that a Recession and a weak recovery.

And yet the in the midst of an economic slowdown Real Median Family Income still sits around $50,000.

Oh lord, the collapse…I feel it coming…:surprise:


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Well all agree that not all people are equal, but as I see it, where we disagree as to whether any of these inequalities are systemic or not. I personally think that many are, and have a host of academic literature and empirical and historical research that can back that up.
> 
> I do not have contempt for merit, indeed quite the opposite. I just don't think it gets one as far as some people here seem to think. I am not contemptuous about the West, but I do think we should acknowledge it's darker side. *Pretending it doesn't exist is to devalue and discredit the experience of millions of people.*



If it's not novel to the West, and nearly every society has engaged in these behaviors, I'm curious as to why it matters? 

The only thing I can come up with is this: Western, White, Christian, European "Colonial Powers" are the ones who told the rest of the world *"No more"*. The British actually sent their fleet to interdict and stop the slave trade. The Americans fought a Civil War that resulted in its abolition. The Great Powers (US, UK, USSR, et al) called and drafted the Genocide Convention. 

Only these Western, European, Christian powers had the vision, the moral compass, the will to do these things; and the desire to make the rest of the world comply. That's our legacy, and that's why it matters. But if you remove this from the history books, it becomes a meaningless point. This is a trait of humanity: We are tribal and oppressive.



> I am not flipping the script, although I will admit to being distracted by this discussion on privilege. The fact is, the West rose to power through colonialism and conquest, and systematic exploitation of other's resources. Yes, this is also true of other cultures that have risen to positions of power and privilege.


It is true of nearly all cultures, even those who have not risen to "privilege". In fact, I would venture to say it is in the least "privileged" of societies that this is most common.



> You do not have to steal from someone in order to have something, but in order to sustain the current and growing discrepancies in wealth, which are, BTW, the largest known in human history, you have to build a system that ensures that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is exactly what we've done.
> 
> And these massively unequal systems are also known to be incredibly unstable, so be sure to hang on to your hats.


This is patently and veritably fiction. Today, under the pseudo-market-capitalism we live, more people are wealthier than ever before. Compare the percentage of wealth controlled by the aristocracy under feudalism (the previous socio-economic system) to the percentage today; compare the purchasing power of the poor to that of the serfs. It's not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, all economies are unstable. Markets fluctuate. 

Now, to tie this back to the Sexodus discussion, we've agreed that not all men are born the same, some are naturally more attractive or more confidant, some are born to families that train them better at dealing with the opposite sex and some are born to wealth--which will confer its own advantages in the pursuit of the other sex; and you are willing to hold them accountable for their failures, and tell them it is on them if they are unsuccessful with women.

Yet, you are hesitant to do the same with income and wealth. How interesting.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> So in other words, with sexually unsuccessful individuals, you hold them responsible for their failures?


Oh my word!! Where to begin?

First off, I pointed to ways in which sexually unsuccessful people might be discriminated against in a systemic way. 

Second, I fail to see the reason why you are insisting that my "consistency" somehow requires me to concede that all instances of "sexually unsuccessful" must be analyzed in exactly the same ways as all instances of privilege.

Third off, I have never suggested that people don't have responsibility for themselves or influence over their outcomes. What I have said is that in some cases people have systemic advantages over their counterparts.

Sexually unsuccessful guys may or may not be able to improve their situation depending on what that situation is. Just like anyone else.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Oh my word!! Where to begin?
> 
> First off, I pointed to ways in which sexually unsuccessful people might be discriminated against in a systemic way.


There is a lot of noncommittal language in your post here.



always_alone said:


> Second, I fail to see the reason why you are insisting that my "consistency" somehow requires me to concede that all instances of "sexually unsuccessful" must be analyzed in exactly the same ways as all instances of privilege.


Either you believe disparities in society are the product of systemic advantages and disadvantages which are not (ergo the undeserving wealthy and the hard-working poor) really based on personal agency or you do not.



always_alone said:


> Third off, I have never suggested that people don't have responsibility for themselves or influence over their outcomes. What I have said is that in some cases people have systemic advantages over their counterparts.


And that successful people are rarely deserving of those successes.

And that truly successful people owe their advantages to a system of exploitation that literally draws on a history of genocide.

And that people should not be held accountable for failures if they can point to a lack of these clearly unfair, and as you put them, basically immoral, advantages.

Oh, also that, while you have some advantages yourself, you're not really part of the exploitive master class. Your form of advantage is more benign and you earned more of what you have than those who have more than you…somehow.



always_alone said:


> Sexually unsuccessful guys may or may not be able to improve their situation depending on what that situation is. Just like anyone else.


See, here is the thing.

The Sexodus/MGTOW people *think like you do*.

They believe in the existence of over-awing systemic realities which confine their potential successes and actively work against their desires for something "better."

And like the mass of unsuccessful people who look to a paternalistic father/mother figure to come make it all better for them, or else they will sit and home and do nothing, a great deal of them do nothing.

They quit.

Ironically, I easily recognize that systemic advantages and disadvantages exist.

But I refute the notion that personal agency and hard work cannot overcome them.

Quite to the contrary, only personal agency and hard work can overcome them.

At which point the intelligence and merit of the individual will most directly determine their level of success.

People who quit, who opt-out, or who wait for some paternalistic force to come in and take care of them, do indeed have less merit than those who refuse to do so.

And they deserve the fruits of their labors, even if there are none.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Sexually unsuccessful guys may or may not be able to improve their situation depending on what that situation is. Just like anyone else.


I think this sums up your entire post; and it is as banal and ambiguous a statement as could possibly be made.


----------



## Buddy400

StilltheStudent said:


> The Sexodus/MGTOW people *think like you do*.


She'd be on their side if they weren't misogynists.


----------



## always_alone

It amazes me how I can be both completely banal and totally contentious all at the same time.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> She'd be on their side if they weren't misogynists.


Okay, well clearly it is time for me to step out and find this thread, now that is has become all about bashing me. But let me say one last thing:

Yes, I agree that the MGTOW folks also claim that they are the victims of a privileged class. But, according to them, this privileged class is women, and the reasons they see to be asserting this privilege are based solely on (1) unhappiness at women's sexual liberation because they don't like who women are choosing to sleep with; and (2) unhappiness with marriage, in particular divorce laws.

With respect to (1),I fail to see why what is good for the gander shouldn't also apply to the goose. Men get to choose who they sleep with, why not women? With respect to (2), as I have already pointed out, these laws are changing rapidly to meet with modern circumstance, and I no of on one who iis against equality in these laws or seeking female "perks".

So where, I ask, is the privilege? 

Now clearly, y'all are asking the same sorts of questions of me, failing to see any systemic privilege at all anywhere. On that point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Okay, well clearly it is time for me to step out and find this thread, now that is has become all about bashing me. But let me say one last thing:
> 
> Yes, I agree that the MGTOW folks also claim that they are the victims of a privileged class. But, according to them, this privileged class is women, and the reasons they see to be asserting this privilege are based solely on (1) unhappiness at women's sexual liberation because they don't like who women are choosing to sleep with; and (2) unhappiness with marriage, in particular divorce laws.
> 
> With respect to (1),I fail to see why what is good for the gander shouldn't also apply to the goose. Men get to choose who they sleep with, why not women? With respect to (2), as I have already pointed out, these laws are changing rapidly to meet with modern circumstance, and I no of on one who iis against equality in these laws or seeking female "perks".
> 
> So where, I ask, is the privilege?
> 
> Now clearly, y'all are asking the same sorts of questions of me, failing to see any systemic privilege at all anywhere. On that point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


I only thought that particular post I quoted was banal, AA. I think, regardless of intent, many of your previous posts *were coming across* as hostile / contemptuous of those you view as "privileged". That is contentious, and generated a lot of the responses. I don't know if it was your intent to come across that way, but it seemed like it to those of us responding.

I'll be sad to see you leave the discussion, it has been entertaining. I enjoyed the debate.

As to the female privilege question, I don't want to bother looking much, but right off the top of my head:

Women can get drugs that fail FDA testing approved because of affirmative action. Men actually have to do real science.


Predominant Aggressor Doctrine. It is not changing. It's not going away.

The Office for Civil Rights has issued guidelines to reduce the thresh-hold for conviction of rape under Title IX to a "preponderance of evidence" (kind of likely) rather than "reasonable doubt". 

Sentencing disparities between the sexes are tremendous.

We could go on all day with examples of LEGAL privilege that women receive for being women and of examples of laws being proposed and advocated currently to further do so. 

I can't think of a single instance of male privilege enshrined in law in the US or the UK (or any Western power).

ETA: In Britain, judges are actually ordered by law to give lighter sentences to women.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> Material success is due to part luck and part merit.
> 
> One could explain differences in material achievement as due primarily to merit. In this case, people would tend to see those more successful than themselves as people whose behaviors should be emulated. They would be encouraged to work hard and make the most of their capabilities. They would feel a sense of agency, as if there really was a change that they could improve their circumstances through their own effort. They would feel hopeful. All the hard work and making the most of one's potential would increase the size of the economic pie for everyone. There'd be more wealth to be taxed in order to provide for the truly unfortunate.
> 
> Or, one could explain the differences as due primarily to luck. In this case, people would be envious of those that have more than them. Since hard work has nothing to do with success, why bother? They would be encouraged to stop trying to better their condition. They would feel hopeless, as if nothing they do mattered. The economic "pie" would shrink. There would be less wealth to tax. Those that are unwilling to achieve would compete for resources that are aimed at the those who are truly unable to achieve.
> 
> Why in the world would we choose the second option over the first?


Because that gives more power to "progressives", of course.

(I don't choose the second option, obviously, as that is a highly politically incorrect point.)


----------



## john117

Personal said:


> That colonialism, systematic genocide, oppression and enslavement is applicable to the behaviour of white, black, yellow, red and brown people throughout the world, throughout history.


Except it was mostly done by cultures that did not portray themselves as the paragons of virtue at their time...


----------



## ScrambledEggs

always_alone said:


> . If these guys can see and accept it in themselves, and their right to reject all those gross ugly women, why can't they accept that women too have a right to choose?
> .


Isn't that what MGTOW is all about?




always_alone said:


> As for the numbers, all of the real statistics, including the 2006 General Social Survey, and National Health Statistics in the US, plus other official surveys in the UK and elsewhere show that a majority of 18-25 year older are sexually active, with one or more partners, and frequently in LTR. The numbers for both men and women are pretty similar.
> .


You mean the 2006 when millennials, the people we are talking about, where about 16 years old and six years before Tinder was released? I am not trying to prove anything


----------



## StilltheStudent

john117 said:


> Except it was mostly done by cultures that did not portray themselves as the paragons of virtue at their time...


Actually, quite to the contrary, they did.

Quite a few cultures (American, British, French, Russian, Mongolian, Ottoman, Safavid, Chinese, Japanese, Korean just to name a few off the top of my head) cast their territorial expansion as some form of inherently moral civilizing mission.

In fact a good deal of 17th-19th century English Liberalism was dedicated to arguing that the Empire's expansion was not only good, but a moral imperative to share their divinely ordained order with those less fortunate. The same can be said to be true of most Mediterranean, Asian, and South East Asian empires.

They were, quite often, paternalist empires. Literally, politically, and culturally.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> Yes, I agree that the MGTOW folks also claim that they are the victims of a privileged class. But, according to them, this privileged class is women, and the reasons they see to be asserting this privilege are based solely on (1) unhappiness at women's sexual liberation because they don't like who women are choosing to sleep with; and (2) unhappiness with marriage, in particular divorce laws.
> 
> With respect to (1),I fail to see why what is good for the gander shouldn't also apply to the goose. Men get to choose who they sleep with, why not women? With respect to (2), as I have already pointed out, these laws are changing rapidly to meet with modern circumstance, and I no of on one who iis against equality in these laws or seeking female "perks".
> 
> So where, I ask, is the privilege?
> 
> Now clearly, y'all are asking the same sorts of questions of me, failing to see any systemic privilege at all anywhere. On that point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


To your points:

1) The issue is not that these men reject the notion that women get to freely choose their sexual partners. That is an intentional ploy to pretend these are all entitled "Nice GuysTM." The complaint, which they repeat ad nauseam, is that they are told one thing about what women want from men (basically the metro-sexual, in touch with their feelings, friends-first, gentleman) but when they act like that they are either routinely and rudely rejected or, more drastically, strung along for female validation.

2) Divorce Laws are not the sole point of legal privilege women enjoy. There is a plethora of privileges which range from preferential hiring practices, easier access to higher education, the modification of legal standards which basically destroy due process for men when it comes to discussions of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, not to mention the additional social and cultural privileges wherein women seem to enjoy a prized position and men are seen as disposable (Hillary Clinton's "Women are always the main victims of war," comes to mind.)

Not to mention the ironic hypocrisy of feminist women demanding respect and acceptance of their decision to violate traditional gender roles and then turning around and shaming an entire generation of men for not "manning up."

A great deal of what the Sexodus/MGTOW crowd sees as a systemic advantage of legal, cultural, and sexual privileges for women are items I can actually understand and even recognize as real issues.

The mere fact that people seriously pretend that Domestic Violence is a gendered issue when we know for a provable fact that it is *not* and that feminists attempt to shout down anyone who dares point out the crime statistics should be enough to make the point.

Hell, it happens here on TAM.
A woman explained recently, in a heated argument where her husband was clearly in the wrong, that she escalated to throwing things and eventually hitting her husband.

And people immediately came to argue that such an action, so long as it was not repeated, was fine this one time and not serious.

Double standards abound.

The thing is that I fail to see how declaring you are taking your ball and going home, but then still complaining about the system, makes any sense.

Either be an active participate and work to change things or don't.

MGTOW do not need YouTube channels and blogs if they have actually "GTOW."


----------



## PreRaphaelite

StilltheStudent said:


> If systemic economic, political, or social constraints can be overcome by hard work then those who fail to overcome them did not work hard enough.


Well there's victim politics 101 and then there's blaming the victim.

Your statement is an admirable example of the latter. The poor are poor because they didn't work hard enough. it's their fault.


----------



## john117

Inherently moral? By their own standards of course...


----------



## always_alone

Personal said:


> That colonialism, systematic genocide, oppression and enslavement is applicable to the behaviour of white, black, yellow, red and brown people throughout the world, throughout history.


Yes, and look at just how much of it was done to create, maintain, and exploit privilege.

Not all of it, of course, as sometimes it was just good old fashioned revenge or competition over territory, but a whole lot of it. Privilege it is also applicable across cultures and throughout history. The focus on white privilege comes from a few centuries in which the American, British, and Dutch were the top economic and colonial powers.


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> To your points:
> 
> 1) The issue is not that these men reject the notion that women get to freely choose their sexual partners. That is an intentional ploy to pretend these are all entitled "Nice GuysTM." The complaint, which they repeat ad nauseam, is that they are told one thing about what women want from men (basically the metro-sexual, in touch with their feelings, friends-first, gentleman) but when they act like that they are either routinely and rudely rejected or, more drastically, strung along for female validation.


The problem here looks very different from the other side. I too have watched guys get strung along by women who were using them and/or get rudely rejected. But it has nothing to do with the guy being nice or being a gentleman -- which, in fact, probably most women do want. It has to do with guys falling all over themselves to cozy up to hot chicks, doing anything and everything they ask, and some of those hot chicks taking full advantage of the situation.

I've heard a lot of guys here on TAM bragging about how much they love "high maintenance" women. And all I can say is if that is what you want, expect to be put through the wringer for it.



StilltheStudent said:


> 2) A great deal of what the Sexodus/MGTOW crowd sees as a systemic advantage of legal, cultural, and sexual privileges for women are items I can actually understand and even recognize as real issues.


Some of these I get, and some just make me smh.

Divorce laws do need to keep up with the times. They made sense at the time of crafting, but the context has changed drastically and the laws need to be revised to reflect that. This is already happening around the world.

Domestic violence and sexual assault are real issues facing men, and need to be addressed. I can't speak for the laws where you live, but where I am both men and women can be charged for committing these crimes. Unfortunately, it would seem that men are even more unwilling than women to come forward and press charges, and IMHO, this is something men do need to address among themselves instead of railing against feminists for caring about violence against women.

There are double standards when it comes to sentencing, the draft, among other things. The sexism that made wives into property and kept women in her place has turned itself into a form of protection now that women are free to escape the traditional roles if they want to. Trouble is, when men hear of the 15-year old boy taken advantage of by the teacher, many are as inclined to cheer for him as others are to identify it as rape. Many men will absolutely refuse to fight alongside women, claiming they are unfit for the task.

As for Kvlor's posts about men having to do "real science" instead of taking experimental drugs, or the argument that consent laws are somehow geared to making all men guilty of rape, and so on, I just shake my head. Regulations and laws are still made predominantly by men, and us "emasculating gynocentric overlords" actually don't really have the power to make law all about women even if we wanted to --which we don't.


----------



## Kivlor

john117 said:


> Except it was mostly done by cultures that did not portray themselves as the paragons of virtue at their time...


I'd love to see a list of cultures that didn't portray themselves as paragons of virtue in their time.

Historically pretty much all societies engaged in genocide, slavery, conquest, etc. They always view it as moral. If they didn't, they wouldn't have the will to do such things.

The only difference with Western Colonial Powers is that they abolished slavery and imposed their abolition on as much of the world as they could. They declared genocide intolerable and swore oaths to punish other countries caught engaging in it.


----------



## StilltheStudent

PreRaphaelite said:


> Well there's victim politics 101 and then there's blaming the victim.
> 
> Your statement is an admirable example of the latter. The poor are poor because they didn't work hard enough. it's their fault.


Here is the problem with your point of view, the poor and generally unsuccessful *are not victims*.

America is a capitalist country. The uncomfortable truth is that your socio-economic status is a function of your work ethic and your merit.

No, not everyone is intelligent enough or driven enough to manage a professional career where they take down $100,000 a year.

However, the idea of the undeserving of their station, hard-working, permanent under-class is a myth. Between private sector, local, state, and federal programs there are enough resources in this country where literally anyone, if they decide to, can work themselves into a better situation.

What makes the difference is what these people decide to do with their lives.

If you don’t feel like applying for 40 different crappy jobs to gain the opportunity to work two or three part-time positions in order to start saving up some money to move out of a bad neighborhood or go to a local community college *you are lazy, not a victim*.

My family's economic advancement began specifically when my mother picked up an additional 20-30 hours a week on the night shift to supplement her full time job while my father worked part time at some home improvement store and took out a bevy of loans to go to a local Community College.

My parents rejected being labeled as victims and instead broke their backs, intellectually and damn-near literally, for well over a decade, making small improvements throughout the 1990s.

It took fifteen years of hard work before we could move out of the city and it took another fifteen years of hard work to save enough money and pay down enough debt that they could actually qualify for their first mortgage.

Calling the unsuccessful "victims of the system" is patronizing, paternalistic, and designed to do nothing more than excuse their failures and legitimize taking from those who had work and succeeded and giving it to those who did not.

Your view is designed to create a permanent under-class that takes no responsibility for their lot in life.


----------



## john117

In many cases they did. In other cases it was simply business as usual. The Ottoman empire did a pretty good job keeping its subjects at bay the hard way simply because it was easy to do. The Mongols before them, ditto. But by the 1800's Western civilizations often mishandled their subjects while preaching civility, and even in the 1900's political interventions were quite brutal all in the name of values. The regime of Pahlevi Shah in Iran, supported by the west, is a good example.


----------



## StilltheStudent

always_alone said:


> The problem here looks very different from the other side. I too have watched guys get strung along by women who were using them and/or get rudely rejected. But it has nothing to do with the guy being nice or being a gentleman -- which, in fact, probably most women do want. It has to do with guys falling all over themselves to cozy up to hot chicks, doing anything and everything they ask, and some of those hot chicks taking full advantage of the situation.


The issue, I think, is a real lack of masculine role models for this generation of young men.

When they hear "be a gentleman" it seems to be translated, by many, as "be submissive to the interests and wants of women, never be aggressive, and never do anything that might make a girl uncomfortable." 

I am not sure why, but when it comes to the opposite sex, a good number of younger men seem unwilling to set proper boundaries and stand up for themselves.

But it is not just the pursuit of "hot chicks" where this happens. And qualifying it to that effect is your attempt to, once again, engage in the "they're entitled" rhetoric.

While I have definitely seen the hot-girl + orbiters phenomenon, I have seen more examples of average dude & cutish girl going in the same direction. 

So I understand this complaint.

Of course my solution would be for these guys to grow a back-bone, make their intentions clear, have some self-respect, and stop pretending that girls are special and need to be treated as such.

The MGTOW complaint of "girls are just too mean!" is yet another appeal to the inherent unfairness of the system.



always_alone said:


> I've heard a lot of guys here on TAM bragging about how much they love "high maintenance" women. And all I can say is if that is what you want, expect to be put through the wringer for it.


Yup. Be careful what you ask for.



always_alone said:


> Some of these I get, and some just make me smh.
> 
> Divorce laws do need to keep up with the times. They made sense at the time of crafting, but the context has changed drastically and the laws need to be revised to reflect that. This is already happening around the world.


It is happening, but slowly. Excruciatingly slowly.

Something like 75% of all custody awards are still made to mothers. Fathers only win custody around 10% of the time.

The system is so biased against men when it comes to their children that most do not even seem to attempt for sole custody in a divorce.



always_alone said:


> Domestic violence and sexual assault are real issues facing men, and need to be addressed. I can't speak for the laws where you live, but where I am both men and women can be charged for committing these crimes. Unfortunately, it would seem that men are even more unwilling than women to come forward and press charges, and IMHO, this is something men do need to address among themselves instead of railing against feminists for caring about violence against women.


Of course both men and women can be charged with domestic violence.

The reality however is that feminists have succeeded in casting women as the sole victims of domestic violence to the point that actual policies (the much talked about Duluth Model) followed by police *presume men are always the aggressors*. 

Domestic Violence help lines for men *instruct men on how not to abuse women*.

Pretending that the issue over DV is that men need to report it more is preposterous.

And pretending that the feminist drive to identify DV as a gendered problem committed almost always by men is not a problem is equally preposterous. 



always_alone said:


> There are double standards when it comes to sentencing, the draft, among other things. The sexism that made wives into property and kept women in her place has turned itself into a form of protection now that women are free to escape the traditional roles if they want to. *Trouble is, when men hear of the 15-year old boy taken advantage of by the teacher, many are as inclined to cheer for him as others are to identify it as rape.* Many men will absolutely refuse to fight alongside women, claiming they are unfit for the task.


The bolded section is nothing more than misandrist myth and helps perpetuate the all-time sexist view that men cannot be raped, because all men want sex all the time anyways.

And men refusing to fight alongside women in the military? The issue is not the big mean misogynistic soldiers A_A.

The issue is how physical standards are lessened to let more women into these positions, which everyone with half a brain knows places the unit at risk.

A woman who can pull her weight, literally, will be accepted on the frontlines. A women who got in pulling half the weight of the men is never going to be accepted as anything other than a problem.



always_alone said:


> As for Kvlor's posts about men having to do "real science" instead of taking experimental drugs, or the argument that consent laws are somehow geared to making all men guilty of rape, and so on, I just shake my head. Regulations and laws are still made predominantly by men, and us "emasculating gynocentric overlords" actually don't really have the power to make law all about women even if we wanted to --which we don't.


Kvlor is referring to the disparity between male and female birth control and libido raising drugs and he is not wrong. Addyi, the so-called female Viagra, is a failure of a drug which the FDA rejected numerous times because its medical response is barely significant beyond the control group (literally 0.5 to 1.0 more sexual encounters per month on the pill than on sugar) and it comes with a ton of issues, including blood pressure problems that produce fainting.

The only reason it was eventually approved was because a feminist activist group declared the rejection of Addyi the result of misogynistic double-standards, because women deserve a female Viagra apparently, and the FDA withered under the pressure and approved the drug under the new name of Addyi.

In the mean time the male birth control drug is still being exhaustively tested and experimented upon with no special interest pushing it through because "men deserve a birth control pill."

And you have to be blind not to notice the affirmative consent garbage going on in the country right now.

We are literally at the point where, under Title IX, Colleges are lessening the legal requirements to find someone guilty of rape, and have instituted rules which effectively require men to prove they attained consent with women for sex.

That means: 1) men are suddenly responsible for consent for sex, women are freed from that apparently to difficult obligation, 2) men have to prove *they are not rapists* in any accusation.

The rules literally begin, now, under the assumption that men are responsible for attaining consent in all cases and are inherently guilty of rape or sexual assault if they are accused of something.

That is insane.

You're flippant reference to "emasculating gynocentric overlords" aside, * the rules are already in place.*

So you are 100% wrong about the inability to make laws all about women.

Not only do you have that power *it has already been exercised*.


----------



## Kivlor

@StilltheStudent

:iagree:

Thanks, that was a better response than I had typed. Her flippant remark kind of annoyed me, and I had to delete my even more sarcastic reply because it would have accomplished nothing.

I can't agree enough that MGTOW have to take responsibility for their own agency, and refuse to see themselves as victims.

@always_alone

I have provided citations for my claims. You've provided rhetoric. I await you actually refuting me, rather than just saying "nuh-uh".

Regarding women in the military, here's why it's actually an issue. The Marine Corps actually produced a study on how mixed gender units worked, and women performed abysmally. Mixed units under-performed all male units.

Women in the military have reduced requirements compared to men because they are weaker, slower, and generally unfit for the task of combat. The _lives_ of men are _legally_ less important that the _feelings_ of women. And that is sad.

This also extends to firefighting, and women are fighting legal battles to be exempted from physical fitness tests in police-work, because physical fitness is discrimination against women.

Because of the Predominant Aggressor Doctrine, which I linked to previously, men reporting violence more often will not fix the issue of DV against men. The police are instructed to arrest the man because he's the "Predominant Aggressor".

I'll ask you this: Can you find me a single law or government poilcy that exists in the US or Britain that elevates men above women? Because I can't, but I've sourced several that do the opposite.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Regarding women in the military, here's why it's actually an issue. The Marine Corps actually produced a study on how mixed gender units worked, and women performed abysmally. Mixed units under-performed all male units.
> 
> Women in the military have reduced requirements compared to men because they are weaker, slower, and generally unfit for the task of combat. The _lives_ of men are _legally_ less important that the _feelings_ of women. And that is sad.


All I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways, that is, you can't simultaneously complain that women are privileged because they aren't drafted and that women shouldn't serve because they can't handle the load. Which is it that serves female privilege? Neither. Women aren't subject to the draft BECAUSE they are perceived as not being able to handle the load. Women are also given tasks that they physically can handle BECAUSE they too can put their lives on the line for service of their country and community. IMHO, it is up to the military to figure out how to make the most of the available personnel.

As for desires to take experimental drugs, have at it. You really want to swallow something that hasn't been proven effective and may have crazy side effects? Not a "right" I would fight for, but by all means, don't let that stop you.

DV and sex assault are more complicated, and I am loathe to get into yet another discussion of affirmative consent. Let me just say two things on these topics:
(1) The affirmative consent laws in the US are about college disciplinary proceedings, and are not about criminal law. These are quite distinct matters. Plus the "preponderance of evidence" that has everyone so up in arms is simply not the same as changing the burden of proof or guilty until proven innocent, nor is it written just to charge men. 'Cuz guess what? Men too are perfectly entitled to make exactly the same charges against women. Any guy who does not give affirmative consent can also complain if he wants to. Since sexual assault is a big issue, perhaps men should be complaining more often. 

(2) The regulations you are citing are specific to your geographical context, not mine, and so it's not so surprising that I have a different take on the issue of the so-called unfairness of the law in putting down men.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> (2) The regulations you are citing are specific to your geographical context, not mine, and so it's not so surprising that I have a different take on the issue of the so-called unfairness of the law in putting down men.


I chose the US and GB for simplicity because A) we are speaking English and these are the foremost of English-speaking powers. B) GB and the US combined have dominated the globe politically and economically for centuries. Their laws and customs matter internationally. C) The MGTOW movement is primarily American-British-Canadian in nature, and I'm trying to keep this in context of the original topic.

Feel free to cite me one from a Western power. 



> you can't simultaneously complain that women are privileged because they aren't drafted and that women shouldn't serve because they can't handle the load. Which is it that serves female privilege? Neither. Women aren't subject to the draft BECAUSE they are perceived as not being able to handle the load. Women are also given tasks that they physically can handle BECAUSE they too can put their lives on the line for service of their country and community. IMHO, it is up to the military to figure out how to make the most of the available personnel.


1. Women are physically unfit for certain jobs (military, firefighting etc). 

2. Women are demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being a woman when they cannot meet the physical requirements. 

3. These jobs place lives at risk--not just those of the women, but of their comrades and of the people they sent to save in the case of firefighters / police. 

4. Conclusion: women want special treatment and view their feelings as more important than the lives of the men they imperil by their ineptitude. 

I don't know what brought up the draft, but it is irrelevant. (although we further can argue that because women aren't demanding they be signed up for it, while they simultaneously demand these positions be open to them if they choose, they are indeed demanding special privileges. If we refuse to open the draft to women, and refuse to place them in jobs they cannot perform, then it is not really an unfair system)

RE Title IX: This is indeed administrative, but it comes with punishments issued by a government authority. Also, Title IX is specifically written to address women and minority discrimination on campus and to favor women and minorities. Rape is out of its scope and is a crime. If found guilty of rape in a Title IX tribunal it can be made public you were found "guilty" of it and can be added to your transcript for any attempts to seek further education at another institution.

I think the article from FIRE that I linked explains exactly why--and more effectively than I--this is an issue of jurisprudence and a violation of peoples rights.

If you don't mind my asking, what country are you from? It does indeed add context to why we may see things differently.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I don't know what brought up the draft, but it is irrelevant. (although we further can argue that because women aren't demanding they be signed up for it, while they simultaneously demand these positions be open to them if they choose, they are indeed demanding special privileges. If we refuse to open the draft to women, and refuse to place them in jobs they cannot perform, then *it is not really an unfair system)*


While I agree with the the rest of your post, I disagree with this part. It is indeed unfair *to men* that only men are subject to the draft.

But I suspect you mean that such a system is not unfair *to women*, which of course is true.


----------



## Buddy400

StilltheStudent said:


> And men refusing to fight alongside women in the military? The issue is not the big mean misogynistic soldiers A_A.
> 
> The issue is how physical standards are lessened to let more women into these positions, which everyone with half a brain knows places the unit at risk.
> 
> A woman who can pull her weight, literally, will be accepted on the frontlines. A women who got in pulling half the weight of the men is never going to be accepted as anything other than a problem.


I've thought about the "women in combat roles" question quite a lot.

I considered the point that having women in combat might make the unit less effective just because the guys don't want women fighting alongside them. I value their perspective since, after all, they're the one's getting shot at. But, using such a rational would allow the exclusion of blacks or any other group the soldiers might not be comfortable with. So I'm pro women in combat.

However, and it's a *huge* however, if physical standards exist for men, then women must meet those exact standards. I've heard about marines changing physical standards for women in basic training. Does anyone know if compromises have been made in the requirements for Rangers (which, I hear has just had it's first female qualification)? If no compromises were made, I congratulate her. Occasionally the point is made that an existing standard actually has no actual bearing on the work to be performed. In this case it might seem valid to reduce or eliminate that standard. But, this should only be done when the case against the standard is obvious since doing this is usually going to lead to the perception that the change was only made to accommodate women.

I know such standards have been changed for women regarding police, firefighters and entry into the armed forces. I'm against this. But I would be horrified if this was done to accommodate women in elite military units.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> RE Title IX: This is indeed administrative, but it comes with punishments issued by a government authority. Also, Title IX is specifically written to address women and minority discrimination on campus and to favor women and minorities. Rape is out of its scope and is a crime.


Affirmative consent laws are not about title IX at all. They were an amendment to the California (and I think also NY) Education Code on student safety. Universities have always had student codes of conduct and have always reserved the right to expel students who are not meeting them. None of this is new.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

StilltheStudent said:


> Here is the problem with your point of view, the poor and generally unsuccessful *are not victims*.
> 
> America is a capitalist country. The uncomfortable truth is that your socio-economic status is a function of your work ethic and your merit.
> 
> No, not everyone is intelligent enough or driven enough to manage a professional career where they take down $100,000 a year.
> 
> However, the idea of the undeserving of their station, hard-working, permanent under-class is a myth. Between private sector, local, state, and federal programs there are enough resources in this country where literally anyone, if they decide to, can work themselves into a better situation.
> 
> What makes the difference is what these people decide to do with their lives.
> 
> If you don’t feel like applying for 40 different crappy jobs to gain the opportunity to work two or three part-time positions in order to start saving up some money to move out of a bad neighborhood or go to a local community college *you are lazy, not a victim*.
> 
> My family's economic advancement began specifically when my mother picked up an additional 20-30 hours a week on the night shift to supplement her full time job while my father worked part time at some home improvement store and took out a bevy of loans to go to a local Community College.
> 
> My parents rejected being labeled as victims and instead broke their backs, intellectually and damn-near literally, for well over a decade, making small improvements throughout the 1990s.
> 
> It took fifteen years of hard work before we could move out of the city and it took another fifteen years of hard work to save enough money and pay down enough debt that they could actually qualify for their first mortgage.
> 
> Calling the unsuccessful "victims of the system" is patronizing, paternalistic, and designed to do nothing more than excuse their failures and legitimize taking from those who had work and succeeded and giving it to those who did not.
> 
> Your view is designed to create a permanent under-class that takes no responsibility for their lot in life.


Your one-track perspective that says it's all up to the sheer will of the individual is such a myth that I could write reams in response. 

The problem is, any acknowledgement of social conditions for you amounts to the same thing, people crying victim. You were the one who used the term victim. You used it disparagingly, with quotation marks around it to make the point that these people and/or the system portrays them as victims who need help, but that they really aren’t victims at all, just lazy, content for a hand-out, a bunch of freeloaders who don’t want to work or put the effort into doing what they have to in order to be successful. I was using your rhetoric. I was not claiming they are victims.

Here is the problem with your view: you have created just as much a fictional picture of America and want to pass it off as reality. 

And to turn it around, yours is a view that is designed to repeat the same old prejudice that the poor deserve to be poor and any social programs are a waste of time.

If you want to make the point that someone who is disadvantaged has no other choice but to make a decision and become active in pursuit of a goal, then your point is valid. Given that, the question of opportunity is not a one size fits all. It's a very difficult social-economic-cultural problem that varies a great deal from place to place and from group to group. Social programs are there to put people in a position to act when options are very limited. That should be their goal.


----------



## Dycedarg

PreRaphaelite said:


> Your one-track perspective that says it's all up to the sheer will of the individual is such a myth that I could write reams in response.
> 
> The problem is, any acknowledgement of social conditions for you amounts to the same thing, people crying victim. You were the one who used the term victim. You used it disparagingly, with quotation marks around it to make the point that these people and/or the system portrays them as victims who need help, but that they really aren’t victims at all, just lazy, content for a hand-out, a bunch of freeloaders who don’t want to work or put the effort into doing what they have to in order to be successful. I was using your rhetoric. I was not claiming they are victims.
> 
> Here is the problem with your view: you have created just as much a fictional picture of America and want to pass it off as reality.
> 
> And to turn it around, yours is a view that is designed to repeat the same old prejudice that the poor deserve to be poor and any social programs are a waste of time.
> 
> If you want to make the point that someone who is disadvantaged has no other choice but to make a decision and become active in pursuit of a goal, then your point is valid. Given that, the question of opportunity is not a one size fits all. It's a very difficult social-economic-cultural problem that varies a great deal from place to place and from group to group. Social programs are there to put people in a position to act when options are very limited. That should be their goal.


I've never met anyone who, being in rags, didn't eventually reveal that they simply didn't apply themselves in various important ways. I should point out that I understand that doesn't necessarily mean no such situation exists. But if you dig deep enough, there is almost always some element of laziness, even if it's the fact that they didn't work hard because that would mean applying themselves more than others who have done less and gained more. You can see this in varying degrees. Just because you get a job doesn't mean you've tried. When you do whatever it takes to attain your financial goals, you've tried. Some people think that if they get a job, that should be it; that they should get the things they want. 

It simply doesn't work that way. We do not live in a world of "ought." We live in a world of reality; what things truly are. And if someone's lifestyle and dwelling cost $4000.00 a month, they're not going to be able to sustain that with a job at McDonald's. The answer is either expand what you can do for the purpose of increasing income, or dial back your expenses. People don't want to do either, so they complain about others who have applied themselves and call them oppressive and privileged. 

Unhappiness comes about because there is a warped view of how much you should get vs how much you should do. If people were focused on doing things rather than what they think they deserve they'd be a lot happier. 

We can talk about whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's certainly the way it is. 

Whether it's good or bad, the worldview of one size fits all is anything but prejudice. It is the antithesis of prejudice.


----------



## azteca1986

StilltheStudent said:


> The issue, I think, is a real lack of masculine role models for this generation of young men.
> 
> When they hear "be a gentleman" it seems to be translated, by many, as "be submissive to the interests and wants of women, never be aggressive, and never do anything that might make a girl uncomfortable."
> 
> I am not sure why, but when it comes to the opposite sex, a good number of younger men seem unwilling to set proper boundaries and stand up for themselves.


I have appreciated your recent contributions to this thread, bringing with it an understanding of the issues with a a hint of scepticism that helped bridge the gap from where I am and the MGTOW mindset. 

I agree with the above. I just want to add that in my own words, "where it started to go wrong" is when young started taking How to Be Men lessons from women, or even worse, feminists. 

If my son were ever to venture that the fact that some women (presumably) have access to a drug that barely works and somehow circumvented FDA approval to get it as an example of the "feminisation of society", I would have to reply that though the internet is a wondrous thing he needs to learn to filter that which is important from things that will never have any influence on his life in any shape of form.

Female Viagra? Who fvcking cares? It's women's stuff. Why are you even talking to me about this sh!t? Why are we concerning ourselves with what a tiny fraction of women/feminists think or do. he more time you spend thinking about them and how they think the more like them you will become. Do what the overwhelming majority of the population do and ignore them.

I do think that the most important masculine role model still exists; involved fathers. The same as it ever was. From my own experience (as it's been mentioned a few times throughout this thread) but no amount of Hollywood, the media, largely female teachers in infant & primary school (ages 5-11) or feminists could hope to compete with the positive influence of my father. I suspect that's an advantage I have over many in the MGTOW movement.


Kivlor said:


> The MGTOW movement is primarily American-British-Canadian in nature, and I'm trying to keep this in context of the original topic.
> 
> 1. Women are physically unfit for certain jobs (military, firefighting etc).
> 
> 2. Women are demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being a woman when they cannot meet the physical requirements.
> 
> 3. These jobs place lives at risk--not just those of the women, but of their comrades and of the people they sent to save in the case of firefighters / police.
> 
> 4. Conclusion: women want special treatment and view their feelings as more important than the lives of the men they imperil by their ineptitude.
> 
> I don't know what brought up the draft, but it is irrelevant. (although we further can argue that because women aren't demanding they be signed up for it, while they simultaneously demand these positions be open to them if they choose, they are indeed demanding special privileges. If we refuse to open the draft to women, and refuse to place them in jobs they cannot perform, then it is not really an unfair system)


This post is an example of the dangers of looking at life through a "feminist society" prism.

Women are NOT demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being a woman. They're just not.

As you mentioned the UK, you need to start here: The UK is a signatory of the European Commission on Human Rights. 

*Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination
*
The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination unless it can be justified on a wide range of grounds including sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority property, birth or other status, (for example include sexual orientation, marital status or trade union membership).

This means everyone has equal access to the same human rights no matter who they are.

Other laws protect employees from discrimination such as the Equality Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of:


age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

The Human Rights Act | Acas advice and guidance | Acas

Women are NOT demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being a woman. Just as there are not old people demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being old. Or gay. etc. This is an anti-discrimination law drawn up by human rights lawyers. Not feminists. A knock on effect is that a woman cannot be denied _applying_ for a job as a fireman. However, as in any job, it might be deemed during training that a 5'1" woman might not be suitable for coming down a ladder carrying an unconscious colleague. That doesn't stop anybody who wants to applying, because the Fire Service is an Equal Opportunities Employer.


----------



## naiveonedave

@azteca1986 - I agree, having a good father role model is critical. 

I disagree, though about jobs, because in actuality the law makes it that women are favored (at least in the US). And these laws were primarily drafted by the feminist movement.


----------



## azteca1986

naiveonedave said:


> @azteca1986 - I agree, having a good father role model is critical.


I honestly believe that if you have strong positive male role models, the rest becomes an irrelevance. I will expand on this when I have a minute.



> I disagree, though about jobs, because in actuality the law makes it that women are favored (at least in the US). And these laws were primarily drafted by the feminist movement.


What I quoted is part of *The Equality Act* <- the clue is in the title.


----------



## naiveonedave

azteca1986 said:


> I honestly believe that if you have strong positive male role models, the rest becomes an irrelevance. I will expand on this when I have a minute.
> 
> What I quoted is part of *The Equality Act* <- the clue is in the title.


Not sure about where you live, but in the US, I get very skeptical about what the title of a law really tells you. In the US hiring is 'not' equal. Women and minorities get preferential treatment by both law and common practice.


----------



## Kivlor

azteca1986 said:


> Women are NOT demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being a woman. Just as there are not old people demanding they be given those jobs by virtue of their being old. Or gay. etc. This is an anti-discrimination law drawn up by human rights lawyers. Not feminists. A knock on effect is that a woman cannot be denied _applying_ for a job as a fireman. However, as in any job, it might be deemed during training that a 5'1" woman might not be suitable for coming down a ladder carrying an unconscious colleague. That doesn't stop anybody who wants to applying, because the Fire Service is an Equal Opportunities Employer.


Read the links azteca. They are indeed (not all women, but a very vocal group that claims to "represent" all women) demanding this. 

These women aren't demanding the right to apply and be assessed for the job objectively. They are demanding that they be exempted from physical requirements, or that the physical requirements be reduced so they can pass.

In essence, they _deserve_ these jobs, because they're _women_, and to deny them is discrimination against women.

Please, refute the veracity of my points. Women are proven to be unfit for combat roles. Their presence in mixed-gender units provably (not potentially) reduces unit cohesion and unit effectiveness. Reduced effectiveness and cohesion risks the lives of the unit. 

Yet, if we just say: "Hey, meet the requirements and you're in" (which I'm fine with) it's not enough. The requirements must be lowered for them (and them alone) and even if they fail they _must_ be given the job because to not do so is discrimination. (look at the firefighter case)

The point about Addyi--made as a response about how women aren't "privileged" by the standards the victim crowd are advancing--is that these women are actually using "anti-discrimination" as a basis for saying that although a specific drug failed in FDA testing, has no real measurable effect, and has a host of negative side-effects, the decision must be reversed solely because they're women and it is discrimination to tell them no. And the government has acquiesced. 

How paternalistic is it, to say "you know, you're right. You can't be expected to actually meet the requirements set out in law, and actually advance science like everyone else. You're a woman. We have to lower the bar for you." These women, and their position and demands are actually quite demeaning to women, when you stop to analyze them objectively.

It's comical.


----------



## tom67

Kivlor said:


> Read the links azteca. They are indeed (not all women, but a very vocal group that claims to "represent" all women) demanding this.
> 
> These women aren't demanding the right to apply and be assessed for the job objectively. They are demanding that they be exempted from physical requirements, or that the physical requirements be reduced so they can pass.
> 
> In essence, they _deserve_ these jobs, because they're _women_, and to deny them is discrimination against women.
> 
> Please, refute the veracity of my points. Women are proven to be unfit for combat roles. Their presence in mixed-gender units provably (not potentially) reduces unit cohesion and unit effectiveness. Reduced effectiveness and cohesion risks the lives of the unit.
> 
> Yet, if we just say: "Hey, meet the requirements and you're in" (which I'm fine with) it's not enough. The requirements must be lowered for them (and them alone) and even if they fail they _must_ be given the job because to not do so is discrimination. (look at the firefighter case)
> 
> The point about Addyi--made as a response about how women aren't "privileged" by the standards the victim crowd are advancing--is that these women are actually using "anti-discrimination" as a basis for saying that although a specific drug failed in FDA testing, has no real measurable effect, and has a host of negative side-effects, the decision must be reversed solely because they're women and it is discrimination to tell them no. And the government has acquiesced.
> 
> How paternalistic is it, to say "you know, you're right. You can't be expected to actually meet the requirements set out in law, and actually advance science like everyone else. You're a woman. We have to lower the bar for you." These women, and their position and demands are actually quite demeaning to women, when you stop to analyze them objectively.
> 
> It's comical.


Yep...

Firefighter who flunked physical injured 10 days into job | New York Post


----------



## StilltheStudent

PreRaphaelite said:


> Your one-track perspective that says it's all up to the sheer will of the individual is such a myth that I could write reams in response.


To your rhetoric and belief I will answer with my life experiences and those of the people around me.

The people who took on second and third jobs to pay for school got out of the crappy part of town.

The people who prioritized beer over gas and purchased lottery tickets every week as their "retirement plan" while refusing extra hours and overtime are still where they were a decade ago. [Actual personal example…this woman drove me insane.]



PreRaphaelite said:


> The problem is, any acknowledgement of social conditions for you amounts to the same thing, people crying victim.


It helps to read the full discussion if you are going to engage within it.

A_A was attempting to argue that systemic discrimination made victims out of people who were unsuccessful and that, in truth, their socio-economic status had nothing to do with their merit, intelligence, or work ethic.

It is the classic paternalistic "It's not your fault you're poor," and "oh yeah, people with success didn't earn it anyways!," trope.

She was ascribing to a view that, in effect, any form of institutional disadvantage was enough to excuse people for agency in their own life status.

It would not be fair to "judge" unsuccessful people because they have disadvantages and it would not be fair to "credit" successful people because they had advantages.

It is all about rejecting the role of personal agency.

Then she went into the whole "successful people stand upon the shoulders of genocide" tract and jumped the proverbial shark.



PreRaphaelite said:


> You were the one who used the term victim. You used it disparagingly, with quotation marks around it to make the point that these people and/or the system portrays them as victims who need help, but that they really aren’t victims at all, just lazy, content for a hand-out, a bunch of freeloaders who don’t want to work or put the effort into doing what they have to in order to be successful. I was using your rhetoric. I was not claiming they are victims.


Ever actually been poor? Spent years in the "poor part of town?"

The uncomfortable truth is that these places are not filled with "hard working, down on their luck" types.

They are filled with people suffering the consequences of either poor decisions or the poor decisions of their parents.

And the ones who are still there a decade or more later are there because they did not put the work into *leaving*.

It's ironic.

The myth of the "down of their luck, deserving poor," was actually invented in America in the early 19th century by Women's Reform groups who used the rhetoric to validate why they should provide charity and benefits to white men and women and exclude American minorities and immigrants from similar aid.

To see identity politics advocates use the same tactic now creates a weird sensation for me….



PreRaphaelite said:


> Here is the problem with your view: you have created just as much a fictional picture of America and want to pass it off as reality.


I knocked on the front door of my parent's house when I saw them this holiday season.

Seemed pretty real to me.



PreRaphaelite said:


> And to turn it around, yours is a view that is designed to repeat the same old prejudice that the poor deserve to be poor and any social programs are a waste of time.


1) It has nothing to do with "deserving" in the moralistic sense you are attempting to use. It is however the consequences of their actions, or in most cases inaction, to do something about it.

2) Where did I say any and all social programs are a waste of time? If you actually read my posts, instead of caricaturing them, you would have noticed I specifically stated that the bevy of private, local, state, and federal programs that exist make it possible for just about anyone to pull themselves up.



PreRaphaelite said:


> If you want to make the point that someone who is disadvantaged has no other choice but to make a decision and become active in pursuit of a goal, then your point is valid. Given that, the question of opportunity is not a one size fits all. It's a very difficult social-economic-cultural problem that varies a great deal from place to place and from group to group. Social programs are there to put people in a position to act when options are very limited. That should be their goal.


That is the goal of *some* social programs, the ones I tend to support.

A_A was doing a poor job of attempting to align her argument to justify the redistribution of wealth from those she saw as "unworthy" of it and give it to those she saw as "victims of the system."

Paternalistic identity politics is designed to do one thing and one thing only.

Steal from people their belief in their own agency and create a permanent under-class dependent upon the paternalists themselves.

To delve into policy; the difference is between unfettered and permanent social welfare programs which focus on wealth redistribution and means-tested temporary social welfare programs focused on job training and educational access.

I am a proponent of the latter and a dedicated opponent to the former.


----------



## azteca1986

naiveonedave said:


> Not sure about where you live, but in the US, I get very skeptical about what the title of a law really tells you. In the US hiring is 'not' equal. Women and minorities get preferential treatment by both law and common practice.


Works the other way here. The law is written in such a way because equality is a consistent concept and much easier to enforce than any alternatives.

There's a reason the Fire Service stuck in my mind. Take a look at our "feminised" Fire Service here in London:

*West Norwood firefighters make history with first fire crew with more women on shift than men
*
_A London fire crew has made history by having more women than men on shift for the first time in the Brigade’s 150 years. _

Blue Watch at West Norwood fire station is made up of five women and six men, with eight on duty at any one time. *On Saturday December 12* [2015], t*here were five women and three men on duty. *

Currently there are about *300 female firefighters* working in London, which equates to around *5 per cent of the workforce* of between 5,500 and 6,000. In England as a whole, *4.7 per cent of operational firefighters are female. *

With* London Fire Brigade having better gender equality* than many other fire services nationwide, the team are thought to have been *the first predominantly female crew not only in the capital, but in the country.*

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...th-more-women-on-shift-than-men-a3142691.html


----------



## john117

naiveonedave said:


> Not sure about where you live, but in the US, I get very skeptical about what the title of a law really tells you. In the US hiring is 'not' equal. Women and minorities get preferential treatment by both law and common practice.


That explains why my team of 14 people has one woman and no minorities (engineering, software, and industrial design). Must be all the preferential treatment


----------



## naiveonedave

john117 said:


> That explains why my team of 14 people has one woman and no minorities (engineering, software, and industrial design). Must be all the preferential treatment


14 is not much of a population statistically. probably also doesn't account for men dominating stem fields. Or its just a 1 off. I recruit for a large corp, I know how this works at most large companies. We go out of our way to try to hire women and minorities.


----------



## tom67

This is refreshing...

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-52503-post-1188017.html#pid1188017
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-52983.html
End t/j :grin2:


----------



## Kivlor

john117 said:


> That explains why my team of 14 people has one woman and no minorities (engineering, software, and industrial design). Must be all the preferential treatment


John, are you responsible for their hiring? If so, why don't you hire more women / minorities? Is it the number of applicants? The quality of applicants? Does your employer just say "only white men allowed"? If it's discrimination, why haven't you filed a complaint with EEOC? 

Worried about anonymity? Don't worry, spend a couple hundred dollars, and have an attorney fill it out for you. You're ID is sealed now.

I have a feeling it's not as much discrimination as it is demographics of who's applying and who's qualified.


----------



## john117

Kivlor said:


> John, are you responsible for their hiring? If so, why don't you hire more women / minorities? Is it the number of applicants? The quality of applicants? Does your employer just say "only white men allowed"? If it's discrimination, why haven't you filed a complaint with EEOC?
> 
> Worried about anonymity? Don't worry, spend a couple hundred dollars, and have an attorney fill it out for you. You're ID is sealed now.
> 
> I have a feeling it's not as much discrimination as it is demographics of who's applying and who's qualified.


I do interview and hire but from the HR list of resumes or recruitment trips. I do not consider gender or minority status. For the creative side we require a portfolio and for the engineer positions I usually have a senior person do the tech part of the interview. 

Nobody receives preferential treatment. My experience is that qualified women and minorities prefer the coasts like everyone else instead of the rust belt. Since men outnumber women in engineering and such, even design, its not difficult to see the disparity in numbers.

We also tend to hire former interns. To us since we deal with consumer electronics we want to have a good sample of people, not just one size fits all.


----------



## john117

naiveonedave said:


> 14 is not much of a population statistically. probably also doesn't account for men dominating stem fields. Or its just a 1 off. I recruit for a large corp, I know how this works at most large companies. We go out of our way to try to hire women and minorities.


We don't go out of our way either way, its just we don't pay enough


----------



## always_alone

StilltheStudent said:


> A_A was attempting to argue that systemic discrimination made victims out of people who were unsuccessful and that, in truth, their socio-economic status had nothing to do with their merit, intelligence, or work ethic.
> 
> It is the classic paternalistic "It's not your fault you're poor," and "oh yeah, people with success didn't earn it anyways!," trope.
> 
> She was ascribing to a view that, in effect, any form of institutional disadvantage was enough to excuse people for agency in their own life status.
> 
> It would not be fair to "judge" unsuccessful people because they have disadvantages and it would not be fair to "credit" successful people because they had advantages.
> 
> It is all about rejecting the role of personal agency.
> 
> Then she went into the whole "successful people stand upon the shoulders of genocide" tract and jumped the proverbial shark.


Speaking of caricaturing another's position ... That's an awful lot of words you have just stuffed in my mouth.

Nowhere have I rejected the role of personal agency. Only have I pointed out that there are systemic advantages for certain groups of people, most notably those with wealth.

And what those systemic advantages mean is that we do not actually live in a meritocracy. It isn't all about hard work, sweat equity, talent and brains. It is also about what your starting point is and how others treat you along the way.

Never once did I use the word victim. Never once did I say that successful people are automatically disqualified from accolades or credit.


----------



## Kivlor

john117 said:


> I do interview and hire but from the HR list of resumes or recruitment trips. I do not consider gender or minority status. For the creative side we require a portfolio and for the engineer positions I usually have a senior person do the tech part of the interview.
> 
> Nobody receives preferential treatment. My experience is that qualified women and minorities prefer the coasts like everyone else instead of the rust belt. Since men outnumber women in engineering and such, even design, its not difficult to see the disparity in numbers.
> 
> We also tend to hire former interns. To us since we deal with consumer electronics we want to have a good sample of people, not just one size fits all.


Sounds like a pretty fair way to do things. I kind of figured it was at least partially due to the fact that 17% of STEM degrees are held by women; hadn't considered the effect of location, but that seems obvious lol. 

I know my sister runs HR for a several factories, and she pretty much has to hire every minority or woman that applies, or face the wrath of the feds--but we're talking about someone overseeing the hiring of ~2000 people. She lives in perpetual terror of ending on the wrong side of EEOC / anti-discrimination codes. If she fires a white man, she usually just tells him to get out. Before firing a minority or woman (or worse, minority woman) she usually is forced to document a tremendous amount of effort in trying to help them not get fired--unlike how she is able to treat the white guys lol. Some folks still file suit anyways; it's a litigious society we live in.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Speaking of caricaturing another's position ... That's an awful lot of words you have just stuffed in my mouth.
> 
> Nowhere have I rejected the role of personal agency. Only have I pointed out that there are systemic advantages for certain groups of people, most notably those with wealth.
> 
> And what those systemic advantages mean is that we do not actually live in a meritocracy. It isn't all about hard work, sweat equity, talent and brains. *It is also about what your starting point is and how others treat you along the way.*
> 
> Never once did I use the word victim. Never once did I say that successful people are automatically disqualified from accolades or credit.


AA, a lot of your posts, as I said before, come across--intended or not--with a distinct level of contempt for those who inherited from their parents. You implied in your analogy of Donald, that the wealthy man was in fact disqualified--or at least less meritorious. By putting an emphasis on the inherited factors, rather than the factors of choice, you downplay the agency of both the wealthy and the poor.

You didn't say "victims" but it was implied. Or it _seemed_ so. Would you agree that you view the poor as victims of circumstance? 

We reject that they are victims, but rather that each person has an _opportunity_ to make today better than yesterday, and to provide a better tomorrow for their children if they will dig deep, spend little and work hard. 

I think this is a great opportunity to point back to my earlier comment about seeing life as a marathon. I'd really like to amend that to a cross-country run--down a seemingly endless road. Some people start at different points along the road, some start at different times, some are faster than others, some walk the whole way, some take more breaks than others. 

All of these factors weigh in to where you end up at the end of the day. But I believe it behooves us all to view life as a competition against ourselves, not jealously coveting the positions of others, so that at the end of the day we all ask: *Am I farther than I was when I started?*

This is easily linked back to the situation of MGTOW, and how they too can improve their lives. It is in their power to learn what women want, what women find attractive, and to then use that knowledge to attract a mate. Or they can wallow in self-pity at their disadvantages. One of those choices is more noble than the other, I think.


----------



## john117

My wife worked for a decade in a very woman and minorities friendly company. Friendly up to the point of promoting them to positions they were not qualified for and canning them soon thereafter. The few that survived were outright nasty.


----------



## azteca1986

Kivlor said:


> Read the links azteca. They are indeed (not all women, but a very vocal group that claims to "represent" all women) demanding this.


Ha! I thought NAWALT was some kind of insult? 



> These women aren't demanding the right to apply and be assessed for the job objectively. They are demanding that they be exempted from physical requirements, or that the physical requirements be reduced so they can pass.
> 
> In essence, they _deserve_ these jobs, because they're _women_, and to deny them is discrimination against women.
> 
> Please, refute the veracity of my points. Women are proven to be unfit for combat roles. Their presence in mixed-gender units provably (not potentially) reduces unit cohesion and unit effectiveness. Reduced effectiveness and cohesion risks the lives of the unit.


I'm old school so, I'm going to give the youtube vid a swerve. Checking the links:

Under "*The UN wants to control your life*"
U.N. Report: Women May Need ‘Different Treatment’ to Achieve Economic Equality

Inherent is the admission that Women worldwide do not enjoy economic equality. In our economies more men work than women, tend to work in the more lucrative sectors and can still get paid more for doing the same job than their female counterparts. The industry I work in (advertising) has still slightly more males than females and it's true for every office I've worked in and every boardroom I've presented in - it's not a feminised world that I live in.

*Don't get trapped in a burning building in New York:
*
Selected quotes:


> Only 44 of the FDNY’s 10,500 firefighters are female.
> 
> While Wax fell short, two other female probies in the graduating class passed the FST with flying colours.
> 
> Other female firefighters aren’t pleased about Wax’s treatment, either.
> 
> “A lot of the girls in the field are pissed because they feel like they’re getting lumped into the same category of a female getting special treatment and not meeting the same standards as the males,” the insider added. “It devalues what the women in the field have accomplished.”


One woman out of 44 out of 10,500 does not a slippery slope make.

As for your points about combat. Maybe the British Army has read your research because:


> When you join the Army, you can be sure the challenges, rewards and opportunities are the same whether you’re male or female. And *except for a few front-line combat roles*, women have access to the same jobs, pay, training and promotion as men.





> *Do women have access to the same jobs as men?
> *
> Women are able to apply for most jobs in the Army. The only ones currently not open to women are the Household Cavalry, *Royal Armoured Corps and Infantry*.


The last two are big ones, I think you'll agree?
Women in the Army - British Army Website



> These women, and their position and demands are actually quite demeaning to women, when you stop to analyze them objectively.
> 
> It's comical.


These women are insignificant. When you listen to a shrill minority they end up defining your (not you specifically perhaps) worldview; which will get distorted because you're living in an echo chamber full of confirmation bias and the like
From the articles in the OP:


> Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits. “Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men,” he remarks.


Fathers. Next question.

And I wonder if any of you picked up on this:


> Straight young men simply don’t want to know any more. They’re not getting involved. Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument. *The absurd result is that geeks, queers and ***** are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. *Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It’s as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity’s corner.


Firstly, before we get to the bit in bold, I'd like to state I have no idea "what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims" are because I don't give a fvck. Happy to keep it that way.

As for the bit in bold; three groups pontificating about a subject (heterosexual relationships) they know nothing about. How could that possibly go wrong?


----------



## Kivlor

azteca1986 said:


> Inherent is the admission that Women worldwide do not enjoy economic equality. In our economies more men work than women, tend to work in the more lucrative sectors and can still get paid more for doing the same job than their female counterparts. The industry I work in (advertising) has still slightly more males than females and it's true for every office I've worked in and every boardroom I've presented in - it's not a feminised world that I live in.


Worldwide is irrelevant. 3rd World problems aren't 1st world problems (socially).

RE a "feminized" world / society: Women _choose_ not to take these positions (in the West). And there is nothing wrong with that. But to demand they be in everything equally, that completely ignores the agency of each individual. We offer incentives to get them into a lot of the fields they're not interested in. I don't know that it's feminized, but that is the essence of "privilege" as outlined by A_A (which is what I was originally addressing).



> One woman out of 44 out of 10,500 does not a slippery slope make.


A lawsuit was already won for the "discriminatory practice" of physical requirements for a physical job. In fact, this woman is only 1 of many in NY. Also, I believe I linked previously to a group of police women suing for the same in CO. It is actually a lot more people than is apparent. 

from the second article: "Doirin-Holder, who turns 40 this month, is one of 282 “priority hires” passed over in 1999 and 2000. Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis ordered they must get preference as victims of past discrimination against minorities." 

She was passed over due to physical unfitness, but that's discrimination against minorities (case law in the US now), and so she now has the job--well, actually, she now has workman's comp. Injured after 10 days, by getting out of a vehicle.



> These women are insignificant. When you listen to a shrill minority they end up defining your (not you specifically perhaps) worldview; which will get distorted because you're living in an echo chamber full of confirmation bias and the like


Shrill? Yep. Minority? Yep. Insignificant? Their capacity for getting laws changed as they desire (such as declaring physical fitness as "sexual discrimination") is not insignificant. It is *very* significant. 



> As for the bit in bold; three groups pontificating about a subject (heterosexual relationships) they know nothing about. How could that possibly go wrong?


I totally agree. 

RE Britain's Military: I'm glad that you've not lost your minds completely across the pond. We're apparently going crazy on this side.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> A lawsuit was already won for the "discriminatory practice" of physical requirements for a physical job. In fact, this woman is only 1 of many in NY.


According to the article you posted, the others on the priority hire list did well in the training. So it really only is one in NY.

I generally agree with you that job requirements ought not to be altered for anyone if they really are job requirements. If a job requires heavy lifting, or running 15 miles in 12 minutes, then everyone hired should be expected to meet that standard.


What troubles me is your assumption that women can't and men can, and only women get special treatment. Ever notice, for example, that a lot of male police could not run 15 miles in 12 minutes?
80% Of Police Officers Are Overweight; Why They?re More Likely To Die From Heart Disease Than Fighting Crime
THE WATCHDOGS: Most Chicago cops skip yearly fitness test | Chicago Sun-Times

And yet you are so focused on women, you find the story of the 1 in the minority, but never see the 80% of the majority.

And really, I'm sorry, this idea that women control the legal system because of some filed lawsuits that you happen to disagree with just make me laugh. This is MGTOW in a nutshell. Spend the day pointing fingers women and finding ways to be resentful and bitter.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> AA, a lot of your posts, as I said before, come across--intended or not--with a distinct level of contempt for those who inherited from their parents. You implied in your analogy of Donald, that the wealthy man was in fact disqualified--or at least less meritorious. By putting an emphasis on the inherited factors, rather than the factors of choice, you downplay the agency of both the wealthy and the poor.


It's interesting to me that you perceive this as contempt, because where I see all the contempt on this thread is directed squarely at people who are poor, less successful, and of course, the evil wimmenz controlling the legal system.

I did not say that Donald was disqualified from anything, I simply suggested that it is much less of an achievement to become CEO of a company when you are given that company than it is to get there from the ground up. 

Do you disagree with this?

Where exactly is the merit in being given everything you have?

Now you could argue that Donald took what he had and made more, took it FURTHER. But turns out he did so by losing a lot of other people's money, making promises he couldn't keep, and playing fast and loose with the rules. Where exactly is the merit in that?

I agree, I've already said this multiple times on this thread, but yes I agree that we should all do the absolute best we can with what we have. I just find it a bit troublesome when people are called lazy failures because they haven't worked hard enough to have "achieved". There's an awful lot of judgment and presupposition in those attacks. Judgement and presupposition that do a great disservice to the hard work and risks that people have taken, as well as to the particular obstacles that they have faced.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> According to the article you posted, the others on the priority hire list did well in the training. So it really only is one in NY.


2 others did. There are 282 that are mandated to be hired, even if they fail the tests... Btw, this woman is not the same woman as in the other article--who they just let in, even though she failed, for fear she'll sue like this woman did. That was the point. 1 or 2 doesn't make a slippery slope. 282? Yeah...



> I generally agree with you that job requirements ought not to be altered for anyone if they really are job requirements. If a job requires heavy lifting, or running 15 miles in 12 minutes, then everyone hired should be expected to meet that standard.
> 
> 
> What troubles me is your assumption that women can't and men can, and only women get special treatment. Ever notice, for example, that a lot of male police could not run 15 miles in 12 minutes?
> 80% Of Police Officers Are Overweight; Why They?re More Likely To Die From Heart Disease Than Fighting Crime
> THE WATCHDOGS: Most Chicago cops skip yearly fitness test | Chicago Sun-Times
> 
> And yet you are so focused on women, you find the story of the 1 in the minority, but never see the 80% of the majority.


Are you suggesting that the men who've (wrongfully) gotten away with this are getting away with it because they're men? Or are there other reasons (such as administrative corruption, not wanting to fire friends). Because the cases I cited are cases of someone being exempted because they're a woman. Because they won lawsuits, where the _government _has declared women can't be expected to meet the same standards as men. 

Personally, I say open all jobs to anyone, if they can meet the requirements and perform the duties satisfactorily. But that's not what _these_ women want. Understandably, women are physically weaker than men in general. Because of this, many won't qualify for many of these positions. That's life.



> And really, I'm sorry, this idea that women control the legal system because of some filed lawsuits that you happen to disagree with just make me laugh. This is MGTOW in a nutshell. Spend the day pointing fingers women and finding ways to be resentful and bitter.


I've actually said it's not all women; that the problem is a vocal minority of shrieking harpies. The fact that they are _winning_ these lawsuits is my only concern. By winning, they create what is called "case law" which is the equivalent of passing new legislation, without having to go through the legislative process. This is literally the "law of the land" now.

I find it comical that you try so hard to characterize my comments as resentful and bitter of women in general, rather than what they really are: legitimate criticism of public policy and those advocating for that policy.

On a personal level, I find most of this stuff hilarious. A group of women, who claim to represent the interests of women has turned out to be more patriarchal and demeaning towards women than men ever were


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I've actually said it's not all women; that the problem is a vocal minority of shrieking harpies. The fact that they are _winning_ these lawsuits is my only concern. By winning, they create what is called "case law" which is the equivalent of passing new legislation, without having to go through the legislative process. This is literally the "law of the land" now.


Winning a lawsuit is not at all the same as passing legislation or making something the law of the land. It is simply a determination in a particular application of existing law. These things can be fought over for yonks before legislation is actually changed -- or not, as the case may be.

Besides, it's not as though physical requirements for a job are a matter of legislation. This is police (or fire dept.) hiring practices, and not even close to a matter of law. Where the legal issue lies is in whether or not these practices are inherently discriminatory. 

My only point is that it's a bit rich to make a big fuss about women challenging those physical requirements when in fact some 80% of practicing police officers don't in fact meet the standard.

That you choose the phrase "shrieking harpies" indicates to me that this isn't just all an objective discussion on public policy and those advocating for it.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Where the legal issue lies is in whether or not these practices are inherently discriminatory.


Of course it is inherently discriminatory. It's discrimination to tell a person that can't swim "no you can't be a lifeguard"; that's discrimination. The question is whether or not it's okay to discriminate in that fashion.

Which do you value more: Firefighters who can do their job (save lives) or making sure no one is discriminated against in any fashion ever. They are mutually exclusive in this case. So, in this particular situation (not all other gender situations or discrimination cases mind you) we can choose to enforce physical requirements that make a person capable of the job, or we can choose to abolish physical requirements and risk lives because* failing to meet them hurt someone's feelings*. I have little regard for feelings, while people's lives--men and women--matter dearly to me; so I choose the first option. 



> My only point is that it's a bit rich to make a big fuss about women challenging those physical requirements when in fact some 80% of practicing police officers don't in fact meet the standard.


I completely agree with you on the police issue. And honestly, if it were possible to sue the police for not enforcing their standards, I'd love to see someone do it. But also, I don't live in Chicago, and most of the beat cops in my town look like they just got out of the military. I live in a small town though, so my circumstances aren't the country's. 

But, you're dodging the question, and using this as a red-herring to throw us off of the topic. As we are discussing gender related topics on this thread, do you think that these police officers are getting away with it because they're men? I sincerely doubt it.



> That you choose the phrase "shrieking harpies" indicates to me that this isn't just all an objective discussion on public policy and those advocating for it.


These particular kinds of women tend to come across as shrieking harpies. I call a spade a spade, when I see one.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I completely agree with you on the police issue. And honestly, if it were possible to sue the police for not enforcing their standards, I'd love to see someone do it. But also, I don't live in Chicago, and most of the beat cops in my town look like they just got out of the military. I live in a small town though, so my circumstances aren't the country's.
> 
> But, you're dodging the question, and using this as a red-herring to throw us off of the topic. As we are discussing gender related topics on this thread, do you think that these police officers are getting away with it because they're men? I sincerely doubt it.


The 80% statistic is an FBI statistic and refers to police nationwide. So it's not just Chicago, but police across the country who are failing to meet these so-called "required" physical standards. And no, I'm not dodging the question; I'm addressing it straight on. You keep claiming women want special status "just for being women" and that this is irrelevant unless the men also want special status "just for being men". 

But really, the issue is simply whether or not the specified physical requirements are *actual* requirements for the job, or whether they are simply effective ways of excluding women from taking on these positions.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> The 80% statistic is an FBI statistic and refers to police nationwide. So it's not just Chicago, but police across the country who are failing to meet these so-called "required" physical standards. And no, I'm not dodging the question; I'm addressing it straight on. You keep claiming women want special status "just for being women" and that this is irrelevant unless *the men also want special status "just for being men*".
> 
> But really, the issue is simply whether or not the specified physical requirements are *actual* requirements for the job, or whether they are simply effective ways of excluding women from taking on these positions.


The 80% statistic was "overweight" by BMI, not whether they successfully meet physical requirements, such as strength agility and stamina. 

The Chicago article was about officers not meeting--or even taking--the physical fitness tests. So, you indeed claiming this is because of special treatment, solely for being *men* is that right? (If it is not *because they are men*, is it relevant? PS, the FBI study was about all police officers--men and women)

Read the physical requirements laid out in the military tests on mixed gender units, and the tests in the firefighter stories. Tell me, are they just "ways of excluding women from taking these positions"? Or are they tests requiring applicants prove they can do the work satisfactorily? In your opinion.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> The 80% statistic was "overweight" by BMI, not whether they successfully meet physical requirements, such as strength agility and stamina.


Can an overweight person run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes? That is one of the requirements, and I'm guessing (although I don't know for sure) that most can't. 

And no, for the nth time, this isn't about whether it is special treatment for men or not. It is simply to question whether the physical "requirements" are indeed requirements for the job. 

And yes, this is an extremely relevant question, given the topic. 

For example, one such "requirement" is about how many push-ups a person can do, and the "special dispensation" for women in many forces is that they will do those push-ups differently.

Is ability to do push-ups a certain way a solid indicator of how good a police officer or fire-fighter will perform on the job? To be honest, I don't see the relevance. Perhaps a more helpful test that really got at the strength requirements would be more informative?

Either way, my point is simply that if it is perfectly acceptable for 80% of people in a particular field to not meet the physical "requirements" for the job, it matters not whether they are male or female. It only matters that what is said to be a "requirement" must not really be one. 

So why not challenge it?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Can an overweight person run 15 miles in 12 minutes? That is one of the requirements, and I'm guessing (although I don't know for sure) that most can't.
> 
> And no, for the nth time, this isn't about whether it is special treatment for men or not. It is simply to question whether the physical "requirements" are indeed requirements for the job.
> 
> And yes, this is an extremely relevant question, given the topic.
> 
> For example, one such "requirement" is about how many push-ups a person can do, and the "special dispensation" for women in many forces is that they will do those push-ups differently.
> 
> Is ability to do push-ups a certain way a solid indicator of how good a police officer or fire-fighter will perform on the job? To be honest, I don't see the relevance. Perhaps a more helpful test that really got at the strength requirements would be more informative?
> 
> Either way, my point is simply that if it is perfectly acceptable for 80% of people in a particular field to not meet the physical "requirements" for the job, it matters not whether they are male or female. It only matters that what is said to be a "requirement" must not really be one.
> 
> So why not challenge it?


The problem is that it creates the appearance of bending the rules for women.

So, it's wise to careful when doing this and make sure the changes are really needed.


----------



## always_alone

They also reduce physical requirements based on age, as, well, most older men cannot meet those physical standards either.

Shall we be outraged at all the shrill geezers for demanding special dispensation?


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> They also reduce physical requirements based on age, as, well, most older men cannot meet those physical standards either.
> 
> Shall we be outraged at all the shrill geezers for demanding special dispensation?


That is starting to go away...

Well, going away depending on a couple of lawsuits and thier outcomes I should say.

On our department we have standardized the physical test. It made NO allowances for age or gender. The ultimate last step is if you couldn't pass the test your were terminated. Several women have since sued the department


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Can an overweight person run 15 miles in 12 minutes? That is one of the requirements, and I'm guessing (although I don't know for sure) that most can't.


The problem with the question you are posing is that it is an emotionally loaded question, based on a study about BMI.

To show you what you are asking, let's rephrase it: Can a 5'10" man, weighing 175lbs run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes? Does this sound like an "out of shape" person? Probably not.

Here's the BMI chart:











> And yes, this is an extremely relevant question, given the topic.
> 
> For example, one such "requirement" is about how many push-ups a person can do, and the "special dispensation" for women in many forces is that they will do those push-ups differently.
> 
> Is ability to do push-ups a certain way a solid indicator of how good a police officer or fire-fighter will perform on the job? To be honest, I don't see the relevance. Perhaps a more helpful test that really got at the strength requirements would be more informative?


Good question. Certainly physical strength and agility are both requirements for both jobs. If you see the legal complaint filed by the female officers objecting, they actually object to having agility and strength requirements; not just the specific test.

If you look at the firefighter tests that were failed, they actually simulate a situation, requiring the firefighters be able to climb a specific number of flights of stairs, perform a task, and return while wearing their gear, before their oxygen tank runs out. This has been determined sexual discrimination: requiring they be able to successfully complete a simulation of an actual fire rescue. 

You demean my argument by trying to make this about "push ups" when it is far more than that. It is about complete ineptitude, institutionalized by law, because telling the failures "No" would hurt their feelings. I've even provided scientific studies (US Marine Corps), but you provide nothing to refute them.




> Either way, my point is simply that if it is perfectly acceptable for 80% of people in a particular field to not meet the physical "requirements" for the job, it matters not whether they are male or female. It only matters that what is said to be a "requirement" must not really be one.
> 
> So why not challenge it?


The problem with your assertion is that "Overweight" on the BMI chart is not actually a requirement for any of these jobs. You are mis-characterizing a study about height-weight ratios among US police officers; making it into something it is not.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> You demean my argument by trying to make this about "push ups" when it is far more than that. It is about complete ineptitude, institutionalized by law, because telling the failures "No" would hurt their feelings. I've even provided scientific studies (US Marine Corps), but you provide nothing to refute them.


See, this is why I keep arguing with you. From a perfectly valid point, you then leap to these outrageous conclusions.

To the extent that a fire department test simulates actual required duties, it makes perfect sense to me that everyone should be able to pass them, and if they can't, then either not hired at all or terminated.

The reason I emphasized push-ups was because it was listed as part of the physical test for police in multiple locations, and because it was one area where I saw a clear distinction between what women and men are required to perform.

But from this, you leap to wild claims about "complete ineptitude institutionalized by law". Fact is plenty of women have comported themselves admirably in the military, police, and fire departments. They have earned medals, saved lives, and deserve their positions as much as any man. 

That a few inept have found their way in is a problem, but it's not like it's only women who have ever proven themselves inept, or that this is somehow "institutionalized by law"

I get that you don't believe that anti-discrimination law serves any value, and that the *only* reason women were ever shut out of any position was because they don't *merit* it, but indeed, there has been a long history of deciding before any facts are in that women are weaker, dumber, inept, and really should only be pumping out babies and making sandwiches. That is to say, women were systematically excluded from taking part in certain things simply because they were women. Anti-discrimination law is designed to prevent that, as well as institutionalized racism.

Besides, since MGTOW have decided that men are the ones who are discriminated against, they should be super happy about anti-discrimination laws. Now they have a tool to fight for their rights!


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> The problem with your assertion is that "Overweight" on the BMI chart is not actually a requirement for any of these jobs. You are mis-characterizing a study about height-weight ratios among US police officers; making it into something it is not.


The example you gave was on the very cusp of overweight, and so debatable. However, I think it fairly safe to infer that someone who is more likely to die from heart disease than from execution of duties probably can't run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. Note, too that 41% were classified as obese.

BMI isn't a perfect indicator of fitness, but it is telling. That the FBI is pointing out as a problem is also telling, don't you think?


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> The example you gave was on the very cusp of overweight, and so debatable. However, I think it fairly safe to infer that someone who is more likely to die from heart disease than from execution of duties probably can't run 15 miles in 12 minutes.
> 
> BMI isn't a perfect indicator of fitness, but it is telling. That the FBI is pointing out as a problem is also telling, don't you think?


Anyone who can run 15 miles in 12 minutes should be in a superhero movie.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,

Despite substantial improvements in training, nutrition and sports medicine, no one has yet approached the 15 (fifteen) miles in 12 minutes threshold. The human body can cruise along at 7.5 (seven point five) mph pretty easily. But to date, even Usain Bolt would tell you that 75 (seventy five) mph puts you in cheetah territory and even then, only for a brief sprint. 





always_alone said:


> The example you gave was on the very cusp of overweight, and so debatable. However, I think it fairly safe to infer that someone who is more likely to die from heart disease than from execution of duties probably can't run 15 miles in 12 minutes.
> 
> BMI isn't a perfect indicator of fitness, but it is telling. That the FBI is pointing out as a problem is also telling, don't you think?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Anyone who can run 15 miles in 12 minutes should be in a superhero movie.


My bad. Sloppy me. 1.5 miles.


----------



## Deejo

I'm going to guess she meant one mile. One mile in 12 to 14 minutes appears to be a relative standard for lots of civic duty, physical fitness.

If someone can't accomplish this task, it's a fair bet they fall into the category of, 'out of shape'.


----------



## Deejo

How the hell did we get from Men Going their Own Way to physical fitness?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> How the hell did we get from Men Going their Own Way to physical fitness?


Apparently men are deciding to go their own way because shrill harpies are challenging physical fitness requirements, proving once and for all that women aren't worth the effort.

Or something like that.


----------



## Deejo

Oh.

Well that makes sense.

I guess.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> That a few inept have found their way in is a problem, but it's not like it's only women who have ever proven themselves inept, or that this is somehow "institutionalized by law"


Case Law is Law. Case law is defined as "the law as established by the outcome of former cases." 



> I get that you don't believe that anti-discrimination law serves any value, and that the *only* reason women were ever shut out of any position was because they don't *merit* it, but indeed, there has been a long history of deciding before any facts are in that women are weaker, dumber, inept, and really should only be pumping out babies and making sandwiches. That is to say, women were systematically excluded from taking part in certain things simply because they were women. Anti-discrimination law is designed to prevent that, as well as institutionalized racism.


I know, reading is difficult, so let me quote myself for you:



> Which do you value more: Firefighters who can do their job (save lives) or making sure no one is discriminated against in any fashion ever. They are mutually exclusive in this case. So, in this particular situation (not all other gender situations or discrimination cases mind you) we can choose to enforce physical requirements that make a person capable of the job, or we can choose to abolish physical requirements and risk lives because failing to meet them hurt someone's feelings. I have little regard for feelings, while people's lives--men and women--matter dearly to me; so I choose the first option.


Where do you get that I think no wrongful discrimination ever occurs anywhere from this? I was pretty clear that I view this on a situational basis; and that I view these as ridiculous. Your comments about pumping out babies is a fallacy called poisoning the well. That women are physically weaker than men is well known and a provable fact. 



> Besides, since MGTOW have decided that men are the ones who are discriminated against, they should be super happy about anti-discrimination laws. Now they have a tool to fight for their rights!


Since I'm not MGTOW, I have my own views on this. MGTOW by definition don't really care, because they've given up on society.

But you're right, it's happening. And it is deserved. 



always_alone said:


> The example you gave was on the very cusp of overweight, and so debatable. However, I think it fairly safe to infer that someone who is more likely to die from heart disease than from execution of duties probably can't run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. Note, too that 41% were classified as obese.
> 
> BMI isn't a perfect indicator of fitness, but it is telling. That the FBI is pointing out as a problem is also telling, don't you think?


BMI isn't an effective indicator. I'm not worried about perfection, I'm looking for something that's right often enough to be of scientific use. BMI isn't. Which is why I think strength, agility and stamina tests are perfectly acceptable for these particular jobs. Height-weight ratios aren't an effective determinant of health or strength or agility or stamina.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> But you're right, it's happening. And it is deserved.


Here's an interesting quote from that article:

"Stephan says there is room for California legislators to clarify the text of the law and specify that it should not limit harmless, reasonable conduct like women-in-tech networking events. "

But I'm sure that "*men*-in-tech networking events" must be prevented at all costs!


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Here's an interesting quote from that article:
> 
> "Stephan says there is room for California legislators to clarify the text of the law and specify that it should not limit harmless, reasonable conduct like women-in-tech networking events. "
> 
> But I'm sure that "*men*-in-tech networking events" must be prevented at all costs!


Of course they must be stopped! That's discrimination against women! Misogyny! Sexism! 

We call this very common mentality "Freedom for me, but not for thee"


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Case Law is Law. Case law is defined as "the law as established by the outcome of former cases."


Indeed, but at the same time one successful lawsuit is not the same as "ineptitude institutionalized by law.". Often decisions in case law are different, depending on context and there is always the question of whether a one case is sufficiently similar to another case in its details to justify comparing the two. As such, there may be leading cases or rules or principles derived from case law, but it is simply not the same as legislation.

My reference to traditional sexism (making babies and sandwiches) was exactly that: an attempt to give some context to the value of anti-discrimination law. Certainly in you quote, you seem to be boiling the entire issue down to either we apply existing standards wholesale or lives will be lost --and seem to be rejecting even the possibility of any sort of discrimination.

And for the record, I wasn't at all suggesting that BMI be used as an indicator of fitness, or replace these tests. I was simply pointing out that those who are overweight or obese aren't likely to be able to pass them. And I don't quite get why a woman failing them is so much more terrible and egregious than a man failing them.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> But I'm sure that "*men*-in-tech networking events" must be prevented at all costs!


It sounds like you are facing a dearth of male only bonding opportunities. I don't know where you live or what you're into, but here's a list to get you started:

Upcoming Events Men Only Community Group
Http://formenonlypgh.com
Men's Only Casino Night-Moose Lodge | Lloydminster Tourism
Miles For Men
Davidson: These 'men only' events put the focus on fun, good health - The Denver Post
The Adventurersâ€™ Club of Los Angeles ®
About The Garrick Club


----------



## azteca1986

Kivlor said:


> Shrill? Yep. Minority? Yep. Insignificant? Their capacity for getting laws changed as they desire (such as declaring physical fitness as "sexual discrimination") is not insignificant. It is *very* significant.


No, mate. They are insignificant. 

Here's how laws are made in the UK:
How laws are made - UK Parliament

Pay particular note the importance of being in the Cabinet. For that one needs to be an MP, which requires being in a mainstream party and for the majority of people in your constituency. Divisive, niche special-intreset groups get no say.

Also:


> The term is most often used in Britain, in which context it includes leading politicians, senior civil servants, senior barristers and judges, aristocrats, Oxbridge academics, senior clergy in the established Church of England, the most important financiers and industrialists, governors of the BBC, and the members of and top aides to the royal family.


This is a description of The Establishment in Britain. They are overwhelmingly male and any women will have to be their sort of people before being invited to take part.

"Third wave lesbianized women" have absolutely no clout in establishing their agenda or changing laws in the UK. 


always_alone said:


> And really, I'm sorry, this idea that women control the legal system because of some filed lawsuits that you happen to disagree with just make me laugh. This is MGTOW in a nutshell. Spend the day pointing fingers women and finding ways to be resentful and bitter.


I have to agree with this. And honestly, skimming over your arguments about the BMI of fat policeman, isn't going to change the way I perceive the world I live in.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Indeed, but at the same time one successful lawsuit is not the same as "ineptitude institutionalized by law.". Often decisions in case law are different, depending on context and there is always the question of whether a one case is sufficiently similar to another case in its details to justify comparing the two. As such, there may be leading cases or rules or principles derived from case law, but it is simply not the same as legislation.


I've described the test the firefighters take. I've posted the links. It was declared discriminatory in a lawsuit. This is "case law". It is now law. It will be extrapolated to the next lawsuit, and after a few more, most precincts will drop their requirements for fear of the lawsuit. This is literally ineptitude institutionalized by law. And it will place lives in danger.

Unless it is overturned by a higher court.




> My reference to traditional sexism (making babies and sandwiches) was exactly that: an attempt to give some context to the value of anti-discrimination law. Certainly in you quote, you seem to be boiling the entire issue down to either we apply existing standards wholesale or lives will be lost --and seem to be rejecting even the possibility of any sort of discrimination.


I'm putting the onus on those claiming discrimination (based on sex/race; of course physical requirements are discriminatory against the physically unfit) to prove their claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

I find it strange that you would defend their claim, without any evidence.



> And for the record, I wasn't at all suggesting that BMI be used as an indicator of fitness, or replace these tests. I was simply pointing out that those who are overweight or obese aren't likely to be able to pass them. And I don't quite get why a woman failing them is so much more terrible and egregious than a man failing them.


Could you provide evidence of your assertion that a person with a BMI classified "overweight" is less likely to pass than a person with lower BMI in any statistical significance?

Can you provide evidence where I've said that it is *worse* for a woman to fail than a man? 

You do not appear to be arguing in good faith A_A. This entire post is pure sophistry.


----------



## Kivlor

azteca1986 said:


> No, mate. They are insignificant.
> 
> Here's how laws are made in the UK:
> How laws are made - UK Parliament
> 
> Pay particular note the importance of being in the Cabinet. For that one needs to be an MP, which requires being in a mainstream party and for the majority of people in your constituency. Divisive, niche special-intreset groups get no say.
> 
> Also:
> This is a description of The Establishment in Britain. They are overwhelmingly male and any women will have to be their sort of people before being invited to take part.
> 
> "Third wave lesbianized women" have absolutely no clout in establishing their agenda or changing laws in the UK.
> I have to agree with this. And honestly, skimming over your arguments about the BMI of fat policeman, isn't going to change the way I perceive the world I live in.


Azteca, just because they are few does not mean they aren't getting their way. Your laws are different than ours so YMMV, but the entire point of my earlier post mentioning the UK was this: bring me one *law* today in your country that favors men over women. I know without a doubt we can find several that favor women. 

Which was in response to A_A's comment demanding evidence. I provided several examples. And asked her to provide counters--where men are conferred legal preference/advantage.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I've described the test the firefighters take. I've posted the links. It was declared discriminatory in a lawsuit. This is "case law". It is now law. It will be extrapolated to the next lawsuit, and after a few more, most precincts will drop their requirements for fear of the lawsuit. This is literally ineptitude institutionalized by law. And it will place lives in danger.


One judge found the physical requirements for the fire department to be discriminatory. 

Judge Sifton said the test did not ascertain the qualities needed to perform well as a firefighter.


> ''What must be identified are not those who are strongest or fastest, but instead those who, with the benefit of training in pacing or because of their native capacities of endurance, can perform the punishing tasks of firefighting as they are actually required to be performed.''


What this means is that the fire department failed to make a strong enough case about the necessity of those requirements, at least according to the one judge If they think an injustice has been done, they are free to appeal, and if they put together a compelling case, the next judge may very well find in their favour. 

Just because a judge says something doesn't mean the rest of the judicial community will agree. Case law is full of these sorts of contradictory rulings depending on what evidence they are considering. And of course what is decided will depend on the facts of the case put forward. 




Kivlor said:


> Could you provide evidence of your assertion that a person with a BMI classified "overweight" is less likely to pass than a person with lower BMI in any statistical significance?
> 
> Can you provide evidence where I've said that it is *worse* for a woman to fail than a man?


No doubt BMI has its limitations as a measure, but it is widely used by health professionals. There is a vast literature on the value and limits of BMI showing that while certain body types may very well be fit, and yet have a "too high" BMI, it works reasonably well.

Here's a study showing about 40% of police are considered obese.
The Jobs With the Highest Obesity Rates - The Atlantic
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00617-X/fulltext

Ohl and note that police forces themselves aren't trying to make the argument you are -- they are jumping all over the problem by enforcing fitness standards, just like @Wolf1974 pointed out earlier.

As for the last claim, I'm saying you said this explicitly, but it sure seems like your only concern is women who aren't able to pass the tests ...


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Ohl and note that police forces themselves aren't trying to make the argument you are -- they are jumping all over the problem by enforcing fitness standards, just like @Wolf1974 pointed out earlier.
> 
> *As for the last claim, I'm saying you said this explicitly,* but it sure seems like your only concern is women who aren't able to pass the tests ...


*Provide a link to it. You keep accusing me of this. Link to the page where I said it.*

I have repeatedly stated throughout this conversation that I think _anyone_ who fails to meet the standards should be disqualified. In fact, I quoted myself for you earlier. Yet you continue to assert *that I said something I did not*.

Have you considered that I'm concerned that when we water this down for women, eventually, men will sue too, so they're exempted (can't hold them to a standard you're not holding women, that's discrimination), and then we have *no* physical standards for very physical jobs that involve life-and-death situations?

You're the one stuck on a single--tangential and strange--point about how a lot of cops have a high BMI. I agree that if they are out of shape, their departments need to either fire them, or make them get in shape. Do you know what isn't doing that? Saying "you know what, those standards are discriminatory against <insert category of people>; let's throw them all out." Making people actually meet those standards (like running 1.5 miles in 12 minutes) will make them get in shape; that is what I've advocated for. Consistently.


----------



## azteca1986

Kivlor said:


> Azteca, just because they are few does not mean they aren't getting their way.


Sorry, who is "they" in this context?

Here's a slightly less hysterical take on the issue of consent:


> “It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink.
> “These tools take us well beyond the old saying 'no means no' - it is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism.
> “We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue -
> how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”


Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how is this an example of "them getting their way"? Why is this even a problem? Do you know how easy it is to go through life only sleeping with women who unequivocally and enthusiastically give their consent? 



> Your laws are different than ours so YMMV, but the entire point of my earlier post mentioning the UK was this: bring me one *law* today in your country that favors men over women. I know without a doubt we can find several that favor women.


Why? What would it prove? I already know more than I ever wanted or needed to know about the BMI of policemen. This is the inherent danger of looking at life through a single issue lens; you get bogged down in the minutiae of the FDNY hiring policy and miss gigantic chunks of context.

This is the world I live in:


> *Gender pay gap: female bosses earn 35% less than male colleagues
> *
> _Four decades after the Equal Pay Act, male company directors take home £21,000 a year more than female counterparts _
> 
> More than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act outlawed less favourable pay and conditions in the workplace, the data shows that discrepancies in salaries widen at the higher echelons of management, with a "midlife pay crisis" particularly hitting female managers aged over 40, who earn 35% less than men.
> 
> The average pay gap between men and women aged between 46 and 60 stands at £16,680 a year, while among company directors men take home £21,084 more than their female colleagues.
> 
> Ann Francke, chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), said: "This is all about apathy and ignorance. Companies think it is not a problem for them, so they don't do anything about it. Every company needs to conduct its own survey. It is pretty obvious a lot of the FTSE 350 are [paying their female managers less than men] for the data to turn out like this. There are very few good guys."
> 
> Francke said that the likes of the supermarket chain Tesco, which publishes data on its gender pay gap, and the law firm Linklaters, which reveals the percentages of women it employs at different levels, were rare examples of organisations attempting to address the problem. Tesco says its pay gap stands at 1% compared with the national average of 10%, although those figures apply to the whole workforce.
> 
> The National Management Salary Survey, published annually by the CMI and employment lawyers XpertHR, covers more than 68,000 British professionals and compares data on people at similar levels of management within the workplace.
> 
> Including male and female managers of all ages, the CMI said that the pay gap stands at £9,069, with men getting an average salary of £39,461 where women get £30,392.
> 
> "This means women are earning only three-quarters (77%) of what men in full-time comparable jobs earn," the CMI said. "Yet the gap is far worse for women aged 40-plus, where the problem is twofold. Not only does the salary gap increase with age and seniority, but there is also a persistent "bonus pay gap". The average bonus for a female director stands at £41,956, while for male directors the average payout is £53,010."


Gender pay gap: female bosses earn 35% less than male colleagues | Business | The Guardian


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> *Provide a link to it. You keep accusing me of this. Link to the page where I said it.*
> 
> I have repeatedly stated throughout this conversation that I think _anyone_ who fails to meet the standards should be disqualified. In fact, I quoted myself for you earlier. Yet you continue to assert *that I said something I did not*.


My apologies Kvlor's, there should have been a "not" in the statement you bolded. As in "I am NOT saying that you are claiming this explicitly."

Sloppy, sloppy me. Ugh. :slap: Sorry.

I get it. You think anyone who doesn't meet the standards should be fired. Doesn't matter if thy are women or men, young or old, BMI of 18 or 35. Can't pass the test, find a new job. You've been consistent on this. 

I just find it interesting that it is the shrill harpies that you focus on, and name call, while the rest, you just shrug. You don't suppose they will also become shrill when terminated en masse? These are union jobs, after all, and seniority is usually something that is rewarded, not penalized.

I'm also less sure that the tests/requirements being defended really are the be all and end all of establishing job competence, given that many have already reduced expectations for older guys, smaller guys, women, and seem to be doing fine with these new approaches. But in the end, it's not my police or fire department, and I don't really know what the rules should be. Just that they make sense, and test what they are supposed to.


----------



## always_alone

azteca1986 said:


> This is the world I live in:
> Gender pay gap: female bosses earn 35% less than male colleagues | Business | The Guardian


This is why it bugs me when people here keep insisting here that the law gives "perks" to women, or "advantages women over men" or "privileges women".

Things like the Equal Pay Act or anti-discrimination laws were put in place to correct systemic disadvantages and discrimination. They do not privilege women over men or give them things men don't have. Indeed, they are all written in gender neutral language, so if the pendulum actually does swing in the other direction, where women actually do become emasculating gynocentric overlords taking everything from men, the law will be there for men to fight for their rights.

There is no law that institutionalizes advantage for women, no matter how many times it is repeated on TAM.


----------



## Kivlor

azteca1986 said:


> Sorry, who is "they" in this context?
> 
> Here's a slightly less hysterical take on the issue of consent:
> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how is this an example of "them getting their way"? Why is this even a problem? Do you know how easy it is to go through life only sleeping with women who unequivocally and enthusiastically give their consent?"


The "they" hasn't changed since you last checked. Go read your own posts, I'm responding to you.

I find the lack of concern for the legal concept "innocent until proven guilty" quite disturbing. This policy literally requires the "suspect" to prove he didn't commit the crime. By requiring verbal or written consent, you completely ignore things like body language which makes up over *90% of communication*. 

Tell me Azteca, do you ask a girl "can I kiss you". Do you expect her to ask you? If not, you're a sexual predator and so is she. This is madness. If you're making out and she reaches for your belt, is that sexual assault? Because according to this it is. And the onus will be on her to *prove* it wasn't.

And here's a video of what the people who support these laws want; from the horse's mouth. 



> Why? What would it prove? I already know more than I ever wanted or needed to know about the BMI of policemen. This is the inherent danger of looking at life through a single issue lens; you get bogged down in the minutiae of the FDNY hiring policy and miss gigantic chunks of context.
> 
> This is the world I live in:
> Gender pay gap: female bosses earn 35% less than male colleagues | Business | The Guardian


Read your own links, and the links in that article. You'll see it is not discrimination, but the fact that women don't ask for raises; while men do. The woman who did the research actually says in the article that this is one of the major factors, and has been for over 30 years. It doesn't address things like time (years even) taken off for child-rearing, which many women do. Your choices affect your life, what a novel concept.

Who is it that sees things through a single-issue lens? The fellow saying "what are the reasons for this?" or the one saying "Sexism! It must be sexism!" without bothering to critically read his own citations.

I'd have to take some time to study Britain's statistics, but here's some info on the "pay gap" in the US.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> My apologies Kvlor's, there should have been a "not" in the statement you bolded. As in "I am NOT saying that you are claiming this explicitly."
> 
> Sloppy, sloppy me. Ugh. :slap: Sorry.
> 
> I get it. You think anyone who doesn't meet the standards should be fired. Doesn't matter if thy are women or men, young or old, BMI of 18 or 35. Can't pass the test, find a new job. You've been consistent on this.
> 
> I just find it interesting that it is the shrill harpies that you focus on, and name call, while the rest, you just shrug. You don't suppose they will also become shrill when terminated en masse? These are union jobs, after all, and seniority is usually something that is rewarded, not penalized.
> 
> I'm also less sure that the tests/requirements being defended really are the be all and end all of establishing job competence, given that many have already reduced expectations for older guys, smaller guys, women, and seem to be doing fine with these new approaches. But in the end, it's not my police or fire department, and I don't really know what the rules should be. Just that they make sense, and test what they are supposed to.


I probably should have caught that myself. Sorry, I missed it. It seems obvious after re-reading your post. 

No, I'm just discussing MGTOW-related issues on a MGTOW thread. 

I am quite certain they will squeal like a pig under a gate. And sadly, most people will be moved by their banshee-like wailing, and scream "something must be done! We can't survive without a police force!" and give them what they want. 

I agree about the reduced requirements. I'd actually like to see them assessed and if necessary increased. I mean, if you're a desk-jockey in the PD, it may not matter, but if you're a beat cop it certainly does. You have to be strong enough and fast enough to win when you end up wrestling a suspect.

But, if we did start kicking them out of their positions I'd be just as critical of their crybaby "You can't make me be healthy, I'm a firefighter dammit!" attitude.


----------



## Dycedarg

The pay gap myth is hilarious. 

If companies could really save 33% a head by simply hiring a woman, there would be no men employed.


----------



## soccermom2three

So my husband is a firefighter and he has no problem with women on his department. If they pass all the requirements and tests good for them. It hasn't been the women that have complained about the physical requirements to get in. Surprisingly, they have received more complaints from male minorities. His department is working hard to recruit women because they need to reach a quota. They go to job fairs and they even hold all day events on a Saturday just for high school girls to learn what it takes to be a firefighter but they just can't get women to sign up.

He is more concerned with the young men that join. Almost zero have experience or knowledge of practical arts. They don't know the name of tools or how to use those tools. When its yard day, they don't know how to use the lawnmower or trimmer. They don't know how to change oil in a car. One guy didn't know the purpose of a radiator. He even has to teach them how to wax the engine. When my husband fixes something at the station, these young guys are all amazed. They grew up with gardeners and handymen doing everything.


----------



## wmn1

NotLikeYou said:


> Yeah, I had an AWESOME comment typed out for the MGTOW thread. Men would have read it and felt empowered, and probably strangely attracted to other men. Wimmen would have read it and wept bitterly at how shabbily they have treated the men in their lives all these years.
> 
> Small children would have read it and liked the crayon drawings.
> 
> I accidentally deleted it before I posted it.
> 
> Doh.
> 
> Look. As a manly man, I am all about hoisting feminists on their own collective petards. They're silly people, really, none more so than the male ones.
> 
> MGTOW and the "sexodus" and "I'm taking my marbles and GOING HOME" are one of the few things in life sillier than feminism.
> 
> Confirmation bias is where you look for examples that support the idea you're trying to prove, and ignore examples that don't, and this is what anyone writing about MGTOW or the sexodus is doing..
> 
> Some of the slicker bloggers use charts and data- "A-HA! The marriage rates are declining! Must be men deciding they're tired of women's B.S."
> 
> No.
> 
> The specimens quoted or mentioned as examples of MGTOW are (obviously) guys who are UNABLE TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIP. Period. Some have sworn off women entirely. Some frequent prostitutes. Some construct a facade that they just don't care. All of them use internet porn. And since they're messed up deep down inside, they look for validation, and they find it. If you want to read some bitter screeching, go read the comments on an MGTOW site. Feminist Tumblr got nothing on a bunch of lonely guys.
> 
> The "sexodus" is not any kind of movement away from women at all. Just a collection of anecdotes from, again, guys who can't find the effort to relate to a member of the opposite sex.
> 
> Women are the choosers of intimacy.
> 
> Guys are prone to hallucinations, because they usually think they're the ones choosing.
> 
> Women make the choices that lead to relationships and marriages. And they make the choices to end marriages. 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
> 
> Women choose, we're just along for the ride.
> 
> If a woman really wants a relationship, she can usually find a guy to have one with. He may not be that great of a guy. He may be a lousy guy, but he'll still be available. And SHE will be the one who chooses to have a relationship with him.
> 
> Given the changes we have made as a society, in many cases "women don't need no man," because they have put in the work to be able to support themselves. A man may be nice to have but not essential to have.
> 
> The woman in question may choose not to settle for a man of low quality (as defined by her). When enough women do this, it causes the marriage rates to fall, and a bunch of guys whom are too much trouble for a woman to have a relationship turn up and complain to anyone who will listen.
> 
> Their complaints get written up as MGTOW and the sexodus.
> 
> And that, boys and girls, is the story of how men started going their own way. I'm taking requests for the next fairy tale I explain.
> 
> Be good to the person you're in a relationship with. Be good to children borne of that relationship. Require that you partner do the same for you and yours.
> 
> If you can do those things, you probably won't have to go your own way, regardless of which sex you are.


wow there is something sillier than feminism ? Hard to believe


----------



## Cletus

soccermom2three said:


> He even has to teach them how to wax the engine.


Ok, you've got me here.

I have changed an engine in a car and rebuilt a couple in my day, and I have never learned how to "wax an engine".

It sounds like a hazing stunt.


----------



## Kivlor

Cletus said:


> Ok, you've got me here.
> 
> I have changed an engine in a car and rebuilt a couple in my day, and I have never learned how to "wax an engine".
> 
> It sounds like a hazing stunt.


I wasn't going to bite, but since I'm not alone...

I swapped an engine out of my car last summer, and I've rebuilt a couple. Never waxed an engine either. Never heard of it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Dycedarg said:


> The pay gap myth is hilarious.
> 
> If companies could really save 33% a head by simply hiring a woman, there would be no men employed.


Yes, but that requires some understanding of economics, which I'm sure is misogynous!


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I wasn't going to bite, but since I'm not alone...
> 
> I swapped an engine out of my car last summer, and I've rebuilt a couple. Never waxed an engine either. Never heard of it.


I'm pretty sure that since the topic is firefighting, this refers to a *fire engine*, not an internal combustion prime mover.


----------



## soccermom2three

Cletus said:


> Ok, you've got me here.
> 
> I have changed an engine in a car and rebuilt a couple in my day, and I have never learned how to "wax an engine".
> 
> It sounds like a hazing stunt.


Um, a fire engine.


----------



## tom67

Ugh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umy-KIuCYHI


----------



## always_alone

tom67 said:


> Ugh...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umy-KIuCYHI


Ugh is right. What troubles me about MGTOW is how they go on and on about how women have this "out", that is they can always blame someone else for whatever happens. And yet, really, that is what MGTOW are doing.

This video is case and point: It's women's fault that men can't express vulnerability; it's women's fault that men have no value to society; it's women's fault that no cares about men.

But who is applying these double standards? Mostly MGTOW themselves. If men are afraid to express their vulnerability, whose fault is that? Who but a MGTOW would think a woman in a coma has value because she has a uterus? I mean seriously?

MGTOW seem to desperately want understanding for their sociological context, for an understanding of how socio-cultural forces shape our experience, but they deeply believe that it is only available to women, and that it's a bunch of lib-tard crapola that coddles people and kills their drive.

To them I suggest make up your mind. If you think people should be thrown to the wolves and pull themselves up by their *own* bootstraps, then get to it and stop waiting for women to do it for you.

Or, if you want to be a part of the social forces at play, then maybe it's time to identify them as such, and start doing something about them.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Yes, but that requires some understanding of economics, which I'm sure is misogynous!


No, it requires some understanding of the assumptions and context, which is reasonable and logical.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> I'm pretty sure that since the topic is firefighting, this refers to a *fire engine*, not an internal combustion prime mover.


Okay, now I feel retarded. I had forgotten that people from the back-of-woods parts of the us don't them fire trucks... :slap:


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Ugh is right. What troubles me about MGTOW is how they go on and on about how women have this "out", that is they can always blame someone else for whatever happens. And yet, really, that is what MGTOW are doing.
> 
> This video is case and point: It's women's fault that men can't express vulnerability; it's women's fault that men have no value to society; it's women's fault that no cares about men.
> 
> But who is applying these double standards? Mostly MGTOW themselves. If men are afraid to express their vulnerability, whose fault is that? Who but a MGTOW would think a woman in a coma has value because she has a uterus? I mean seriously?
> 
> MGTOW seem to desperately want understanding for their sociological context, for an understanding of how socio-cultural forces shape our experience, but they deeply believe that it is only available to women, and that it's a bunch of lib-tard crapola that coddles people and kills their drive.
> 
> To them I suggest make up your mind. If you think people should be thrown to the wolves and pull themselves up by their *own* bootstraps, then get to it and stop waiting for women to do it for you.
> 
> Or, if you want to be a part of the social forces at play, then maybe it's time to identify them as such, and start doing something about them.


Honestly, A_A, I think if you listen to what TFM says, it's not "women's" fault, it is the reality we face. A lot of the less angry MGTOW really blame this on biology. We are wired to value women more than men--is the argument at least--and part of that has to do with the abundance of sperm and the scarcity of eggs. A man can couple with multiple women, and reproduce quickly, women have to carry a child to term. Because of this, it seems natural that we value the lives of women more highly than those of men.

This is why we have historically maintained policies such as "women and children first!". It's not a conspiracy, it's not because women are evil. It's just nature.

And it is nature that men such as this guy--who would openly voice his weakness--will be attacked for his weakness. It's nature for the strong to conquer the weak. He instinctively knows it--which is why he has been hesitant to say anything his entire life. We all know what happens when others view you as weak and vulnerable.

I think a lot of guys like TFM and Thinking Ape--who are the more reasoned voices in MGTOW--tend to view it like this: If you're going to play the game of life, you'd better know the rules. They're just struggling to understand.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Honestly, A_A, I think if you listen to what TFM says, it's not "women's" fault, it is the reality we face. A lot of the less angry MGTOW really blame this on biology. We are wired to value women more than men--is the argument at least--and part of that has to do with the abundance of sperm and the scarcity of eggs. A man can couple with multiple women, and reproduce quickly, women have to carry a child to term. Because of this, it seems natural that we value the lives of women more highly than those of men.


I did listen, and he quite clearly said that men cannot express vulnerability "because of hypergamy". But it has little to do with hyoergamy or nature and everything to do with the way that men are socially and culturally conditioned. Yes, men are taught to suck it up and not show emotions or weakness. Yes, I agree this is bad for them.

But the thing is *they* don't think it is bad for them. They go on and on about how men are too "touchy-feely" these days, how boys are not taught to be men, how it is manly man to be strong, impervious, warrior-like. 

So ultimately, they are blaming women ("because hypergamy") when it really is their own sense of what is manly that is driving them.

As for being "wired" to value women more, well, this flies in the face of a pretty huge chunk of human history, does it not? Where men held all of the wealth and women were but property to be disposed of at will?

Assuming sperm to be the value of men and the uterus to be the value of women as some sort of supply demand economics is ridiculous, IMHO. For the purposes of biology, it is irrelevant how many pregnancies there are. What is important is that the children survive long enough and well enough to themselves reproduce and ensure their offspring also reproduces.


----------



## naiveonedave

@ A_A - I agree with you re: the outspoken MGTOW blaming women and taking control of their own lives. I disagree with you, in that, some of what they say is true and is very similar to what the feminist movement had to go through in its infancy. Their blaming women is not really any different than feminists blaming men for all of their perceived issues. I am not going to say the issues are the same or of the same magnitude, though I think the case can easily be made that marriage for men right now is a bad proposition. I also think the gender wars (MGTOW, war on women, etc.) really politicize stuff that, if discussed rationally, sane and reasonable changes could be made to minimize the impacts.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I did listen, and he quite clearly said that men cannot express vulnerability "because of hypergamy". But it has little to do with hyoergamy or nature and everything to do with the way that men are socially and culturally conditioned. Yes, men are taught to suck it up and not show emotions or weakness. Yes, I agree this is bad for them.
> 
> But the thing is *they* don't think it is bad for them. They go on and on about how men are too "touchy-feely" these days, how boys are not taught to be men, how it is manly man to be strong, impervious, warrior-like.
> 
> So ultimately, they are blaming women ("because hypergamy") when it really is their own sense of what is manly that is driving them.


He specifically said he thought it was nature, and that nature is not fair. From the perspective of some of these guys, it is really about human nature. There's no reason to be angry at women, they are acting out as their biology informs them too. A lot of them are biological determinists.



> As for being "wired" to value women more, well, this flies in the face of a pretty huge chunk of human history, does it not? Where men held all of the wealth and women were but property to be disposed of at will?


You know, that's not how it really was, right? Why would men invent poetry and use it to woo women, if they just took them whenever they want? You're perpetuating a vile myth of what the world was really like. What purpose would chivalry have been? Why is it that men made rape a death-worthy offense as far back as Hammurabi's Code and probably much, much farther? 

I posit to you this: Women are the choosers of relationships. Men court and woo, women choose. (Obvious exceptions of war, rape etc, but on the whole, in general). 

For millennia men have tried to protect women from other men, to provide them with food and shelter and care. The majority of our great achievements were to show off to women. We are pea****s, trying to show off what great feathers we have: "Pick me! Pick me!"

The world isn't nearly so black and white as you make it out to be. Many men and women were traded as property. Many weren't. 



> Assuming sperm to be the value of men and the uterus to be the value of women as some sort of supply demand economics is ridiculous, IMHO. For the purposes of biology, it is irrelevant how many pregnancies there are. What is important is that the children survive long enough and well enough to themselves reproduce and ensure their offspring also reproduces.


What is ridiculous about this concept? It isn't about economics, it's about survival as a family; as tribe; as a species. It may or may not be correct, but surely you can see the reason some might think this.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I did listen, and he quite clearly said that men cannot express vulnerability "because of hypergamy". But it has little to do with hyoergamy or nature and everything to do with the way that men are socially and culturally conditioned. Yes, men are taught to suck it up and not show emotions or weakness. Yes, I agree this is bad for them.
> 
> But the thing is *they* don't think it is bad for them. They go on and on about how men are too "touchy-feely" these days, how boys are not taught to be men, how it is manly man to be strong, impervious, warrior-like.
> 
> So ultimately, they are blaming women ("because hypergamy") when it really is their own sense of what is manly that is driving them.


I wanted to expound on my previous post a little. When they view "hypergamy" as the nature of females (not good or bad, but just the way things are) this plays into the idea of why it is not okay for men to show any vulnerability. The thought is this: 

Most women are naturally hypergamous by nature. Their natural tendency is to seek to replace their mate with a more superior male specimen if they think they can. Men seek to not be replaced so as to guarantee offspring and reduce cuckoldry. Men also have a natural desire to couple with as many women as possible to improve odds of passing on their genes. 

Women who view their men as vulnerable and weak will naturally seek a superior man if such a specimen is available and if she can attract him; so it is not in the best interests of the man to ever show weakness. This is purely biological, but biology informs and even assists in the creating of societal values and norms. 

Men naturally will take advantage of weaker men and even usurp them from their family unit if the opportunity arises. So it is a terrible idea for men to be "vulnerable" or to show any form of weakness. Which, in that linked video, the fool does--despite his admitted reservations. He even mentions that he had made several videos about his problems, but he could not bring himself to upload them for fear. Fear is his body screaming at him "NO!!! YOU WILL DOOM OUR GENES AND PREVENT REPLICATION!" He conquered that natural response and uploaded his story, with his face, so that hundreds of thousands of people could see it. And he will deserve everything that comes to him from it. 

To quote Nietzsche: "What is bad? All that is borne of weakness."


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I wanted to expound on my previous post a little. When they view "hypergamy" as the nature of females (not good or bad, but just the way things are) this plays into the idea of why it is not okay for men to show any vulnerability. The thought is this:
> 
> Most women are naturally hypergamous by nature. Their natural tendency is to seek to replace their mate with a more superior male specimen if they think they can. Men seek to not be replaced so as to guarantee offspring and reduce cuckoldry. Men also have a natural desire to couple with as many women as possible to improve odds of passing on their genes.


Sigh. The view of "nature" as seen by a subscriber to red-pill, PUA, women-r-slvts philosophy. 

Somehow women wanting to find the best mate is "hypergamy", but men wanting the best mate is .... What exactly? (As in, why aren't men ever called hypergamous, even though they too are just as quick to ditch for someone better?)

And somehow men can't show vulnerability because they can't bear the thought of being "replaced", but yet are committed to sleeping with as many women as possible to pass on their genes. It is "nature" for them to want to replace women at the speed of light, but to be terrified of being replaced? 

And, apparently men cannot bear cuckoldry, and want to be passing on *their* genes, but somehow are also totally into usurping another man's family and taking over responsibility for them wholesale.

This is not biology. This "philosophy" is bs through and through. So sad that so many buy into it.


----------



## tom67

More hypergamy...

AWALTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bV-JT62Hs8


----------



## azteca1986

naiveonedave said:


> ...I think the case can easily be made that marriage for men right now is a bad proposition.


Why is marriage bad right now?
@Kivlor - I was going to give you a rebuttal to post #868 but decided to go on another track. I hope it's worth it when it arrives


----------



## naiveonedave

azteca1986 said:


> Why is marriage bad right now?


Due to the current laws in most jurisdictions in the western world. Men, on average, fair much worse than women do in D, especially with children involved. Not even debatable. The key words are "on average", because I am sure that some significant fraction of women get screwed because they get bad lawyers or are too wimpy to fight for their rights (and probably other reasons). Also, since women initiate most D's, I think many men don't see it coming, so they don't have a chance to get their ducks in a row, while the W pretty much has everything in place. I do agree with several posters that this is changing to be more fair, it just is not there yet.

I am guessing that >40 years ago, the same could be said about women in D. Though, back then, D was seen very negatively on both the exH and exW.


----------



## Justinian

technovelist said:


> I'm pretty sure that since the topic is firefighting, this refers to a *fire engine*, not an internal combustion prime mover.





Kivlor said:


> Okay, now I feel retarded. I had forgotten that people from the back-of-woods parts of the us don't [call] them fire trucks... :slap:


Since this thread has been wandering all over the place anyway, I might as well throw in an FYI:

In the U.S., there is a distinct difference between what is called a fire engine and what is called a fire truck.

Fire *Trucks* are equipped with very large ladders that extend from the truck but do not come off. Key components of a fire truck include:

Hydraulically operated (aerial) ladder
Full complement of ground ladders of various types and lengths
Specialized equipment for forcible entry, ventilation, and search and rescue tasks

Fire *Engines*, or pumpers, carry hose, tools, and pump water. The engine can also carry ladders, but they are set up by the fire fighters and can be carried around. Key components of a fire engine include:

Water tank (usually 500-750 gallons)
Pump (approximately 1500 GPM)
Complement of various types of hose (for both attack and supply)


----------



## azteca1986

naiveonedave said:


> Due to the current laws in most jurisdictions in the western world. Men, on average, fair much worse than women do in D, especially with children involved. Not even debatable. The key words are "on average", because I am sure that some significant fraction of women get screwed because they get bad lawyers or are too wimpy to fight for their rights (and probably other reasons). Also, since women initiate most D's, I think many men don't see it coming, so they don't have a chance to get their ducks in a row, while the W pretty much has everything in place. I do agree with several posters that this is changing to be more fair, it just is not there yet.
> 
> I am guessing that >40 years ago, the same could be said about women in D. Though, back then, D was seen very negatively on both the exH and exW.


I asked about marriage and your reply is entirely about divorce.

Seems to me some young men are governed by Fear of Failure, which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## naiveonedave

azteca1986 said:


> I asked about marriage and your reply is entirely about divorce.
> 
> Seems to me some young men are governed by Fear of Failure, which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


because the risk to M is D..... I am married, I like being married, but being a married man is a risk....


----------



## azteca1986

naiveonedave said:


> because the risk to M is D..... I am married, I like being married, but being a married man is a risk....


Yeah but with risk comes reward. MGTOW appear to only focus on the risk and then opt out.



> Jack Donovan, a writer based in Portland who has written several books on men and masculinity, each of which has become a cult hit, says the phenomenon is already endemic among the adult population. “I do see a lot of young men who would otherwise be dating and marrying giving up on women,” he explains, “Or giving up on the idea of having a wife and family. This includes both the kind of men who would traditionally be a little awkward with women, and the kind of men who aren’t awkward with women at all.
> 
> *“They’ve done a cost-benefit analysis and realised it is a bad deal.* They know that if they invest in a marriage and children, a woman can take all of that away from them on a whim. So they use apps like Tinder and OK Cupid to find women to have protected sex with and resign themselves to being ‘players,’ or when they get tired of that, ‘boyfriends.'”


This bit really bothered me from the article in the OP. How do you even do that?


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Sigh. The view of "nature" as seen by a subscriber to red-pill, PUA, women-r-slvts philosophy.
> 
> Somehow women wanting to find the best mate is "hypergamy", but men wanting the best mate is .... What exactly? (As in, why aren't men ever called hypergamous, even though they too are just as quick to ditch for someone better?)
> 
> And somehow men can't show vulnerability because they can't bear the thought of being "replaced", but yet are committed to sleeping with as many women as possible to pass on their genes. It is "nature" for them to want to replace women at the speed of light, but to be terrified of being replaced?
> 
> And, apparently men cannot bear cuckoldry, and want to be passing on *their* genes, but somehow are also totally into usurping another man's family and taking over responsibility for them wholesale.
> 
> This is not biology. This "philosophy" is bs through and through. So sad that so many buy into it.


You are latching only onto the female end, and you are assuming this is "negative". This is not negative, it is life. The reason men aren't accused of hypergamy is because men engage in *polygamy*. Men are looking for multiple uteruri and to increase the odds of passing on their genes. (The effects of the relative abundance of sperm) Now, this is complicated by the reality that a man can better guarantee success of his progeny (and passing on his genes) by coupling with one woman, and investing surplus labor with her and their mutual offspring.

In short, men have a natural desire to procreate with as many women as possible. That natural desire is tempered to some (probably small) degree by the success of pair-bonding strategies. This is why, although we naturally couple, so many men are given to cheating. It's nature.

Humans have somewhat dual natures: They pair-bond because it is by far the most effective parenting strategy. However, men will, given the opportunity, procreate with another woman to further increase their odds. Women too will procreate with another man in order to increase the odds of *her genes* being successful, leaving her mate to unknowingly care for the "cuckoo in the nest".

In conclusion, and to come to point, it is in the best interests of the man to always appear as the best possible mate available to reduce the odds of a woman cheating and to prevent other men attempting to edge in on their territory. It is in the bests interests of the woman to be as attractive as possible to give her access to better genes and reduce the odds of the male straying far from the "nest".

In other words: People are treacherous. Women are people. Therefore, women are treacherous. They don't really mention men because it is assumed that you were already taught in school that men are treacherous. This seems like such a revelation to them because many of them grew up being told that boys are bad and girls are good. They wake up one day and realize: Wait a second, people suck. And girls are people too...

ETA: You're the one using the term slvt. Not me. Which is normal. Women are typically the ones most guilty of slvt shaming, not men.


----------



## always_alone

tom67 said:


> More hypergamy...
> 
> AWALTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bV-JT62Hs8


Oh, what a surprise, yet another man who hates women producing a YouTube video about it. 

As for the hypergamy, I'm sure you're referring to the part where he advises all young men to use women for sex, then trade up when he is done with them, yes?


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> You are latching only onto the female end, and you are assuming this is "negative". This is not negative, it is life. The reason men aren't accused of hypergamy is because men engage in *polygamy*. Men are looking for multiple uteruri and to increase the odds of passing on their genes. (The effects of the relative abundance of sperm)


Sorry, still do not understand why women ditching a guy for another (or cheating) is called "hypergamy", and men ditching a woman for a better one (or cheating) is called polygamy.

What's the difference? Stats show men and women cheat at roughly the same rates. And both men and women are known to "trade up"

I am not slvt shaming, I chose to use the word slvt because I couldn't bring myself to use the much more hateful words to describe all women in all of those MGTOW videos that have been posted on this thread.

There is nothing objective, scientific, or fact-based in these accounts of "nature". They are all just about spewing venom and justifying men using women until they can trade up. 

Or have you not listened to what is going on in these videos?


----------



## naiveonedave

azteca1986 said:


> Yeah but with risk comes reward. MGTOW appear to only focus on the risk and then opt out.
> 
> This bit really bothered me from the article in the OP. How do you even do that?


I don't disagree w/you at all, I just also understand where MGTOW comes from and I also don't get why MGTOW goes past simple things like fixing D laws and getting better education for boys to be men......

TBH, had I known how risky D was with a SAHM (which my wife is/was), I would have not let her be one. But that is a long way in the past and irrelevant now.

I can understand doing a cost/benefit analysis on M and D, but the problem is that you can't really put a price on good relationships.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Sorry, still do not understand why women ditching a guy for another (or cheating) is called "hypergamy", and men ditching a woman for a better one (or cheating) is called polygamy.
> 
> What's the difference? Stats show men and women cheat at roughly the same rates. And both men and women are known to "trade up"
> 
> I am not slvt shaming, I chose to use the word slvt because I couldn't bring myself to use the much more hateful words to describe all women in all of those MGTOW videos that have been posted on this thread.
> 
> There is nothing objective, scientific, or fact-based in these accounts of "nature". They are all just about spewing venom and justifying men using women until they can trade up.
> 
> Or have you not listened to what is going on in these videos?


there are not differences. Why MGTOW goes this way, is because many men are taught girls are nice and boys are evil (exaggerated, but relatively true). The folks behind MGTOW is to try to teach men what the reality really is. Both men and women are good and are bad..... Not much different than feminism stating all men are rapists.


----------



## always_alone

azteca1986 said:


> This bit really bothered me from the article in the OP. How do you even do that?


Easy. 

You decide that custody laws are unfair because women tend to get more custody and men have just as much right to their children 

(Then point out how much the wage gap is totally fair because women take more time off to look after children)

You decide that alimony is unfair, and no ex should ever receive any support

(And presume that because some men have had to pay significant alimony, that this is always universally the case)

You fixate on a figure that says most divorces are instigated by women 

(And reject any and all facts or stats that show that the reason for this is typically infidelity or abuse, i.e. preventable)

You realize that the only thing you get from marriage is sex. Nothing else counts or matters

(And there are an infinite supply of sources for sex)

You assume that she will cheat on you, because all women are hypergamous, it is their nature to cheat. 

(But when men do it, it's just polygamy, and not so bad.)

You conclude that your marriage will end in divorce, and you will end up with less money than you had before, and you didn't get one thing from it.

Ergo, marriage is a bad idea.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Sorry, still do not understand why women ditching a guy for another (or cheating) is called "hypergamy", and men ditching a woman for a better one (or cheating) is called polygamy.
> 
> What's the difference? Stats show men and women cheat at roughly the same rates. And both men and women are known to "trade up"
> 
> I am not slvt shaming, I chose to use the word slvt because I couldn't bring myself to use the much more hateful words to describe all women in all of those MGTOW videos that have been posted on this thread.
> 
> There is nothing objective, scientific, or fact-based in these accounts of "nature". They are all just about spewing venom and justifying men using women until they can trade up.
> 
> Or have you not listened to what is going on in these videos?


hypergamy refers to a woman seeking a superior specimen of a man. The prefix hyper denotes "over" or "above", while gamy is referring to marriage. Literally marrying up. 

Polygamy refers to a man seeking multiple women to procreate with. The prefix poly denotes "many" while gamy refers to marriage. Literally married to many. 

What we see generally is that men have no problem with cheating down. They are looking for the best girl to keep, and then any extras they can find. With women it is generally that they try to marry the best they can keep, and then cheat with a superior specimen if the opportunity arises. 

They are very similar but different concepts. It is our nature to do these things. Oversimplified, of course. Nothing happens in a vacuum. We aren't taking into consideration the things that further encourage or discourage cheating for the sexes--things such as fear--but rather just the basic sexual urges. 

A_A, I posted a video--it's long, so I can't blame you for not listening if you didn't--where a guy goes through a lot of this. He even provides citations. If it is reality, what's wrong with telling men how it works? If that results in women being "used" until a guy finds a better option, well, is it any different than the tremendous number of women who use men as a source of free labor and resources? It's just nature acting out on both ends.

I think they are probably right about our basic natural urges. Scarcity of resources forced pair-bonding, leading us to conquer those urges in order to be successful as a species. Today, we are so close to a post-scarcity existence in the West that there is very little need for it. As such, many people are returning to their basic nature; abandoning millennia of refinement. And that is tragic.


----------



## Kivlor

@azteca1986 and @always_alone

What are the benefits of marriage? What do you think is valuable in it? Not because I think there are none, but I'm genuinely curious for your take on it.

There are very quantifiable risks.

Here is reality: humans are treacherous. Nearly everyone will turn on you if you are weak and vulnerable. These guys are just saying "you know what, nah, it's just not worth the stress, the money, the time, etc to maintain M, and there's no real way to prevent her from divorcing me or cheating on me. Why would I do this?

Take for example the guy in the video above. This guy was lucky: he learned as a child that women are just as treacherous as men. His mother took a hammer to his head. Your own parents will turn on you if they think it's profitable, if they have the chance. You should always expect treachery from everyone; especially those close to you, because the strong prey upon the weak, and who will better know you are weak than those close to you.

He also learned early that the police and government won't protect him from violent women, because he's male--but that they'll take his sister and protect her, because she's a girl and girls are precious. 

This man had the opportunity to utilize extremely valuable knowledge, and make himself strong. The sad part is that he has allowed this knowledge to destroy him.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> A_A, I posted a video--it's long, so I can't blame you for not listening if you didn't--where a guy goes through a lot of this. He even provides citations. If it is reality, what's wrong with telling men how it works?


I have no problem with telling men about how "things work", but this is *not* how they work. Women "cheat down" as well. Men also seek to secure the "best mate they can find". 

Pair bonding isn't just about scarcity of resources; it is about the fact that human children require an intense amount of care before they are able to reproduce and manage all on their own.

I agree with you that there are conflicting pressures, to care for offspring, to mate with more attractive partners. But both men and women face these same pressures. 

The point about a woman being "used" is specifically because MGTOW are advocating using women and trading up later. 

Can you not see the projection in this? MGTOW are accusing women of being hypergamous, but this is actually their explicit, advocated for strategy: use women while you are young and "undesirable" then trade up when you have the resources to do so.

Yet, no doubt, you will continue to defend MGTOW because "nature", because it's a dog eat dog world and everyone is an *******.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> @azteca1986 and @always_alone
> 
> What are the benefits of marriage? What do you think is valuable in it? Not because I think there are none, but I'm genuinely curious for your take on it.
> 
> There are very quantifiable risks.
> .


I see no advantages at all to marriage, and will likely never be married.

However, I do not believe that all people are treacherous and not to be trusted. I don't believe in a dog eat dog world

Yes, some people are *******s, but most of us just want to live good lives, and have good relationships with people we love.


----------



## Thound

​


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I have no problem with telling men about how "things work", but this is *not* how they work. Women "cheat down" as well. Men also seek to secure the "best mate they can find".
> 
> Pair bonding isn't just about scarcity of resources; it is about the fact that human children require an intense amount of care before they are able to reproduce and manage all on their own.
> 
> I agree with you that there are conflicting pressures, to care for offspring, to mate with more attractive partners. But both men and women face these same pressures.
> 
> The point about a woman being "used" is specifically because MGTOW are advocating using women and trading up later.
> 
> Can you not see the projection in this? MGTOW are accusing women of being hypergamous, but this is actually their explicit, advocated for strategy: use women while you are young and "undesirable" then trade up when you have the resources to do so.
> 
> Yet, no doubt, you will continue to defend MGTOW because "nature", because it's a dog eat dog world and everyone is an *******.


Of course they're projecting. These are guys who've primarily been used by the other sex, and they have learned that reality is not nice, it cares not how good or sweet or kind you are; it is vicious, violent, and ruthless. They are taking that lesson, and projecting it onto the rest of humanity. Still, it's a pretty safe bet when you think about it: If they're wrong, nothing bad happens; if they're right, well they were prepared for it.

I agree many of the MGTOW guys go way too far. Many are very angry which is pointless. Why be angry that people are people? Women use men, men use women, and the universe cares not. It's life.

Think for a minute, just how ruthless nature is in general, and then look at how we rose to the top of the food chain: exploiting strengths, attacking weaknesses. Look how we treat each other: with the same methods of violence, exploiting strength and attacking weakness. It is what we are.

You hesitate to take all of your previous rhetoric about the abuses of the West, of the enslavement of men and women for millennia to its natural conclusion: People are not kind, we are not good, we are not honest, *not by nature*. Mankind is vicious and oppressive and violent, deceitful and selfish by nature.

It's a question of whether you can *restrain* that nature or not. Sure, some do, but many don't. And the ones that do are always but a slight lapse in willpower from letting that nature out.



> I see no advantages at all to marriage, and will likely never be married.
> 
> However, I do not believe that all people are treacherous and not to be trusted. I don't believe in a dog eat dog world
> 
> Yes, some people are *******s, but most of us just want to live good lives, and have good relationships with people we love.


I don't see those as mutually exclusive traits.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> You hesitate to take all of your previous rhetoric about the abuses of the West, of the enslavement of men and women for millennia to its natural conclusion: People are not kind, we are not good, we are not honest, *not by nature*. Mankind is vicious and oppressive and violent, deceitful and selfish by nature.


Huh. Where I live people rely on each other, look out for each other, need each other, and sometimes love each other. They want to build strong, safe communities. They want a better world for their children. They give to each other out of kindness, greet each other warmly, sometimes with a hug, often with a friendly wave. They will lend a helping hand, and will share their toys. 

I better see now why you are happy to throw everyone to the wolves. I myself see human nature quite differently than you do.

Are humans capable of great atrocities? It would be naive to think otherwise. But we mostly treat each other badly when we forget that the others are just as human as us --and that we are just as human as them.


----------



## Dycedarg

always_alone said:


> Huh. Where I live people rely on each other, *look out for each other, need each other*, and sometimes love each other. They want to build strong, safe communities. They want a better world for their children. They give to each other out of kindness, greet each other warmly, sometimes with a hug, often with a friendly wave. They will lend a helping hand, and will share their toys.
> 
> I better see now why you are happy to throw everyone to the wolves. I myself see human nature quite differently than you do.
> 
> Are humans capable of great atrocities? It would be naive to think otherwise. But we mostly treat each other badly when we forget that the others are just as human as us --and that we are just as human as them.


The bolded part plays into the point he's making; people look out for each other because they need each other. One could easily make the argument that every seemingly noble attribute you've mentioned can be traced to a longing for personal gain. Generally, if you find someone who really doesn't need anyone, that person doesn't have much incentive to look out for anyone.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Of course they're projecting. These are guys who've primarily been used by the other sex, and they have learned that reality is not nice, it cares not how good or sweet or kind you are; it is vicious, violent, and ruthless. They are taking that lesson, and projecting it onto the rest of humanity.


Just to clarify:. Projecting is taking what is *inside yourself* and attributing it to others.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> The bolded part plays into the point he's making; people look out for each other because they need each other. One could easily make the argument that every seemingly noble attribute you've mentioned can be traced to a longing for personal gain.


I've heard that argument made again and again and again. And I still don't find it particularly compelling. It is the kind of argument that comes up with a foregone conclusion and then twists ever possible situation into an act of selfishness. Risking one's life to save another, giving someone else the shirt off your back, toiling for hours doing back-breaking work to help a neighbor, all said to totally selfish, all about personal gain because it is possible to come up with *something* the person *might* have taken from it.

Yeah, right.


----------



## Dycedarg

always_alone said:


> I've heard that argument made again and again and again. And I still don't find it particularly compelling. It is the kind of argument that comes up with a foregone conclusion and then twists ever possible situation into an act of selfishness. Risking one's life to save another, giving someone else the shirt off your back, toiling for hours doing back-breaking work to help a neighbor, all said to totally selfish, all about personal gain because it is possible to come up with *something* the person *might* have taken from it.
> 
> Yeah, right.


It's no more contrived an explanation than any other. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, I'm just saying that he could make the case for it. I mean you really could see it either way and he could, incidentally, indict you using the same logic you've employed here; that he sees no compelling reason to espouse your view, and use similar, intentionally exaggerated representations of your view to make it seem as unreasonable as possible. 

Beyond all that, a recurring and important key word here is "nature". He's been very careful to talk about the fact that it is human nature, and he's been equally careful to remind you that selfish nature can be overcome.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> It's no more contrived an explanation than any other. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, I'm just saying that he could make the case for it. I mean you really could see it either way and he could, incidentally, indict you using the same logic you've employed here; that he sees no compelling reason to espouse your view, and use similar, intentionally exaggerated representations of your view to make it seem as unreasonable as possible.
> 
> Beyond all that, a recurring and important key word here is "nature". He's been very careful to talk about the fact that it is human nature, and he's been equally careful to remind you that selfish nature can be overcome.


Those were not exaggerated representations, those were straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. Those who argue that humans only act out of self interest make a point of talking about heroic and selfless acts and casting them in terms of selfishness. 

Because really, it's clear that sometimes humans are very, very good to each other, and if you are claiming that they are all selfish, well, you need to come up with some way to account for those nice things.

Personally, I don't think we need to "overcome" our selfishness, or that it is going against human nature to be kind, generous, and loving. I think these are very real and very strong aspects of our nature. We are social, we live in communities, we spend a lot of recreation hours simply hanging out with each other. We love our children, our family, our friends, and would often do just about anything for them.


----------



## Dycedarg

A_A you strike me as a particularly noble and well-intended person. I want you to know first of all that your sentiments to me are genuinely touching. 

But I believe that people like you, and selflessness in general, are largely anomalies. The fact that this, and other sites like it exist speaks to a very real problem with selfishness, and there are clear, irrefutable connections between prosperity and reprehensible behavior. 

We have entire forums, and indeed entire sciences dedicated to the phenomenon of cheating. People will commit adultery and then engage in some of the most shocking and bizarre methods in an attempt to cover it up and perpetuate opportunity for further infidelity. It is such a widespread problem that it affects literally everyone. People steal, ridicule and neglect without even thinking about it, without even knowing they've done it. 

To say "yeah, right" to the notion that maybe, just maybe people are at their core, very selfish, and that people are fat and happy enough to the point where they never feel the need to conduct any manner of introspection just strikes me as very two-dimensional. There is nothing as conniving and potentially dangerous as the human being. We have evolved in such a manner that we can now emotionally and intellectually degenerate into a state of utter nastiness. If you look at wolves you will see two fighting, and if one of them starts getting the worst of it he will roll over and expose his belly. The other one will sniff him and probably urinate on him, but he won't kill him. He simply won't do it. 

But there is no end to how wicked and immoral humans can become. As wretched as they are, they are equally resourceful and complex, and able to devise radically intricate methods of deceiving others and even themselves. In light of this undeniable truth, I don't think it would be wise to for anyone to be as dismissive as to say "yeah right", even if such hand-waving is in the wake of genuine altruism. 

And I have no doubt it is.


----------



## naiveonedave

@Kivlor and @always_alone 

Just my opinion, but the reality lies in the middle. People are selfish, but most are not to the extent that they will cheat on their spouse or lie and steal. On the other hand, so many people do these selfish acts that you would be insane to expect it not happen to you. The MGTOW group has the good points of pointing out how men can and do get screwed by society, laws and women. The hate they spew is over the top. So, imo, they are half right....

I also don't get how a man would for go women in life. So I get the where the MGTOW comes from, they just go too far and arrive at a place that is too illogical for me to understand.


----------



## Kivlor

What I was trying to get at is this is our *nature*.

We are more than just our nature. We have reason and we can restrain our natural urges. Things like social pressures, fear, and loyalty are all factors in whether or not we give in to those urges. But to deny that nature is to jump into the lion's den unarmed and unguarded I think.

The problem that these MGTOW folks have is that they were raised to believe that women are better than this. That they are somehow these innocent, delicate flowers; and then they found out that what they had believed was a fabrication. It turned out that women are people, with all the same flaws as men. Sadly, for many this leads to a hatred for women in general. But for many others, it does not. They just seek to better understand how people operate, so they can better interact with people.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> A_A you strike me as a particularly noble and well-intended person. I want you to know first of all that your sentiments to me are genuinely touching.
> 
> But I believe that people like you, and selflessness in general, are largely anomalies. The fact that this, and other sites like it exist speaks to a very real problem with selfishness, and there are clear, irrefutable connections between prosperity and reprehensible behavior.


No, I am not particularly noble or well-intentioned. I'm not even that nice, and certainly not immune to selfishness. I just don't see the world as a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, you can't count on anyone kind of a place. Does it have those elements? Obviously! But it is also much more than that.

Yes, people cheat. People sometimes treat each other atrociously. No doubt. People are even capable of immense cruelty. But how much do these experiences define our humanity?

I know what it is like to be treated terribly, to be lied to, used, disposed of like yesterday's trash. I get why this might make one leery of dating or becoming involved and afraid they will simply be hurt again. I get why one might come to see themselves as unloved and unlovable, and want to climb into their turtle shell so they cannot be hurt again.

But my hurt doesn't define others humanity. I am not noble enough to forgive those who have wronged me, but I am smart enough to realize that even though they treated me like crap, they went on to love others, build families, and contribute to their communities. Were they perfect and treat everyone wonderfully all the time? Of course not. But what they did to me isn't the sum total of their human nature.

And, of course, some people are much nastier and more selfish than others. Those ones I just try hard to stay away from.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> What I was trying to get at is this is our *nature*.


And what I am trying to get at is that our *nature* is much more than selfish or cruel urges. It is also to love, to want to be loved, to be a part of a community, to nurture and care for others.

I dunno. Maybe we mostly agree and I am just quibbling. But the way MGTOW talk about women is not at all realizing they are "just human and flawed like everyone else". It is full of hate and insult and specifically advocates using them up and throwing them away. It insists that women --and only women -- aren't reasonable, and can't control their selfish urges, and have specifically orchestrated the legal system and indeed all of society to stick it to men.

Ironically, they also think that this spells disaster, that women's selfishness is leading us to the destruction of society as we know it. Life was so much better when they were kept in their place, had no options, and were desperately reliant on the generous and kind-hearted nature of men.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> And what I am trying to get at is that our *nature* is much more than selfish or cruel urges. It is also to love, to want to be loved, to be a part of a community, to nurture and care for others.
> 
> I dunno. Maybe we mostly agree and I am just quibbling. But the way MGTOW talk about women is not at all realizing they are "just human and flawed like everyone else". It is full of hate and insult and specifically advocates using them up and throwing them away. It insists that women --and only women -- aren't reasonable, and can't control their selfish urges, and have specifically orchestrated the legal system and indeed all of society to stick it to men.
> 
> Ironically, they also think that this spells disaster, that women's selfishness is leading us to the destruction of society as we know it. Life was so much better when they were kept in their place, had no options, and were desperately reliant on the generous and kind-hearted nature of men.


Actually, I think we do seem to agree primarily. And I'll admit that a lot of these guys are ridiculous. I mentioned him before, but Thinking Ape, is a pretty decent one to listen to. If someone's going to try to walk the path of MGTOW, I would highly recommend they follow this guy, and stay clear of folks like Sandman. I actually listen to Thinking Ape pretty often, and I tend to disagree with a lot of what he says, but I think it's good to challenge my beliefs, thoughts and perceptions; and there's nothing even remotely hateful in his ideas. 

He had a pretty good rant a while back about how the guys who are angry, and stuck on women, and focusing their thoughts and energy on them aren't really MGTOW, they're still a bunch of blue-pill whiners, who are upset. Red-pill to him means moving on with life, leaving that anger behind. 

The ones that focus on women being *worse* than men are dead wrong. They've learned the wrong lesson. Men and women are people, and women are not any worse nor really any better than men are. We're all flawed, and it's not that bad, once you recognize it for what it is. 

The first step though, is to shatter the illusion that women are somehow above this, that they are sacrosanct. And way too many guys start believing that.


----------



## Cletus

*Our nature?*

Here's a little more insight into our nature. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Kivlor

I didn't really say anything earlier, because I wanted to mull it over, but to get back to the general topic at hand, does anyone else see value in marriage today? I know @always_alone said she doesn't, and has no intention to marry. What about the rest of the folks reading this.

The MGTOW folks are saying "No more, we're on strike!" What is the value of marriage to you? For those who don't, what are your concerns?


----------



## naiveonedave

I am happily married. I have teenage boys and I am reading this to see what they may be hear or be hearing from peers.

I strongly value marriage. I think we need someone at our backs and someone who we are safe to get good and bad feed back. 

My concerns are that as our society becomes less moral, marriage will be even harder to sustain.


----------



## azteca1986

Kivlor said:


> I didn't really say anything earlier, because I wanted to mull it over, but to get back to the general topic at hand, does anyone else see value in marriage today? I know @always_alone said she doesn't, and has no intention to marry. What about the rest of the folks reading this.
> 
> The MGTOW folks are saying "No more, we're on strike!" What is the value of marriage to you? For those who don't, what are your concerns?


I have a lot I want to say on the subject, but I want us to have a discussion and not be adversarial.

I will answer your question... when I can


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> I am happily married. I have teenage boys and I am reading this to see what they may be hear or be hearing from peers.
> 
> I strongly value marriage. I think we need someone at our backs and someone who we are safe to get good and bad feed back.
> 
> My concerns are that as our society becomes less moral, marriage will be even harder to sustain.


Interestingly, most people--MGTOW especially--do not seem to be aware that something like 70% of marriages in the US *don't end in divorce*, and divorce rates are actually dropping. It could be that the risk is lower than we've been lead to believe. 

So, you vote for the value of having someone who intimately knows us, to provide feedback; and for the value of having a "teammate" who's got some "skin in the game"? Is that an accurate paraphrase?


----------



## Cletus

I'm 30 years married, and I don't really see the value any longer either.

This is not to say that I don't see the value of a very long term life partner. But divorce is simple and relatively painless. Commitment is something you make independent of a signed piece of state sanctioned paper saying you'll continue to be exclusive until you decide not. There are no specific societal perks that come with the title. No real tax breaks. No real incentives. 

Neither of my children seems to be in a hurry to marry, and I don't lose a minute's sleep over it.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
I try not to waste emotional energy on folks who caricature human nature. They say: if someone does X it proves that Y is true

And I think. If someone does X, all it proves is that, in that moment the desire to do X, was stronger than a host of other competing desires. 

For example, did M2 lie to me/conceal the pain she felt during intercourse because: 
- She likes being deceitful (no)
- Thinks it is ok to lie (no)
- Likes intense pain (hell no)

Did she do it because she was afraid I would leave her? Yes. She was. So a lot of times people do what they do because they are afraid. Not because they are bad. 





always_alone said:


> And what I am trying to get at is that our *nature* is much more than selfish or cruel urges. It is also to love, to want to be loved, to be a part of a community, to nurture and care for others.
> 
> I dunno. Maybe we mostly agree and I am just quibbling. But the way MGTOW talk about women is not at all realizing they are "just human and flawed like everyone else". It is full of hate and insult and specifically advocates using them up and throwing them away. It insists that women --and only women -- aren't reasonable, and can't control their selfish urges, and have specifically orchestrated the legal system and indeed all of society to stick it to men.
> 
> Ironically, they also think that this spells disaster, that women's selfishness is leading us to the destruction of society as we know it. Life was so much better when they were kept in their place, had no options, and were desperately reliant on the generous and kind-hearted nature of men.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Did she do it because she was afraid I would leave her? Yes. She was. So a lot of times people do what they do because they are afraid. Not because they are bad.


Wise words MEM!!!

Yes, fear leads us in all sorts of terrible directions. Fear, and pain.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I didn't really say anything earlier, because I wanted to mull it over, but to get back to the general topic at hand, does anyone else see value in marriage today? I know @always_alone said she doesn't, and has no intention to marry. What about the rest of the folks reading this.


Just to clarify, I didn't mean this in such absolutes terms. More that marriage has never been a particular goal of mine, nor do I believe that all people necessarily should marry or that it's a problem if they don't. People should get married if they *want* to, and if they do, it has value.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
I'll add a gentle observation about human nature. You know you've married a good person - when being married doesn't cause them to take you for granted. Or suddenly 'realize' major stuff. 

Until recently the term 'bait and switch' had a certain gender flavor to it. Not so much any more. I am dismayed to see posts from men who AFTER getting married and obtaining sexual exclusivity, suddenly realize they should have asked for a pre nup. Or worse, they wait til their partner is pregnant to request a post nup. 

So now - when I hear bait and switch I know longer think of the culprit as being mostly from either gender. 






always_alone said:


> Just to clarify, I didn't mean this in such absolutes terms. More that marriage has never been a particular goal of mine, nor do I believe that all people necessarily should marry or that it's a problem if they don't. People should get married if they *want* to, and if they do, it has value.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I didn't really say anything earlier, because I wanted to mull it over, but to get back to the general topic at hand, does anyone else see value in marriage today? I know @always_alone said she doesn't, and has no intention to marry. What about the rest of the folks reading this.
> 
> The MGTOW folks are saying "No more, we're on strike!" What is the value of marriage to you? For those who don't, what are your concerns?


I am happily married but I would not recommend it to any man in the US today. The risk/reward ratio is too unfavorable.


----------



## Catherine602

You are probably more interested in the male point of view but I'll tell you what I feel anyway. I would still marry as I did and if I found myself single, I would look for a good match. I think it is worth a having a close association with the opposite gender. If I had to deal with a painful breakup, I would have as my goal to get back to an optimistic state of mind and faith. Relationships make life worth living - the good and the challenging. 

This is the way I look at misfortune. Everyone suffers loss, and pain. Anger is the beginning of healing. It is not meant to be a permanent state. I ask myself, who am I that I should sail through life untouched by pain? There is so much pain in the world now. 

I don't think it is asking too much to call upon the best of yourself to recover from an unhappy relationship, learn from it and adjust to a new reality without rancor toward people who are innocent. We expect the refugees of war to accept their fate and not be angry and devalue the lives of others. Yet we celebrate chronic bitterness, anger and devaluing 1/2 of the human race because we hurt. 

I'm not talking about something I don't know. I was bitter and devalued men when I first signed up on this site. I became a member because I knew it was wrong and I had to change. I needed to forgive and value all of the wonderful men who did nothing to earn my disrespect. Some of men who helped me are MEM, Big Bad Wolf and Deejo among others. I'm a different person and so happy not to be burdened with "why me boo whoo". Why not me. 

My point is that this movement is not a solution, it's the preverbal tar pit. You get sucked into a hot, sticky, smelly hole and hope someone will come along and drag you out before you get swallowed up. Problems are not meant to do this to people. It is not necessary to recover to the point of marriage or a relationship. But you have to recover to the point that bitterness and anger is purged. If we all indulged ourselves for every misfortune, the world would be in a sorry state.


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> I am happily married but I would not recommend it to any man in the US today. The risk/reward ratio is too unfavorable.


Wait... here https://twitter.com/CaptainObvious 0


----------



## naiveonedave

Kivlor said:


> Interestingly, most people--MGTOW especially--do not seem to be aware that something like 70% of marriages in the US *don't end in divorce*, and divorce rates are actually dropping. It could be that the risk is lower than we've been lead to believe.
> 
> So, you vote for the value of having someone who intimately knows us, to provide feedback; and for the value of having a "teammate" who's got some "skin in the game"? Is that an accurate paraphrase?


WRT 1st paragraph - If Russian roulette was 30% chance of death, I would not participate. Granted D<< death, but I think until the west (Europe, US, Canada, Australia) have the laws, the legal system and the common application of the law be more fair, this risk is very high for most men who marry.

yes, though I would call a marriage relationship much more than that.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> but I think until the west (Europe, US, Canada, Australia) have the laws, the legal system and the common application of the law be more fair, this risk is very high for most men who marry.


I have to say, the more I encounter this assertion (which is a rather astonishing amount given this is a marriage forum), the more I am baffled by it.

A significant proportion of marriages are successful.

Many fail, yes, but what happens? 

Half "your" stuff goes to your ex. Well, half "your" stuff is theirs.

You have to pay for your children. Well, duh, if you don't want to pay for them, don't have them.

You may see your children less. Yes, also true, but most jurisdictions are default 50/50, and the import of this depends a lot on how old those children are? If they are already moved out, eg, how often do you see them?

You may pay alimony. These days it is usually not for very long, and only after years and years of one spouse being out of the workforce. 

Also, women too face *all* of the above risks, particularly if she makes good money, and yet not a single soul on this whole site seems to think marriage is risky for women, but that *most* men are taking a completely unreasonable risk in getting married. (And this is the *second* comparison I've seen to Russian Roulette ).

I just don't get it!


----------



## always_alone

TAM: the marriage site that thinks marriage is a game of Russian Roulette.

Awesome tagline!

ETA: And I'm just ranting now, but also notice that the way this is presented is that there is *nothing* a man can do to mitigate risk. Doesn't matter how he chooses his partner, doesn't matter how he treats her along the way, doesn't matter what his and her lifestyles are. All of it is just sticking a bullet in the chambering, spinning, and taking your chances. Because women are bullets, and men are hapless heads waiting to be blown to kingdom come. Unless of course they decide to never have anything to do with bullets again.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> I have to say, the more I encounter this assertion (which is a rather astonishing amount given this is a marriage forum), the more I am baffled by it.
> 
> A significant proportion of marriages are successful.
> 
> Many fail, yes, but what happens?
> 
> Half "your" stuff goes to your ex. Well, half "your" stuff is theirs.
> 
> You have to pay for your children. Well, duh, if you don't want to pay for them, don't have them.
> 
> You may see your children less. Yes, also true, but most jurisdictions are default 50/50, and the import of this depends a lot on how old those children are? If they are already moved out, eg, how often do you see them?
> 
> You may pay alimony. These days it is usually not for very long, and only after years and years of one spouse being out of the workforce.
> 
> Also, women too face *all* of the above risks, particularly if she makes good money, and yet not a single soul on this whole site seems to think marriage is risky for women, but that *most* men are taking a completely unreasonable risk in getting married. (And this is the *second* comparison I've seen to Russian Roulette ).
> 
> I just don't get it!


All I am saying is that, on average, men fair worse in D than women do. It has nothing to do with paying their fair share, it is them getting hosed on custody and financially. On average, sure there are outliers and things are changing to be more fair, but we clearly are not there, yet.

With women filing most of the time, D is akin to Russian Roulette for a man. Obviously not as dramatic, but similar.

Sure women face the same risks, but on average, again, they fair better than men do. One could argue, that do to some women getting hosed in D, it is like R.R. to them as well and should be considered prior to getting hitched.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> TAM: the marriage site that thinks marriage is a game of Russian Roulette.
> 
> Awesome tagline!
> 
> ETA: And I'm just ranting now, but also notice that the way this is presented is that there is *nothing* a man can do to mitigate risk. Doesn't matter how he chooses his partner, doesn't matter how he treats her along the way, doesn't matter what his and her lifestyles are. All of it is just sticking a bullet in the chambering, spinning, and taking your chances. Because women are bullets, and men are hapless heads waiting to be blown to kingdom come. Unless of course they decide to never have anything to do with bullets again.


way to be overdramatic..... Women aren't the bullets, the D is the bullet. You can't even understand a simple comparison, sheesh.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> All I am saying is that, on average, men fair worse in D than women do.


According to who? Since virtually all stats show that women end up poorer than men after divorce.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> way to be overdramatic..... Women aren't the bullets, the D is the bullet. You can't even understand a simple comparison, sheesh.


So instead of addressing the very real questions about relative risks, you will dismiss me as unable to understand anything because you don't like my use of your analogy?


----------



## Kivlor

@MEM11363

I think I mentioned fear as one of the things that weighs in, I may not have. Socially, fear can keep people from doing bad things and physically fear can entice them to it.

Fear on a gut level is completely a part of our nature; and one of the darkest parts of it. I kind of assumed that went without saying, but it's probably worth going over. Fear is one of the primordial motivators of the human creature. 

"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration."

Tremendous will is required to keep it in check. 

@Catherine602 

I'm curious, is it just in companionship that you would be interested, or marriage? Is there a difference between them? Does the piece of state-issued paper sanctioning your relationship have value? Is marriage more than just that piece of paper?
@always_alone

If you were to offer advice to someone asking you: "Should I marry? Is it worth it?" What would you say?


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> @always_alone
> 
> If you were to offer advice to someone asking you: "Should I marry? Is it worth it?" What would you say?


I would ask: Do you want to get married? Is there any reason you don't want to get married?


----------



## Starstarfish

How does being the one that files make you to "blame" ? Especially considering that "file to scare him straight" is common advise handed out here on TAM with stories like:

- Husband has his "good female friend" move in with his parents next door. Does drugs with her, ignores kids and me.

- Husband spends weekends sleeping with his mistress, doesn't want to make "the wrong decision"

These men have no interest in filing. They are cake eating to the extreme. And when the wife files, they'll be mind blown and probably complain about getting screwed over. Should these women not file just to change the women filing stat thrown around?

Marriage particularly with children is equally risky for women but in different ways.

- You have a good relationship. He overhears a story about something you did or didn't do 20 years ago. He becomes obsessed with it. TAM will rally and encourage his retroactive jealousy that he was just another "bait and switch" victim.

- You can't change appearance or sexual preferences. Otherwise you are a liar who deserves to be left or cheated on.

- You agree to be a SAHM. He leaves. You now have no job skills and are out of the workforce too long. You are a single mom. Your prospects for a future relationship are shot or lowered. Men like Athol Kay will encourage other men to see you as "damaged goods" while your ex is encouraged to bang his way across America to "find his Alpha."

Is none of that a risk?


----------



## Catherine602

Commitment to a contract seems to be the problem. It's simply taking responsibility for choices. Buy a car with a loan and you are stuck with paying it off even if the transmission goes in 4 yrs. No one expects to get away with dumping the car and refusing to pay. 

Many people have problems honoring commitments and want to cut and run free and clear when things get difficult. They resent the legal requirement to split assets, pay for the years their spouse devoted to making their success possible and paying to support their children. 

In terms of survival of society, mass dumping of defendants is destabilizing. If people don't voluntarily sign legal papers, then the legal statutes will be imposed on them automatically. 

No society can tolerate a flood of children and poverty stricken parents depending on the system while the responsible person enjoys freedom.

We either require people to take personal responsibility or pay collectively for those who lack the will to honor their commitments.


----------



## Catherine602

Kivlor said:


> I'm curious, is it just in companionship that you would be interested, or marriage? Is there a difference between them? Does the piece of state-issued paper sanctioning your relationship have value? Is marriage more than just that piece of paper?


I don't know if I would marry. I will not have more children and I have assets of my own that I want my children to have. If accumulating assets was involved in the relationship, tangible or intangible, I would seek legal advice.


----------



## MEM2020

Catherine,
Not sure I would remarry because I'm done having kids and mine are grown. Doesn't mean I wouldn't make financial provisions for a long term partner. Does mean that - I'm not going to write someone a check because they got bored with me or fell in love with someone else. 

M2 built a family with me. Spent the best 25 years of her life with me. If she left I would without hesitation or resentment split what we have in half. This has been a true partnership. 

But if M2 dies before me - she has heart disease and one heart attack already - I would be looking more for a solid companion than a wife. 




Catherine602 said:


> Commitment to a contract seems to be the problem. It's simply taking responsibility for choices. Buy a car with a loan and you are stuck with paying it off even if the transmission goes in 4 yrs. No one expects to get away with dumping the car and refusing to pay.
> 
> The problem seems to be that people have problems honoring commitment and want to cut and run when things get difficult. They resent the legal requirement to split assets, pay for the years their spouse devoted to making their success possible and paying to support their children.
> 
> In terms of survival of society, mass dumping of defendants is destabilizing. If people don't voluntarily sign legal papers, then the legal statutes will be imposed on them automatically.
> 
> No society will tolerate a flood of children and poverty stricken parents depending on the system who are really the responsibility of freedom seeking breadwinners.
> 
> We either require people to take personal responsibility or pay collectively for those who lack the ability to honor their commitments.


----------



## Kivlor

Catherine602 said:


> Commitment to a contract seems to be the problem. It's simply taking responsibility for choices. Buy a car with a loan and you are stuck with paying it off even if the transmission goes in 4 yrs. No one expects to get away with dumping the car and refusing to pay.
> 
> The problem seems to be that people have problems honoring commitment and want to cut and run when things get difficult. They resent the legal requirement to split assets, pay for the years their spouse devoted to making their success possible and paying to support their children.
> 
> In terms of survival of society, mass dumping of defendants is destabilizing. If people don't voluntarily sign legal papers, then the legal statutes will be imposed on them automatically.
> 
> No society will tolerate a flood of children and poverty stricken parents depending on the system who are really the responsibility of freedom seeking breadwinners.
> 
> We either require people to take personal responsibility or pay collectively for those who lack the ability to honor their commitments.


Thanks for the response, and sorry for not responding sooner. 

I'm not sure that it is lack of commitment to the contract on the part of MGTOW and others espousing their concerns with marriage. It seems to me that these people are very fearful that they will wake up one day to find out that their partner is the one who isn't committed, will file D, and then demand half of the assets, on top of the massive betrayal of trust that D is.

For some people, when they say "till death do us part" they mean it. Or at least desperately want it to be that way. And they don't like the idea that the other party can at any time say "nah, I'm out and I want half of everything. Thanks for all those years you worked to build up this nice stash for me."

Not that most women do that. I think that's the fear though. I know it's one of my concerns, so maybe it's just me projecting. I've no real belief that I'd ever file D unless my W was abusive or unfaithful. There's no way to know what is really going through her mind though. 

So the issue I see is with *women* who don't honor their commitments. But that's just me.


----------



## Kivlor

Case in point, this is one of the risks that men take in reality. Laws may be written gender neutral, but they are not enforced as such. This fellow is experiencing first hand the legal disadvantages of A) being a man and B) marriage.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Case in point, this is one of the risks that men take in reality. Laws may be written gender neutral, but they are not enforced as such. This fellow is experiencing first hand the legal disadvantages of A) being a man and B) marriage.


Looks to me like he is suffering the disadvantages of being married to someone who is abusive.

The only ones suggesting the legal system will treat him any differently because he is a man are the usual suspects who will say that no matter what the facts are. The advice he has been given is appropriate no matter his gender.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Looks to me like he is suffering the disadvantages of being married to someone who is abusive.
> 
> The only ones suggesting the legal system will treat him any differently because he is a man are the usual suspects who will say that no matter what the facts are. The advice he has been given is appropriate no matter his gender.


The difference is clear to me. If the OP in the linked post was a woman, the cops would have been there sooner and the abusive spouse would be in jail. That is gender discrimination, no if ands or buts about it.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Looks to me like he is suffering the disadvantages of being married to someone who is abusive.
> 
> The only ones suggesting the legal system will treat him any differently because he is a man are the usual suspects who will say that no matter what the facts are. The advice he has been given is appropriate no matter his gender.


I'd certainly say that if the OP had been a woman, odds of getting the TRO would have been higher. Not guaranteed, but better odds. I'm curious--because I'm not sure--would advice be given to a woman in those circumstances to not move out? 

I know that if he moves out, he can face accusation of abandonment, and lose custody rights. Also increase the odds of alimony and elevated child support. If he leaves with the kids, he faces charges of kidnapping and alienation.

Usually--I don't know about TAM, but in other places--I've seen women recommended to take the kids and leave. Does TAM usually recommend that to women in these situations?

I think you're right about him being married to an abusive woman. And that drives home my point earlier, about the issue of becoming married, and finding out that the person you married changed their mind, or was just lying and is now going to betray every ounce of your trust.


----------



## Catherine602

Kivlor said:


> Thanks for the response, and sorry for not responding sooner.
> 
> I'm not sure that it is lack of commitment to the contract on the part of MGTOW and others espousing their concerns with marriage. It seems to me that these people are very fearful that they will wake up one day to find out that their partner is the one who isn't committed, will file D, and then demand half of the assets, on top of the massive betrayal of trust that D is.
> 
> For some people, when they say "till death do us part" they mean it. Or at least desperately want it to be that way. And they don't like the idea that the other party can at any time say "nah, I'm out and I want half of everything. Thanks for all those years you worked to build up this nice stash for me."
> 
> Not that most women do that. I think that's the fear though. I know it's one of my concerns, so maybe it's just me projecting. I've no real belief that I'd ever file D unless my W was abusive or unfaithful. There's no way to know what is really going through her mind though.
> 
> So the issue I see is with *women* who don't honor their commitments. But that's just me.


I don't think the facts support a lack of commitment on the part of women. 

This movement seems to center around money and fee for service. When the services of a wife are lost in a divorce, why should a man be burdened with sharing any of the assets accumulated during the union. 

According to this movement, women are on a service contract, when they lose their position, they need to move on. It's like a job. The support the breadwinner provides is in exchange for services rendered. The value of the services is dictated by the contractor. 

Child support should not interfere with the man ability to set up a new service contract or to have more children. 

I can see the advances for one member of the family but that system is a fall back to 100 yrs ago. Women and their children were at the mercy of the largess of the man of the house. Men who don't want to marry should not. If they don't marry then the laws have nothing to do with them, whether they are fair or not.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> The difference is clear to me. If the OP in the linked post was a woman, the cops would have been there sooner and the abusive spouse would be in jail. That is gender discrimination, no if ands or buts about it.


All this show is that you have absolutely no idea what happens when a woman is in the same situation.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I'd certainly say that if the OP had been a woman, odds of getting the TRO would have been higher. Not guaranteed, but better odds.


Perhaps. Depends on the facts of a case. I know one guy who was accused of child abuse and DV, and he was the one who ended up with 100% custody. 

This is but one anecdote to be sure, but the reality is that the legal system more or less does its best to be objective and determine conclusions on facts. Women lose custody, women get restraining orders, women are also disbelieved when they file accusations.

And yes, if a woman takes off from the family home, abandons her children, this will count against her when it comes to decide what is best for the children. 

If she truly feared for her life, that may be considered mitigating. But same goes for a man. And in these he said/she said situations, it's always best to document everything as best as you can. 

Or, better still, just stay away from abusers.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> All this show is that you have absolutely no idea what happens when a woman is in the same situation.


uh, not really. More often than not, the man would have gone to jail if the genders were reversed. Once again you show your true colors.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> uh, not really. More often than not, the man would have gone to jail if the genders were reversed. Once again you show your true colors.



Right. Because I, much like the entire US legal system, have it in for men.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-how-many-domestic-violence-offenders-go-jail



> Less than 2% of domestic violence offenders ever received any jail time.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Right. Because I, much like the entire US legal system, have it in for men.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-how-many-domestic-violence-offenders-go-jail


The authors are stretching meanings of words. 2% were convicted, and then incarcerated. An arrest results in a trip to jail. Different cities/states have different rules, but in my town an arrest after ~7:00pm means you spend the night in jail no matter what. They don't let you post bond till 7:00am. Even before 7:00 you may not get to post bond, because they don't always release the amount immediately.

If you can't afford the bond, or can't get someone to cover it for you, you don't get out of jail until your court date (arraignment).

I'll also point out that 500 cases isn't very representative of the nation, despite what they claim. I live in a small city and 500 cases is less than they see in a year easily. It might be a good poll of my town.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Perhaps. Depends on the facts of a case. I know one guy who was accused of child abuse and DV, and he was the one who ended up with 100% custody.
> 
> This is but one anecdote to be sure, but the reality is that the legal system more or less does its best to be objective and determine conclusions on facts. Women lose custody, women get restraining orders, women are also disbelieved when they file accusations.


I think there will always be people of both genders who seem to get lucky in these situations, but hopefully they are a minority. I'm not sure that by-and-large men are as likely to be believed by the judicial system if they claim abuse.



> And yes, if a woman takes off from the family home, abandons her children, this will count against her when it comes to decide what is best for the children.


But what if she takes off *with* her children? 

I know quite well that men doing this face kidnapping charges. Complete loss of custody. I'm sure some get away with it, but again, generally, I think the judicial system treats men and women different here.

It's anecdotal, but I know a girl who did this ~3 years ago. Her H went to CA for business, and she just took the kids and moved ~200 miles to live with her OM (I was friends with the OM until he told me this story; I decided I don't want to be around people like that). Didn't even have to claim abuse. She's still got her kids today, I saw them at the grocery store ~2 weeks ago. 



> If she truly feared for her life, that may be considered mitigating. But same goes for a man. And in these he said/she said situations, it's always best to document everything as best as you can.


Again, I think a court is far less inclined to believe that a man feared for his life, so his legal options are not the same as a woman's. 

Certainly its best for people to document everything in these situations.



> Or, better still, just stay away from abusers.


Yes, they should. If there was a reliable way to guarantee that we'd live in a much better world.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> The authors are stretching meanings of words. 2% were convicted, and then incarcerated. An arrest results in a trip to jail. Different cities/states have different rules, but in my town an arrest after ~7:00pm means you spend the night in jail no matter what. They don't let you post bond till 7:00am. Even before 7:00 you may not get to post bond, because they don't always release the amount immediately.
> 
> If you can't afford the bond, or can't get someone to cover it for you, you don't get out of jail until your court date (arraignment).
> 
> I'll also point out that 500 cases isn't very representative of the nation, despite what they claim. I live in a small city and 500 cases is less than they see in a year easily. It might be a good poll of my town.


There are no shortage of stats and studies out there that say exactly the same sorts of things.

And sure, maybe more than 2% spend a little bit of time in jail. Maybe. But notice that part of those stats show that (1) in many cases the police don't respond at all, or very slowly, (2) in many of those cases, the complainant is not believed or taken seriously, and most telling: (3) in almost half of cases that are responded to there is no arrest at all --even in states with mandatory arrest laws.

This one article is merely illustrative. Point being that if you have any familiarity at all with DV and abuse cases, you will know that these sorts of issues are rife within the system and have nothing to do with gender.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> According to who? Since virtually all stats show that women end up poorer than men after divorce.


Compare the end state only and you're likely to be poorer. Compare beginning AND end state instead.


----------



## Kivlor

@always_alone

I'm going to come back when I've got a little more time.

In the mean time, I wanted to drop this Oldie but Goodie in here for further discussion.

Another example of Western countries and the way they treat men in their legal systems.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Right. Because I, much like the entire US legal system, have it in for men.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-how-many-domestic-violence-offenders-go-jail


I would define jail time much differently. In >50% of those cases, the men actually were hauled off in cuffs. They may not have spent the night in the klink, but they did get to the jail. You are merely making a play on words. 

Also, I would be willing to be that if the woman pursued getting a TRO, her success rate after the man had been hauled away was probably close to 100 %.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Compare the end state only and you're likely to be poorer. Compare beginning AND end state instead.


What's that you say? Women are poorer than men at all life stages? Have much greater difficulty obtaining good employment? Are typically paid less than men for exactly the same job?

Who'da thunk it!


----------



## john117

That's the whole point tho. Compare couple assets before and individual assets after and you'll see that neither side does well, but if a woman did not work before and had few assets and ends up with alimony and / or shared assets...

Despite being a Bernie Sanders supporter btw I'm not as big a fan of community property type distributions, esp when its not clear whose decision it is for the woman to stay home and raise kids. 

I had a neighbor who was a SAHM lawyer, should her husband get penalized if she was the one choosing to SAHM?

I don't know, I think it's too complicated to simply decide this way or that.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> I would define jail time much differently. In >50% of those cases, the men actually were hauled off in cuffs. They may not have spent the night in the klink, but they did get to the jail. You are merely making a play on words.
> 
> Also, I would be willing to be that if the woman pursued getting a TRO, her success rate after the man had been hauled away was probably close to 100 %.


According to that one study, 3 in 5 were arrested, which is, yes, more than half. But, and a big but, not all reported cases are investigated. 20% were dismissed on the phone outright.

Oh, and a bunch of those arrested were women.

So, no, not playing with words, but pointing to what's really going on. 

As for TRO's, you can bet all you want. Where are the stats?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> That's the whole point tho. Compare couple assets before and individual assets after and you'll see that neither side does well, but if a woman did not work before and had few assets and ends up with alimony and / or shared assets...
> 
> Despite being a Bernie Sanders supporter btw I'm not as big a fan of community property type distributions, esp when its not clear whose decision it is for the woman to stay home and raise kids.
> 
> I had a neighbor who was a SAHM lawyer, should her husband get penalized if she was the one choosing to SAHM?
> 
> I don't know, I think it's too complicated to simply decide this way or that.


I'm sure there are cases where women have used men for the "get rich quick scheme", but honestly do not think we can assume that women are "better off" after they marry.

But what I really find objectionable is this idea that assets acquired during a marriage are the man's. Somehow a couple manages to better themselves, but he is the one who rightly owns it all? 

Seems suspect to me.


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> *That's the whole point tho. Compare couple assets before and individual assets after and you'll see that neither side does well, but if a woman did not work before and had few assets and ends up with alimony and / or shared assets...*
> 
> Despite being a Bernie Sanders supporter btw I'm not as big a fan of community property type distributions, esp when its not clear whose decision it is for the woman to stay home and raise kids.
> 
> I had a neighbor who was a SAHM lawyer, should her husband get penalized if she was the one choosing to SAHM?
> 
> I don't know, I think it's too complicated to simply decide this way or that.


This sums up my ex wife pretty nicely. She had never had to solely support herself, ever in her entire life. Occasional part time minimum wage jobs at best, and only so she could tell people how hard she had it being a working mom.

After the divorce, her compensation boils down to a net pay $20/hr 40 hour a week job...and she told people how hard it was being a single mom.

Yes, she is far better off after the divorce than any time before the marriage. I am in the worst financial position I have ever been in since leaving my parents house.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> According to that one study, 3 in 5 were arrested, which is, yes, more than half. But, and a big but, not all reported cases are investigated. 20% were dismissed on the phone outright.
> 
> Oh, and a bunch of those arrested were women.
> 
> So, no, not playing with words, but pointing to what's really going on.
> 
> As for TRO's, you can bet all you want. Where are the stats?


I am bowing out, since you apparently can't see the blatantly obvious. It is far from certain that a man goes to jail for each DV accusation, but the probability is much higher that he does, even though the statistics in virtually every study show that the instigator is a 50/50 proposition.

DV is bad, period, but men, on average are more likely to get screwed. Sorry, your links do not support the opposite conclusion.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I'm sure there are cases where women have used men for the "get rich quick scheme", but honestly do not think we can assume that women are "better off" after they marry.
> 
> But what I really find objectionable is this idea that assets acquired during a marriage are the man's. Somehow a couple manages to better themselves, but he is the one who rightly owns it all?
> 
> Seems suspect to me.


It is, but just as suspect to me as the idea of splitting 50-50 with zero contributions. It's above my pay grade but still...

Prenuptial agreement time I suppose.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> But what I really find objectionable is this idea that assets acquired during a marriage are the man's. Somehow a couple manages to better themselves, but he is the one who rightly owns it all?
> 
> Seems suspect to me.


Partner A in a marriage consistently makes 3-4x what partner B makes in the marriage. Presumably both give a roughly equal share to the relationship. In the divorce, partner A is legally entitled to half of all those accumulated assets.

It's not hard to understand why partner B feels as if this isn't exactly fair either, even if partner B understands the reality of the situation. 

You may assign whatever genders you like to A and B, it changes the argument not a whit. I expect in a world where women were more often than not the primary earners - a world we may well see in my lifetime - the complaints would come as predictably.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> There are no shortage of stats and studies out there that say exactly the same sorts of things.
> 
> And sure, maybe more than 2% spend a little bit of time in jail. Maybe. But notice that part of those stats show that (1) in many cases the police don't respond at all, or very slowly, (2) in many of those cases, the complainant is not believed or taken seriously, and most telling: (3) in almost half of cases that are responded to there is no arrest at all --even in states with mandatory arrest laws.
> 
> This one article is merely illustrative. Point being that if you have any familiarity at all with DV and abuse cases, you will know that these sorts of issues are rife within the system and have nothing to do with gender.


Here is a much more in-depth study. I typically don't prefer government sources--because they tend to have partisan biases in my experience--but I think this is more comprehensive, and the NCJS has better reliability today than psychology journals--the entire medical journal field is under scrutiny for 10 years of findings that 50-66% of published peer reviewed studies are false. 

~189,000 cases in that study. 

Men are slightly more likely to be arrested in intimate partner violence. Particularly for the crime of intimidation. When we compare situations where the man is the victim, he is 3.75 times as likely to be arrested alongside the woman for calling the police on her, compared to a woman being arrested for calling the police on him.

It does appear that arrests are looking more equal. The paper notes there is a difference in genders when we look at all other types of domestic violence besides intimate partner, but that's not what we're discussing here (Marriage being the topic).

This study does a great job of actually analyzing the south, where the vast majority of reporting precincts are from and has a decent representation of Western / Plains States. Sadly, it doesn't include much from the Pacific, Midwest or the Northeast. Leaving out CA and NY (Something I would prefer in real life) does leave out 2 of the most populous states in the Union who alone represent 1/6 of the US population. Overall, I think it's as good as I can find.

~50% of reports do not result in arrest. The largest contributing factor to this was that the perpetrator fled before the police arriving. Police rarely followed up with a warrant if the perpetrator fled.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Here is a much more in-depth study.


Geez, I wish you would show this study to @naiveonedave, as he seems convinced that I am ignoring the "blatantly obvious".

But here we can see quite clearly support for the stats that say less than half of all DV incidents responded to by police, that is only 37% of incidents where police showed up, result in arrest.

Also note that the dual arrest rate is but 1.3% and note too that they are VERY clear that dual arrests occur most commonly in incidents between homosexual couples. So this seriously tempers your claims about the likelihood of men being put in jail, simply for calling the police.

Last, but not least, this study makes it very clear that female arrests are a significant number, over 50% in some cases. It says quite explicitly that sex had no impact on response to complaints and that women were as likely to be arrested.

So, yes, thank you. This study is supporting exactly what I have been saying all along.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> It's not hard to understand why partner B feels as if this isn't exactly fair either, even if partner B understands the reality of the situation.


Yeah, I get it. The basic philosophy is "I make more money than you, therefore I contributed more to the relationship."

If a marriage were a pure business arrangement, I could maybe see an argument for "I put more in, therefore I get more out.". But is a marriage a pure business arrangement? And are finances the only "contributions" that count?

I say this as someone who most assuredly would have to "pay" on the dissolution of my relationship.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Geez, I wish you would show this study to @naiveonedave, as he seems convinced that I am ignoring the "blatantly obvious".
> 
> But here we can see quite clearly support for the stats that say less than half of all DV incidents responded to by police, that is only 37% of incidents where police showed up, result in arrest.
> 
> Also note that the dual arrest rate is but 1.3% and note too that they are VERY clear that dual arrests occur most commonly in incidents between homosexual couples. So this seriously tempers your claims about the likelihood of men being put in jail, simply for calling the police.
> 
> Last, but not least, this study makes it very clear that female arrests are a significant number, over 50% in some cases. It says quite explicitly that sex had no impact on response to complaints and that women were as likely to be arrested.
> 
> So, yes, thank you. This study is supporting exactly what I have been saying all along.


Yeah, I wasn't even going to touch the homosexual issue. I figured our hands our full with heterosexual marriage / domestic violence :grin2:

Like I said, it appears that things have taken a turn for the better for guys. If you look at the dual arrest stats, they're all over the place. It appears that is much more jurisdiction based. Some places were as high as 13% of reports. Others as low as 0.3%. The average was ~2.8%. The median was 2.05. The Mode was 2.5. 

I did notice after I looked again this evening that Michigan represented 20% of the data, which I found interesting.


----------



## Kivlor

So, huzzah for the police getting to a position of treating men calling for DV the way they treat women. A step in the right direction.

What are your thoughts on the article I posted previously, about making it a crime for men to get a paternity test on their children. France and Germany have made it illegal for men to do so without the mother's consent. In France, the punishment is up to a year in prison, ~$20,000 fine.

This isn't really an issue with marriage, as much as an issue with having sex with women at all lol--so it really falls under the Sexodus / MGTOW. 

Another issue is that in the US, France and Germany (maybe others, I'm just familiar with these) you can still be forced to pay child support even if your wife (or lover) does cuckold you and you can prove it. Take this case for example. In the US, this provides case law that all a woman need do is *allege* the child is yours, and now you're on the hook for child support. No amount of DNA testing matters.

Or this case, which leads you wonder if someone could prove it was your sperm they got at the sperm bank....


----------



## naiveonedave

@Kivlor - the government has never really cared for what is right, only what keeps the government from spending money that should be spent by someone else.

The judges in those two cases should be disbarred and forced to pay the attorneys fees for the two men in question....


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Yeah, I get it. The basic philosophy is "I make more money than you, therefore I contributed more to the relationship."


No, the argument is "I make more money than you, therefore I contributed more economically to the relationship."

Which is completely accurate and not as reductionist. 



> If a marriage were a pure business arrangement, I could maybe see an argument for "I put more in, therefore I get more out.". But is a marriage a pure business arrangement? And are finances the only "contributions" that count?


No, a marriage is not purely a business arrangement, but a divorce is most assuredly a purely business dissolution. 

We can't measure the intangibles. How do you put a dollar figure on anything other than the actual dollars? The lower wage partner no doubt provided plenty of those things that make a marriage more than a business arrangement too. But that partner has presumably _already_ benefited from the higher wage earner's largess with a better home, nicer car, clothes, meals, and all of the other things that come from hitching your wagon to someone with a fatter wallet. 

The divorce proceeding says that we will take none of this into consideration and simply split the assets equally. The lower wage earner gets something that feels a little like a "double dip". The low wager earner, at the end of the divorce, has assets far in excess of anything they could have created on their own during the same time frame. The high wage earner gets exactly the opposite. 

It is both fair and unfair at the same time. Fair insofar as this is the deal going in, and everyone knows it, so no use complaining. Unfair in that the low wage earner is getting a very tangible benefit that was not the fruit of his or her own labor. 

In other words, where's the financial compensation to the high wage earner for having shared the wealth over the length of the marriage?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> No, the argument is "I make more money than you, therefore I contributed more economically to the relationship."
> 
> Which is completely accurate and not as reductionist.


It is even more reductionist in my view, because it pretends that because the intangibles are difficult to measure, they count for nothing at all. It is very presumptuous to say something along the lines of "my salary is bigger, and so because my economic contribution was bigger, my exit take-away should also be bigger." Currently, for example, my salary is bigger because my SO quit his job so that we could move somewhere where my salary would be bigger. So where do I get off telling him at D time that I should walk away with more because I put in more. He quite literally sacrificed a job, a community and a lifestyle to pursue an opportunity for my benefit. 

I do not see it at all the way you do. Yes, some people earn less money than others. That does not make it a "double-dip" because they have contributed equally to the success of obtaining whatever marital assets there are. 

Intangible contributions may be difficult to measure, but they count. Probably more than the raw cash does in the end of all.


----------



## Kivlor

@Cletus

Great post. I think that gets to part of my own concerns, deep down. Double-dipping. 

In D, we do attempt to evaluate the tangible and intangible. For example, the parent who spends the most time with the kids gets extra consideration with custody. There are matrices for determining alimony--which quite literally places an economic value on the intangible "good" of being a SAHP. 

So, the party that contributes the least money gets at least half--and probably cash payments going forward. And the party that contributes the least money probably gets the kids. This is where the double-dipping takes place. They get the best of both ends. And they didn't have to contribute to one of those two.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> In other words, where's the financial compensation to the high wage earner for having shared the wealth over the length of the marriage?


Apologies for the double-response, but honestly I'm a bit gob-smacked at this line in particular. Since when do we expect financial compensation for "sharing the wealth". Shall we also expect financial compensation for doing the housework? How much are repairs worth? Child-care? 

I get it, some people make more money than others. But to take that and say they've put more into even just the economic success of the marriage is a pretty limited view, IMHO. 

I would never date, let alone marry someone who had such a mercenary view, predisposed to seeing me as a thief because I believe that contributions other than financial ones are also valuable.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> S
> What are your thoughts on the article I posted previously, about making it a crime for men to get a paternity test on their children. France and Germany have made it illegal for men to do so without the mother's consent.


TBH, I really don't understand the rationale for this law, or how it will promote marital peace. It would seem, IMHO, to accomplish exactly the opposite. 

Fortunately, paternity testing in the US and many other Western countries is widely available, fast, and relatively inexpensive. 

It does strike me that dredging through the case files and laws of any and every country in the Western world to locate as many examples as possible to fuel and justify MGTOW's hatred of women and feelings of persecution will no doubt yield results. Perhaps MGTOW will be happier if they also GTOW towards a more male-centric society. I hear you can make some seriously good coin in the UAE, for example.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Apologies for the double-response, but honestly I'm a bit gob-smacked at this line in particular. Since when do we expect financial compensation for "sharing the wealth".


You're saying we expect financial compensation for sharing the relationship, are you not, in whatever way you're defining it? 

Why is this any different? Why do you value one spouse's input of cash as somehow less compensation worthy than another spouse's contribution of support, or love, or sex? It's certainly contributing every bit as much to the success and happiness of the relationship as are the intangibles. 

Being poor sucks. It puts a strain on everyone. Having a spouse provide you with financial security that you cannot provide for yourself is a wonderful thing indeed.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Why do you value one spouse's input of cash as somehow less compensation worthy than another spouse's contribution of support, or love, or sex?


I don't.

What I don't understand is why money counts as *more* important, such that the person who supposedly gave more should get to take more. And why the higher income earner assumes it is *personal* money, when quite often their career success is supported and advanced by their partner.



Cletus said:


> Having a spouse provide you with financial security that you cannot provide for yourself is a wonderful thing indeed.


I also don't get why we are assuming that the lower income earner *can't* provide their own financial security. The fact is that when people choose to live together, there are very often times when one will sacrifice opportunities for the other's benefit. That is to say, they *could* provide their own financial security, but aren't because of geography, child-rearing, and any number of other things.

ETA: I also don't think "splitting assets" is the same as financial compensation, so no, absolutely not, I don't think anyone deserves financial compensation for sharing a relationship. I think that during an LTR assets are accumulated, and both parties deserve to share the pie they baked equally.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I don't.
> 
> What I don't understand is why money counts as *more* important, such that the person who supposedly gave more should get to take more. And why the higher income earner assumes it is *their* money, when quite often their career success is supported and advanced by their partner who helps them get there.


It doesn't. Without a pre-nup, it doesn't count _at all_ - no matter the income disparity, both spouses walk away with half (no fault, no children, no alimony, for simplicity). 

I don't think it's wrong to believe that it should count just a little.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I don't think it's wrong to believe that it should count just a little.


We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it privileges income over everything else, even when that everything else involved some serious sacrifices for the benefit of the person who is generating the income.

I understand why employers want to suck as much work as possible out of employees for as little remuneration as possible, but I don't understand why you would do that to a spouse.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> TBH, I really don't understand the rationale for this law, or how it will promote marital peace. It would seem, IMHO, to accomplish exactly the opposite.
> 
> Fortunately, paternity testing in the US and many other Western countries is widely available, fast, and relatively inexpensive.
> 
> It does strike me that dredging through the case files and laws of any and every country in the Western world to locate as many examples as possible to fuel and justify MGTOW's hatred of women and feelings of persecution will no doubt yield results. Perhaps MGTOW will be happier if they also GTOW towards a more male-centric society. I hear you can make some seriously good coin in the UAE, for example.


I'm not really dredging, those are 2 cases I was familiar with. I'm kind of concerned at what these cases seem to point towards. The Kansas case may have farther reaching effects--eg Sperm Banks; what if someone ends up being able to "prove" who the daddy is? Do they get child support? Alimony? I'm thankful I never donated to such an institution, but many have. 

What about egg donations? Will the government hit the woman up for child support? Can either donor come back and demand custody / visitation of their "offspring"? 

And the Michigan case is just egregious. The man has proven that he's not the father. The mother and biological father live together, and raised the kid. But he's on the hook because the mother named him on the Birth Certificate--admittedly to get government assistance--decades ago. This is worse than mere cuckoldry. The case law now exists that a woman merely need claim a man's paternity, and no DNA test can save him; at least in Michigan.

I'm certainly glad that I don't live in these places. And that I'm not in France or Germany. If I did, I would be planning to move. Of course, in the US states use case law from each other often when no case law exists on the matter in that particular state...


----------



## always_alone

Sperm donors, if done properly, are exempt from child support requirements. The article made that clear. The sticking point in the Kansas case is that he answered a Craigs list ad. So the nature of his donorship is in question.

And in the Michigan case, he didn't have proof until way later, when the real faher showed up. Remember, he never did the DNA test, and more or less ignored the problem for a goodly number of years. By then it is in the books, and that just makes for a whole lot of red tape to untangle. It will take time, but is certainly doable.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> What about egg donations? Will the government hit the woman up for child support? Can either donor come back and demand custody / visitation of their "offspring"?


Of course not. That would be misogyny!


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> What about egg donations? Will the government hit the woman up for child support? Can either donor come back and demand custody / visitation of their "offspring"?





technovelist said:


> Of course not. That would be misogyny!


Actually, there have cases about exactly that...

Sherri Shepherd Is Baby LJ's Real Mother: And It's Time She Starts Mothering


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Apologies for the double-response, but honestly I'm a bit gob-smacked at this line in particular. Since when do we expect financial compensation for "sharing the wealth". Shall we also expect financial compensation for doing the housework? How much are repairs worth? Child-care?
> 
> I get it, some people make more money than others. But to take that and say they've put more into even just the economic success of the marriage is a pretty limited view, IMHO.
> 
> I would never date, let alone marry someone who had such a mercenary view, predisposed to seeing me as a thief because I believe that contributions other than financial ones are also valuable.


Here in McMansion land it's not uncommon for SAHM moms to have nannies... Regardless, unless someone produces a dozen kids, or lives in a non automated house, the energy or effort required to raise kids is not too different as that of, say, staying in shape to ensure one doesn't get replaced.

AA, I know its not a politically correct thing to say, but live for 14 years among such people (who often get divorced) and you'll see how it's not really such a difficult task to raise 2.1 children and the obligatory golden retriever when you have an infinite supply of money.

We are talking $250-500k/year income, $1m homes, European SUV, private k-12, multiple vacations, nanny, etc etc. I will understand that not all of America has it this well but in the case of a divorce those women come out quite well for the most part. Especially in my local county which has its share of male adultery (executive types) getting shared custody is quite a challenge. Two of my immediate neighbors went this path and one of the two was wiped out financially - as was the wife - all because they (both) could not keep their pants on. The other guy outright cheated, wife took the kids, lots of $$, etc, but he makes enough to not worry about it. 

I'm not generalizing but things often turn out bad for guys. Not quite as bad as they did for my wife's cousin, but they do.

Cousin's wife turned LD on him and put on an extra few pounds.... She "encouraged" him to seek outside trysts and promptly nailed him with a PI. She also stashed away thousands of dollars from the money he so freely gave her for running the household.

The divorce stressed him so much he had a heart attack, lost his mid six figures job, his ex kept the house, a lot of the savings... And he had to move to the other side of the country to get work. Meanwhile the wife is enjoying her new beau, paid off house, alimony checks, not married of course, and has a personal trainer to lose the weight.

I'm not saying every marriage ends like that but the lady's plot was Gone Girl Pennsylvania Edition... And worked 100%. 

Ironically the guy married his therapist


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Sperm donors, if done properly, are exempt from child support requirements. The article made that clear. The sticking point in the Kansas case is that he answered a Craigs list ad. So the nature of his donorship is in question.
> 
> And in the Michigan case, he didn't have proof until way later, when the real faher showed up. Remember, he never did the DNA test, and more or less ignored the problem for a goodly number of years. By then it is in the books, and that just makes for a whole lot of red tape to untangle. It will take time, but is certainly doable.


In Michigan, he didn't ignore it, if you dig farther into his story. It's now been shown that they never served him with the papers all those years ago. He was in jail when they supposedly served him at his home. He responded when he found out.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I understand why employers want to suck as much work as possible out of employees for as little remuneration as possible, but I don't understand why you would do that to a spouse.


Some potential spouses no doubt also don't understand why anyone might want to do that to either a spouse or themselves. Which brings us full circle - someone with a lot to potentially lose in a divorce might just think really long and hard about marriage in the first place.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> We are talking $250-500k/year income, $1m homes, European SUV, private k-12, multiple vacations, nanny, etc etc. I will understand that not all of America has it this well but in the case of a divorce those women come out quite well for the most part.


Not all of America...:rofl:

You are talking about the top 5% --at most. And only those of the top 5% that are playing trophy wife cheater games. 

Sure some men have sad stories. No one denies that. But to extrapolate that to the generalized claims made all through this thread? Just :rofl:

Okay, rich boys. Yes, agreed. Whatever you do, don't get married, fvck whatever hot young women you can get your hands on, and keep your cash in your wallet.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Some potential spouses no doubt also don't understand why anyone might want to do that to either a spouse or themselves. Which brings us full circle - someone with a lot to potentially lose in a divorce might just think really long and hard about marriage in the first place.


It's good advice to everyone, don't you think? To think long and hard before getting into a marriage?


----------



## MEM2020

I dated many women before meeting M2. 

In every single case, I made a point of guaging their approach to money early on. As soon as it became obvious someone was living beyond their means - it was an immediate 'game over'. 

People who live that way, HAVE to find a partner who will fund the lifestyle they believe they are entitled to. And they have to do it before they burn completely through their parents goodwill and/or max out their credit and begin to approach the financial cliff of bankruptcy. 

You can definitely buy a spouse. You cannot buy love. 

Twenty five years down the road it's obvious to me how well that approach worked. 

When we talked very seriously about divorce, it seemed fair for M2 to get half. She's been a super supportive partner. Supported the heck out of my crazy career while raising the kids. 





always_alone said:


> It's good advice to everyone, don't you think? To think long and hard before getting into a marriage?


----------



## john117

That's sometimes hard to do but its something that needs done. When I met J2 we were Masters students. She was paying out of pocket and was far more frugal than my TA stipend enabled me to. I knew her family situation money wise but not her own personal views. 

When we got married we still lived frugally till she got a job and her spendiness became more apparent. To her credit she focused on quality stuff but slowly she started having Imelda Marcos taste... 

In retrospect I should have been more concerned about attitude and expectations more than spending. Spending is easy to fix, attitude is not.

Ultimately it's her grandiose vision of retirement and lack of caring that are the red flags. But these are not things you think about early on.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Actually, there have cases about exactly that...
> 
> Sherri Shepherd Is Baby LJ's Real Mother: And It's Time She Starts Mothering


Now that is rich. I'm laughing pretty hard, thanks for that A_A. It appears that the claims are A) she and her former H agreed to have a via surrogacy. B) They found a candidate and entered into a contract as a married couple with said candidate C) She found out H was planning on divorcing her for maintenance and alimony (something we commonly complain some women are seen doing to men) as soon as the kid was born D) She filed D, and tried to divest herself of the kid. E) She lost and will have to pay. 

I'm shocked she was dumb enough to go into court and say 'I don't want the kid, so I shouldn't have to pay'; when her better option would have been to claim she is the more capable parent, and demand full custody and go after XH for support. Bad move. And it cost her. Probably no going back now, she played her hand.

The major difference here and the Michigan case I was discussing is contract. They agreed as a married couple to have a surrogate kid. Parents who adopt and then divorce have to pay support / alimony. The Michigan case differs because the man was not married, did not agree to have kids, the kid is not his, and the mother actually lives with the real dad.

It's not really comparable to the Kansas case because the donor is not the one paying alimony / maintenance, rather the adoptive parent. I'd be interested in seeing a case where the egg donor gets hit up for maintenance and alimony. For all I know, they've happened, I've just not seen them.


----------



## Catherine602

It's not difficult to care for children if you think that they are like puppies. Feed them the equivalent of puppy pellet food (Mickie D's), hose them down when they are dirty, house train them, exercise them and give them a pat on the head. But there is more than custodial care involved in raising children. 

My husband and I are constantly thinking about our children, their future and how the events in their childhood will effect them as adults. I take the responsibility to pay attention to who they are as individual, monitor who they interact with, their cognitive development, plan appropriate socially and intellectually stimulating etc. 

These are all conscious and purposeful and thought out. The brain is a major consumer of total energy output. A good breadwinner works just as hard. However, the default attitude is usually to highly praise the one who is putting a roof over the family's head and not the one who is vital for making the family to put a roof over. A father may "baby sit" his children and fail to see what what's the big deal. He does not get to mindfully parent so he is in no position to judge. 

Our children's births precipitated one of the most difficult periods in out marriage. My husband seemed to have no understanding of how it effected and changed me and I was the same towards him. 

I don't mean to push anyone into their gender corners but rather explain why a woman may withdraw after children come into the picture. If the assumption is that parenting is easy, then a riff is preordained.


----------



## Dycedarg

always_alone said:


> Okay, rich boys. Yes, agreed. Whatever you do, don't get married, fvck whatever hot young women you can get your hands on, and keep your cash in your wallet.


So glad that we're on the same page.


----------



## john117

Catherine, remember the saying that "work expands to fill available time".

This is what my neighbor SAHM all seem to do. 

In reality its as tough as you want to make it.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> It's not really comparable to the Kansas case because the donor is not the one paying alimony / maintenance, rather the adoptive parent. I'd be interested in seeing a case where the egg donor gets hit up for maintenance and alimony. For all I know, they've happened, I've just not seen them.


Sperm and egg donations, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have opened up a veritable Pandora's box of ethical and legal issues. There are no shortage of lawsuits out there as people try to muddle through.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> So glad that we're on the same page.


Oh, we are not at all on the same page. Not even the same book.

But you go ahead and have fun with that. I'm sure you'll have a wonderful time with your self-fulfilling prophecy that AWALT. All women that want to go along with your playboy games, at any rate.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Catherine, remember the saying that "work expands to fill available time".
> 
> This is what my neighbor SAHM all seem to do.
> 
> In reality its as tough as you want to make it.


Only for the uber-privileged and ultra lazy. And, frankly, I'm thinking I'd rather throw myself off a tall building than live in your neighborhood.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> You can definitely buy a spouse. You cannot buy love.


I just wanted to put an extra like on this! 

I experienced this when dating too, although from the other end. Rich guys dangling their assets in front of me as some kind of bait, like I'm supposed to be impressed by your fancy car, or whatever. 

Umm, sorry dude, but if best thing about you is your stuff --well, that isn't gonna capture my interest, my respect, and most certainly not my love. 

Yes, you most certainly can buy a lot of things with money. I've seen this play out in a lot of different ways. But if you buy your spouse, you shouldn't be too surprised that they only wanted you for that money, don't much respect you, or even like you, and are more than happy to strip you of whatever assets they can.


----------



## MEM2020

Catherine, 
That is frighteningly true. 

Good parenting - is quite the mixture of art and science. And it sometimes requires a level of patience greater any other activity. 

I wasn't naturally good at it. M2 was. 




Catherine602 said:


> It's not difficult to care for children if you think that they are like puppies. Feed them the equivalent of puppy pellet food (Mickie D's), hose them down when they are dirty, house train them, exercise them and give them a pat on the head. But there is more than custodial care involved in raising children.
> 
> My husband and I are constantly thinking about our children, their future and how the events in their childhood will effect them as adults. I take the responsibility to pay attention to who they are as individual, monitor who they interact with, their cognitive development, plan appropriate socially and intellectually stimulating etc.
> 
> These are all conscious and purposeful and thought out. The brain is a major consumer of total energy output. A good breadwinner works just as hard. However, the default attitude is usually to highly praise the one who is putting a roof over the family's head and not the one who is vital for making the family to put a roof over. A father may "baby sit" his children and fail to see what what's the big deal. He does not get to mindfully parent so he is in no position to judge.
> 
> Our children's births precipitated one of the most difficult periods in out marriage. My husband seemed to have no understanding of how it effected and changed me and I was the same towards him.
> 
> I don't mean to push anyone into their gender corners but rather explain why a woman may withdraw after children come into the picture. If the assumption is that parenting is easy, then a riff is preordained.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
While these are large genderizations - I believe they are mostly true.

When a woman leads with her sexuality, by dressing and acting in a highly sexualized manner - that is comparable to a man aggressively leading with his wallet. 

I believe that both cases reflect folks with an underlying insecurity - about the rest of the package. 

And FWIW - the guys who bulk way up and parade round in tight muscle shirts - tend to have that same insecurity issue. 




always_alone said:


> I just wanted to put an extra like on this!
> 
> I experienced this when dating too, although from the other end. Rich guys dangling their assets in front of me as some kind of bait, like I'm supposed to be impressed by your fancy car, or whatever.
> 
> Umm, sorry dude, but if best thing about you is your stuff --well, that isn't gonna capture my interest, my respect, and most certainly not my love.
> 
> Yes, you most certainly can buy a lot of things with money. I've seen this play out in a lot of different ways. But if you buy your spouse, you shouldn't be too surprised that they only wanted you for that money, don't much respect you, or even like you, and are more than happy to strip you of whatever assets they can.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Sperm and egg donations, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have opened up a veritable Pandora's box of ethical and legal issues. There are no shortage of lawsuits out there as people try to muddle through.


Oh, it is definitely a mess. A_A, I think I said it before, but I enjoy arguing with you. Thanks for indulging me all these many long, long pages.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Only for the uber-privileged and ultra lazy. And, frankly, I'm thinking I'd rather throw myself off a tall building than live in your neighborhood.


Middle class America has most of what's described here. No maids or nannies but its not an 8 hour job to keep a modest house running and a pair of rugrats entertained and educated.

This speaking as someone who grew up in 900 sq ft for 4 people with a working mother, mind you. And TV in the evenings only. 3 channels.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Catherine,
> That is frighteningly true.
> 
> Good parenting - is quite the mixture of art and science. And it sometimes requires a level of patience greater any other activity.
> 
> I wasn't naturally good at it. M2 was.


Parenting is generally easy - even with a Tasmanian Devil of a child as my older one was - if you outthink your kids. My wife was outright lousy at parenting and i, being the youngest in my family, had to learn on the job. 

And I was - still am - the archetypal helicopter parent. 

Keeping a household is not difficult either, not with appliances and conveniences etc. But it can be made a 24/7 job if so desired.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

If only I were as well equipped to deal with life as you are. Everything would be easy. 




john117 said:


> Parenting is generally easy - even with a Tasmanian Devil of a child as my older one was - if you outthink your kids. My wife was outright lousy at parenting and i, being the youngest in my family, had to learn on the job.
> 
> And I was - still am - the archetypal helicopter parent.
> 
> Keeping a household is not difficult either, not with appliances and conveniences etc. But it can be made a 24/7 job if so desired.


----------



## Catherine602

john117 said:


> Catherine, remember the saying that "work expands to fill available time".
> 
> This is what my neighbor SAHM all seem to do.
> 
> In reality its as tough as you want to make it.


Have you ever had major responsibility for children to the extent that your role was vital to the child's development. 

When I say responsibility I mean, knowing the names of each of the child's teachers in all subjects, academic weaknesses, how to work with child to overcome, how to approach teachers for best results, involvement in school, the subjects that they are studying and their homework, preparation for test, arrange age appropriate social functions. 

Also, when the next vaccine and dentist check-up is due, names and backgrounds of friends and frenemies and ongoing monitoring of friendships, what birthday parties are coming up and the appropriate gifts to bring, what they are eating for lunch every day, their likes and dislikes. I am sure there are others I forgot. 

One member of TAM said he did an experiment to prove to his his emotionally distant wife that she was exaggerating the difficulty of childcare av oid meeting his needs. He took care of their children for a few days while she was gone. He said it was the easiest work he had ever done. 

I believe he was actually baby sitting but that's beside the point. His experiment proved that he was right. Unfortunately his wife remained as chilly after the exposure of her malingering as she was before.

I am not minimizing the role of outside working parent. I have been there, I know what it takes to survive in a competitive stressful position. The hrs are long and much of the work is hidden because it is intellectual and creative in nature. The inside working parent may not appreciate that either. Both parents have the same problem but they can't give each other what they need, understanding and compassion.


----------



## john117

Catherine,

Unequivocal yes to all of the above. Two kids worth of piano, French, Kumon, art class, extracurricular activities, PTO, meet the teacher, college apps, college visits, furniture buying, boyfriend screening... 

Once I asked J2 to drop DD 2 at her middle school. She proceeded to drive to the elementary school...

I may have my flaws but if there's a better father out there I'd like to meet him. And I did it because it was fun. There's hardly a place in my city I can drive to without bringing memories of what we did when the girls were 3 or 13 or...

And it wasn't tiring. We got early training on the worst possible baby (DD1) and thankfully DD2 was far more agreeable.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Middle class America has most of what's described here. No maids or nannies but its not an 8 hour job to keep a modest house running and a pair of rugrats entertained and educated.


Ummm. Maids and nannies make a pretty big difference in the workload of keeping a house and looking after children, don't you think?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Ummm. Maids and nannies make a pretty big difference in the workload of keeping a house and looking after children, don't you think?


A lot less than you think. A nanny isn't going to teach riding a bicycle and a maid can't cook a dinner for 25. The biggest time saver is appliances and such. Hired help certainly helps but there are not a huge factor.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> A lot less than you think. A nanny isn't going to teach riding a bicycle and a maid can't cook a dinner for 25. The biggest time saver is appliances and such. Hired help certainly helps but there are not a huge factor.


I'm sorry, John. But you're making me want to roll much eyes.

Let's see here: you need to get some stuff done. Whoever shall look after the kids while you run around the city? Little Susie is sick, who is going to look after her and clean up her barf all day. Little Johnny needs to be picked up from his violin class, but it interferes with your golf game. Who does it! 

Who picks up the toys, vacuums the rug, scrubs the toilet, changes the diapers, mops up the spilled food.... And the list goes on and on. 

And, uh, how often are you "cooking" for 25? 

If you only do the "fun" bits, no wonder you find it easy. Besides that, a nanny *will* teach your kids how to ride a bicycle.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Okay, rich boys. Yes, agreed. Whatever you do, don't get married, fvck whatever hot young women you can get your hands on, and keep your cash in your wallet.


You forgot to mention "And don't get them pregnant!".


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> You forgot to mention "And don't get them pregnant!".


Right. Silly me. How could I forget that men have zero interest in having children? 

That's just something they do because women badger or trick them into it. 

Beware!


----------



## john117

AA, babies are babies for a year. And if you are careful they don't get sick all that often till they go to elementary school 

I have fond memories of pushing a stroller around campus, DD2 in the stroller and DD1 with me. I've dealt with chicken pox, RSV, three years worth of weekly speech therapy and NASA level Orthodontics... 

Golf? I was lucky to get time to work on my school work. And so on. Maybe that made me the father I am today...


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Right. Silly me. How could I forget that men have zero interest in having children?
> 
> That's just something they do because women badger or trick them into it.
> 
> Beware!


Many men have a lot of interest in having children.

But they don't want women to be able to use those children as weapons to extract enormous amounts of money for "child support" with no accountability.

Hope that helps.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> AA, babies are babies for a year. And if you are careful they don't get sick all that often till they go to elementary school
> 
> I have fond memories of pushing a stroller around campus, DD2 in the stroller and DD1 with me. I've dealt with chicken pox, RSV, three years worth of weekly speech therapy and NASA level Orthodontics...
> 
> Golf? I was lucky to get time to work on my school work. And so on. Maybe that made me the father I am today...


You are confusing me, john. Did you have nannies and maids helping you out or no? 'Cuz my only point was in reference to your claims about your neighborhood SAHMs who all had nannies and maids and how easy it is to be a SAHM. Well, yes, of course it is easy with maids and nannies.

I'm sure you're a fine dad. But I also happen to know that children require pretty much constant attention until they go to school (or unless someone else is looking after them), which is a lot more than 1 year. And even then, they get sick, need to be cleaned up after, fed, carted around. Some of them also have much more serious problems that need to be attended to. Some require extra attention just to get by.

I'm glad it was so easy for you, but not everyone finds it easy. Not everyone has the luxury of bringing their kids to work. Not everyone has the luxury of expensive childcare facilities. Not everyone has super healthy kids that never get sick. And so on.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Many men have a lot of interest in having children.
> 
> But they don't want women to be able to use those children as weapons to extract enormous amounts of money for "child support" with no accountability.


Oh well, tough luck then. 

Of course, men that actually do some of the shopping and childcare would realize that even when they can eliminate women from the equation, children will still cost an enormous amount of money.

They don't live on air, you know.


----------



## always_alone

I have to say, @technovelist, your self-appointed mission to protect all of the men of this world from the evil women kind of cracks me up.

Here you are, this happily married man, enjoying all the benefits of a long term intimate relationship and the joys of having children. Yet here you are, a one-man crusade to warn every other man in existence away from this lovely life you've built for yourself.

I get the impression sometimes that you want to be the only man in existence to be happy, and wonder why you are so determined that every other man be miserable.

I'd maybe get it if you had been raked over the coals yourself, but you haven't. Indeed your last marriage blew up because *you* wanted to blow it up to be with your OW. Yet, here you are claiming that it is *women* who can't be trusted.

I know, I know, in your eyes it's not you willing this misery on men, it is evil women and the US legal system. Never mind that the majority who marry are actually like you: happy. Indeed, never mind that the stats show that those who marry are much happier than those who stay single. 

So tell me tech, why do you wish so much misery on your fellow men?


----------



## john117

Happiness down to 60%... And falling steadily. 


http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/more-are-unhappy-in-their-marriage-than-ever-before

Or

http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/are-you-semi-happy-marriage

Like when selecting politicians, we are often blind to our own flawed situations and consider ourselves "happy". 

Combine that with the pathological optimism that Americans are known for and you have the archetypal " other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play" marriages.

I have three guys in their 40s and beyond in my team, MGTOW's all. Happy as can be.


----------



## Catherine602

@technovelist Do you discuss your deep seated distrust of women with your wife? If so, does she confirm your bias? You sound like an unhappy man trapped in a miserable marriage.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Happiness down to 60%... And falling steadily.
> 
> 
> More People Say They're Unhappy in Their Marriages Than Ever Before
> 
> Or
> 
> Are You in a Semi-Happy Marriage? | Fox News Magazine
> 
> Like when selecting politicians, we are often blind to our own flawed situations and consider ourselves "happy".
> 
> Combine that with the pathological optimism that Americans are known for and you have the archetypal " other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play" marriages.
> 
> I have three guys in their 40s and beyond in my team, MGTOW's all. Happy as can be.


Are they genuinely happy, or "happy" in that American pathologically optimistic way?

Agreed absolutely that marriage doesn't guarantee happiness, and that many people are much better off not being married. Particularly those who are "me" oriented and not very capable of caring about others.

Nonetheless, note that it is still a *majority* who report happiness. And there is a wealth of research out there that indicates that intimate connections are a very human need. And those who go without often lament the inability to find love, or become embittered, raging about how awful all other people are.

But power to those who care nothing for love. 

I wonder, john, since you are clearly impressed with MGTOW and terribly unhappy now, why are you still waiting to GYOW? Leaving is easy, man. Just get up and go.

Or, more to the point, why are you, much like technovelist did, making sure you have a back-up relationship before "GYOW"?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Happiness down to 60%... And falling steadily.
> 
> 
> More People Say They're Unhappy in Their Marriages Than Ever Before



And interesting quote from this article that completely belies your dire headline:



> One of the most fascinating findings in this new report is that marriage satisfaction was on an upward trajectory while America's economy was in the toilet. Starting in 2008, people began feeling happier in their relationships. The number climbed from 62 percent in 2008 to 65 percent in 2012, then dipped to 60 percent in 2014, when the economy started to rebound.


----------



## tech-novelist

Catherine602 said:


> @technovelist Do you discuss your deep seated distrust of women with your wife? If so, does she confirm your bias? You sound like an unhappy man trapped in a miserable marriage.


No, I'm a happily married man.

Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## MEM2020

Always,
I have yet to see John ever acknowledge being impressed by anyone else's accomplishments. 

In fact, quite the opposite. This need to minimize the accomplishments of others is driven by a high level of competitiveness. 




always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, John. But you're making me want to roll much eyes.
> 
> Let's see here: you need to get some stuff done. Whoever shall look after the kids while you run around the city? Little Susie is sick, who is going to look after her and clean up her barf all day. Little Johnny needs to be picked up from his violin class, but it interferes with your golf game. Who does it!
> 
> Who picks up the toys, vacuums the rug, scrubs the toilet, changes the diapers, mops up the spilled food.... And the list goes on and on.
> 
> And, uh, how often are you "cooking" for 25?
> 
> If you only do the "fun" bits, no wonder you find it easy. Besides that, a nanny *will* teach your kids how to ride a bicycle.


----------



## Married but Happy

How many marriages are happy? It could be around 60%, sure. But about 40% have or will fail (avoiding the mythical 50% failure rate), so those that have failed aren't being polled, of course. So, the remaining 60% are polled, and 60% of those are reasonably happy. 60% of 60% is *36%, so about a third of all marriages are happy* (only counting first marriage in existence or ended - not counting any remarried people, as we know those marriages fail at a higher rate).

There was a study on long-lasting marriages - 20 years or more - that indicated that about half were happy. Out of all marriages (many of shorter duration included) - and factoring in other parameters - means that about 20% of marriages overall STAY happy long term.

What does that matter? You marry and are happy - for as long as it's good, then great! That may change eventually, and you do something about it. That's good! Some are lucky enough - or learn enough - to make things work better for longer. Marriage is great - if you want it - and if you don't, you can accomplish the same goals with another kind of relationship (with a little less risk, if that's a concern for you).


----------



## Catherine602

technovelist said:


> No, I'm a happily married man.
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble.


It was only a question not a bubble. It is unusual to read of a person who says they are happily married and at the same time negative about the union. 

You don't seem to even like women. You get prickly real fast and sometimes quite hostile when women challenge anything you say. 

Moreover, you assume that women have bad intentions. I asked a simple question and your answer implied that I was hoping that you were not happy. 

It's hard to believe that you don't talk with an intimate partner about a topic that consumes you so much. If that is true, why not?


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> I have yet to see John ever acknowledge being impressed by anyone else's accomplishments.
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite. This need to minimize the accomplishments of others is driven by a high level of competitiveness.


It's a question of realistically assessing the amount of work involved in raising reasonably well adjusted kids in today's suburbia.

Stating that it's a full time, backbreaking job is belittling to those - not me - that actually have a backbreaking full time job.

One can make parenting a full time 24/7 career. But one shouldn't generalize.

As for me, I'm on record for not liking work, so....


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Always,
> I have yet to see John ever acknowledge being impressed by anyone else's accomplishments.
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite. This need to minimize the accomplishments of others is driven by a high level of competitiveness.


I have yet to see him own a single foible either. Which might also indicate a high degree of competitiveness.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> It's a question of realistically assessing the amount of work involved in raising reasonably well adjusted kids in today's suburbia.
> 
> Stating that it's a full time, backbreaking job is belittling to those - not me - that actually have a backbreaking full time job.
> 
> .


I don't recall anyone saying the work was back-breaking. Just that it was work. 

And my only point was that what you described for the SAHMs in your neighborhood --maids, nannies, and infinite supply of money --'is simply NOT the reality for most Americans.

Raising young kids is actually a 24/7 job. *Someone* has to be looking after them, and if you don't have a nanny or a daycare or an agreeable granny, then it's going to be the parent(s).

Of course, some of that 24 hours is "on call" rather than active duty, as kids do spend some of that time sleeping. But not nearly as much as some sleep deprived parents I know wish they would.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I have yet to see him own a single foible either. Which might also indicate a high degree of competitiveness.


Your people reading skills need some serious calibration I'm afraid.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Your people reading skills need some serious calibration I'm afraid.


How so? Generally speaking, people who see no value in what others achieve and admit to no failings of their own are, at the very least, attempting to portray a certain kind of image. Don't you think?

Add to that the way you describe your house, family, work, and it seems pretty clear to me what image you are going for.


----------



## john117

I did not see "no value". 

There's value added in changing a diaper just as much as in changing a drill bit in an offshore oil rig. 

It just happens that in my esteemed opinion, one is a bit easier than the other.

That does not diminish the value of the "easier" task, whichever it happens to be.


----------



## john117

Also, my baseline is two kids and suburbia, as I wrote, not two kids in a McMansion and plenty of domestic help. You may assume that everyone has access to basic necessities like a washer and dryer, or 24/7 TV, or a car, or disposable diapers, or baby food, etc. 

I grew up with none of those and a working mother so believe me, its not like I haven't seen the other side of the railroad tracks.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> You may assume that everyone has access to basic necessities like a washer and dryer, or 24/7 TV, or a car, or disposable diapers, or baby food, etc.


I don't assume any of these things, hence my confusion over your points.

I've never changed a drill bit in an oil rig, and so honestly have zero idea of how hard that is. But I know that looking after a screaming, sick toddler while dragging sacks of dirty laundry to the laundromat is pretty nightmarish.


----------



## tech-novelist

Catherine602 said:


> It was only a question not a bubble. It is unusual to read of a person who says they are happily married and at the same time negative about the union.
> 
> You don't seem to even like women. You get prickly real fast and sometimes quite hostile when women challenge anything you say.
> 
> Moreover, you assume that women have bad intentions. I asked a simple question and your answer implied that I was hoping that you were not happy.
> 
> It's hard to believe that you don't talk with an intimate partner about a topic that consumes you so much. If that is true, why not?


You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions.

I like women fine. I don't mind egalitarian feminists. I don't like ideological feminists.

I also don't assume that women in general have bad intentions. Unfortunately, women who *do *have (or who later develop) bad intentions have enormous legal power to ruin a man, especially if they are married and doubly so if they have children together. This is why I say that the current state of marriage in the US is too dangerous for me to recommend it to men.

*My *marriage, by what I can only conclude is great good luck (and a significant amount of work on my side to keep it healthy), is fine.

My wife knows of my opinions on these topics and can read more about them here if she wants to. She thinks my participation here is a somewhat odd hobby of mine but doesn't worry about it.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> I don't assume any of these things, hence my confusion over your points.
> 
> I've never changed a drill bit in an oil rig, and so honestly have zero idea of how hard that is. But I know that looking after a screaming, sick toddler while dragging sacks of dirty laundry to the laundromat is pretty nightmarish.


let's just say my neighbors thirty years ago did, and it was not quite easy. I had friends who have worked oil rigs summers to pay for college. I'll take a classroom full of sickly tots anytime.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> let's just say my neighbors thirty years ago did, and it was not quite easy. I had friends who have worked oil rigs summers to pay for college. I'll take a classroom full of sickly tots anytime.


And so what is your point with this? We all have preferences as to what sorts of work we prefer, do we not? Why is it so important that I know that changing drill bits on an oil rig is hard?

Do you imagine that I have no idea what constitutes hard work?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> I also don't assume that women in general have bad intentions. Unfortunately, women who *do *have (or who later develop) bad intentions have enormous legal power to ruin a man, especially if they are married and doubly so if they have children together. This is why I say that the current state of marriage in the US is too dangerous for me to recommend it to men.


And some men develop bad intentions and also have power to ruin women. But of course this side does not trouble you. Why should it?

The more you keep repeating these same assertions, always without evidence or justification, the more I think you want to be the only guy in the world with a happy relatiosnhip. Otherwise, why not occasionally recommend that men chose their partners carefully and work hard to be good husbands? Since it worked so well for you, could it not work for other men?

Or is even the slightest hint of risk a reason to avoid LTR altogether? Is any amount of risk tolerable? 

If not, good thing you jumped in without paying any heed to that risk, is it not? Do you ever thank yourself for being so careless?


----------



## Dycedarg

Catherine602 said:


> @technovelist Do you discuss your deep seated distrust of women with your wife? If so, does she confirm your bias? You sound like an unhappy man trapped in a miserable marriage.


He sounds fine to me. You and AA reek of bitterness though.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> He sounds fine to me. You and AA reek of bitterness though.


Ha ha, that's funny!

I've been attempting to coax technovelist into saying just one good thing about relationships for a while now, and he won't have it. Just keeps repeating over and over again, marriage is bad, and women and the whole US legal system are all out to screw men over.

Doesn't matter how happy he is, no one else should even try because it's "too risky".

And here is this thread that is basically about how no man in his right mind would get married, about how the whole legal system is stacked against men, about how women are basically hard-wired to screw men over. And because I fail to agree with these propositions *I'm* the bitter one.

Hilarious.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> And some men develop bad intentions and also have power to ruin women. But of course this side does not trouble you. Why should it?


Yes, some men develop bad intentions, and that is a risk for women as well. However, men do not have the legal power to ruin women. That risk goes only one way.



always_alone said:


> The more you keep repeating these same assertions, always without evidence or justification, the more I think you want to be the only guy in the world with a happy relatiosnhip. Otherwise, why not occasionally recommend that men chose their partners carefully and work hard to be good husbands? Since it worked so well for you, could it not work for other men?


It *could *work well for other men, but it is a bad risk. My recommendation to men is not to marry in the US or any other country as misandrist as the US. I believe there are other countries where the risks are lower, probably in Latin America where the divorce-industrial-complex has not conquered the country.



always_alone said:


> Or is even the slightest hint of risk a reason to avoid LTR altogether? Is any amount of risk tolerable?


Every course of action has risks, including marriage at any time in history. The difference is that now the risks are much higher than they were when divorce was frowned on socially, which reduced the probability that it would happen. The laws are also much more misandrist now, which makes men more vulnerable to women who wish to take advantage of those laws.



always_alone said:


> If not, good thing you jumped in without paying any heed to that risk, is it not? Do you ever thank yourself for being so careless?


Again, I was lucky. I was also ignorant of the risks. Had I understood them, I might very well not have taken the course that I did, which in the event turned out to be a winning course. So hypothetically I would have been worse off in that case. But that doesn't mean that I would recommend that others do what I did in that situation.

And in fact *almost no one here* would recommend that anyone follow the course of action that I followed. So I don't see why *my *not recommending that course is so hard to understand.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Again, I was lucky. I was also ignorant of the risks. Had I understood them, I might very well not have taken the course that I did, which in the event turned out to be a winning course. So hypothetically I would have been worse off in that case. But that doesn't mean that I would recommend that others do what I did in that situation.
> 
> And in fact *almost no one here* would recommend that anyone follow the course of action that I followed. So I don't see why *my *not recommending that course is so hard to understand.


No, true. I wouldn't in a million years do what you did, or recommend anyone else follow your example. 

But tell me: do you ever thank yourself for being a crazy, reckless fool who just wanted to be *with* someone you love? Is there any value at all to relationships that might make them worth at least some amount of risk?


----------



## john117

Let's quantify "risks" here. Are we talking emotional risks or financial risks?

Emotional risks aren't too difficult to mitigate. But financial risks...

GenX crowds find rewards in all kinds of extreme activities, but those risks are generally physical in nature. This is different.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Let's quantify "risks" here. Are we talking emotional risks or financial risks?
> 
> Emotional risks aren't too difficult to mitigate. But financial risks...
> 
> GenX crowds find rewards in all kinds of extreme activities, but those risks are generally physical in nature. This is different.


Financial risks, which can cause emotional risks that are harder to mitigate.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> No, true. I wouldn't in a million years do what you did, or recommend anyone else follow your example.


So we are in agreement on this point.



always_alone said:


> But tell me: do you ever thank yourself for being a crazy, reckless fool who just wanted to be *with* someone you love? Is there any value at all to relationships that might make them worth at least some amount of risk?


Sure, since it worked out I'm happy that I did what I did. Why wouldn't I be?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Financial risks, which can cause emotional risks that are harder to mitigate.


Know, then, that the times they are a-changin'

More men get alimony from their ex-wives | Reuters

Perhaps you might alter your stance as women start bearing the financial risks?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Know, then, that the times they are a-changin'
> 
> More men get alimony from their ex-wives | Reuters
> 
> Perhaps you might alter your stance as women start bearing the financial risks?


The baseline of women paying is 3%.... Double it and it's 6%. Whop da doo!!!


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Know, then, that the times they are a-changin'
> 
> More men get alimony from their ex-wives | Reuters
> 
> Perhaps you might alter your stance as women start bearing the financial risks?


Maybe. But not any time soon, as this suggests:

"According to 2010 Census records, of the 400,000 people receiving spousal support, only 3 percent were men."

Here's what I would need to see before recommending marriage:

1. Every agreement reached by the parties before marriage is upheld by the courts, including any provision for alimony, child support, and any other terms they agree to. Such agreements can be either exactly the same as another agreement that has been adjudged valid, or if they differ from any prior valid agreement, they can be adjudged anew upon application, after which they are valid and cannot be overturned by any court. If the parties do not select such an agreement, one will be selected for them by the laws of the state in which they reside, much like what happens when someone does not make a will.
2. Whereas women have the total and complete right to decide, if they get pregnant, whether they will keep the baby, abort the fetus, or give the baby up for adoption, accordingly men have the total and complete right to terminate their parental rights, which means that they have no obligation to support any child they sire and of course also have no right to see the child. This applies both inside and outside marriage.

There are plenty of other problems in the current legal setup for men, but those are the ones particularly important for marriage.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Sure, since it worked out I'm happy that I did what I did. Why wouldn't I be?


Oh, good! I've wondered about that, as it really is hard to fathom why a happily married man dedicates so much time to exhorting others to stay away.

I wonder if there might also be some ways that men might mitigate their risk. You know, in case, for example, a young man might desire to have children, or might desire LTR. Is there anything he might do to obtain the value of what you have, but with less chance of things going badly?

Choose a partner wisely? Ensure she earns a decent income? Work hard to maintain a good relationship?

Or is the only reasonable option for men to remain childless and stick with fvck buddies or prostitutes?


----------



## john117

The amount of due diligence required to "be sure" is overwhelming... So one has to deal with incomplete information... Not fun.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Maybe. But not any time soon, as this suggests:
> 
> "According to 2010 Census records, of the 400,000 people receiving spousal support, only 3 percent were men."


Yes, true, it is a small percentage. But considering the more common traditional divisions of labour, where men earn money and women do not, it isn't that surprising that the imbalance is there. As more and more women become primary breadwinners, this could shift rapidly.

And let's not forget that in only 15% of divorces is any alimony paid at all.


technovelist said:


> Here's what I would need to see before recommending marriage:
> 
> 1. Every agreement reached by the parties before marriage is upheld by the courts, including any provision for alimony, child support, and any other terms they agree to. Such agreements can be either exactly the same as another agreement that has been adjudged valid, or if they differ from any prior valid agreement, they can be adjudged anew upon application, after which they are valid and cannot be overturned by any court.


Who judges them to be valid? On what criteria? Would there be an appeals process if circumstances change? Say for example a man loses his job and becomes a SAHD, while the wife takes on breadwinner role. Would he be able to appeal the alimony and child custody arrangements he set up originally, thinking he would always be the highest earner?

Terminating parental responsibility is also a bit sticky, as once a child is born, it has to be looked after. Of course, it is in the interests of society in general to see that the child is raised as well as possible, so we could just put the onus on welfare and other social supports. A lot of people will fight that solution, though.


----------



## Catherine602

Dycedarg said:


> He sounds fine to me. You and AA reek of bitterness though.


I'm glad you two have formed such a supportive alliance. 

However, you need to calibrate your bitterness detector, it's pointing in the wrong direction.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The amount of due diligence required to "be sure" is overwhelming... So one has to deal with incomplete information... Not fun.


Of course we can't be sure. There is always some risk. There are also risks to MGTOW, just a different set.

But suppose a young man wants kids, a family? Shall we just tell all of them to forget it? They'll be sorry because if they have a kid, they might have to look after it? Or if their wife is SAHM, they might have to help her get back on her feet if the marriage dissolves?

I dunno. I guess I really just don't agree that the risks faced by men are really so misandrist and unreasonable. 

I mean, john, you took a risk and it turned out that perhaps you didn't do that well in choosing your partner. So, yes, you'll have to split your marital assets, but you will still retain all you had before the marriage. Your kids are grown, so custody isn't an issue. Your wife makes good money, so really, she added to those marital assets all along, and you wont pay alimony.

So what's the terrible risk (of the divorce industrial complex) to you?


----------



## john117

Custody. 

When I talked to a lawyer six or so years ago I was told in no uncertain terms by two legal beagles that "in our county the mother gets automatic custody - the best you can hope for is shared, unless the mother is Susan Smith"...


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Oh, good! I've wondered about that, as it really is hard to fathom why a happily married man dedicates so much time to exhorting others to stay away.
> 
> I wonder if there might also be some ways that men might mitigate their risk. You know, in case, for example, a young man might desire to have children, or might desire LTR. Is there anything he might do to obtain the value of what you have, but with less chance of things going badly?
> 
> Choose a partner wisely? Ensure she earns a decent income? Work hard to maintain a good relationship?
> 
> Or is the only reasonable option for men to remain childless and stick with fvck buddies or prostitutes?


I really wish there were some way to mitigate the risk effectively. Unfortunately, the best analogy I can come up with is that every woman in the US has a bomb strapped to her, which if detonated will kill, not her, but her intimate partner's life opportunities. She can't defuse it or remove it. While she doesn't have to detonate it, as that is voluntary, there is no way for anyone else to know with certainty that she will not. Thus, even women who have absolutely no intention of doing this, and never would do so, have the liability of carrying the bomb.

Given this, if men want to marry, especially if they want children, they should emigrate to a less misandrist country where the bombs are not present.

If they don't want children, they can stay here and not marry, and make absolutely sure that they do not get anyone pregnant.


----------



## john117

An enforcible business grade prenup...


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Who judges them to be valid? On what criteria? Would there be an appeals process if circumstances change? Say for example a man loses his job and becomes a SAHD, while the wife takes on breadwinner role. Would he be able to appeal the alimony and child custody arrangements he set up originally, thinking he would always be the highest earner?


The courts would validate these agreements according to the legal criteria laid out when these agreements are made legal and enforceable. There would not be any appeal process, as that would re-introduce the hazard of men (or women) getting hosed in a divorce. Of course the parties could always renegotiate the agreement, but only if both agree. No unilateral changes would be made by anyone, as that is the whole point of this requirement.

For this reason, the parties would have to be very careful how they draw up the agreement, assuming they don't use one that is previously defined. I would assume the law(s) setting up this legal environment would define some default agreement and allow others to be created later.



always_alone said:


> Terminating parental responsibility is also a bit sticky, as once a child is born, it has to be looked after. Of course, it is in the interests of society in general to see that the child is raised as well as possible, so we could just put the onus on welfare and other social supports. A lot of people will fight that solution, though.


Yes, children have to be looked after, but if we can grant a woman the right to kill it at her sole discretion so long as it hasn't been delivered yet (which is the current law as far as I know), then reasonable provision for its support should be easier to define.

Anyway, the agreement could be something like "the non-custodial parent will pay the custodial parent an amount equal to 150% of the USDA child expense calculation", or any other way to specify an amount related to the actual cost of supporting a child, rather than the percentage of gross income used in many states.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> An enforcible business grade prenup...


Exactly.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Of course the parties could always renegotiate the agreement, but only if both agree. No unilateral changes would be made by anyone, as that is the whole point of this requirement.


So what would happen in the scenario I described where the man loses his job and the woman takes over as primary breadwinner? If he agreed to any sort of financial responsibility to either his wife or child in any way he would be beholden to that unless he could convince his wife to change the agreement?

And this is less of a bomb strapped to a woman's chest?

I expect you will tell me that the only agreement a man could accept is one where he bears zero financial responsibility to wife or child, ever? 



technovelist said:


> Anyway, the agreement could be something like "the non-custodial parent will pay the custodial parent an amount equal to 150% of the USDA child expense calculation", or any other way to specify an amount related to the actual cost of supporting a child, rather than the percentage of gross income used in many states.


So, say you are a rich person. Do you not think your child deserves the advantages of that? If they want to be on the hockey team, for example, should they be shut out because the custodial parent can't afford it?

Why not just have it that the person with the money actually does the shopping for the kid? And besides, shouldn't custody normally be 50/50?


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Custody.
> 
> When I talked to a lawyer six or so years ago I was told in no uncertain terms by two legal beagles that "in our county the mother gets automatic custody - the best you can hope for is shared, unless the mother is Susan Smith"...


From what I've seen, custody is mostly an issue when kids are very young. Teenagers get quite a lot of say in where they end up living. And the closer they are to adult, the more say they get. Doesn't matter what the courts, or even the parents want.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Unfortunately, the best analogy I can come up with is that every woman in the US has a bomb strapped to her, which if detonated will kill, not her, but her intimate partner's life opportunities. She can't defuse it or remove it. While she doesn't have to detonate it, as that is voluntary, there is no way for anyone else to know with certainty that she will not.


This would be funny if it weren't so sad! It must be terrible to constantly live with such a deep distrust and fear of women.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> This would be funny if it weren't so sad! It must be terrible to constantly live with such a deep distrust and fear of women.


The facts are what they are. I'm just acknowledging them.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> From what I've seen, custody is mostly an issue when kids are very young. Teenagers get quite a lot of say in where they end up living. And the closer they are to adult, the more say they get. Doesn't matter what the courts, or even the parents want.


Seven years ago the girls were 13 and 15, might influence a reasonable court, but not our court. Not without serious legal battles which aren't helping anyone. 

50/50 was doable but knowing my wife not desirable. The court had no good way to require a mental health assessment - without documented prior history ie involve CPS etc...

And again, wife's plan was to return to Frigidistan where collecting anything for support or college would be impossible. Gender neutral obviously, but still..


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> So, say you are a rich person. Do you not think your child deserves the advantages of that? If they want to be on the hockey team, for example, should they be shut out because the custodial parent can't afford it?
> 
> Why not just have it that the person with the money actually does the shopping for the kid? And besides, shouldn't custody normally be 50/50?


I'd say yes, if you can't afford it, too bad. C'est la vie. A child has no rights to their parent's wealth beyond necessities. Just like a court has no business mandating a parent provide their kids a college education--which is becoming more common. Now, what *should* parents do, versus what should we legally *require* them to do... those are very different questions. 

I'm actually a fan of your option of letting the parent paying spend the money, rather than handing it to the other parent. It means the money is directly spent on the child. But I'm opposed to child support in general. Especially in 50/50 situations. Both parents are getting (near) equal time with the kid(s) and so both should bear the responsibility of paying for roof, food, etc while said children are in their custody. 

It's always struck me as strange that a couple can have joint 50/50 custody (or 3 days / 4 days; close enough) and somehow the "non-custodial parent" (3 days parent) has to provide food, shelter, clothes etc for the children at their home, plus furnish it in part at the other. This is your kid. You wanted custody. Pay to take care of them like a good parent while they are in your custody. I could maybe see cases for abusive parents who lose custody; but not generally.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> So what would happen in the scenario I described where the man loses his job and the woman takes over as primary breadwinner?


 I would not expect that the default agreement would say "the man pays this amount and the woman pays this amount toward joint expenses", but something like "financial responsibility would be shared according to the relative incomes of each partner". Of course the parties could make whatever agreement they wanted, but it would be pretty foolish to state amounts rather than proportions based on income or assets.



always_alone said:


> If he agreed to any sort of financial responsibility to either his wife or child in any way he would be beholden to that unless he could convince his wife to change the agreement?
> And this is less of a bomb strapped to a woman's chest?


Yes, because it is a legally valid agreement rather than whatever the judge decides when the divorce happens.



always_alone said:


> I expect you will tell me that the only agreement a man could accept is one where he bears zero financial responsibility to wife or child, ever?


I don't know why you think that, and no, that is not what I would expect, as explained above.



always_alone said:


> So, say you are a rich person. Do you not think your child deserves the advantages of that? If they want to be on the hockey team, for example, should they be shut out because the custodial parent can't afford it?
> 
> Why not just have it that the person with the money actually does the shopping for the kid? And besides, shouldn't custody normally be 50/50?


All of those issues could be dealt with in the agreement.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> I don't know why you think that, and no, that is not what I would expect, as explained above.


Oh, my mistake. I thought that the bomb strapped to women's chests was that men might bear some financial responsibility to them.

If an agreement is simply that financial responsibility will be shared based on relative income, well, how is this different from what is already done?

Most custody issues are already resolved out of court, long before it goes to trial. Most alimony and child support allocations are based on issues around relative incomes and time out of work supporting kids.

And in the end, if your agreement doesn't specify exact amounts, then there will likely be disputes of interpretation that will have to be decided by the courts.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> The facts are what they are. I'm just acknowledging them.


These are not facts, they are fear-based perceptions. They are the equivalent of me saying that every man has a giant bomb strapped to his chest because he could beat me to a pulp anytime he wanted. He may not want to, but he can because he is bigger and stronger, and I can never know when he'll go off the deep end. And all men must bear the liability for this bomb because some men have done something to hurt some women.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Oh, my mistake. I thought that the bomb strapped to women's chests was that men might bear some financial responsibility to them.
> 
> If an agreement is simply that financial responsibility will be shared based on relative income, well, how is this different from what is already done?
> 
> Most custody issues are already resolved out of court, long before it goes to trial. Most alimony and child support allocations are based on issues around relative incomes and time out of work supporting kids.
> 
> And in the end, if your agreement doesn't specify exact amounts, then there will likely be disputes of interpretation that will have to be decided by the courts.


Apparently you don't know that men have committed suicide due to insane "child support" burdens. And by the way, the notion that because custody issues are resolved out of court means that men aren't mistreated ignores what is called "bargaining in the shadow of the law".


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> These are not facts, they are fear-based perceptions. They are the equivalent of me saying that every man has a giant bomb strapped to his chest because he could beat me to a pulp anytime he wanted. He may not want to, but he can because he is bigger and stronger, and I can never know when he'll go off the deep end. And all men must bear the liability for this bomb because some men have done something to hurt some women.


The difference is that if a man did that, he would be punished by the legal system, whereas when a woman does what I was referring to, the legal system is on her side.

Hope that helps.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Apparently you don't know that men have committed suicide due to insane "child support" burdens. And by the way, the notion that because custody issues are resolved out of court means that men aren't mistreated ignores what is called "bargaining in the shadow of the law".


These sorts of stories are tragic to be sure. It's just that the evidence does not bear out your black and white depiction of the law being "against men".

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf

There are, to be sure, fewer custodial fathers (18.3%) than mothers (81.7%), but let's also remember that a good 37% of those mothers were never married to the father, making it a lot less surprising that they would end up with custody. Also note that while it is also true that custodial fathers are less likely to get child support payments (28%) than mothers (59.8%), they are also much richer overall. Note too that only about 1/2 of these arrangements end up with any support payments at all. Period.

So, while I know you are keen to paint a picture where the legal system is always on the side of women and against men, the evidence really doesn't support those claims.

Hope that helps.


----------



## samyeagar

technovelist said:


> The difference is that if a man did that, he would be punished by the legal system, whereas when a woman does what I was referring to, the legal system is on her side.
> 
> Hope that helps.


In my situation, which is very common, I am the non custodial parent. I am legally obligated to pay a certain percentage of my income to my ex wife to spend on behalf of the children. She is under no such legal obligation. She is not legally required to provide any financial support for the children, nor does she. It has been four years since our divorce was finalized, and she has since remarried, so her new husband is supplimenting the financial support for my children and ex wife, but the mother of my children is still not providing any financial support of her own. 

Between our divorce and her remarriage, her sole income was child support and alimony. The child support was the larger amount. The alimony was not enough to cover all of her living expenses if she had no kids, so the child support supplimented her personal living expenses that the alimony did not cover. I was legally bound to fully support her and the kids, while she had no legal obligation to provide any financial support.


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> In my situation, which is very common, I am the non custodial parent. I am legally obligated to pay a certain percentage of my income to my ex wife to spend on behalf of the children. She is under no such legal obligation. She is not legally required to provide any financial support for the children, nor does she. It has been four years since our divorce was finalized, and she has since remarried, so her new husband is supplimenting the financial support for my children and ex wife, but the mother of my children is still not providing any financial support of her own.
> 
> Between our divorce and her remarriage, her sole income was child support and alimony. The child support was the larger amount. The alimony was not enough to cover all of her living expenses if she had no kids, so the child support supplimented her personal living expenses that the alimony did not cover. I was legally bound to fully support her and the kids, while she had no legal obligation to provide any financial support.


I am not familiar with the laws, but basically your Ex's H has zero responsibility in helping support the step children (and in reality your Ex could be using the child support you provide to support her lifestyle with her the new H)?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> In my situation, which is very common, I am the non custodial parent. I am legally obligated to pay a certain percentage of my income to my ex wife to spend on behalf of the children. She is under no such legal obligation. She is not legally required to provide any financial support for the children, nor does she. It has been four years since our divorce was finalized, and she has since remarried, so her new husband is supplimenting the financial support for my children and ex wife, but the mother of my children is still not providing any financial support of her own.


Was she a SAHM? Did you fight for custody?


----------



## Kivlor

EllisRedding said:


> I am not familiar with the laws, but basically your Ex's H has zero responsibility in helping support the step children (and in reality your Ex could be using the child support you provide to support her lifestyle with her the new H)?


Yes. There is zero accountability in how the money is spent. So if she finds a schmuck to pay for her kids, she can use it on whatever she wants. The primary custodian has only to pay for basic life expenses. It is the non-custodial parent that can be billed for extras, such as college. Can't make the custodial pay for it, at least in my state.

I think this varies by jurisdiction.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> Yes. There is zero accountability in how the money is spent. So if she finds a schmuck to pay for her kids, she can use it on whatever she wants. The primary custodian has only to pay for basic life expenses. It is the non-custodial parent that can be billed for extras, such as college. Can't make the custodial pay for it, at least in my state.
> 
> I think this varies by jurisdiction.


I love the attempt to deflect the comments about this issue by pointing out that a miniscule percentage of "child support" is paid by women to men... but any attempt to change this is still misogyny! >


----------



## always_alone

When children are involved, the problem is that *someone* has to look after them, and so the question is who. And the choices are

(1) You. Which means you have to figure out how to juggle your work and time for childcare
(2) Your ex-spouse
(3) A third party.

Where I live, the third party costs about 3x what it costs to pay child support. And you still have to buy all the food, clothes, hockey equipment, etc.


----------



## JJXmomma

So Technovelist, how do you personally feel so secure in your marriage even though your observations are that the legal system is so stacked against you? 

Do you see the laws changing? Obviously a lot of the judges out there are men. Why do you think they driving men into the ground with unreasonable child support costs? I say this out of genuine curiosity as I don't want to see my son or younger brothers get screwed over if they decide to have kids and their wives decide to divorce.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> I love the attempt to deflect the comments about this issue by pointing out that a miniscule percentage of "child support" is paid by women to men... but any attempt to change this is still misogyny! >


And once again you reveal your base fear and distrust of women.

No one has once said the word misogyny, except you. 

I am but providing a different perspective. One that recognizes that the roots of this situation is a system where women were completely economically disadvantaged by divorce, left with no options at all. One which shows that despite this, indeed women do pay child-support at almost half the rate of men. That in fact half of marriages don't even end in any payments at all.

I'm just countering your absolutist claims that divorce spells ruin for men and a cakewalk foe women. That women are all bombs that might go off at any moment, and men are no more than innocent bystanders.

And pointing out that as more and more women become breadwinners and more and more men take childcare responsibilities, the laws are changing to reflect this. Perhaps these changes are not fast enough for you? Fine. Take it up with your lawmakers. Fight for your causes. No one in this whole thread has suggested you shouldn't. 

But instead you seem to prefer to revel in your victim status. 

Which is a bit odd, given that you aren't actually a victim, but I'm glad you're having such fun with it.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> And once again you reveal your base fear and distrust of women.
> 
> No one has once said the word misogyny, except you.
> 
> I am but providing a different perspective. One that recognizes that the roots of this situation is a system where women were completely economically disadvantaged by divorce, left with no options at all. One which shows that despite this, indeed women do pay child-support at almost half the rate of men. That in fact half of marriages don't even end in any payments at all.
> 
> I'm just countering your absolutist claims that divorce spells ruin for men and a cakewalk foe women. That women are all bombs that might go off at any moment, and men are no more than innocent bystanders.
> 
> And pointing out that as more and more women become breadwinners and more and more men take childcare responsibilities, the laws are changing to reflect this. Perhaps these changes are not fast enough for you? Fine. Take it up with your lawmakers. Fight for your causes. No one in this whole thread has suggested you shouldn't.
> 
> But instead you seem to prefer to revel in your victim status.
> 
> Which is a bit odd, given that you aren't actually a victim, but I'm glad you're having such fun with it.


I'm mostly with A_A on this. I'd rather not have men rush to attain victim status like everyone else. 

What was the idea behind no fault divorce in the first place? I don't see the point unless it was to handle the situations where both spouses agreed to a divorce and they couldn't get one? I know that in the 1960's two people wanting a divorce had to invent "mental cruelty" even where it didn't exist and that's pretty stupid.

Alimony is mostly an issue when there's a SAHP (almost always the wife). To a lesser degree, it also matters where one spouse (again, usually the wife) deprioritizes her job to focus on the kids. Having a SAHP is mostly a luxury of the upper middle class and above.

Two scenarios both involving a SAHM or a wife who gave up a career to work part-time in order to be there for the kids: In each case the couple both agreed that the wife giving up her career was best for the family. 

1) The Husband leaves his wife for a young hottie. The wife has done nothing significantly wrong and wants to stay married. There is no alimony. This is far from fair; she gave up significant years when she could have been building her earning potential and now she's out working in a low paying job while her husband (the cheater) is living it up.

2) The Wife leaves her husband for another man, or she just wasn't happy. The husband has done nothing significantly wrong. He pays her enough alimony so that she can continue to "life in the style she was accustomed to". Her husband just lost half of what he's worked his entire life for and he's going to continue paying alimony for a long time through no fault of his own.

Neither one of these scenarios are fair and they both could be possible due to the invention of no-fault divorce. With at-fault divorce, either of these cases could have been resolved in favor of the spouse was blameless and did not want a divorce. If the couple can agree to something on their own then, of course, let them have a no-fault divorce.

And yes, child support should be accounted for. However, the costs of providing housing is going to be factored in there. However, it is suspicious when some women can live entirely on child support. And, about 50/50 custody, who here would have wanted to spend their childhood trying to maintain two sets of friends?

If someone is going to deprioritize their career for the kids, they should go back to work part-time when the kids are all in school and go back to working full-time once the kids are in high school. I work with a couple of executives whose wives claimed they'd start working again when the kids got older. Now the kids are out of the house and, guess what, they're still not working. The husbands are not happy about it. This should be made very clear at the beginning and followed up on.

When my wife was working part time and the kids were in school she asked "when can I retire?" I responded with "when I do". She was a bit taken aback by that at first, but she understood. 

Eventually maybe as many men will be the primary care-givers as women. But I have my doubts that this will ever happen. Not because men aren't wiling to do it but because I don't believe most highly paid women will ever want to have sex with their SAHDs


----------



## Dycedarg

samyeagar said:


> In my situation, which is very common, I am the non custodial parent. I am legally obligated to pay a certain percentage of my income to my ex wife to spend on behalf of the children. She is under no such legal obligation. She is not legally required to provide any financial support for the children, nor does she. It has been four years since our divorce was finalized, and she has since remarried, so her new husband is supplimenting the financial support for my children and ex wife, but the mother of my children is still not providing any financial support of her own.
> 
> Between our divorce and her remarriage, her sole income was child support and alimony. The child support was the larger amount. The alimony was not enough to cover all of her living expenses if she had no kids, so the child support supplimented her personal living expenses that the alimony did not cover. I was legally bound to fully support her and the kids, while she had no legal obligation to provide any financial support.


Sam we don't have time for your FACTS! GET OUTTA HERE!


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Was she a SAHM? Did you fight for custody?


She was a SAHM, and I did fight for 50/50 custody, and I got every other weekend.

I did find it a bit ironic given the argument that women put careers on hold, disadvantage themselves financially by becoming a SAHM, that it was in fact my working full time two hours away from where we lived that put me at a distinct disadvantage in getting 50/50 custody. In fact, the judge cited that as the primary reason for the custody decision. So I do understand how making sacrifices for the family can come back and bite.

I actually did not fight the alimony too hard, just enough to limit it, instead of the lifetime award that she was seeking.

I also understand child support, and the principle behind it, and do not disagree with it in principle, but the implementation in my state is terrible. As per typical, there is no accountability on how it is spent, nor is there anything compelling the custodial to provide financially for the children, and contrary to how some people treat it, alimony and child support is NOT a job. The argument about responsibility to the kids is often directed at the so called deadbeat dad's, is usually worded that both parents need to provide, to take responsibility...well, that should go both ways.

I did extensively review case law in my state as I was proceeding with the divorce, and I didn't get off too badly comparatively.


----------



## ReturntoZero

Nothing gets a woman a sweeter deal than being a SAHM for 15-20 years and then getting divorced.

I was staring at a $2,000/month alimony payment for the rest of her life. So, I bought her out by giving her $500,000 of our $660,000 in assets.

That was 9 years ago next month.

You do the math.

I'm already ahead.

Had I made $2,000 monthly payments from that point forward, I would have shelled out $216,000 by this month - with no end in sight.

She would have lived with my son and coddled him the rest of his life. She burned through the lump sum long ago.


----------



## Dycedarg

ReturntoZero said:


> Nothing gets a woman a sweeter deal than being a SAHM for 15-20 years and then getting divorced.
> 
> I was staring at a $2,000/month alimony payment for the rest of her life. So, I bought her out by giving her $500,000 of our $660,000 in assets.
> 
> That was 9 years ago next month.
> 
> You do the math.
> 
> I'm already ahead.
> 
> Had I made $2,000 monthly payments from that point forward, I would have shelled out $216,000 by this month - with no end in sight.
> 
> She would have lived with my son and coddled him the rest of his life. She burned through the lump sum long ago.


Underrated post. Welcome to the life of liberty brother.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> So Technovelist, how do you personally feel so secure in your marriage even though your observations are that the legal system is so stacked against you?


Of course nothing is guaranteed in life, but I think I'm fairly safe at this point, mostly for the following reasons:

1. We don't have any children, so that particular avenue of vulnerability isn't open.
2. Texas is not particularly alimony-friendly.
3. We are both old enough not to be too subject to outside interference.
4. I understand the risks of being too "betaized" after reading "Married Man's Sex Life Primer".
5. I started off the relationship in a very alpha way.
6. And in general, I'm aware of the possibility of risks to the relationship and will counter them if I run into any.



JJXmomma said:


> Do you see the laws changing? Obviously a lot of the judges out there are men. Why do you think they driving men into the ground with unreasonable child support costs? I say this out of genuine curiosity as I don't want to see my son or younger brothers get screwed over if they decide to have kids and their wives decide to divorce.


There is no political will by politicians to do anything to make radical feminists unhappy, as they are a political force way out of proportion to their actual number, having gotten the legal system on their side. Also, most men want to protect women even if the woman in question doesn't deserve it. This is called "white knighting".

I don't think this will change until there is a major reset in society. Why rock the boat if it isn't sinking too rapidly?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> She was a SAHM, and I did fight for 50/50 custody, and I got every other weekend.
> 
> I did find it a bit ironic given the argument that women put careers on hold, disadvantage themselves financially by becoming a SAHM, that it was in fact my working full time two hours away from where we lived that put me at a distinct disadvantage in getting 50/50 custody. In fact, the judge cited that as the primary reason for the custody decision. So I do understand how making sacrifices for the family can come back and bite.


Every other weekend? Ouch!!! That's terrible!

One of the problems that keeps coming up in these decisions is how much time each spouse will have to spend with the kids. Unfortunately, if you are always 2 hours away at work, you are less able to respond to emergency situations (child sick at school), and are overall less involved in the kid's life. If you did have custody, for example, you would need to hire a caregiver for those times you are not available. 

The stats are consistent on this. Overall, men spend a lot less time with their children and this hurts them in custody. Advice to men by divorce lawyers is to be sure to be an involved father. The more the kids rely on and are bonded to the father, the more likely he will receive 50% and more custody. Indeed, women are now finding themselves increasingly on reduced custody because of their focus on their careers.

I am sorry that it worked out so poorly for you though, sam. Every other weekend is just rude.


----------



## Kivlor

JJXmomma said:


> Do you see the laws changing? Obviously a lot of the judges out there are men. Why do you think they driving men into the ground with unreasonable child support costs? I say this out of genuine curiosity as I don't want to see my son or younger brothers get screwed over if they decide to have kids and their wives decide to divorce.


I think part of the problem is that there is no way to make sure the judges enforce laws properly. There is no punishment for egregious acts by the judiciary--not just in family law, but across the board. So long as judges are unaccountable, it cannot change. Someone might "rewrite" the laws, but it doesn't change the case-law, and that is what matters most of the time. Of course, making them accountable would create a whole new list of problems.

Men attack other men, and drive them into the dirt because it's in our nature. Men aren't naturally a "Fraternity", it is our nature to be very competitive with each other and to seek to eliminate the competition; also, I think it's pretty natural for most men to want to protect women--this goes beyond white knighting.

So combine the natural male desire to be approved of by women, and the natural desire to out-compete other men, and we can see why male judges might be harsher on men than women not just in family law, but across the board, which is the case in criminal sentencing as well. They are only human, as are all of us. I don't know that there is a cure for it. The best thing to do is make sure your sons understand the risks they take, and how to evaluate whether or not the rewards are worth it. 

I'm actually in the pro-marriage camp, but I find myself arguing alongside those who aren't because they often have very valid points. 

I think a great way to fix some of the issues in divorce law would be to eliminate alimony after 2 years. That's enough time to get yourself an associate's degree, or find work, or make another plan. Also, abolishing the child support system. Replace Child Support with a right to bill the non-custodial parent for half of certain things--health insurance, medical bills etc. Food and shelter should be on the parent who is taking care of the kid. 

Of course, divorce would be drastically improved by a tangential reform that would directly benefit it: Tort Reform.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Eventually maybe as many men will be the primary care-givers as women. But I have my doubts that this will ever happen. Not because men aren't wiling to do it but because I don't believe most highly paid women will ever want to have sex with their SAHDs


It is too bad that so many men seem to assume this. The reality is that in terms of custody and child support, the SAHD would be at a huge advantage compared to the career focused woman. This would itself reverse the problem.

You can't have it both ways (not saying you are trying to, just saying in general): If you want a traditional SAHM situation, there will be a cost to both you and her, whether or not there is a divorce.

And that fact is there is nothing unsexy about an involved dad. Indeed, historically men have been very involved in spending time with and caring for children. It is only some cultures that have this idea that a manly man has to be some sort of chest thumping alpha bro-dude who spreads his seed and leaves all care of offspring to the woman.

It's also a bit ironic that in the Sexodus thread where men are advocating giving up entirely on women, the key concern is whether women will find a behaviour sexually attractive. Isn't the point of MGTOW for men to define for themselves what is manly?


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Every other weekend? Ouch!!! That's terrible!
> 
> One of the problems that keeps coming up in these decisions is how much time each spouse will have to spend with the kids. Unfortunately, if you are always 2 hours away at work, you are less able to respond to emergency situations (child sick at school), and are overall less involved in the kid's life. If you did have custody, for example, you would need to hire a caregiver for those times you are not available.
> 
> The stats are consistent on this. Overall, men spend a lot less time with their children and this hurts them in custody. Advice to men by divorce lawyers is to be sure to be an involved father. The more the kids rely on and are bonded to the father, the more likely he will receive 50% and more custody. Indeed, women are now finding themselves increasingly on reduced custody because of their focus on their careers.
> 
> I am sorry that it worked out so poorly for you though, sam. Every other weekend is just rude.


The really crummy part of this--and it's reality, so it is what it is lol--is that as men we are taught from a young age that it's our duty to provide for the family, and if that means being gone in order to provide food, shelter, and comfort, then so be it. That very same line is then used in the court system to say "Well, you didn't see your kids enough, and aren't as available as W, so you don't deserve to see them in the future."

I don't see a real way to win. If you're home a lot, and not working, you don't provide enough comfort and aren't being a "real man". If you work to the bone, you're not available and neglecting your family, and come D you lose not only the wife you married, the unit you were building, but contact with your progeny who you were working so hard for. Either way, it is a pathway to shame, to defeat and despair.

I'm fortunate that I can--and would--bring my children to work with me. And I would like to do this actually, to teach them. So I get to say, hopefully I get married to a great gal, have a family and we don't D. And if we do, maybe the judge will recognize that I can take off / bring the kids with me most of the time and grant me custody. But most guys don't get that option, I think.
And he just as easily may say "Well Mr. Kivlor, you work 80 hours a week, plus your W says you take calls in the night, on the weekends, at the dinner table; I don't think you'll be able to be as good a parent to your children her. Every other weekend, plus $1600 in CS (the amount I would pay according to my state's calculations if I had 3 kids) plus alimony TBD." (My state allows alimony, and lifetime alimony if you're married 10+years. There are no guidelines here for alimony, it is 100% subjective to the judge.)

What gets me is that alimony and CS can actually equal more than you make, after taxes, rent and a minimal food/gasoline allowance. I've seen it happen to a guy I knew; his wife was awarded over 80% of his *gross income* between CS and alimony. He went to jail for non payment. Judge refused to lower it, even after his accountant testified. He made ~$40,000. $8,000 after divorce payments. He still had to pay taxes. Payroll is taken off gross, they wanted to withhold $400/month. His pay per month was ~$300 just after Payroll, CS and alimony.


----------



## naiveonedave

@ always_alone I think there is a lot of data showing that SAHD due to cheated on and/or don't have a good sex life and I think this is innate to women (most to all are hard wired to not respect a man who doesn't 'bring home the bacon')
@JJXmomma you asked why, with the laws against men, why am are some men (you directly asked one) comfortable in marriage. I am, primarily because I did a lot of due diligence, I chose a woman as a spouse who has high morals and low expectations of what it takes to be happy financially. IMO, most men who pick badly don't do due diligence long enough or are so enamored that they overlook obvious flaws. 

To some extent, if men look back on why they got D'd (and are blaming the W for being at fault whether cheating or what not), they probably feel like they got sold a bill of goods, but in reality a lot of it has to do with over looking faults and/or not taking enough time to figure out if the person they are choosing to marry is a good choice. I am sure some women are very good at hiding parts of their personality or whatever, but if you take the time and specifically look for things that are deal breakers for you, I think the rate of MTGOW would drop.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> @ always_alone I think there is a lot of data showing that SAHD due to cheated on and/or don't have a good sex life and I think this is innate to women (most to all are hard wired to not respect a man who doesn't 'bring home the bacon')


I don't think this is hard-wiring, I think it is part of the cultural stereotype package. These same sets of cultural stereotypes are hurting both women and men.

And look at who comes to complain about sexlessness at TAM. It is not SAHDs, it is working breadwinners, most of whom think they are plenty alpha. If SAHDs are typically sexless, why aren't they ever here? 

You might argue that there aren't enough of them, but truth is they are out there AND for the ones I know at least, they are getting plenty. 

I dunno, the TAM culture is pretty set on maintaining these stereotypes no matter how hurtful they are, and expounds alphaness to the world with missionary zeal, and so I don't expect anyone here to agree even slightly with me on this, but the reality is that there are a lot of guys who don't buy this line, who don't believe their manliness depends on chest thumping, and who are doing just fine sexually.

My overall sense, particularly with MGTOW and Sexodus, is that they haven't diagnosed the problem correctly, and so the proposed solutions are just shots across the bow.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> I don't think this is hard-wiring, I think it is part of the cultural stereotype package. These same sets of cultural stereotypes are hurting both women and men.
> Agree to disagree, I think 75% hardwire, 25% learned
> And look at who comes to complain about sexlessness at TAM. It is not SAHDs, it is working breadwinners, most of whom think they are plenty alpha. If SAHDs are typically sexless, why aren't they ever here?
> That is because there aren't many SAHDs, also most of the sexless Ms seem to be hormonal.
> You might argue that there aren't enough of them, but truth is they are out there AND for the ones I know at least, they are getting plenty.
> I know of a few, but very few
> I dunno, the TAM culture is pretty set on maintaining these stereotypes no matter how hurtful they are, and expounds alphaness to the world with missionary zeal, and so I don't expect anyone here to agree even slightly with me on this, but the reality is that there are a lot of guys who don't buy this line, who don't believe their manliness depends on chest thumping, and who are doing just fine sexually.
> Part of the problem many women have with Alpha is the definition. To me alpha is mainly self confidence+looks+$. Thumping chests is just false bravado. Books like MMSLP come across to women the wrong way, as they are written for wimpy men, not for women. Also, if you don't believe in hard wiring, most of alpha is going to be bunk to you.
> My overall sense, particularly with MGTOW and Sexodus, is that they haven't diagnosed the problem correctly, and so the proposed solutions are just shots across the bow. I agree, however the average loss in D by men is a real problem that impacts many real men. The rest is pretty much bunk.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> It is too bad that so many men seem to assume this. The reality is that in terms of custody and child support, the SAHD would be at a huge advantage compared to the career focused woman. This would itself reverse the problem.
> 
> You can't have it both ways (not saying you are trying to, just saying in general): If you want a traditional SAHM situation, there will be a cost to both you and her, whether or not there is a divorce.
> 
> And that fact is there is nothing unsexy about an involved dad. Indeed, historically men have been very involved in spending time with and caring for children. It is only some cultures that have this idea that a manly man has to be some sort of chest thumping alpha bro-dude who spreads his seed and leaves all care of offspring to the woman.
> 
> It's also a bit ironic that in the Sexodus thread where men are advocating giving up entirely on women, the key concern is whether women will find a behaviour sexually attractive. Isn't the point of MGTOW for men to define for themselves what is manly?


You can be a very involved Dad without being a SAHD. I actually did forsake some career accomplishments in order to stay in a job where I didn't travel much and didn't work crazy hours so that I could be involved with the family.

I'm the one the kids always came to for help. While my kids were in high school, we'd go on a 45 minute walk most nights and the kids would vie with each for the opportunity to talk to me about their day. This despite the fact that my wife didn't work until they were in school and then only part time.

However, if I'd been a SAHD and my wife was the primary breadwinner, I'm sure I would have lost some respect in her eyes (not in my eyes, just hers). I think that's more on the women than the men.


----------



## john117

Same here Buddy. My wife barely knew any of the kids doctors, none of their friends. None of the teachers, and so on. Yet it would take an epic battle to win custody... The legal system at work.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> I don't think this is hard-wiring, I think it is part of the cultural stereotype package. These same sets of cultural stereotypes are hurting both women and men.
> 
> And look at who comes to complain about sexlessness at TAM. It is not SAHDs, it is working breadwinners, most of whom think they are plenty alpha. If SAHDs are typically sexless, why aren't they ever here?
> 
> You might argue that there aren't enough of them, but truth is they are out there AND for the ones I know at least, they are getting plenty.
> 
> I dunno, the TAM culture is pretty set on maintaining these stereotypes no matter how hurtful they are, and expounds alphaness to the world with missionary zeal, and so I don't expect anyone here to agree even slightly with me on this, but the reality is that there are a lot of guys who don't buy this line, who don't believe their manliness depends on chest thumping, and who are doing just fine sexually.
> 
> My overall sense, particularly with MGTOW and Sexodus, is that they haven't diagnosed the problem correctly, and so the proposed solutions are just shots across the bow.


I had no desire to be an "alpha male", but I found that I needed to "man-up" because women demanded it and were not happy with me and would take advantage of me if I didn't.

I don't want to be "dominant in the bedroom", but according to a lot of women here on TAM, I wouldn't satisfy them in bed if I didn't knock them around a bit.

These aren't MY choices, these are the choices foisted on me by women.


----------



## samyeagar

Buddy400 said:


> You can be a very involved Dad without being a SAHD. I actually did forsake some career accomplishments in order to stay in a job where I didn't travel much and didn't work crazy hours so that I could be involved with the family.
> 
> I'm the one the kids always came to for help. While my kids were in high school, we'd go on a 45 minute walk most nights and the kids would vie with each for the opportunity to talk to me about their day. This despite the fact that my wife didn't work until they were in school and then only part time.
> 
> However, if I'd been a SAHD and my wife was the primary breadwinner, I'm sure I would have lost some respect in her eyes (not in my eyes, just hers). I think that's more on the women than the men.


For working so far away, that I did so the family would not have to be uprooted, I was very involved with the kids. Never missed a parent-teacher conference, went to all their sports, concerts, activities, was a member of the PTA, secretary for the band parent association, coached soccer for a couple of years...I spent nearly as much with the kids as my ex-wife did, but she was stay at home, for years when there were no kids at home during the day. She did volunteer in their classrooms. That is where she met her OM...


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> And look at who comes to complain about sexlessness at TAM. It is not SAHDs, it is working breadwinners, most of whom think they are plenty alpha. If SAHDs are typically sexless, why aren't they ever here?


My guess on this--and it's just a hypothesis--such men make up 0.9% of the male population so they're just not that common. And there was a study a little while back supposedly claiming that they cheat at very high levels. I'm sure these guys get plenty. But that doesn't mean it's from their wives or that their wives respect them. 

A_A, how do you think you'd respond if your SO said "You know, I think I'd like to be a SAHD." 

I took a straw poll in my office about this recently. No woman, young or old was okay with it. Every one of them said they'd not put up with it, and that they'd feel resentful if he pushed it. This obviously isn't a scientific study, but I thought it interesting and noteworthy.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I had no desire to be an "alpha male", but I found that I needed to "man-up" because women demanded it and were not happy with me and would take advantage of me if I didn't.
> 
> I don't want to be "dominant in the bedroom", but according to a lot of women here on TAM, I wouldn't satisfy them in bed if I didn't knock them around a bit.
> 
> These aren't MY choices, these are the choices foisted on me by women.


I dunno. I had no desire to be a submissive female, but it sure seemed like most men wanted to "foist" that on me. And with all the talk here of how us ball-busting batteaxes are a scourge on this earth, it seems pretty clear from my end that this was not just my imagination.

Nonetheless, while it may be true that there are lots of men who prefer women to be "second" to their "first", I chose to ignore all that and be true to myself. Was I the most popular girl? No never. Indeed often frowned upon. But I was true to myself and in the end, I wouldn't change that for the world. YMMV.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> A_A, how do you think you'd respond if your SO said "You know, I think I'd like to be a SAHD."


I am currently the sole breadwinner, and so this is not a hypothetical for me. And any sex we don't have is all on him.

In my circle, there are lots of women who out-earn and out-work their partners. And in the few cases where I know this to be a problem, it is because *he* is threatened by it. Not her.

No doubt there are women who want the traditional roles as much as men do. But there are lots of people who prefer a different approach, and do so without any negative impact on their sex lives.


----------



## JJXmomma

I just have to say I sympathize with the men who have to work so hard to provide for their families and then that fact is used against them regarding involvement with their kids. When my daughter was 1, my husband had an opportunity at work which required nine months of very heavy travel (only home every other weekend). It was very tough on all of us because I was caring for the new baby myself but we saw it as an opportunity for him to move up and we knew it was temporary. One of the hardest things for me was having to defend him as so many people we knew judged him so harshly for not being more involved, but really I knew it was the most hard for him being away from us. 

As far as SAHD's go , I don't see that becoming a big trend because of a lot of unspoken attitudes and fears. I'll be bold and say that I would not be okay with that arrangement. My husband and I actually got annoyed with each other because we talked about it hypothetically. Neither one of us makes enough money for a SAHP so it's a moot point anyway.. But my husband said that if I made a lot of money he'd love to stay home. I dismissed it with a pretty swift hell no. After the fact I understood where he was coming from because he really loves kids and actually had a job in college managing daycare centers. However I would not be okay with it, I admit it, even if it's not the most noble thing to admit. 

Here's why: 
Bearing children is HARD . I don't think men realize how hard it is. I had easy uncomplicated pregnancies compared to other women but it was soooo tough nonetheless. Puking several times a day for weeks on end, fighting horrific fatigue at work, literally falling asleep on the floor, etc. And I didn't have any major complications like excessive weight gain or prerclampsia or any complications in delivery. But I was screaming and crying in childbirth nonetheless. I'm not bitter as there is no one to blame for this and honestly I also enjoyed aspects of the entire thing. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to bear children. But don't get me wrong, it's tough. If I were going to work pumping milk so my husband could stay home cuddling and bonding with the baby I wouldn't be able to help but resent him after I had done all that work. I feel like if anyone deserves to stay home, it's the woman who delivered the children. 

Is this attitude old-fashioned? Yes. Is it something to be proud of? Probably not. But it is how I feel and it is probably how many men fear that their wives would feel.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I am currently the sole breadwinner, and so this is not a hypothetical for me. And any sex we don't have is all on him.
> 
> In my circle, there are lots of women who out-earn and out-work their partners. And in the few cases where I know this to be a problem, it is because *he* is threatened by it. Not her.
> 
> No doubt there are women who want the traditional roles as much as men do. But there are lots of people who prefer a different approach, and do so without any negative impact on their sex lives.


Thanks. I knew you made more than him; couldn't remember if he worked at all. So, do you have kids? What does he do with his time? Is this a long-term plan? I'm trying to compare your situation, you know, apples to apples.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Thanks. I knew you made more than him; couldn't remember if he worked at all. So, do you have kids? What does he do with his time? Is this a long-term plan? I'm trying to compare your situation, you know, apples to apples.


No kids. He does the cooking, shopping, laundry, bill payments, organizing repairs, making sure all the technology works, and is always the one who puts up with various bureaucratic hassles, scheduling appointments and so on.

And has lots of free time, which he burns away on whatever.


----------



## JJXmomma

Holy moly Technovelist, I kind of thought you were lying or at least majorly exaggerating your claim about child support and suicides so I googled it and found these right away: 

https://m.facebook.com/Fathers4kids/posts/709393232424505

http://www.wral.com/i-can-r-survive-paying-child-support-thomas/12470621/

This is horrible. I knew divorces favored mothers as just about every divorced father I know has lost custody of his kids but I didn't know that some were charged child support they literally couldn't afford at all. I can't imagine doing that to my husband even if I didn't want to be married anymore. 

That's also very interesting, to say the least, that men are so competitive they don't have a problem letting some of them just fall apart. 

I do agree with the comment though that men should be more selective in their choices of wives in the first place, but seriously that's hard to place entirely on the husband, especially if he marries on the fairly young side. Some men are romantics who are unfortunate enough to fall for particularly manipulative women. 

On a lighter note, when I married my husband I could tell through her actions that my mother in law didn't take me seriously and it annoyed the hell out of me. I said that if we had a son I'd be much more welcoming to a daughter in law. But right now my son is only a baby and I'm already worried and thinking I might end up being the hardest to please mother in law of all.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> . Books like MMSLP come across to women the wrong way, as they are written for wimpy men, not for women. Also, if you don't believe in hard wiring, most of alpha is going to be bunk to you.


Books like MMSLP teach weak men to be filled with resentment and loathing. And that is the whole premise of MGTOW and the sexodus. 

I dunno. There's a lot of talk on this forum about the failure of society to teach boys to be men. And then I see this stuff, and I wonder, is that really how we want to teach boys to be men? 

Telling them to blame the legal system on radical feminists? To treat women as business transactions, use and dump? To see children as nothing more than a weapon to be used against them? To eschew family because the world is out to get them?

Is that really the role model you want for being a man?


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Books like MMSLP teach weak men to be filled with resentment and loathing. And that is the whole premise of MGTOW and the sexodus.
> 
> I dunno. There's a lot of talk on this forum about the failure of society to teach boys to be men. And then I see this stuff, and I wonder, is that really how we want to teach boys to be men?
> 
> Telling them to blame the legal system on radical feminists? To treat women as business transactions, use and dump? To see children as nothing more than a weapon to be used against them? To eschew family because the world is out to get them?
> 
> Is that really the role model you want for being a man?


I call bull on this.... MMSL basically taught me to better myself. It didn't teach me to degrade women in any way. MMSL does nothing to blame feminism for the legal system (though it is an easy argument to be made. the pendulum was too far one way 50 years ago and it swung the other way too far now, primarily due to feminism). Your post clearly shows you never read the book, coming from a man in a low sex marriage and are only spewing hatred you 'heard' was in the book. Egad, the author goes out of his way to explain why he is married and why it is a good thing. Clearly not supportive of MGTOW.


----------



## john117

I have read the book and let's just say I'm with AA on this one. Don't look at the outcome of happy marriage et al. Look at the process outlined. It is a very narrow process applicable to some cases that has been granted nearly universal applicability by the masses. 

Heaven help us if sex as objective books become definitive relationship primers.


----------



## JJXmomma

I haven't read the book but let me make a point. When we think of raising our boys and men, maybe men aren't "playing the victim" but are actually being victimized. Shouldn't they have a right to take a stand? When women fought for the right to vote, should they have been dismissed as being blaming and playing the victim? Of course not. That was an injustice that society needed to change. Look at Martin Luther king jr. And others throughout history who have taken a stand and led to positive cultural changes. Maybe the divorce laws really do need to be changed. Maybe little boys really are not allowed to "be boys" the way they used to be. Of course I don't have all the answers but I do think it's worth investigating when I think about how our society should always be evaluating it's situation and considering how to become more fair for everyone.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> No kids. He does the cooking, shopping, laundry, bill payments, organizing repairs, making sure all the technology works, and is always the one who puts up with various bureaucratic hassles, scheduling appointments and so on.
> 
> And has lots of free time, which he burns away on whatever.


Interesting. How long has this been the case? Years? You may be a unicorn! :wink2:

I asked some more women yesterday. I had 1 tell me she thought it was a fine idea for a guy to be a SAHD. Then I asked how she'd have felt if her XH had said that he wanted to do that back when she was married. She promptly told me he did tell her that and she promptly divorced him over it :surprise:


----------



## Kivlor

JJXmomma said:


> I haven't read the book but let me make a point. When we think of raising our boys and men, maybe men aren't "playing the victim" but are actually being victimized. Shouldn't they have a right to take a stand? When women fought for the right to vote, should they have been dismissed as being blaming and playing the victim? Of course not. That was an injustice that society needed to change. Look at Martin Luther king jr. And others throughout history who have taken a stand and led to positive cultural changes. Maybe the divorce laws really do need to be changed. Maybe little boys really are not allowed to "be boys" the way they used to be. Of course I don't have all the answers but I do think it's worth investigating when I think about how our society should always be evaluating it's situation and considering how to become more fair for everyone.


No, because we're men. We can't be victims. Ask Bahar Mustafa. Today it is taught that men--especially white men--cannot be victims, because they are the masters of the Patriarchy. It is physically impossible for us to be weak, to be victims. 

Stay the course. Stiff upper lip.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> I haven't read the book but let me make a point. When we think of raising our boys and men, maybe men aren't "playing the victim" but are actually being victimized. Shouldn't they have a right to take a stand? When women fought for the right to vote, should they have been dismissed as being blaming and playing the victim? Of course not. That was an injustice that society needed to change. Look at Martin Luther king jr. And others throughout history who have taken a stand and led to positive cultural changes. Maybe the divorce laws really do need to be changed. Maybe little boys really are not allowed to "be boys" the way they used to be. Of course I don't have all the answers but I do think it's worth investigating when I think about how our society should always be evaluating it's situation and considering how to become more fair for everyone.


There is a series of books with "misandry" in the title that explain just how far the rot goes. 

Books on misandry is a result page from Amazon with "misandry" as the search keyword. Those books (and several others) are listed.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> I haven't read the book but let me make a point. When we think of raising our boys and men, maybe men aren't "playing the victim" but are actually being victimized. Shouldn't they have a right to take a stand? When women fought for the right to vote, should they have been dismissed as being blaming and playing the victim? Of course not. That was an injustice that society needed to change. Look at Martin Luther king jr. And others throughout history who have taken a stand and led to positive cultural changes. Maybe the divorce laws really do need to be changed. Maybe little boys really are not allowed to "be boys" the way they used to be. Of course I don't have all the answers but I do think it's worth investigating when I think about how our society should always be evaluating it's situation and considering how to become more fair for everyone.


Of course men should stand up for their rights. No question.

But if the problem is unjust divorce laws, is the solution to fight against those unjust laws? Or is it to rail about how the world has been taken over by radical feminists, declare a sexodus and exhort men to avoid marriage and children at all costs, because these things will doom them to a life of misery. MGTOW takes the latter approach.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Of course men should stand up for their rights. No question.
> 
> But if the problem is unjust divorce laws, is the solution to fight against those unjust laws? Or is it to rail about how the world has been taken over by radical feminists, declare a sexodus and exhort men to avoid marriage and children at all costs, because these things will doom them to a life of misery. MGTOW takes the latter approach.


In honesty, it does try to take on the laws as well. It is no better or worse than the feminists who claim all men are rapists. The 'fringe' comes out saying a bunch of bs.


----------



## john117

Divorce laws are not the result of feminist actions but an effort by the lawmakers to legislate morality. Once enough case law has been built good luck to anyone outside these cases...


----------



## JJXmomma

A_A I see what you're saying. I hope my son doesn't grow up and decide to rebel against all women, but I do wonder what we can do about this problem. I am curious to know what percentage of men find this to be a substantial problem. For example I am interested in how little boys are raised best into men and what makes men feel more confident, ambitious, and become productive members of society. I also find the whole alpha beta male concept interesting. I do notice that my son is already very different from my daughters without any conscious conditioning from me. 

I also think that if the men aren't willing to make changes because they have to keep "stiff upper lips" then maybe the women should say things like "hey these divorce policies are hurting the men. Maybe things should be changed."

You may wonder why I am interested in this as I am a woman and don't personally identify with any sort of men's rights issues but I do care about men and am interested in the future for my son. I also know a lot of men in my family who lost custody of their kids and I think it's tragic. I'm so glad my children have their father in the home.

Also I personally would want women to stand up for the men because I want the men to keep wanting to stand up for the women. Call me old fashioned but I saw the other thread about the draft and I don't want women to have to register for it, but I saw a bunch of men already responded that we should to be fair. I wouldn't mind seeing both sexes stand up for each other more the way they seemed to do in the past.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> I also think that if the men aren't willing to make changes because they have to keep "stiff upper lips" then maybe the women should say things like "hey these divorce policies are hurting the men. Maybe things should be changed."
> 
> You may wonder why I am interested in this as I am a woman and don't personally identify with any sort of men's rights issues but I do care about men and am interested in the future for my son. I also know a lot of men in my family who lost custody of their kids and I think it's tragic. I'm so glad my children have their father in the home.
> 
> Also I personally would want women to stand up for the men because I want the men to keep wanting to stand up for the women. Call me old fashioned but I saw the other thread about the draft and I don't want women to have to register for it, but I saw a bunch of men already responded that we should to be fair. I wouldn't mind seeing both sexes stand up for each other more the way they seemed to do in the past.


Sure, women can stand up for men. I'm only suggesting that men will have a lot more success getting women on side if they stop calling them emasculating gynocentric overlords and the like.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> In honesty, it does try to take on the laws as well. It is no better or worse than the feminists who claim all men are rapists. The 'fringe' comes out saying a bunch of bs.



Agreed, there are some men's rights activists who are not at all MGTOW. But MGTOW itself is a movement based on loathing.


----------



## JJXmomma

A_A you know what's funny? I actually don't mind the men getting mad and blaming us. When the men get mad that's what gets my attention. I wouldn't have learned that the child support costs were literally causing some men to lose ALL their money if the OP hadn't posted this thread. 

But maybe that's just me. It's like in my marriage, when my husband gets pissed at me it changes my attitudes and behaviors way faster than when he makes gentle requests.


----------



## DupedNoMore

What is feminism?

Feminism is about the forced wealth and power transfer from men to women. In the case of a good percentage of minorities, feminism = white privilege = forcing wealth and power from white men to women and minorities. In other words, each shade of Marxism uses the same strategy – they just present it with differing focus. To force wealth and power transfer from those that have it to yourself, you use the most horrific of mind games – emotional and psychological brainwashing. See any white people on the African, South American or Middle Eastern continents protesting white oppression? No. Know why? Because the local blacks and/or browns would chop the protesting white’s heads off. Not to mention it's suicide for most whites to travel to these destinations.

MGTOW is about men who have had enough of the above. The best life to a MGTOW is one in which he has enough to never again become a victim of the patriarchy, the matriarchy, the gynocracy, the minocracy or the kingdom of white poody licking white knights.

Parasitic women, minorities, freebee seekers and well paid soul sucking socialist politicians is something every MGTOW should steadfastly reject.

The Minocracy:

Feminists, white knights, angry disdeserving browns and blacks, PUAs and other various forms of socialists, Marxists, communists and progressives. All of the aforementioned hope to use white guilt and/or male guilt to forcefully transfer power and wealth from men/whites to themselves. All of the aforementioned are deeply destructive con artists. All of the aforementioned make their lives by destroying the lives of others. All of the aforementioned are soul destroying parasites.

MGTOW represent 0% of the aforementioned.

Urban Dictionary: Minocracy


----------



## JJXmomma

This may be a dumb question but what does MGTOW really mean? I know it's men going their own way but what are they actually doing? I've never heard of it until I just joined here. I know they don't marry but do they still date or have sex? And why is it such a common topic of discussion here as all the men are married? Sorry to ask this in the thread so late as I'm sure this was answered before. 

Are they hoping that their act of rebellion will get women's attention? Change the laws? Disappear into oblivion (they will die out eventually if they don't reproduce)? Just can someone summarize what they are hoping for? Do they want marriage to be like how it was for the generation above the baby boomers? To me the movement sounds pretty harmless honestly except for the fact that of course if all men did this then of course the women would be left alone and abandoned. I'm also not sure it's the most effective way to stimulate social change, although I do admit it got my attention.


----------



## DupedNoMore

JJXmomma said:


> This may be a dumb question but what does MGTOW really mean? I know it's men going their own way but what are they actually doing? I've never heard of it until I just joined here. I know they don't marry but do they still date or have sex? And why is it such a common topic of discussion here as all the men are married? Sorry to ask this in the thread so late as I'm sure this was answered before.
> 
> Are they hoping that their act of rebellion will get women's attention? Change the laws? Disappear into oblivion (they will die out eventually if they don't reproduce)? Just can someone summarize what they are hoping for? Do they want marriage to be like how it was for the generation above the baby boomers? To me the movement sounds pretty harmless honestly except for the fact that of course if all men did this then of course the women would be left alone and abandoned. I'm also not sure it's the most effective way to stimulate social change, although I do admit it got my attention.


MGTOW are very simple, good natured people:

1. MGTOW will never give women the ring of power. I.E., we don't strip ourselves of all individuality to be married. I.E., we don't give women the power to destroy our lives through alimony, property division and child support.

2. MGTOW are not trying to change the laws. We simply opt out of cultural traditions that are anti-male and hypergynocentric, like marriage for instance.

3. MGTOW are not an act of rebellion. That's MRAs and PUAs.

4. MGTOW are not interested in changing laws so long as de facto, forced marriage remains illegal (common law marriage).

5. MGTOW are good people that see through and reject our anti-male, gynocentric, women first society. MGTOW loath gynocentrists, minocentrists, the patriarchy, white knights, feminists, angry disdeserving browns and blacks, PUAs and other various forms of socialists, Marxists, communists and progressives.

6. MGTOW are so vocal because we care about other men enough to keep them from falling into traps set by the minocracy, gynocracy, progressives, cuckservatives and white knights.

In short, MGTOW aren't about the law. MGTOW are about teaching men that everything they've been taught is a lie to screw them over.


----------



## JJXmomma

Thanks dupednomore for your explanation. 

I personally think it's sad that MGTOW exists in the first place as I believe that most human beings are happiest when in loving committed marriages. Since people live a lot longer than they used to it makes sense to me that there may be more divorces and remarriages than there used to be, but in general I still think marriage is wonderful and an opportunity for all people to lead the most fulfilling lives. I also believe that the traditional nuclear family is the best environment for children and don't like seeing how that is becoming more rare. 

That being said I can't blame the men in MGTOW because if they honestly feel that marriage is an institution that promotes misandry, then they are showing self respect by rebelling against it in a nonviolent way. However I think that the best solution would be to change the divorce policies in the first place because if the risk of marriage were equal to men and women, MGTOW would no longer exist. 


I have another question regarding white knights. Dupednomore, I understand what you are saying about the minorities leading the social movements. My experience is that most women today don't call themselves "feminists" but that subgroup has a lot of power. Most people are heterosexual but IMO the media over represents the gay population. (Btw I have no problem with gays. One of my sisters is a lesbian and she has been since the onset of puberty. I love her and hope she finds a loving woman someday to share her life with). 

However I have a question regarding the white knight thing. I thought that the majority, not the minority, of men felt this intrinsic drive. I thought it was a part of the male ego, being needed, being valued for masculine strength and sometimes sacrifice. Men have always done the hunting, deep sea fishing, gone off to war, protected their families, etc. I thought the whole rescuing of the damsel in distress thing was kind of naturally appealing. (No I'm not talking about extremes as my husband would certainly not be okay with me if I were totally helpless and unable to demonstrate responsibility and good choices. )

So can you explain your hatred of this a little more please?


----------



## Dycedarg

JJXmomma said:


> Thanks dupednomore for your explanation.
> 
> I personally think it's sad that MGTOW exists in the first place as I believe that most human beings are happiest when in loving committed marriages. Since people live a lot longer than they used to it makes sense to me that there may be more divorces and remarriages than there used to be, but in general I still think marriage is wonderful and an opportunity for all people to lead the most fulfilling lives. I also believe that the traditional nuclear family is the best environment for children and don't like seeing how that is becoming more rare.
> 
> That being said I can't blame the men in MGTOW because if they honestly feel that marriage is an institution that promotes misandry, then they are showing self respect by rebelling against it in a nonviolent way. However I think that the best solution would be to change the divorce policies in the first place because if the risk of marriage were equal to men and women, MGTOW would no longer exist.
> 
> 
> I have another question regarding white knights. Dupednomore, I understand what you are saying about the minorities leading the social movements. My experience is that most women today don't call themselves "feminists" but that subgroup has a lot of power. Most people are heterosexual but IMO the media over represents the gay population. (Btw I have no problem with gays. One of my sisters is a lesbian and she has been since the onset of puberty. I love her and hope she finds a loving woman someday to share her life with).
> 
> However I have a question regarding the white knight thing. I thought that the majority, not the minority, of men felt this intrinsic drive. I thought it was a part of the male ego, being needed, being valued for masculine strength and sometimes sacrifice. Men have always done the hunting, deep sea fishing, gone off to war, protected their families, etc. I thought the whole rescuing of the damsel in distress thing was kind of naturally appealing. (No I'm not talking about extremes as my husband would certainly not be okay with me if I were totally helpless and unable to demonstrate responsibility and good choices. )
> 
> So can you explain your hatred of this a little more please?


We want to rescue a damsel in distress, not a distressing damsel. 

There has been an enormous shift in American society in the way women are to be portrayed and regarded, and I'm not talking about their prominence and power. 

I don't hate White Knights. I think they were born in the wrong century. They don't recognize that in contemporary American society, trying to be chivalrous will get you one of two things:
1) A remarkable amount of disdain for presuming to be able to rescue a woman, or
2) A complete lack of respect from all women, for catering to their every whim. 

In my opinion a white knight just doesn't understand the connection between how women think and how the world is today. The needs of a woman change drastically depending on how their world behaves. If tomorrow american civilization erupted into total anarchy, you'd better believe I'd pick up my sword and become the Whitest Knight you ever did see. And women would love me, because that kind of thing caters directly into their greatest need in that kind of world.

But in this world women don't need a White Knight. We have laws, and police, and norms. Thus, their needs change. My girlfriend doesn't need me to rescue her. If I tried, she'd probably be much less attracted to me. If I tried to manufacture things or exaggerate the severity of life just in order to save her, she'd likely despise me eventually. 

Instead, I play the role she has lovingly dubbed "The Wight Knight", basically the charismatic *********. She likes when I'm snarky and playful, confident and seldom moved. She wants to be able to get really upset over something stupid, and come to me, know that I won't be affected by it, and know that I will make her feel better. Maybe she does need rescued, just from different, much more superficial things I guess.

revision--- seriously? You guys censor that?


----------



## always_alone

DupedNoMore said:


> MGTOW is about men who have had enough of the above. The best life to a MGTOW is one in which he has enough to never again become a victim of the patriarchy, the matriarchy, the gynocracy, the minocracy or the kingdom of white poody licking white knights.


Okay, well now we have truly entered the theater of the absurd: men against the patriarchy.

Awesome, guys, bring it down!


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> They don't recognize that in contemporary American society, trying to be chivalrous will get you one of two things:
> 1) A remarkable amount of disdain for presuming to be able to rescue a woman, or
> 2) A complete lack of respect from all women, for catering to their every whim.
> 
> In my opinion a white knight just doesn't understand the connection between how women think and how the world is today. The needs of a woman change drastically depending on how their world behaves. If tomorrow american civilization erupted into total anarchy, you'd better believe I'd pick up my sword and become the Whitest Knight you ever did see. And women would love me, because that kind of thing caters directly into their greatest need in that kind of world.


I think MGTOW need to decide whether they are or they aren't doing everything based solely on what they suppose that women find attractive. They *say* the premise is to stop acting this way, stop being so-called White Knights, but ultimately all analysis about what men should do or believe boils down to their analysis of what women (supposedly) want.



Dycedarg said:


> Maybe she does need rescued, just from different, much more superficial things I guess.


So you found your damsel in distress and rescued her. And she appreciates it. So where's the problem?


----------



## Dycedarg

always_alone said:


> I think MGTOW need to decide whether they are or they aren't doing everything based solely on what they suppose that women find attractive. They *say* the premise is to stop acting this way, stop being so-called White Knights, but ultimately all analysis about what men should do or believe boils down to their analysis of what women (supposedly) want.
> 
> 
> 
> So you found your damsel in distress and rescued her. And she appreciates it. So where's the problem?


I wasn't talking to you, but I think there is a lot of irony in this. I believe you are the one who has a problem. Your posts are filled with sarcasm and veiled insults, yet you act like it's ludicrous that someone might believe they wouldn't find happiness in marriage and children. If you really feel that way that's fine, but I think you should try to find a way to say those things without being so condescending. 



always_alone said:


> But if the problem is unjust divorce laws, is the solution to fight against those unjust laws? Or is it to rail about how the world has been taken over by radical feminists, declare a sexodus and exhort men to avoid marriage and children at all costs, because these things will doom them to a life of misery. MGTOW takes the latter approach.


Doom and a life of misery? As opposed to what? The wonderful happy life you live? You, who come into the Men's Clubhouse forums and make 40 exceedingly bitter posts a day about how anyone who ascribes to MGTOW is a complete and utter fool? 

And wouldn't the best way to change, be to tell and show people that MGTOW is a viable and preferable way of life? You suggest fighting against laws instead of spreading the word but that is bizarre, backwards and, depending on what exactly you're implying, possibly illegal. Real change doesn't come from challenging laws, established by an almost incomprehensibly large government that is very slow to change. It comes from talking and informing people. If you help people see that a certain lifestyle is legit, laws will follow suit. Changing from the inside out. 

Which is what people are doing here. And you come across as a real adversary, screaming and berating people for their views, assaulting them with forced "LOL"'s and emotes. I don't think I've said anything disrespectful to you, but you've made several nasty and insinuative remarks to me. 

If you're right and you know it in your heart of hearts, and MGTOW is logically unable to sustain its own weight, then that should give you comfort, not strain. And if it is invalid, it will fall and crumble. But if it isn't, nothing you do or say will be able to change that. 

Finally, I don't even necessarily believe that MGTOW is a good choice. I like to date and have sex, without making sacrifices to my own personal and financial freedom,and I will do that until I find someone worth living my life with. I don't think that's MGTOW or a "Sexodus," it might be a blend of that and the lifestyle on the other end of the spectrum. I don't know. But I think for some people MGTOW is viable, and I don't judge them for that or assume they're just bitter, defeated undesirable men. I don't judge you for whatever lifestyle you embrace either, even though I don't know the specifics of it. But what I definitely don't do is mock or ridicule others just because their way of life is different or even diametrically opposite mine. Or embellish or diminish their words/perspectives in order to make them seem as outlandish as possible, just to give my views clout.

You should take it easy.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I think MGTOW need to decide whether they are or they aren't doing everything based solely on what they suppose that women find attractive. They *say* the premise is to stop acting this way, stop being so-called White Knights, but ultimately all analysis about what men should do or believe boils down to their analysis of what women (supposedly) want.


I just want to go on record as saying that I am all for a Patriarchy. 

I just haven't found out where it is headquartered, so that I can join and rise in the ranks to rule over lesser, inferior men and the naturally subservient women who need it. > 

What I'm not for is a Patriarchate. But that's another matter. :wink2:


----------



## JJXmomma

From a logical standpoint MGTOW actually makes sense if they want to stimulate change because it's not aggressive or violent but if enough men join the movement it can have a tremendous impact. The laws won't be reevaluated if there is no perceived problem, but if eventually all the women who want husbands can't find one willing to marry them, that can be a big problem. The question is though, would the government actually care? It seems to have no problem with the fact that a huge percentage of today's children are raised by either single mothers or mothers and stepfather sand boyfriends, as the value of the biological father has diminished. If people simply stop marrying, I wonder if the divorce laws would be changed. I wonder if the government would recognize the value in the institution of marriage. 

Also in regards to the white knights, I guess it's a dilemma caused by the disappearance of the dangers of our past. Men still want to be our heroes, but they don't know how anymore. Whereas in the past gender roles were more naturally defined, today's men don't know what women want and appreciate, and women certainly give them mixed messages as well. I personally like chivalry and would welcome more of it but the next women might be offended by it. 

So today the men who want to be the heroes are "rescuing" the women by catering to their every emotional whim which in a lot of cases is not ultimately attractive to the woman. 

I feel like my husband found the right way to be my hero without demeaning himself, but I feel like he's unusual in today's world. He's a real alpha male, smart, very good looking, dominant, and protective. He also has a pretty short fuse but he controls it enough to keep him out of trouble and always cheers up really fast afterwards. In the rare situations where he feels people are mistreating me, he gets so worked up and wants to take action, which I admit I appreciate even though I usually just tell him to calm down. He also works harder than me and does a lot of acts of service for me.

He is not a pushover though, not even close, and he definitely does not cater to my every whim. By being that way, I think his behavior actually encourages me to be a better version of myself. I have to take more responsibility for myself. He's also much more opinionated than me so on most issues I let him get his way because it's just not a big deal to me.

I think men like that are becoming rare and also women like me are becoming rare as I actually feel happiest in a more submissive role. My husband had a lot of trouble with women he dated before me because of power struggles, which might explain why he was so willing to marry me in the first place. Sometimes I wonder how convenient it would be to have a "manslave" like some of the men in my family are to their wives but I don't think I'd find him attractive. 

I know that not all women want the same thing as me but I do wonder if marriage has a higher long term success rate in roles like ours.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> I wasn't talking to you, but I think there is a lot of irony in this. I believe you are the one who has a problem. Your posts are filled with sarcasm and veiled insults, yet you act like it's ludicrous that someone might believe they wouldn't find happiness in marriage and children.


Actually, I have said multiple times that I don't think marriage or children are necessary for happiness. Indeed, I personally have done neither and have no intention of changing that.

Life is plenty fine without marriage or kids.

What I object to is the MGTOW philosophy that lies behind the acts of not marrying or having kids. I find it to be hard in contradiction, resentment, and loathing. And for those who do seek more justice, I believe they would be a lot more successful if they lose the contradictions, resentment, and loathing.


----------



## Dycedarg

always_alone said:


> Actually, I have said multiple times that I don't think marriage or children are necessary for happiness. Indeed, I personally have done neither and have no intention of changing that.
> 
> Life is plenty fine without marriage or kids.
> 
> What I object to is the MGTOW philosophy that lies behind the acts of not marrying or having kids. I find it to be hard in contradiction, resentment, and loathing. And for those who do seek more justice, I believe they would be a lot more successful if they lose the contradictions, resentment, and loathing.


You and I are in complete agreement I think. I mean, if the premise can be shown to be true, I'd say that's spot on.

I must have a really weird understanding of MGTOW. I'm not sure to what you're referring when you talk about contradictions, resentment, etc. 

I could be totally wrong-- when I think of MGTOW I don't think about someone swearing off women and being standoffish or abrasively misogynistic. Certainly the world is in no short supply of those, but I've been under the distinct impression that it alludes more to my kind of life-- not in any kind of rush to get married or really do anything one doesn't want to do, until they find someone with whom they click so well that the collaboration would be effortless. 

It may be that I have an incorrect understanding of the acronym.


----------



## Catherine602

The way women react to men is fairly fixed. The world changes but admiration and respect for a man with the ability to weather change is fairly stable among women. Men who can make their way in the world always appeal to women. It does not matter that there are no giants to slay. 

There are problems that need boldness and leadership today. Could be as simple as standing out from the multitude of men that fear women. Men who are confident enough to be comfortable with women in all walks of life. A man who does not need women to be weak and dependent to feel strong. 

If anarchy descended on us and men were needed for their superior strength, women would be needed to tend to life behind the lines to support them. Each person does what is needed to survive. The implication is that this situation would put men in a position of power over women because women would be dependent on them. The treat of withdrawal of support would again be imposed. 

Doesn't that identify a problem? What a man does is important and vital therefore they can use their power to control. But what about the vital role of women? If feminist women refused support behind the lines, what would happen.


----------



## Lila

JJXmomma said:


> I* think men like that are becoming rare and also women like me are becoming rare as I actually feel happiest in a more submissive role*. My husband had a lot of trouble with women he dated before me because of power struggles, which might explain why he was so willing to marry me in the first place. Sometimes I wonder how convenient it would be to have a "manslave" like some of the men in my family are to their wives but I don't think I'd find him attractive.
> 
> *I know that not all women want the same thing as me but I do wonder if marriage has a higher long term success rate in roles like ours.*


I'm not sure if women and men like you and your husband are becoming rarer rather I think people today are more free to choose to be their true selves. We, men and women, are no longer forced, for lack of a better word, to fit into a specific mold of men = dominant; women = submissive. Today, that's just one of many combinations. A man could be very dominant and need a very submissive woman to be happy. Same for the very dominant woman who needs a very submissive man. And then there's everything in between the two extremes. 

IMO, successful relationships are those where the partners are complimentary. Where on the scale they compliment each other really doesn't matter.


----------



## Kivlor

Dycedarg said:


> You and I are in complete agreement I think. I mean, if the premise can be shown to be true, I'd say that's spot on.
> 
> I must have a really weird understanding of MGTOW. I'm not sure to what you're referring when you talk about contradictions, resentment, etc.
> 
> I could be totally wrong-- when I think of MGTOW I don't think about someone swearing off women and being standoffish or abrasively misogynistic. Certainly the world is in no short supply of those, but I've been under the distinct impression that it alludes more to my kind of life-- not in any kind of rush to get married or really do anything one doesn't want to do, until they find someone with whom they click so well that the collaboration would be effortless.
> 
> It may be that I have an incorrect understanding of the acronym.


Generally, it seems that MGTOW is all about not putting the focus of your life, your money, your time, etc on women, and the pursuit of them. Instead, just go do the things you enjoy. Marriage is too dangerous, don't get married. Having kids is too dangerous, don't have kids. 

Rather, do things you love. Go build stuff, and enjoy life. Focus on your own best interests.

There are some particularly nasty folks in MGTOW, but it's not like they're any worse than their counterparts in Feminism--who by the way are revered, rather than disowned by that particular movement.

Some MGTOW like to talk about what they're doing--they have that need for companionship, to fill the void of being alone--and so they get together in online circles. Others either don't have as strong a need for that, or they've found a way to live without it, and they simply just GTOW. Some "ghost" or just take off, living off grid. 

I think I mentioned previously a guy I know--knew?--who did this. His wife just took off with an OM and left him and their daughter. He was devastated, but pulled himself up by his bootstraps, and eventually ghosted. He'd never heard of MGTOW, just decided that was what he and his daughter were gonna do. Told a few of us in advance, so people knew nothing bad had happened.


----------



## JJXmomma

Lila it does make sense that we are becoming more free to be our true selves. My first daughter is just like my husband but my second is more like me. 

I guess I was rambling a bit. I brought the whole dominant/submissive thing up when referring to the current phenomena of white knights and how men should learn to follow their drive to care for women in appropriate ways without demeaning themselves, but there seems to be confusion about how to do it.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> Lila it does make sense that we are becoming more free to be our true selves. My first daughter is just like my husband but my second is more like me.
> 
> I guess I was rambling a bit. I brought the whole dominant/submissive thing up when referring to the current phenomena of white knights and how men should learn to follow their drive to care for women in appropriate ways without demeaning themselves, but there seems to be confusion about how to do it.


The problem is that, in the US at least, there are severe legal dangers to men in getting married and having children. So the more responsible and forward-looking men are the ones who are saying "Not with my life". Who does that leave women to marry and sire children with? 

A real tragedy for women is that even if a woman has absolutely no intention of using the legal system to destroy a man, and even if she never would do so, how can a given man know this with certainty? 

So this problem hurts honest and loving women directly, not just indirectly because of the harm it does their male relatives and friends.


----------



## always_alone

Dycedarg said:


> I could be totally wrong-- when I think of MGTOW I don't think about someone swearing off women and being standoffish or abrasively misogynistic. Certainly the world is in no short supply of those, but I've been under the distinct impression that it alludes more to my kind of life-- not in any kind of rush to get married or really do anything one doesn't want to do, until they find someone with whom they click so well that the collaboration would be effortless.


This is what it should mean. Indeed, if MGTOW was really just men doing their own thing, living life in a way that made them happy, I would have no problem with it. I know quite a few guys who "do their own thing", but they are no MGTOW. 

MGTOW a movement, a banner, with underlying principles and approaches. It is a specific mindset that sees a world controlled by radical feminists who are out to screw men. A world full weakling men, who are duped by these feminists into screwing men over in all sorts of wonderfully nefarious ways.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> So the more responsible and forward-looking men are the ones who are saying "Not with my life". Who does that leave women to marry and sire children with?
> 
> A real tragedy for women is that even if a woman has absolutely no intention of using the legal system to destroy a man, and even if she never would do so, how can a given man know this with certainty?


Your concern for us women is touching, but the reality is that there are lots and lots of responsible and forward looking men who want children, who want families, who want life partners.

Look at this thread for example. Lots and lots of married men saying that they want relationships with women. Are you suggesting they are not forward looking? Not responsible? Isn't that an incredibly insulting thing to say about all your compadres here?

MGTOW is no threat to women. Those who want husbands and children will find loving men who want wives and kids. And those who don't won't notice the difference.

Men should absolutely do whatever they most want to fulfill their lives. But if they're doing it just to revel in the "tragedy" they are causing women, they should think again.


----------



## JJXmomma

I really wouldn't know if MGTOW is composed more of the more desirable men who are more rational and forward thinking or the men who just have no luck with women. It is interesting to consider though. It's like the trend of the most highly educated and ambitious parents having the least children. I wonder what future generations will be like. Nonetheless I think that if more and more men choose to reject marriage then that is a threat to women, as IMO women tend to be the ones who push for marriage. The most desirable men don't need it for regular sex or companionship with women because they can have lots of girlfriends. 

Also I do want to add one more point about dominance and submissiveness. Yes we are all individuals and all fall somewhere on the spectrum and need a complimentary match. However the old fashioned stereotype of men being dominant and women being submissive sounds almost taboo now, and many couples are switching roles. In a lot of those cases that's just fine if it works for them, but it does make me wonder why they are becoming so mainstream. I feel like saying that men are more dominant naturally is like saying that men are taller. Everyone knows that most men are taller than most women but of course you can find couples that are the opposite. 

I was reading about testosterone levels last fall because I started weight lifting for health reasons. As a very girly woman I have no desire to look like a man but I was reading about how weight lifting in moderation can make a woman look much better and actually have more womanly curves....anyway I'm rambling again. One article described how there is a huge range of testosterone levels within both men and women, but even the women with the highest testosterone levels don't even come close to those of men. The men with the lowest levels still have over twice the amount of women with the highest levels, and the majority of men have comparatively much more than that. Since testosterone is associated with more dominant personality characteristics, it makes sense that biologically men would feel more like their true selves in a dominant role and women would feel happier in a submissive role but that arrangement is becoming less common than it used to be.


----------



## JJXmomma

I do not want to point fingers here because there may be many possible explanations but am just wondering if these statistics are really true. 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...elor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married

If so I find that very sad. This link was shared by a person commenting on technovelist's other link he just shared on his other thread.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> I do not want to point fingers here because there may be many possible explanations but am just wondering if these statistics are really true.
> 
> Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
> 
> If so I find that very sad. This link was shared by a person commenting on technovelist's other link he just shared on his other thread.


As far as I know, those statistics are correct. Why that should be true is another matter, as you mentioned.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> I do not want to point fingers here because there may be many possible explanations but am just wondering if these statistics are really true.
> 
> Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
> 
> If so I find that very sad. This link was shared by a person commenting on technovelist's other link he just shared on his other thread.


For some more balanced reporting, try here:

Marriage Rate Declines and Marriage Age Rises | Pew Research Center

Young people are getting married a lot older than they used to, and many are giving up marriage in favour of cohabitation and common law.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> Since testosterone is associated with more dominant personality characteristics, it makes sense that biologically men would feel more like their true selves in a dominant role and women would feel happier in a submissive role but that arrangement is becoming less common than it used to be.


If the relationship between testosterone and dominance were this simple and direct, this would be plausible. But it isn't. Even in men, high T levels do not predict more dominant behaviour over men with lower T levels. 

Testosterone and dominance aren't the same thing and aren't necessarily connected at all.


----------



## JJXmomma

I thought everyone thought that testosterone was associated with dominant behaviors, but I guess I was wrong. In animal studies it significantly changes behaviors. I know that rats act more aggressively with more testosterone and female rat fetuses that are exposed to high amounts of it are more aggressive and "male-like" when they are born. Please don't think that by "dominant" I mean violent or aggressive in humans though. By "dominant" I mean more assertiveness and leadership. 

Here's an interesting study on it's effect on humans:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...one-fuels-both-competition-and-protectiveness


----------



## JJXmomma

always_alone said:


> For some more balanced reporting, try here:
> 
> Marriage Rate Declines and Marriage Age Rises | Pew Research Center
> 
> Young people are getting married a lot older than they used to, and many are giving up marriage in favour of cohabitation and common law.



Thanks A_A for a more objective report. Still, 39% of the people thought marriage is becoming obsolete. 

Also, I'm sure there are many benefits to waiting to marry, but my personal experience of marrying young was good for me. Since I was in my early twenties, I was able to enjoy five solid years of marriage before having kids. I'm really glad we had those years to fully learn about each other because once the kids came, marriage was so much tougher. If people didn't want children there'd be no benefit to marrying young, but people who do want kids need to consider that the woman's fertile window does not last forever, and IMO it's hard to bombard the relationship with parental obligations right away.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> Thanks A_A for a more objective report. Still, 39% of the people thought marriage is becoming obsolete.
> 
> Also, I'm sure there are many benefits to waiting to marry, but my personal experience of marrying young was good for me. Since I was in my early twenties, I was able to enjoy five solid years of marriage before having kids. I'm really glad we had those years to fully learn about each other because once the kids came, marriage was so much tougher. If people didn't want children there'd be no benefit to marrying young, but people who do want kids need to consider that the woman's fertile window does not last forever, and IMO it's hard to bombard the relationship with parental obligations right away.


Even if you don't want children there is benefit to marrying young, or at least pairing up in a serious way at a young age.

Namely, that spending many years having sex with different people tends to cause trouble forming a lasting bond with one person, especially in women. 

Of course this is not an absolute rule but it is a fairly strong tendency.


----------



## JJXmomma

I think one of the other points mentioned in the article I linked about marrying young is that the people who are more focused on marrying usually do so when they are still young. Waiting until later leaves the "leftovers" if you think about it. But with so many of the men still in a state of delayed adolescence, the women can't find husbands while young. Also I'm not sure about most women but I've had very few sexual partners as I learned quickly that there is hardly any fulfillment for me in the whole meaningless hookup culture.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> I think one of the other points mentioned in the article I linked about marrying young is that the people who are more focused on marrying usually do so when they are still young. Waiting until later leaves the "leftovers" if you think about it. But with so many of the men still in a state of delayed adolescence, the women can't find husbands while young. Also I'm not sure about most women but I've had very few sexual partners as I learned quickly that there is hardly any fulfillment for me in the whole meaningless hookup culture.


A lot of young women today find that culture unfulfilling as well, but unfortunately after spending the best of their youth trying it out.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> I thought everyone thought that testosterone was associated with dominant behaviors, but I guess I was wrong. In animal studies it significantly changes behaviors. I know that rats act more aggressively with more testosterone and female rat fetuses that are exposed to high amounts of it are more aggressive and "male-like" when they are born. Please don't think that by "dominant" I mean violent or aggressive in humans though. By "dominant" I mean more assertiveness and leadership.
> 
> Here's an interesting study on it's effect on humans:
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...one-fuels-both-competition-and-protectiveness



Testosterone has long been associated with aggression, particularly in animal studies. However, as the link you posted points out, this link isn't panning out in empirical research. Even in animals, aggression happens in low T. In humans, the link between aggression and high T is even weaker. 

Since it became clear that high T and aggression aren't directly related, the hypothesis shifted to linking high T with social dominance or competitiveness, and there is a bunch of research on this. But again, if you look at the studies, the link is only there when males value and are seeking social dominance. For men who aren't so inclined, higher T levels does not make them suddenly want to jockey for social position. And, as the article you cited points out, circumstances very much change how high T manifiests: from fighting and comoetition, to tend and befriend generosity.

Also effects of T supplements have shown a wide range of effects, and not necessarily the predicted ones. 


Testosterone and human aggression (or why it's time to give your gonads some credit) | Cognoculture | Learn Science at Scitable


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Even if you don't want children there is benefit to marrying young, or at least pairing up in a serious way at a young age.


Wait, what? For women, you mean, yes? Because aren't we supposed to be agreed that marriage is a bad idea for men at any age?

And women's job is to sit around and pine for the marriage they can't have?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> A lot of young women today find that culture unfulfilling as well, but unfortunately after spending the best of their youth trying it out.


A lot of young men find this culture unfulfilling as well, but you seem dedicated to encouraging them to pursue it.


----------



## always_alone

JJXmomma said:


> Thanks A_A for a more objective report. Still, 39% of the people thought marriage is becoming obsolete.


One doesn't need to be married to have kids or to have committed LTR. According to the Pew research, more and more couples are choosing cohabitation over marriage.

I am glad, though, that you made the right choices for you, and are happy with them!


----------



## JJXmomma

always_alone said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you don't want children there is benefit to marrying young, or at least pairing up in a serious way at a young age.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what? For women, you mean, yes? Because aren't we supposed to be agreed that marriage is a bad idea for men at any age?
> 
> And women's job is to sit around and pine for the marriage they can't have?
Click to expand...




always_alone said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of young women today find that culture unfulfilling as well, but unfortunately after spending the best of their youth trying it out.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of young men find this culture unfulfilling as well, but you seem dedicated to encouraging them to pursue it.
Click to expand...



I know Technovelist can speak for himself but that's not the impression I get from him. My guess is that Technovelist believes that marriage and a family would be the most fulfilling for the majority of both men and women. However the legal system does not support men in this endeavor, which is causing someen to reject it altogether and in turn hurting everyone.


----------



## JJXmomma

Also A_A I want to talk about cohabitating vs marriage. I don't want to sound like I'm boasting, but since this entire forum's theme is marriage, I will go ahead and say that I find the concept of marriage very special. Cohabitating to me is not the same as getting married and in turn announcing to the world that you want to be with your partner for the rest of your life. 

I was very lucky to have met my husband so young (age 21) because I have never had my heart broken. I had only one serious boyfriend before him. I also went on many dates but I was very picky so if the boy gave me the wrong impression on the first or second date, I left. When I met my husband I fell in love with him very quickly. He told me right away that he hoped to get married and have children. If he had given me any indication that he was just stringing me along and had no desire to fully commit to me, I would have left. Fortunately for me, he proposed after nine months and total we've been together and very happy for over twelve years. 

Now I was able to be so picky because I knew I had a lot of options, being young and attractive and well, nice. You could say I'm a "good girl." 

I'm sure some of you think I'm conceited but I have a point here. I hope that my children have as much success as me. I don't know what they will want for themselves yet but my guess is that they will want to marry and have families as they will grow up in that environment and see how happy my husband and I are together. 

I think it would be a shame if my daughters are in their prime and can't find decent husbands if that is what they want, and it would be a shame if my son can't find a woman he trusts enough not to destroy him financially and take his kids.


----------



## VHVGN

I think most women do not want to destroy a man financially. The sad part is, often they have no choice. The court system in many jurisdictions runs counter to their desires. I believe most men want and need women in their lives and value commitment. Before I got married, I dated a lot - more than I care to remember. And the majority of these women did not want to commit when I did. I finally found someone who did - and I married her. I am 55 she is 33 - yes - an enormous age gap. But who cares? We are not having kids - I have a 26 year old and she a 12 year old. She was raised in Central Asia - much different culture then the west. She is not materialistic and values family over money. But still I know the courts are screwed up in the west and need to be more equitable. And this scares many men (and women) away from legally binding their relationships.


----------



## tech-novelist

JJXmomma said:


> I know Technovelist can speak for himself but that's not the impression I get from him. My guess is that Technovelist believes that marriage and a family would be the most fulfilling for the majority of both men and women. However the legal system does not support men in this endeavor, which is causing someen to reject it altogether and in turn hurting everyone.


Yes, that is correct. I have said on several occasions that this isn't how I would like it to be, just how it is.


----------



## tech-novelist

VHVGN said:


> I think most women do not want to destroy a man financially. The sad part is, often they have no choice. The court system in many jurisdictions runs counter to their desires.


This is a new claim to me. Please explain exactly how the court system forces women to destroy men financially.



VHVGN said:


> I believe most men want and need women in their lives and value commitment. Before I got married, I dated a lot - more than I care to remember. And the majority of these women did not want to commit when I did. I finally found someone who did - and I married her. I am 55 she is 33 - yes - an enormous age gap. But who cares? We are not having kids - I have a 26 year old and she a 12 year old. She was raised in Central Asia - much different culture then the west. She is not materialistic and values family over money. But still I know the courts are screwed up in the west and need to be more equitable. And this scares many men (and women) away from legally binding their relationships.


Yes, this is what I have been saying.


----------



## VHVGN

What I mean by this, Technovelist, is the courts, at least in my state, mandate certain things like child support and maintenance by formula. I was divorced a long time ago (first marriage) and my ex was a high income attorney. She did not demand any support - but the courts negated her wishes and ordered it anyway.


----------



## tech-novelist

VHVGN said:


> What I mean by this, Technovelist, is the courts, at least in my state, mandate certain things like child support and maintenance by formula. I was divorced a long time ago (first marriage) and my ex was a high income attorney. She did not demand any support - but the courts negated her wishes and ordered it anyway.


Then she could pay it back to you; I assume they could not prevent that.

In any event, this is an extreme outlier that applies to a tiny percentage of all cases.


----------



## Kivlor

JJXmomma said:


> I'm sure some of you think I'm conceited but I have a point here. I hope that my children have as much success as me. I don't know what they will want for themselves yet but my guess is that they will want to marry and have families as they will grow up in that environment and see how happy my husband and I are together.
> 
> I think it would be a shame if my daughters are in their prime and can't find decent husbands if that is what they want, and it would be a shame if my son can't find a woman he trusts enough not to destroy him financially and take his kids.


This pretty well sums up how I feel in general about life. There is hardly a nobler cause than to help make your children as--and hopefully more--successful than their parents. Financially, emotionally, physically. 

My fear for any future children would be that my daughters waste their youth on "bad boys" and not know what to look for in finding a good husband, while my fear for my sons would be that they would chase after a woman who "needs saving" rather than knowing what to look for in finding a good wife. Very similar issues, when you think about it. Teaching them how to pick is everything.

I think both can be taken care of with good parenting. Training your kids in relationships early. Sadly, I am beginning to think I'm not the right person to provide that kind of training.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> In any event, this is an extreme outlier that applies to a tiny percentage of all cases.


Actually there are quite a lot of cases where women do not ask for and do not receive support. Remember that US stats show that only just over half of women receive any support at all.

I've posted these stats, all from the US census, multiple times. But unfortunately the resentment wins out over the evidence.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> This pretty well sums up how I feel in general about life. There is hardly a nobler cause than to help make your children as--and hopefully more--successful than their parents. Financially, emotionally, physically.
> 
> My fear for any future children would be that my daughters waste their youth on "bad boys" and not know what to look for in finding a good husband, while my fear for my sons would be that they would chase after a woman who "needs saving" rather than knowing what to look for in finding a good wife. Very similar issues, when you think about it. Teaching them how to pick is everything.
> 
> I think both can be taken care of with good parenting. Training your kids in relationships early. Sadly, I am beginning to think I'm not the right person to provide that kind of training.


I think you are a lot better equipped than many people are when they become parents.

You have actually thought about these issues to a fair extent, which is more than most people ever do.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> This pretty well sums up how I feel in general about life. There is hardly a nobler cause than to help make your children as--and hopefully more--successful than their parents. Financially, emotionally, physically.


Awesome! 

We've come such a long way in this thread. I'm glad to see there really is supoort for marriage, for family, for raising kids and giving them the best we can offer.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Awesome!
> 
> We've come such a long way in this thread. I'm glad to see there really is supoort for marriage, for family, for raising kids and giving them the best we can offer.


Sadly, it doesn't change my issues with marriage lol. 

I'm pretty sure I said it before, but I'm of the opinion that MGTOW and similar groups diagnose a lot of the problems with marriage and masculinity correctly, they just have the cure mistaken. There have been similar movements in other societies in the distant past, and they ended poorly. Bachelors taxes come to mind...

I'm highly supportive of families, of parents taking care of their kids. I'm just not supportive of the way we go about trying to accomplish that today. I completely understand why many men would choose to opt out, rather than marry. I just think they're mistaken.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> Sadly, it doesn't change my issues with marriage lol.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I said it before, but I'm of the opinion that MGTOW and similar groups diagnose a lot of the problems with marriage and masculinity correctly, they just have the cure mistaken. There have been similar movements in other societies in the distant past, and they ended poorly. Bachelors taxes come to mind...
> 
> I'm highly supportive of families, of parents taking care of their kids. I'm just not supportive of the way we go about trying to accomplish that today. I completely understand why many men would choose to opt out, rather than marry. I just think they're mistaken.


Since they are diagnosing the problems correctly, what is the correct cure?


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Since they are diagnosing the problems correctly, what is the correct cure?


Work to change the laws. If all you do is whine and/or walk away, eventually the government will punish you. History shows that; Ask the Cherokee about peaceful resistance. The US is still a representative republic, with 50 miniature republics in it, we can change some of the states to begin with. 

I for one don't want to be paying--or see any future children pay--bachelors taxes because we didn't have the will to say "NO!" Or worse, laws like the proposed "Men's Tax" in Sweden

This is what happens when you cede the debate to your enemies. They will work very diligently to do you harm, and they won't let up until you are in chains. Of course, the part of the problem is how insurmountable the task at hand appears. Men 70+ years ago ceded the debate, and now young men have no clue of where to start. Heck, most of them don't even know there is a debate. How many grew up with the false "boys are bad, girls are good" narrative? How often is a person who argues against terrible feminist policies labeled a "Rape Apologist"? 

I don't think giving up even more ground will make it better.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Awesome!
> 
> We've come such a long way in this thread. I'm glad to see there really is supoort for marriage, for family, for raising kids and giving them the best we can offer.


And then there's marriages like mine where the kids are the only worthwhile outcome of the marriage...


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> Work to change the laws. If all you do is whine and/or walk away, eventually the government will punish you. History shows that; Ask the Cherokee about peaceful resistance. The US is still a representative republic, with 50 miniature republics in it, we can change some of the states to begin with.
> 
> I for one don't want to be paying--or see any future children pay--bachelors taxes because we didn't have the will to say "NO!" Or worse, laws like the proposed "Men's Tax" in Sweden
> 
> This is what happens when you cede the debate to your enemies. They will work very diligently to do you harm, and they won't let up until you are in chains. Of course, the part of the problem is how insurmountable the task at hand appears. Men 70+ years ago ceded the debate, and now young men have no clue of where to start. Heck, most of them don't even know there is a debate. How many grew up with the false "boys are bad, girls are good" narrative? How often is a person who argues against terrible feminist policies labeled a "Rape Apologist"?
> 
> I don't think giving up even more ground will make it better.


I wish you the best of luck with this approach. I'm not being sarcastic, either, just realistic.

As for me, if I were young and single, I would emigrate to a country where men aren't mistreated as they are here. The government can't punish someone who isn't there.


----------



## naiveonedave

technovelist said:


> I wish you the best of luck with this approach. I'm not being sarcastic, either, just realistic.
> 
> As for me, if I were young and single, I would emigrate to a country where men aren't mistreated as they are here. The government can't punish someone who isn't there.


I don't think there are many countries on the planet where you can live the lifestyle of the US and have 'fair' divorce laws/equal treatment of men...


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> I don't think there are many countries on the planet where you can live the lifestyle of the US and have 'fair' divorce laws/equal treatment of men...


I don't think that you are correct.

There are plenty of countries a lot cheaper than the US where men are not mistreated as they are here, and are pretty good places to live in general.

You might want to read "International Living" magazine for some information on these options. Note that this magazine does tend to have a fairly rosy view of its destinations, so it shouldn't be taken as gospel, but it does have a lot of good information to use as a starting point.

If money were an issue and I wanted a language that was reasonably easy to learn, I would probably consider Panama or Ecuador.


----------



## john117

If you align with the proper dictator it's quite possible


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I'm highly supportive of families, of parents taking care of their kids. I'm just not supportive of the way we go about trying to accomplish that today. I completely understand why many men would choose to opt out, rather than marry. I just think they're mistaken.


Even saying this shows that you don't actually support MGTOW at all. Did you read the OP of this thread? 

MGTOW is not just anti-marriage because of divorce laws. They think all of society is anti-men, run by feminists, that women are incapable of monogamy and will always cheat and leave you. Indeed, MGTOW deliberately advises men to avoid marriage and LTR at all costs, regardless of divorce laws, because women cannot be trusted. The phrase used earlier, if you recall, was emasculating gynocentric overlords.

So even the admission that children and families are valuable is a huge advancement from the origins of this thread.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> I don't think there are many countries on the planet where you can live the lifestyle of the US and have 'fair' divorce laws/equal treatment of men...


How about Britain?

Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Guardian


----------



## john117

Sounds good. I'm an EU Citizen


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Sounds good. I'm an EU Citizen


Not even the hassles of visas and immigration. You got it made.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> And then there's marriages like mine where the kids are the only worthwhile outcome of the marriage...


Is that fair, though? Didn't you have a bunch of good fun years together? 

I know you haven't been happy for a while and the past is so much water under the bridge. But still.

Plus, you could be free of her now if you'd but change your mind about controlling her assets.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Not even the hassles of visas and immigration. You got it made.


And real fish and chips!!!


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Is that fair, though? Didn't you have a bunch of good fun years together?
> 
> I know you haven't been happy for a while and the past is so much water under the bridge. But still.
> 
> Plus, you could be free of her now if you'd but change your mind about controlling her assets.


I'm not interested in her assets, really. We had good times but it feels like it was someone else's life. 

When you're 56 and look forward to a quiet evening of Angry Birds and TAM then you know its all downhill from there. 

I wish it wasn't the case but its not my choice.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I'm not interested in her assets, really.


Then why are you still with her? Last time I asked that question you said custody and making sure she contributes properly to the kid's education. 

And now that the kids are in college, custody is surely not the issue


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> If you align with the proper dictator it's quite possible


Yes, of course there is no risk at all to moving to a foreign country, dealing with potentially unstable political conditions and fickle laws, locating a mate from a completely different culture and socio-economic status, and tying the knot.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Yes, of course there is no risk at all to moving to a foreign country, dealing with potentially unstable political conditions and fickle laws, locating a mate from a completely different culture and socio-economic status, and tying the knot.
> 
> I mean, what could possibly go wrong?


Tell me about it


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Then why are you still with her? Last time I asked that question you said custody and making sure she contributes properly to the kid's education.
> 
> And now that the kids are in college, custody is surely not the issue


But then contributions to the kids' massive college expenses are my concern. And we have the McMansion to dispose of. So it's more of a joint liabilities and joint assets I'm worried about.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Even saying this shows that you don't actually support MGTOW at all. Did you read the OP of this thread?
> 
> MGTOW is not just anti-marriage because of divorce laws. They think all of society is anti-men, run by feminists, that women are incapable of monogamy and will always cheat and leave you. Indeed, MGTOW deliberately advises men to avoid marriage and LTR at all costs, regardless of divorce laws, because women cannot be trusted. The phrase used earlier, if you recall, was emasculating gynocentric overlords.
> 
> So even the admission that children and families are valuable is a huge advancement from the origins of this thread.


The more I look at the news and public policy, the more I think they're probably correct. Society is currently being run by a bunch of very loud, very dangerous anti-male people, or by people who give a very sympathetic ear to that minority. 

MGTOW seems to promote that the current social and legal climates promote promiscuity and unfaithfulness, especially in women. And that is correct. (It promotes it in both sexes, really; the result of relativism and nihilism) Moreover, when I read their websites, and listen to the less shrill voices (because I just can't take some of them lol) what I hear is a common call that women are just as corrupt, as vacuous, unfaithful, and just as untrustworthy as men are; while we live in a culture that claims the opposite: The masculine is flawed and wrong, but the feminine pure and just. I've encountered that exact line of teaching in school, at home, and seen it regularly in media. Look at the thread here about the dad taking his kid to events, and being treated like a dangerous animal.

The diagnosis is right. The cure isn't. In fact, I fear they propose no cure, but rather just to entertain oneself until life ends. Pass the time until it is over. 

The answer is not to run away; nor to just fill our idle-time with meaningless activities until death finally claims us. The answer is to respond, and fight back. Men and women out there are yearning to have someone take up the cause, and push back; they know not how to lead, how to debate, how to win; and they fear the grinding wheels of the ubiquitous anti-male, pro-feminist, politically correct propaganda machine and what it would do should they dare speak loud enough to be heard.

There is a rot in my country's culture; a deep, terrible decadence. And it needs rooted out.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> The more I look at the news and public policy, the more I think they're probably correct. Society is currently being run by a bunch of very loud, very dangerous anti-male people, or by people who give a very sympathetic ear to that minority.


Oh, dear, I see they got you too. Not as much progress as I had hoped.

It is fascinating how persuasive resentment seems to be. To me, the whole philosophy is completely incoherent. Society is run by anti-men feminists? What planet is this? What media are you watching where women are "pure and good" but men are bad? Who is teaching these lessons?

Yes, there are no doubt social problems that need to be addressed. But if it is "promiscuity" that is at the root of it, why is MGTOW only fixated on women's sexuality? I mean, granted, some MGTOW talk about cutting off their own penises to make sure they are not controlled by the evil wimminz, but most just advocate using women as much as possible and dumping them (to avoid said control). Shouldn't these folks be looking in their own backyard if promiscuity is the source of "rot" in society?

I dunno. In my little corner of the world, men actually like feminists and would positively howl at the notion that they rule the world. They see some of the same social problems, but an entirely different approach to both diagnosis and cure. I prefer it here.

Good luck contending with your emasculating gynocentric overlords. I doubt you'll get too many women on board to help you, but you can always try.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> But then contributions to the kids' massive college expenses are my concern. And we have the McMansion to dispose of. So it's more of a joint liabilities and joint assets I'm worried about.


Okay, sure. Joint assets and liabilities. And you want to make sure her half is managed the way you want it to be.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Oh, dear, I see they got you too. Not as much progress as I had hoped.
> 
> It is fascinating how persuasive resentment seems to be. To me, the whole philosophy is completely incoherent. Society is run by anti-men feminists? What planet is this? What media are you watching where women are "pure and good" but men are bad? Who is teaching these lessons?
> 
> Yes, there are no doubt social problems that need to be addressed. But if it is "promiscuity" that is at the root of it, why is MGTOW only fixated on women's sexuality? I mean, granted, some MGTOW talk about cutting off their own penises to make sure they are not controlled by the evil wimminz, but most just advocate using women as much as possible and dumping them (to avoid said control). Shouldn't these folks be looking in their own backyard if promiscuity is the source of "rot" in society?
> 
> I dunno. In my little corner of the world, men actually like feminists and would positively howl at the notion that they rule the world. They see some of the same social problems, but an entirely different approach to both diagnosis and cure. I prefer it here.
> 
> Good luck contending with your emasculating gynocentric overlords. I doubt you'll get too many women on board to help you, but you can always try.


That was my view, not MGTOW. I wouldn't say promiscuity is at the center, but it is a part of the problem, and as I said, it is a problem with both sexes. I doubt most MGTOW truly recognize the decadence, and what it means for the future; and even if they do, it's obvious they don't care.

I don't know a single man in person who has anything nice to say about feminists in the modern era. Personally, I find the ideology outdated, repugnant, and counterproductive towards creating a more egalitarian society. It's heralds are generally pretty terrible people, with very nasty and wrong ideas. Feminism today is petty and without value. Sadly, it is obvious that although I don't know any such men, they must exist for all the policies that are passed and enforced.

The only person who used the "emasculating gynocentric overlords" comment was a 1 post commenter. They started an account, said something inflammatory and left. Honestly, I figured it was one of the womenfolk we riled up back when more people were active in the thread making a sock-puppet.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> That was my view, not MGTOW. I wouldn't say promiscuity is at the center, but it is a part of the problem, and as I said, it is a problem with both sexes. I doubt most MGTOW truly recognize the decadence, and what it means for the future; and even if they do, it's obvious they don't care.


Oh, some of them absolutely do recognize it and in fact there is a catch-phrase they use: "enjoy the decline", often including the modifier "from poolside".



Kivlor said:


> I don't know a single man in person who has anything nice to say about feminists in the modern era. Personally, I find the ideology outdated, repugnant, and counterproductive towards creating a more egalitarian society. It's heralds are generally pretty terrible people, with very nasty and wrong ideas. Feminism today is petty and without value. Sadly, it is obvious that although I don't know any such men, they must exist for all the policies that are passed and enforced.


It is political suicide today to question feminism. That doesn't mean that the politicians who keep it going actually like it. What they like is political power.



Kivlor said:


> The only person who used the "emasculating gynocentric overlords" comment was a 1 post commenter. They started an account, said something inflammatory and left. Honestly, I figured it was one of the womenfolk we riled up back when more people were active in the thread making a sock-puppet.


No, that person must absolutely represent all men!

Of course, taking anything that a woman says as representing all women would be misogyny. >


----------



## Kivlor

I'm completely intrigued by how many folks I see on a Marriage forum who think well of Feminism. An ideology which is aimed at the destruction of marriage...


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> No, that person must absolutely represent all men!
> 
> Of course, taking anything that a woman says as representing all women would be misogyny. >


Fact of the matter: Both you and Kivlor have made it abundantly clear that you hate feminists. And that you think they rule society.

So while only one poster used the catch-phrase, I have deliberately appropriated it because it describes your position on the matter perfectly, if somewhat flamboyantly. (Also, it amuses me greatly.)


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I'm completely intrigued by how many folks I see on a Marriage forum who think well of Feminism. An ideology which is aimed at the destruction of marriage...


Ah yes, the MGTOW cull of feminists quotes, taken out of context and without regard to what those feminists actually said.

Yawn.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Fact of the matter: Both you and Kivlor have made it abundantly clear that you hate feminists. And that you think they rule society.
> 
> So while only one poster used the catch-phrase, I have deliberately claimed it because it describes your position on the matter perfectly, if somewhat flamboyantly.


Lol. Honestly, I think they obviously have the ears of those in power. And major media seems to intentionally amplify their screeching. I've said before that I think they are a vocal minority.

And I don't hate them, I view them with disgust. And pity. 

Which reminds me of a quote, which could be used in defense of MGTOW against some of my complaints about them:



> It is not Apathy to withdraw in Disgust


But, I personally subscribe to the Stoic line of thought, and would apply this to feminists and MGTOW alike:



> All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, For we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Ah yes, the MGTOW cull of feminists quotes, taken out of context and without regard to what those feminists actually said.
> 
> Yawn.


Tell me, is this out of context?

Or is it out of context that the President of the NY Chapter of The National Organization for Women called her "the first outstanding champion of women's rights" and declared her "a 'heroine' of the feminist movement" after this work and her attempted murder of Andy Warhol? 

Or this story about the feminist icon Alice Walker? 

I'll note that Linda Gordon's entire quote is not available on her site for her own defense, nor is it available anywhere else I look for free. I'll check some more later.

But there's some context for your A_A. It's a bad ideology. Best we toss it on the rubbish heap of history with other horrible ideas like communism.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I don't know a single man in person who has anything nice to say about feminists in the modern era. Personally, I find the ideology outdated, repugnant, and counterproductive towards creating a more egalitarian society.


This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. 

But let me give you a little tour through my world. I don't expect you'll ever even want to visit, but, you know, just as a curiosity.

In my world feminism is not a bunch of YouTube videos of women screaming about ****, or a cull of specific quotes for the express purpose of generating hatred instead of understanding. It began as a response to a society that viewed women as pieces of property and incapable of logical thought, unsuitable for the workplace, and has grown from there into many different things, but boils down to achieving equality for women.

The men I know understand the history, they can see how feminism has empowered women to explore and own their sexuality, to explore education and careers, to find financial independence -- and they believe, genuinely *believe*, that these are good things. 

They don't think feminism rules the world. They can identify policies or approaches they'd like to change without thinking that Gloria Steinham and Andrea Dworkin have somehow made all of US politicians and legal officials run amok to ki$$ their a$$es. 

I prefer it here.


----------



## Kivlor

In the West, there was a time for feminism. That time has come and gone. There are better movements that are not full of hate and venom. Those movements make feminism obsolete.

I'm an egalitarian when it comes to how the legal system should treat people. I strive for equality for all before the law; it's more than the narrow desire to improve women's plight in comparison to men's. For me, the end goal is equality (not necessarily parity) for all races, creeds, and both genders.

I think society will be better off when we cast off this shameful ideology.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> In the West, there was a time for feminism. That time has come and gone. There are better movements that are not full of hate and venom. Those movements make feminism obsolete.
> 
> I'm an egalitarian when it comes to how the legal system should treat people. I strive for equality for all before the law; it's more than the narrow desire to improve women's plight in comparison to men's. For me, the end goal is equality (not necessarily parity) for all races, creeds, and both genders.
> 
> I think society will be better off when we cast off this shameful ideology.



And so you defend MGTOW instead? Because that movement is the bastion of equality for all races, creeds, and genders?

Yikes!

For the record, any movement for social justice will require some amount of analysis of privilege and power, and where those truly reside. 

But, frankly, I'm a little skeptical that equality is really your goal, as both here and elsewhere you've made it clear that your ideology is really every man, woman, and child for himself.


----------



## john117

Mgtow in itself is harmless - just like feminism. It only becomes an issue in overall decision making ie hiring, etc and only if one makes it such.

My mgtow office mates are very nice guys... Just saying... They don't push mgtow in our faces when we talk family or children etc.


----------



## Ripper

john117 said:


> Mgtow in itself is harmless - just like feminism. It only becomes an issue in overall decision making ie hiring, etc and only if one makes it such.


Exactly the issue. When MGTOWs start affecting policy, then that is when we should start to worry.

I read an article recently about hiring in the tech industry. This is the feminists scared cow right now, not enough women in tech. Despite the fact that only around 8% percent of women are in this particular field, they are already clamoring for equal representation in the companies boardroom. Think about that and see it the math adds up. Only 8% percent of your employees are female, but you want 50% of the higher management to be women. To do that guarantees that any woman that walked thru the door would be fast tracked to higher management regardless of merit. 

That is what modern feminism is to me. You hear it all the time now. Gender quotas for boardrooms and political bodies, but strangely silent when you mention men make up over 90% of sanitation workers.


----------



## john117

Companies have ways around this. Promote women to show you're doing something, and don't give them the resources to succeed. Bad combination.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> And so you defend MGTOW instead? Because that movement is the bastion of equality for all races, creeds, and genders?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> For the record, any movement for social justice will require some amount of analysis of privilege and power, and where those truly reside.
> 
> But, frankly, I'm a little skeptical that equality is really your goal, as both here and elsewhere you've made it clear that your ideology is really every man, woman, and child for himself.


Equality is my goal. Equity is not. They are very different concepts. Just like when people conflate free [Liber] and free [gratis]. They sound the same, but they are not. 

I accept that there are always going to be differences between people's wealth, income, talents, capabilities, values. All I ask for is that people be treated equally by the law.

I can certainly see how some might think that I want it to be "everyone for themselves" but it's not about how I want the individuals in society to live, it's about how I want society at large (ie government) to treat those individuals.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Equality is my goal. Equity is not. They are very different concepts. Just like when people conflate free [Liber] and free [gratis]. They sound the same, but they are not.
> 
> I accept that there are always going to be differences between people's wealth, income, talents, capabilities, values. All I ask for is that people be treated equally by the law.
> 
> I can certainly see how some might think that I want it to be "everyone for themselves" but it's not about how I want the individuals in society to live, it's about how I want society at large (ie government) to treat those individuals.


Stereotypes are alive and well. And, IMHO, your concept of equality is absolutely rooted in them. 

I agree that laws should apply equally to everyone. In principle, they already do. In practice, there is always corruption, always bias, and always lots of people with preconceived notions that make it difficult for some to get a fair shake. 

No doubt, thougb, your conception of equality is very different from mine. For me, it means nothing unless you account for power and privilege. And as far as I can tell, you refuse to acknowledge these as ever being systemic.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Tell me, is this out of context?
> 
> Or is it out of context that the President of the NY Chapter of The National Organization for Women called her "the first outstanding champion of women's rights" and declared her "a 'heroine' of the feminist movement" after this work and her attempted murder of Andy Warhol?


You realize, of course, that you had to reach almost 50 years into the past to dredge up one example of a "modern" feminist who held such extreme views. One of a handful in some 150 years.

And if you think there is any politician or legal beagle anywhere om this planet that is paying any attention to these ideas, well, I have some swamp land I'd like to sell you. Special price for you.


----------



## always_alone

IMHO, one great irony of the MGTOW movement is the consternation around me not feeling "needed", their loss of a "role" in society.

The reality is that their role is the same as it ever was. It's just that they can no longer be bothered because it's too "risky".

If you want to be important, to be needed, to have a role, then you're always be taking a risk. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.


----------



## tech-novelist

Ripper said:


> Exactly the issue. When MGTOWs start affecting policy, then that is when we should start to worry.
> 
> I read an article recently about hiring in the tech industry. This is the feminists scared cow right now, not enough women in tech. Despite the fact that only around 8% percent of women are in this particular field, they are already clamoring for equal representation in the companies boardroom. Think about that and see it the math adds up. Only 8% percent of your employees are female, but you want 50% of the higher management to be women. To do that guarantees that any woman that walked thru the door would be fast tracked to higher management regardless of merit.


Exactly, as anything else would be misogyny!


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> Companies have ways around this. Promote women to show you're doing something, and don't give them the resources to succeed. Bad combination.


That's not what Microsoft did, from the scuttlebutt I heard. My understanding was that once a woman got up to a certain rank in the company, her job was safe until retirement, unless she did something actively criminal. She may not have had anyone reporting to her, but she would still get paid an exorbitant salary.

Perhaps this was the legacy of the consent decree they labored under for many years; they didn't want to be micromanaged by the government ever again, and keeping non-productive workers to meet the quota was a way to prevent that.


----------



## john117

I was referring to a big pharma company my wife spent a dozen years in. Very toxic place.

I've been to Redmond a few times, had a few women contacts there. Interesting place. Not for me tho.


----------



## lateralus

I read all 80 pages of this thread, which compelled me to register and post. I'll toss my $0.02 on the table with no expectations.

I consider myself to be a low-level MGTOW. I don't shun women, nor do I view them as a "lesser" creature than myself. But I do have life experiences that led me to MGTOW even before I knew it was a thing. My ex wife had an affair, filed for divorce, and the courts awarded her with majority time with our daughter and child support. Things are balanced now four years later, but it took a lot of hard work and effort to get there. That experience doesn't make me bitter, but it is something from which much about our society can be learned.

I'll never view marriage the same way again, and I will never marry a second time. I'm up front about that with every woman I date. However, I *do* date. I take my time and don't enter into relationships lightly, and haven't lived with another woman since my divorce, but I'm not completely opposed to that (common law doesn't exist in my state).

Speaking only for me, MGTOW means that first and foremost, I take care of myself. By doing so, I keep myself healthy, successful, and productive, which in turn creates an environment where there are more opportunities for not just myself, but for my daughter as well. By taking care of me, I am in a much better position to take care of my daughter.

Women and relationships are ancillary. I enjoy female companionship, but it's not required. And a good portion of the time, not worth the expense and effort necessary to gain. I do understand the perception that MGTOW men are simply bitter because "they can't get the women they want", but I can't say that applies to me. I get plenty of female attention. It's simply a matter of do I want everything that goes along with it, both the good *and* the bad? Many times, I'd rather forego the good in order to forego the bad (and with a few exceptions, this is the most common reason I've read from other MGTOWs as to why they're GTOW; not "because misogyny", but because women simply don't pass a cost/benefit analysis). But every once in a while I do meet a woman that makes me want to give it a go.

I prefer a simpler life, and being single is incredibly simple. For me, MGTOW is essentially the path of least resistance. I'm open to the idea of sharing my life with a woman, but she must be an extraordinary human being to make me want to do so. In the meantime, I focus on myself and do my thing.

I watch MGTOW videos on YouTube, and while I enjoy Sandman sometimes, TFM does come across more practical. As to the opinion that men GTOW shouldn't need YouTube channels if they're truly GTOW, my response to that is that it's not a question of what others believe they should or shouldn't need. It's up to them to decide that. If they want to create a space for like-minded individuals to communicate, that's their prerogative. As a MGTOW myself, I care not one whit what *others* think I should be doing. I do what I want regardless of the opinions of others, because I believe to do otherwise would mean I'm not really GMOW. Free speech applies to all.

One thing I will say about Sandman is that he is adamantly against higher-level MGTOWs calling out lower-level MGTOWs for being lower-level. I appreciate that. And it drives home the point that MGTOW isn't a *movement*, it's a lifestyle. And there's room in that lifestyle to allow for personal choice. MGTOW isn't binary, where you either are or you aren't; it lies on a spectrum, and MGTOWs can choose where they are most comfortable along that spectrum. And if any self-proclaimed MGTOW told me I was stupid for continuing to date, I'd tell him to kiss the darkest part of my white hairy ***.

Where I differ from MGTOW doctrine is that I do tend to think social change will occur where the pendulum swings back into the center. Most MGTOWs I've encountered think the system is irrevocably broken and can't be fixed. I don't completely subscribe to that. I tend to think the tools necessary to affect that change also lie on a spectrum; MRA alone won't do it, but neither will MGTOW. However, a combination could be successful.

MGTOW is a lifestyle that protects a man from many cultural and social ills that can negatively affect him, but is not powerful enough to achieve the final end goal of real legal equality. On the flip side, MRA isn't powerful enough to create that change by itself either, because it doesn't show negative social consequences for failing to do so. It's one thing to mock MGTOWs for taking their ball and going home, but no one can deny there there still exists social pressure for men to marry and provide. That is because there is a market demand for men to do so. If men stop supplying that demand, *perhaps* our points of view will be better heard. It's by no means guaranteed as the market could adjust itself in other unforeseen ways, but I think it's worth a shot. However, I also don't think it'll be enough. At some point, getting out from behind the computer and *actively doing something* will also be required.

I know that there will be other MGTOWs who will read some of what I just typed and said, "I disagree with your analysis and assertions." In fact, I'm expecting that. But I'm okay with it.


----------



## always_alone

I'm curious, lateralus, what you will teach your daughter about relationships. Surely you won't be advising her to sit around and line for some man to wish to marry her?

The social consequences that MGTOW predict are not so likely, IMHO. Women too want to forgo the bad of marriage, are putting it off longer and lots don't ever want to go there at all.

I hope you teach your daughter that women aren't an "expense" that are used by men for sex. Men and women can be friends. Can enjoy each other and define their relationships. And *both* sides get to do it.

As for equality, that tide changes with economic equality. Which is already happening.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> As for equality, that tide changes with economic equality. Which is already happening.


:iagree:


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> I'm curious, lateralus, what you will teach your daughter about relationships. Surely you won't be advising her to sit around and line for some man to wish to marry her?
> 
> The social consequences that MGTOW predict are not so likely, IMHO. Women too want to forgo the bad of marriage, are putting it off longer and lots don't ever want to go there at all.
> 
> I hope you teach your daughter that women aren't an "expense" that are used by men for sex. Men and women can be friends. Can enjoy each other and define their relationships. And *both* sides get to do it.
> 
> As for equality, that tide changes with economic equality. Which is already happening.


I've told her I don't enter into relationships very often because they need to be taken seriously. She's commented many times all on her own that her mother has had three marriages and has indicated that her mom and step dad fought a lot (they are getting a divorce). I don't attribute that to her step dad, he's a good man who was good to my child.

I've never said women are an "expense" to her. What I do is talk about why I live my life in a way that a child can easily understand and process: that I work hard to provide for myself and I can easily navigate through this world on my own abilities and income. I have also told her that it's her responsibility to care for herself when she grows up, and not anyone else's. I'm actually teaching her to be like me: an independent person. I don't ever want her to be dependent on a man. But I also teach her how a man should behave by being calm, strong, dependable when needed, and able to solve problems.

You are correct, the number of women putting off marriage is also increasing, and I think that's a great thing when our goals align. But more women still want marriage than men, especially when they enter their thirties. And of course, they also want children. I have no illusions that change will happen overnight. As I said, I don't believe MGTOW will bring change by itself. It will take a combination of opting out of marriage/child bearing coupled with social activism.

My daughter will have the capability to determine what kind of relationships she wants. I'm hoping she will not be promiscuous and select her partners with care, which is the opposite of what her mother does. I think that's more likely simply because she has an active father who provides an excellent example of a male role model. I don't bring a different woman home every weekend, and I treat my partners well and with respect. How I treat her and other females is important, because that is how she will form opinions as to how a man should treat a lady. But I also expect good behavior out of her, and I don't tolerate bossiness or disrespect. And there are consequences for bad behavior (but truly, she is an amazing kid. I so very rarely have to discipline her).

Yes, I have platonic friendships with many women, and she sees that. And she has friendships with boys, which I encourage. And the boys she is friends with are good kids, because I'm friends with their parents and they're good parents.

Mostly, I teach her that her happiness is her responsibility when she grows up. The only person responsible for my happiness is me, and I live a life that is authentic to that principle. That's by far the most important thing I can teach her, next to valuing school and her education.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> But more women still want marriage than men, especially when they enter their thirties. And of course, they also want children. I have no illusions that change will happen overnight.


I don't think this is true. I highly doubt, for example, that we've had a couple thousand years of marriage because men were just trying to keep women happy. Indeed, the origins of marriage are very much about *men* wanting fidelity and children

But I am glad to hear that you are conscientious about the messages you are giving your daughter, and are encouraging her to be independent and to take good care of herself.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> I don't think this is true. I highly doubt, for example, that we've had a couple thousand years of marriage because men were just trying to keep women happy. Indeed, the origins of marriage are very much about *men* wanting fidelity and children.


I think the historical reasons for this have more to do with money and property than keeping women happy (such as the dowry and dower, which shows that the flow of cash in exchange for marriage can flow in either direction). I also think that fidelity was important because family wealth and status was typically passed from father to son, or from father to daughter when daughters were married for familial alliances and business arrangements. It makes sense that a man would want the fruits of his labors to pass on to his actual descendants, and not illegitimate children conceived by an adulteress. It's for this same reason why bastard children conceived by adulterous men were typically not considered capable of inheriting their father's wealth and status.

Marriage has always been a financial arrangement.



> But I am glad to hear that you are conscientious about the messages you are giving your daughter, and are encouraging her to be independent and to take good care of herself.


Thank you. I never want my daughter to be ashamed of who or what she is. You may disagree with the MGTOW consensus that we live in a gynocentric society, but many of them have been on the receiving end of feminist vitriol. Some of them grew up under it. I have no intention of doing the reverse to my daughter, where she is on the receiving end of red pill rage. Children need love and guidance, not shame. I don't want her to be ashamed of what she is any more than I want boys to be ashamed of what they are. It all begins with the parents.


----------



## Catherine602

I find it interesting that these MGTOW men have what they describe as high standard for a women with whom they will grant the privilege of a relationship. I suppose women have no or a very low threshold for men if these men are so inundated with women so willing to display themselves for judgement. 

Knowing human nature and some D men, I know it's not so easy. These men may be complete duds but they seem attractive on the surface and to have a great deal going for them. I don't understand why it's so easy for these MGTOW men to meet so many women that they find wanting and throw them back. If I didn't know better, I'd think all women find MGTOW men irresistible and these men never get dump or refused, except by their ex's.


----------



## lateralus

Catherine602 said:


> I find it interesting that these MGTOW men have what they describe as high standard for a women with whom they will grant the privilege of a relationship. I suppose women have no or a very low threshold for men if these men are so inundated with women so willing to display themselves for judgement.


Of course a relationship is a privilege. One isn't owed or is deserving of a relationship simply because they exist. This is a fundamental concept that members of both sexes need to grasp. Unsuccessful men need to accept that they aren't owed a relationship with a woman simply because they want one. Likewise, the same holds true for women; a woman may want a relationship, but the act of wanting does not bestow the right to have one.

Is your partner not privileged by you choosing him out of all the other men available to you? If so, then why aren't men entitled to the same concept? I'm good looking, make good money, am an excellent father, highly intelligent, and have my life in order. Thus, I have standards. This is hardly a revolutionary concept.

It seems as though you are making snap judgments about people whom you have never seen or interacted with in the physical world.



> Knowing human nature and some D men, I know it's not so easy. These men may be complete duds but they seem attractive on the surface and to have a great deal going for them. I don't understand why it's so easy for these MGTOW men to meet so many women that they find wanting and throw them back. If I didn't know better, I'd think all women find MGTOW men irresistible and these men never get dump or refused, except by their ex's.


Or, they may exhibit all of the traits that many women seek, yet are selective about with whom they choose to partner. By natural process of elimination, sure, some of them are probably duds. MGTOW men are no different than any other type of human being: there will be some winners, and some losers. This applies to all humans, including women. I have no issue with any human of either gender weeding out the losers in their respective dating pool.

You are also failing to factor in many other reasons why a relationship may ultimately fail: lack of long-term compatibility, different goals and values (such as wanting marriage and/or children), life-changing events (death of a child, job loss, health issues), etc. In other words, _life happens._ Some factors are within one's control, but many others aren't. Those that aren't can sometimes lead to the end of a relationship.

I know many women who have dated a large number of men, but have still chosen to remain single because they found them wanting. That's their choice. Again, men can do the same if they feel that's in their best interest.

My impression of your post is that you take issue with men having standards. Is my impression correct?


----------



## *Deidre*

I used to be a feminist, and now that I no longer identify with it, I see things (or try to) objectively. MGTOW isn't really at all about men 'unable to get laid,' and it's a shame that it's been dubbed this by the mainstream culture. It's really more about men no longer revolving their lives around a cultural narrative of ''get married, have kids, etc'' if they truly don't want to. The laws still favor women largely when it comes to divorce and custody, even if the wife was 'at fault.' 

But, the myth that seems to keep growing with MGTOW is that women are clamoring to get married more so than men. While it is true that men these days are finding marriage less appealing, so are single women. What has happened in the western culture anyway, is men and women seem to be competing against each other, instead of complementing one another. This struggle in my view, has been caused by feminism as it has become, not as it was initially intended.


----------



## tech-novelist

*Deidre* said:


> I used to be a feminist, and now that I no longer identify with it, I see things (or try to) objectively. MGTOW isn't really at all about men 'unable to get laid,' and it's a shame that it's been dubbed this by the mainstream culture. It's really more about men no longer revolving their lives around a cultural narrative of ''get married, have kids, etc'' if they truly don't want to. The laws still favor women largely when it comes to divorce and custody, even if the wife was 'at fault.'
> 
> But, the myth that seems to keep growing with MGTOW is that women are clamoring to get married more so than men. While it is true that men these days are finding marriage less appealing, so are single women. What has happened in the western culture anyway, is men and women seem to be competing against each other, instead of complementing one another. This struggle in my view, has been caused by feminism as it has become, not as it was initially intended.


I think most single women still want to get married, but only after they have "sown their wild oats" and are approaching the end of their fertile years. Then they look around and ask "Where have all the good men gone?"

The answer is that they have already married women who didn't wait that long...


----------



## *Deidre*

technovelist said:


> I think most single women still want to get married, but only after they have "sown their wild oats" and are approaching the end of their fertile years. Then they look around and ask "Where have all the good men gone?"
> 
> The answer is that they have already married women who didn't wait that long...


Maybe. I happen to think that most people view their social circle etc of 100 people... as the sum total of the entire world. lol There's a big world out there, and many fine men and women are getting married later and later...for whatever their reasons. Some of the reasons deal with wanting to allow their careers to take off. Sure, there are women who are clamoring to get married just to be married...but, far from most. Because many have bought the cultural narrative, that they don't need a man for anything, anymore. 

Men and women need each other, that's an inconvenient truth.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> The answer is that they have already married women who didn't wait that long...


Forward looking and reasonable ones?


----------



## Catherine602

@lateralus we all have major characteristics we want and don't want in a partner. The choice is not random. It's realistic to have a short list of must haves and deal breakers. A long intricate list is problematic. That's the problem with the MGTOW, the object they desire does not present itself so they skinny their noses at women instead of looking at themselves. 

A long list is simply unrealistic in and of itself because no one can meet it. The exacting standard are ones that they are not likely to meet themselves. Of course they exist the matting pool, it is too frustrating. 

The problem with the MGTOW crowd is not women, it's that they feel entitled to the very best and are disappointed and enraged when they have to face reality. It's possible that the competition for what they want is fierce and they are not successful. If they made the choice to forgo relationships willingly then why are they so enraged and hateful? They should be happy people. 

Aren't we all making assumptions about people we don't know by communicating virtually? Otherwise there would be no basis for having a discussion. That's the beauty of a forum, t's possible to exchange ideas with a great variety of people that you don't know which would not be possible IRL.


----------



## lateralus

Catherine602 said:


> @lateralus we all have major characteristics we want and don't want in a partner. The choice is not random. It's realistic to have a short list of must haves and deal breakers. A long intricate list is problematic. That's the problem with the MGTOW, *the object they desire does not present itself* so they skinny their noses at women instead of looking at themselves.


I'm going to address the bolded. Speaking for me, as a MGTOW, you are assuming that women are the object of my desire. This is incorrect. The objects of my desire are:

1) Financial security and independence
2) Being a loving and involved father
3) Living a stress-free lifestyle

I will repeat what I've already stated in a prior post: women are ancillary. In fact, they can be a detriment to all three objects of my desire; they can cost me money in dating, marriage, and divorce; divert my attention away from from my daughter; and cause large amounts of stress and drama. I have directly experienced all three of those with women many times. Because of this, I'm very careful about entering into a relationship. Again, as I've already stated, I don't completely eschew women. But I am cautious.



> A long list is simply unrealistic in and of itself because no one can meet it. The exacting standard are ones that they are not likely to meet themselves. Of course they exist the matting pool, it is too frustrating.


I hold women to every standard I hold myself. If I can meet all of my standards, but most of the women I encounter cannot, then I do not see how that is a failing on my part.



> The problem with the MGTOW crowd is not women, it's that they feel entitled to the very best and are disappointed and enraged when they have to face reality. It's possible that the competition for what they want is fierce and they are not successful. If they made the choice to forgo relationships willingly then why are they so enraged and hateful? They should be happy people.


Many MGTOW men become MGTOW after devastating circumstances. Like me, for example. My xWW had an affair, filed for divorce, and the courts awarded her with majority time with our daughter and a child support stipend from me. I am much happier four years down the road, but the actions of my government are despicable.

Speaking for me, I have no rage or hate towards women. My ire is reserved for the societal viewpoint that men are disposable, that our worth is only as good as our utility value, and that we are viewed as less deserving of parental rights. I see no reason to be satisfied with those social conditions.

But am I much happier overall for being a bachelor who is in complete control of his money and destiny? Absolutely.

It is possible to be simultaneously happy with my chosen lifestyle yet dissatisfied with societal expectations of the culture in which I live. One is within my control, the other is not.



> Aren't we all making assumptions about people we don't know by communicating virtually? Otherwise there would be no basis for having a discussion. That's the beauty of a forum, t's possible to exchange ideas with a great variety of people that you don't know which would not be possible IRL.


I've found it best to limit assumptions whenever possible. Assumptions invariably lead to incorrect conclusions. My viewpoints are the result of my life experiences; should my life experiences change, then I will process that new information and adjust my viewpoints accordingly.

However, that is predicated upon the culture in which I live changing the experiences I have with said culture.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> Speaking for me, as a MGTOW, you are assuming that women are the object of my desire. This is incorrect. The objects of my desire are:
> 
> 1) Financial security and independence
> 2) Being a loving and involved father
> 3) Living a stress-free lifestyle
> 
> I will repeat what I've already stated in a prior post: women are ancillary. In fact, they can be a detriment to all three objects of my desire; they can cost me money in dating, marriage, and divorce; divert my attention away from from my daughter; and cause large amounts of stress and drama. I have directly experienced all three of those with women many times. Because of this, I'm very careful about entering into a relationship. Again, as I've already stated, I don't completely eschew women. But I am cautious.


No, this is impermissible misogyny; in fact, the second worst kind of misogynist is the man who is cautious about women due to the risk of getting involved with them. 

The worst kind is the man who warns *other *men about these risks.

I should know! >


----------



## lateralus

technovelist said:


> No, this is impermissible misogyny; in fact, the second worst kind of misogynist is the man who is cautious about women due to the risk of getting involved with them.
> 
> The worst kind is the man who warns *other *men about these risks.


This seems to be the prevailing attitude. And a comically entertaining double standard. Women encourage other women to be cautious when simply being around men, much less becoming intimate and entering into relationships with them. Looking at it logically and not emotionally, I do see their side of it. I'm dating a woman right now, and the guy she went out with a few times before me is basically stalking her; he approached her son yesterday and freaked him out. Needless to say, she's mighty pissed. And rightly so. That's unacceptable behavior.

But that doesn't negate the risks men face. My neighbors for almost ten years were a married couple with a young family. A couple years ago his wife kicked him out. A few months later, he shot and killed himself. Virtually every negative statistic about marriage, divorce, and suicide that men experience, I've lived through or seen directly. It not only affected me, it also affected the man who lived in the house right next to mine. Literally.

I do not believe in coincidences. Nor can I ignore what life has gruesomely shown me. This is reality.

I will take appropriate measures to deal with that reality, and care not at all how it may affect the sensibilities of others.


----------



## Starstarfish

> The answer is that they have already married women who didn't wait that long...


And then complain when their "party girl" wasn't quite done partying yet. So ...


----------



## tech-novelist

Starstarfish said:


> And then complain when their "party girl" wasn't quite done partying yet. So ...


Party girls don't get married early. They wait until they stop getting invitations to the party, or their biological clock starts sounding like a time bomb, whichever comes first.


----------



## always_alone

That's right, starstarfish. All those good and forward looking men who marry early don't marry party girls. They marry "good" girls and then start complaining about how they aren't hot and fun enough.

Then they get divorced, and that's when the sexodus begins. 

Cuz who needs women when you can have a bachelor pad full of party girls.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> This seems to be the prevailing attitude. And a comically entertaining double standard.


There is no double standard. Everyone should be cautious about who they marry, and no doubt this is why young people are taking longer and longer before doing so. Why hitch yourself to the first person you go head over heels for? Better to get some experience, get to know yourself and what you want, and to use your head when making a decision.

I am curious, though, what you mean when you say men are disposable and treated for their utility value only. Are you saying there should be no draft? That men should stop taking up any form of dangerous job? 

I've heard this claim on TAM before, and never really understood it. Especially since there is so much emphasis here on "hard work", "risk", and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> I'm going to address the bolded. Speaking for me, as a MGTOW, you are assuming that women are the object of my desire. This is incorrect. The objects of my desire are:
> 
> 1) Financial security and independence
> 2) Being a loving and involved father
> 3) Living a stress-free lifestyle
> 
> I will repeat what I've already stated in a prior post: women are ancillary. In fact, they can be a detriment to all three objects of my desire; they can cost me money in dating, marriage, and divorce; divert my attention away from from my daughter; and cause large amounts of stress and drama.


One last question: where does human connection and intimacy fall on your list of desires? Or does it?

It is a very common human need that can, of course, be filled in a number of ways. But it would seem that MGTOW for some reason have no use for it. Or do they simply fill that need through male companionship and camaraderie? 

I'm curious because any sort of relationship (parent, relative, friend) can at times require a great deal of time and/or resources. But surely MGTOW realize these connections are a fundamental part of being human?


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be the prevailing attitude. And a comically entertaining double standard.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no double standard. Everyone should be cautious about who they marry, and no doubt this is why young people are taking longer and longer before doing so. Why hitch yourself to the first person you go head over heels for? Better to get some experience, get to know yourself and what you want, and to use your head when making a decision.
> 
> I am curious, though, what you mean when you say men are disposable and treated for their utility value only. Are you saying there should be no draft? That men should stop taking up any form of dangerous job?
> 
> I've heard this claim on TAM before, and never really understood it. Especially since there is so much emphasis here on "hard work", "risk", and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a social double standard when it comes to assigning risk in relationships and gender relations in today's western culture. Feminism has expressly stated that women are always the victims of men, that men are always the aggressors, and can never be victims of female nature and aggression.

This thread is a prime example of that mentality. MGTOW men attempt to warn other men of the dangers of pair bonding men face today, and every danger is immediately minimized compared to women's. I have yet to see a feminist stand up for father's rights, or initiate a discussion about how to solve male homelessness (which constitutes about 70% of all the homeless), or initiate a discussion about male suicide (which constitutes about 80% of all suicides). These are social ills that have a drastic effect on our society, but no one cares because they affect men.

Women have inherent value because they have uterus. Men have no such inherent value; they must create their social value through a utility value. In other words, he must earn his value while women do not. Thus, men are judged more harshly. (And there absolutely should be no draft, but that's only one part of the equation).

I am a big believer in one pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. However, I apply that to men and women equally. And while I believe people can overcome adversity, I will express my dissatisfaction with the fact that our society places more adversity on men than it does on women.


----------



## philreag

I still use the analogy, with all attractiveness equal.

A woman goes into a bar and can have sex with just about any guy at the bar 

whereas

A man can go into a bar and get a no from just about any woman at the bar.


Just unscientific observations.


----------



## EllisRedding

philreag said:


> I still use the analogy, with all attractiveness equal.
> 
> A woman goes into a bar and can have sex with just about any guy at the bar
> 
> whereas
> 
> A man can go into a bar and get a no from just about any woman at the bar.
> 
> 
> Just unscientific observations.


This has been a hot topic several times here lol.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> That's right, starstarfish. All those good and forward looking men who marry early don't marry party girls. They marry "good" girls and then start complaining about how they aren't hot and fun enough.
> 
> Then they get divorced, and that's when the sexodus begins.
> 
> Cuz who needs women when you can have a bachelor pad full of party girls.


the flaw to your theory is that women initiate 80% of the divorces, so it isn't happening that way. It is has zero to do with looks/hot chicks or what not. MGTOW are a bunch of guys who did what they were taught and then ended screwed in D. They have valid reasons for not wanting another round of M. But, imo, they have misplaced the reasons for why the D happened and why they got screwed in D.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to address the bolded. Speaking for me, as a MGTOW, you are assuming that women are the object of my desire. This is incorrect. The objects of my desire are:
> 
> 1) Financial security and independence
> 2) Being a loving and involved father
> 3) Living a stress-free lifestyle
> 
> I will repeat what I've already stated in a prior post: women are ancillary. In fact, they can be a detriment to all three objects of my desire; they can cost me money in dating, marriage, and divorce; divert my attention away from from my daughter; and cause large amounts of stress and drama.
> 
> 
> 
> One last question: where does human connection and intimacy fall on your list of desires? Or does it?
> 
> It is a very common human need that can, of course, be filled in a number of ways. But it would seem that MGTOW for some reason have no use for it. Or do they simply fill that need through male companionship and camaraderie?
> 
> I'm curious because any sort of relationship (parent, relative, friend) can at times require a great deal of time and/or resources. But surely MGTOW realize these connections are a fundamental part of being human?
Click to expand...

Human connection and intimacy? It depends. Clearly, a connection with my daughter is the highest human connection to me. No one is more important than her.

If you're talking about an adult human connection, then it's very low on my list of desires. I have wonderful friends and a great family, and my connection with them is very important to me. But a romantic connection doesn't even make the list.

I don't have much need for human connection. I do just fine on my own, and overall I highly prefer it that way. My daughter is with her mother this week, so this last weekend I spent entirely on my own doing my thing and pursuing my interests. I had no face to face contact with anyone. And I loved every minute of it.

I think you're assigning female values to a male lifestyle, which simply doesn't work. To you, it may be a given that an adult human connection and intimacy are important. But to me, they're not. As a poster has stated, women initiate 80% of all divorces. The costs of engaging in such a human connection for men are astronomically high, and simply not worth the trouble. This goes back to male disposability; woman wouldn't initiate 80% of all divorces if they didn't view men as disposable. Therefore, if I'm easily disposable, then it's in my best interest to avoid situations where I might be disposed of.

I love sex, but it's not worth the trouble that goes along with it.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> I think you're assigning female values to a male lifestyle, which simply doesn't work. To you, it may be a given that an adult human connection and intimacy are important. But to me, they're not.


Not at all. Indeed a significant amount of research indicates that men often struggle to fulfill the human connections they need, and often end up much worse off in divorce, emotionally speaking, than women because they do not have the same emotional support structures to help them.

Indeed, there is significant research indicating that the whole "I'm super alpha, I don't need people, or care about stupid female things" that many men adhere to do a *significant* amount of damage to their sense of well-being and ability to cope on their own. One major reason why *all* of the stats show that men are both happier and healthier when in healthy partnered relationships than when on their own.

As an introvert, I too love my personal space, and need time to just be on my own. But I also have learned over time that human connection is a crucial part of belonging, community, friendship, all of those things that are ultimately ever so much more important than how much money you make.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> Women have inherent value because they have uterus. Men have no such inherent value; they must create their social value through a utility value. In other words, he must earn his value while women do not.


Seriously? You really believe this?

Seriously?


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women have inherent value because they have uterus. Men have no such inherent value; they must create their social value through a utility value. In other words, he must earn his value while women do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? You really believe this?
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it, no. But society believes it. The evidence for that is all around us.

Men are disposable, especially if they have no utility value. Look at the staggering numbers of the male homeless. They have no utility value, so nobody cares about them.

Same thing with the high number of male suicides. People don't kill themselves if they believe they have value.

And again, women initiate the vast majority of divorces. What message is that sending to men?

We've gotten the message. It's loud and clear


----------



## john117

Of course a uterus has a value. Think of it as nature's own 3D printer 

(We just received a rather expensive Formlabs stereo lithography (SLA) 3D printer in the lab!!)


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're assigning female values to a male lifestyle, which simply doesn't work. To you, it may be a given that an adult human connection and intimacy are important. But to me, they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Indeed a significant amount of research indicates that men often struggle to fulfill the human connections they need, and often end up much worse off in divorce, emotionally speaking, than women because they do not have the same emotional support structures to help them.
> 
> Indeed, there is significant research indicating that the whole "I'm super alpha, I don't need people, or care about stupid female things" that many men adhere to do a *significant* amount of damage to their sense of well-being and ability to cope on their own. One major reason why *all* of the stats show that men are both happier and healthier when in healthy partnered relationships than when on their own.
> 
> As an introvert, I too love my personal space, and need time to just be on my own. But I also have learned over time that human connection is a crucial part of belonging, community, friendship, all of those things that are ultimately ever so much more important than how much money you make.
Click to expand...

The key words there are "healthy partnered". How can a man be healthy partnered when the odds are 50% he'll end up divorced, and if he does, odds are 4 in 5 it's his wife who's dumping him?

If I were given a choice to drink a potion that will either increase my life span or take away half of everything I possess, I would choose to not drink it.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> The key words there are "healthy partnered". How can a man be healthy partnered when the odds are 50% he'll end up divorced, and if he does, odds are 4 in 5 it's his wife who's dumping him?
> 
> If I were given a choice to drink a potion that will either increase my life span or take away half of everything I possess, I would choose to not drink it.


Well, I agree with a_a that people need human connections.

But you are right that the downside is too horrible for it to be worth the risk in the USA today.


----------



## john117

I can't help but wonder if the studies took into account the health damage of a divorce... Some people end up being wrecked emotionally and physically.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key words there are "healthy partnered". How can a man be healthy partnered when the odds are 50% he'll end up divorced, and if he does, odds are 4 in 5 it's his wife who's dumping him?
> 
> If I were given a choice to drink a potion that will either increase my life span or take away half of everything I possess, I would choose to not drink it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with a_a that people need human connections.
> 
> But you are right that the downside is too horrible for it to be worth the risk in the USA today.
Click to expand...

Sure, people need human connection. But the context we have been discussing has been _romantic_ connections. I disagree with the notion that people need that kind of connection.

But the connection I have with my daughter is the most important connection with any human I could ever have.

Context matters.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> Sure, people need human connection. But the context we have been discussing has been _romantic_ connections. I disagree with the notion that people need that kind of connection.
> 
> But the connection I have with my daughter is the most important connection with any human I could ever have.
> 
> Context matters.


Yes, but I believe people also need touch, and most men need sexual touch as well, at least to be happy.

However, there is a risk level that is too high for any particular benefit, and IMO that is where the US is today for men.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, people need human connection. But the context we have been discussing has been _romantic_ connections. I disagree with the notion that people need that kind of connection.
> 
> But the connection I have with my daughter is the most important connection with any human I could ever have.
> 
> Context matters.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I believe people also need touch, and most men need sexual touch as well, at least to be happy.
> 
> However, there is a risk level that is too high for any particular benefit, and IMO that is where the US is today for men.
Click to expand...

I think the concept that men need sexual touch to be happy is an outdated one. If men subscribe to that theory, then that is a weakness that can be exploited. I am in control of my sexual urges and can satisfy them myself with a fleshlight and a bottle of lubrication. As such, I don't make poor sexual or relationship decisions because I don't allow my penis to make those decisions. I use my brain.

I get plenty of non sexual touch though. My daughter and I snuggle all the time, and I get a lot of satisfaction from that. I hug my female friends, my mother, my sisters, and my brother. That kind of touch is more than enough to satisfy me.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> I think the concept that men need sexual touch to be happy is an outdated one. If men subscribe to that theory, then that is a weakness that can be exploited. I am in control of my sexual urges and can satisfy them myself with a fleshlight and a bottle of lubrication. As such, I don't make poor sexual or relationship decisions because I don't allow my penis to make those decisions. I use my brain.
> 
> I get plenty of non sexual touch though. My daughter and I snuggle all the time, and I get a lot of satisfaction from that. I hug my female friends, my mother, my sisters, and my brother. That kind of touch is more than enough to satisfy me.


Then you are unusually lucky. It is well-established fact that men in general have much more need for sex than do women in general, and this fact is used by women to exploit men's resources. See https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/file/49836/download?token=e63LhGLx for a scholarly study about this.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the concept that men need sexual touch to be happy is an outdated one. If men subscribe to that theory, then that is a weakness that can be exploited. I am in control of my sexual urges and can satisfy them myself with a fleshlight and a bottle of lubrication. As such, I don't make poor sexual or relationship decisions because I don't allow my penis to make those decisions. I use my brain.
> 
> I get plenty of non sexual touch though. My daughter and I snuggle all the time, and I get a lot of satisfaction from that. I hug my female friends, my mother, my sisters, and my brother. That kind of touch is more than enough to satisfy me.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are unusually lucky. It is well-established fact that men in general have much more need for sex than do women in general, and this fact is used by women to exploit men's resources. See https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/file/49836/download?token=e63LhGLx for a scholarly study about this.
Click to expand...

It didn't come easily! Lol I had to train myself to think differently. I know women use sex as a weapon against men, it's been done to me many times. So by living my life this way, that removes sex from the equation. Women can no longer use sex to control me.

Wanting something and understanding that what you want can be used against you are two different things. I'm going to quote something from one of my favorite books:



> The Fremen were supreme in that quality the ancients called "spannungsbogen"--which is the self-imposed delay between desire for a thing and the act of reaching out to grasp that thing.


I still have sex, just not very often; only when I know there is no way it can be used against me, and that I can't be exploited for engaging in that sexual act. I reject the vast majority of sexual encounters I'm offered.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> Men are disposable, especially if they have no utility value. Look at the staggering numbers of the male homeless. They have no utility value, so nobody cares about them.


Homelessness is tragic, to be sure. Unfortunately not everyone is equipped to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and society doesn't seem to care to provide supports. (Something about disincentives to work, I believe). We would, IMHO, do well to provide more services.

It's true that 61% of homeless are men (Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, 2009), a majority to be sure. Is it really majority enough to claim men in particular are disposable?

It would seem society doesn't really care about anyone, especially the down and outs.



lateralus said:


> And again, women initiate the vast majority of divorces. What message is that sending to men?


The figure isn't quite that high, and FTR, the number one reason for filing is abuse. But go ahead and keep blaming women for the high divorce rates.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> Of course a uterus has a value. Think of it as nature's own 3D printer
> 
> (We just received a rather expensive Formlabs stereo lithography (SLA) 3D printer in the lab!!)


And you think men are just buckets of cheap sperm, and so have no value at all?

You have daughters, you must realize that parental involvement does not stop once the "printer" has put out its copy. Indeed, the "copy" is not a copy at all, but a very small and distinct person that requires a lot of care and support for 18+ years.

It completely boggles my mind how many men spew this "women are valuable because they have a uterus" ideology, as it shows a clear disregard for their own offspring. And given this thread, and how upset many men are that they don't get custody, it would seem that they actually do think fathers are important.

So why on earth harp on the uterus trope? It makes no sense.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> john117 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a uterus has a value. Think of it as nature's own 3D printer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (We just received a rather expensive Formlabs stereo lithography (SLA) 3D printer in the lab!!)
> 
> 
> 
> And you think men are just buckets of cheap sperm, and so have no value at all?
> 
> You have daughters, you must realize that parental involvement does not stop once the "printer" has put out its copy. Indeed, the "copy" is not a copy at all, but a very small and distinct person that requires a lot of care and support for 18+ years.
> 
> It completely boggles my mind how many men spew this "women are valuable because they have a uterus" ideology, as it shows a clear disregard for their own offspring. And given this thread, and how upset many men are that they don't get custody, it would seem that they actually do think fathers are important.
> 
> So why on earth harp on the uterus trope? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I don't believe men are just buckets of sperm. But I do believe society views men that way. Neither do I believe a woman's value lies solely in her uterus. But I do believe that society places a higher value on women because they possess a uterus. So there is a distinction there:

Uterus > sperm
Personal value + uterus > personal value + sperm

Personal value can be achieved in many different ways. But (personal value + uterus) will always be greater than (personal value + sperm). At least it will be for the foreseeable future.

Of course we think fathers are important. But society doesn't. That's because uterus > sperm. Alienation of fathers is merely a symptom of that equation.

You may call it "harping". I call it simple observation; this is how things are. I do not agree with it, and make statements to that effect. If you construe that as harping, so be it. I can live with that.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> You may call it "harping". I call it simple observation; this is how things are. I do not agree with it, and make statements to that effect. If you construe that as harping, so be it. I can live with that.


You haven't been here long, so perhaps are not familiar with the culture here. I called it "harping" because many men say this again and again, indeed insist upon it as the gospel unquestionable truth dictated by biology.

Personally I don't think either biology or society actually believe this. And I really can't fathom this idea that somehow women have more value because of our uteruses. It strikes me as just something some red pill pusher would say to foment a little more resentment against women.


----------



## john117

To understand my uterine musings, read "Seven Eves" by Neal Stephenson. Women are the key to children - I suppose some misogynistic biology major could come up with artificial sperm but a uterus... Not likely 

Both parents are important once the 3D printer is done but it can be done single handed.


----------



## tech-novelist

john117 said:


> To understand my uterine musings, read "Seven Eves" by Neal Stephenson. Women are the key to children - I suppose some misogynistic biology major could come up with artificial sperm but a uterus... Not likely
> 
> Both parents are important once the 3D printer is done but it can be done single handed.


I can confidently predict that there will be artificial uteri within 50 years.

I can be confident about this prediction because I won't be around to be laughed at in 50 years if I'm wrong.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> It didn't come easily! Lol I had to train myself to think differently. I know women use sex as a weapon against men, it's been done to me many times. So by living my life this way, that removes sex from the equation. Women can no longer use sex to control me.
> 
> Wanting something and understanding that what you want can be used against you are two different things. I'm going to quote something from one of my favorite books:
> 
> I still have sex, just not very often; only when I know there is no way it can be used against me, and that I can't be exploited for engaging in that sexual act. I reject the vast majority of sexual encounters I'm offered.


That still puts you in a small minority of men, because most men aren't offered sexual encounters at all.

But just out of curiosity, how can you be certain that you can't be exploited as a result of any particular sexual act?


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> You haven't been here long, so perhaps are not familiar with the culture here. I called it "harping" because many men say this again and again, indeed insist upon it as the gospel unquestionable truth dictated by biology.
> 
> Personally I don't think either biology or society actually believe this. And I really can't fathom this idea that somehow women have more value because of our uteruses. It strikes me as just something some red pill pusher would say to foment a little more resentment against women.


It has nothing to do with resentment against women. As I said, I don't resent or hate women. I'm casually dating a woman right now, and for the time being things are going well. So I don't think I could be able to date a woman if I resented her because of her biology.

Let's look at what we know:

1) Women are awarded custody in about 84% of all custody cases

2) Men make up 81% of all war deaths

3) Men pay 97% of all alimony

This doesn't even touch the lack of services available for the male homeless. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

The inevitable conclusion I can come to is that it is socially detrimental to not have a uterus. As to why that is, at this point all we can do is guess. But there is evidence to suggest it is socially constructed. Other than action heroes, there are no positive male figures anywhere. Single men are portrayed as predatory, husbands are portrayed as idiotic, and fathers are portrayed as stupid. Little boys are unnecessarily medicated. Masculinity is shamed.

If "many men" on this forum are saying the same things and coming to the same conclusions, then that should be a strong indicator that the issues they are talking about are actually occurring.

This thread is about the Sexodus. I can identify with it, and have adopted a lifestyle that is like a mini-Sexodus based on my life experiences: I engage slowly and with caution.

I do applaud your continued participation in this thread. You are actively engaging in dialogue and discourse, which is rare in my experience as a MGTOW. Most women I've encountered just bash it and attempt to shame us, which causes me to disengage even further. But you haven't, and I'm grateful for it.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> That still puts you in a small minority of men, because most men aren't offered sexual encounters at all.
> 
> But just out of curiosity, how can you be certain that you can't be exploited as a result of any particular sexual act?


Here's where I digress from MGTOW. I'm not a hunk. I'm 5'8", 150 lbs at most, and am actually quite nerdy. But one thing I've noticed is that I don't have a problem meeting and attracting women. No, they're not all 10s. But a 7? Sure. The lady I'm dating is easily a 7, and a married woman at work that flirts with me constantly is a borderline 8. One of my ex-girlfriends was easily an 8, and a lady I dated for a few weeks a while back was almost a 9. I honestly can't say I do anything special, other than the fact that I take care of myself, I'm happy and outgoing, and I'm confident in who I am and my abilities. Those three things have gotten me really far, especially when I'm not even trying.

How can I be certain I won't be exploited? I can't say with 100% certainty. But I've had a vasectomy, so that protects me big time. I also choose my partners with care. Like I said, I refuse a good portion of the sex I'm offered for that reason. But there is always risk involved whenever a man engages in a sexual act. I do my best to mitigate that risk, but I also don't want to be celibate. So I walk that fine line and follow my instincts.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> Here's where I digress from MGTOW. I'm not a hunk. I'm 5'8", 150 lbs at most, and am actually quite nerdy. But one thing I've noticed is that I don't have a problem meeting and attracting women. No, they're not all 10s. But a 7? Sure. The lady I'm dating is easily a 7, and a married woman at work that flirts with me constantly is a borderline 8. One of my ex-girlfriends was easily an 8, and a lady I dated for a few weeks a while back was almost a 9. I honestly can't say I do anything special, other than the fact that I take care of myself, I'm happy and outgoing, and I'm confident in who I am and my abilities. Those three things have gotten me really far, especially when I'm not even trying.
> 
> How can I be certain I won't be exploited? I can't say with 100% certainty. But I've had a vasectomy, so that protects me big time. I also choose my partners with care. Like I said, I refuse a good portion of the sex I'm offered for that reason. But there is always risk involved whenever a man engages in a sexual act. I do my best to mitigate that risk, but I also don't want to be celibate. So I walk that fine line and follow my instincts.


Sounds like you are a sigma, or at least a situational alpha in the nerd community. Some very unlikely men are much more popular with nerdy women than I would think without having seen it.

But the vasectomy is what I was worried about. Any man who isn't shooting blanks is dead meat (so to speak) to any young woman who wants to put a noose around his neck (financially speaking, that is).

Other than if he is monogamous with someone who is past that age, of course.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> Sounds like you are a sigma, or at least a situational alpha in the nerd community. Some very unlikely men are much more popular with nerdy women than I would think without having seen it.
> 
> But the vasectomy is what I was worried about. Any man who isn't shooting blanks is dead meat (so to speak) to any young woman who wants to put a noose around his neck (financially speaking, that is).
> 
> Other than if he is monogamous with someone who is past that age, of course.


Not sure what sigma and situational alpha represent. I've heard of alpha/beta, and I think I've also heard omega once or twice (but I have no idea what it means).

I try not to attach too many labels. But I can certainly identify beta traits, I used to be a huge beta blue-piller. During and after my divorce, I saw an excellent counselor who really helped me put my pieces back together. In a way, I almost don't begrudge my ex-wife for cheating on me anymore; I really like the person I became after that experience.

Yep, the vasectomy is huge. It was actually my ex-wife's idea at the time. I initially resisted when my daughter was born, but a year later I was gung-ho about it. Never once regretted it.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> Not sure what sigma and situational alpha represent. I've heard of alpha/beta, and I think I've also heard omega once or twice (but I have no idea what it means).


Different people use different terminology, but this is Vox Day's terminology, I believe.

Alpha = top dog. Gets high quality women to have sex with him.
Beta = follower but not necessarily loser. Can do fine in the right circumstances but has to watch out not to go too easy.
Omega = total loser like that idiot in San Bernadino.

Sigma = at the same rank as alpha but without any followers and doesn't want any. Very popular with the ladies also.


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> Sigma = at the same rank as alpha but without any followers and doesn't want any. Very popular with the ladies also.


I wouldn't say I'm *very* popular with the ladies. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I've got women throwing themselves at me on a regular basis. But I've had more success with women than I expected, including when I wasn't even trying.

A more accurate way to describe my experience would be to say I'm not shy or intimidated by women, which makes it easier to find and explore opportunities I wouldn't have had otherwise. I was quite surprised to notice that sometimes, when I have contact with an attractive woman where I'm not trying to engage her on a sexual level, her level of interest in me seems to go up slightly. I can only guess as to why that happens, as it was not expected and I wasn't trying to get their interest; all I did was just be friendly (or in some cases I didn't pay them any attention at all).

Sure, I've got a few things going for me. I'm a decent-looking guy, highly intelligent, ambitious, and successful. But I've never been a jock, I'm not over 6 feet tall, and I without facial hair I have a very bad case of baby face. > All of the traits that many men say traditionally work against them, I also have. They just haven't been a detriment to me. The only things I can attribute that to are attitude, intent, and confidence.


----------



## azteca1986

lateralus said:


> I don't believe men are just buckets of sperm. But I do believe society views men that way. Neither do I believe a woman's value lies solely in her uterus. But I do believe that society places a higher value on women because they possess a uterus. So there is a distinction there:
> 
> Uterus > sperm
> Personal value + uterus > personal value + sperm
> 
> Personal value can be achieved in many different ways. But (personal value + uterus) will always be greater than (personal value + sperm). At least it will be for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Of course we think fathers are important. But society doesn't. That's because uterus > sperm. Alienation of fathers is merely a symptom of that equation.


You must have chronically low self-worth to buy into this philosophy.

Did you have a poor relationship with your own father?


----------



## azteca1986

lateralus said:


> 3) Men pay 97% of all alimony


Does that not mean that in 97% of cases husbands earn more than their wives? Why would that be?

Anyway, rather than link to some obscure case from 2009, this is what happened in the UK yesterday:

Met Office weather staff on strike over gender pay gap

_Staff at the Met Office have begun a walkout in a strike over a 10% gap in male and female salaries._

The trade union Prospect, which represents the majority of Met Office employees, says senior female meteorologists earn about £7,000 less than their male counterparts.

The fact that there is even a need for the Equal Pay Act (1970) is an inconvenient truth about the "feminized world" we apparently live in.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> To understand my uterine musings, read "Seven Eves" by Neal Stephenson. Women are the key to children - I suppose some misogynistic biology major could come up with artificial sperm but a uterus... Not likely
> 
> Both parents are important once the 3D printer is done but it can be done single handed.


Single handed? Parthenogesis? Binary fission? 

I'm pretty sure these are beyond the scope of human reproduction.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for artificial sperm either.

You must mean cloning? Not to worry, they are getting much better at building incubators.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> It has nothing to do with resentment against women. As I said, I don't resent or hate women. I'm casually dating a woman right now, and for the time being things are going well. So I don't think I could be able to date a woman if I resented her because of her biology.
> 
> Let's look at what we know:
> 
> 1) Women are awarded custody in about 84% of all custody cases
> 
> 2) Men make up 81% of all war deaths
> 
> 3) Men pay 97% of all alimony


I didn't say you personally were resentful of women. Just that there is a mountain of resentment in the MGTOW circles. And plenty here on TAM.

I find it incredibly unfortunate that red pillers constantly cite the same sorts of statistics, but absolutely refuse to examine any of the context surrounding them or consider other related information that detracts from their determination to hold certain assumptions.

They define masculinity so rigidly and put down men who don't fit their chest-thumping ideals, and then claim it is *society* against men. But these red-pillers are a part of that society and a part of putting down men. 

And honestly I don't know what media they watch, but the shows I see are full of smart, capable, professional and kind men.

No doubt there are some real issues affecting men that need to be addressed. I just find it sad that most of it gets lost in a mishmash of a philosophy that so many seem to want to repeat wholesale without digging deeper.

I also find it a bit odd to call it a Sexodus when you are still dating, having sex, getting into relationships. I always thought the point of the sexodus was to either give up on sex altogether, or if that proves too distasteful, to just bang and discard hot chicks or visit prostitutes to make sure you were using them, and they aren't using you.

That's how the red pill writers mostly describe it.


----------



## always_alone

It never ceases to amaze me how men position themselves socially by numerically ranking the women they've had sex with.

Even those who claim that they will be controlled no more, will no longer allowed themselves to be defined by women do this.

If you don't want what women want to define you, then perhaps you shouldn't use women to determine your own social ranks.


----------



## lateralus

azteca1986 said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe men are just buckets of sperm. But I do believe society views men that way. Neither do I believe a woman's value lies solely in her uterus. But I do believe that society places a higher value on women because they possess a uterus. So there is a distinction there:
> 
> Uterus > sperm
> Personal value + uterus > personal value + sperm
> 
> Personal value can be achieved in many different ways. But (personal value + uterus) will always be greater than (personal value + sperm). At least it will be for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Of course we think fathers are important. But society doesn't. That's because uterus > sperm. Alienation of fathers is merely a symptom of that equation.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have chronically low self-worth to buy into this philosophy.
> 
> Did you have a poor relationship with your own father?
Click to expand...

Chronically low self worth? Hardly. I kick ass, and I know it. 

I have a great relationship with my father. Always have. We went camping and hunting together, went fishing, did projects together, and he supported me in all my activities growing up.

It was my mother who had an affair and left my family for about three years when I was in high school. Thankfully, she learned what she did was wrong, and she and I are very close now too. She's one of my best friends now, and her and my father reconciled and are very much in love again, have been for years since then.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how men position themselves socially by numerically ranking the women they've had sex with.
> 
> Even those who claim that they will be controlled no more, will no longer allowed themselves to be defined by women do this.
> 
> If you don't want what women want to define you, then perhaps you shouldn't use women to determine your own social ranks.


I don't. You misinterpreted my post. What I said was that I don't agree with the MGTOW mindset that a man must have a very specific formula of physical traits in order to have some success with women, and that my experience corroborates that. I'm not classically alpha physically...at all. And yet, I've been with some beautiful women.

I figured you would have looked at my post and agreed with it, and looked at it as an affirmation of what many women say: that an "average looking guy" can indeed be successful; all it takes is the right attitude.


----------



## lateralus

azteca1986 said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Men pay 97% of all alimony
> 
> 
> 
> Does that not mean that in 97% of cases husbands earn more than their wives? Why would that be?
> 
> Anyway, rather than link to some obscure case from 2009, this is what happened in the UK yesterday:
> 
> Met Office weather staff on strike over gender pay gap
> 
> _Staff at the Met Office have begun a walkout in a strike over a 10% gap in male and female salaries._
> 
> The trade union Prospect, which represents the majority of Met Office employees, says senior female meteorologists earn about £7,000 less than their male counterparts.
> 
> The fact that there is even a need for the Equal Pay Act (1970) is an inconvenient truth about the "feminized world" we apparently live in.
Click to expand...

What do pay issues in the workplace have to do with alimony?

My perception of your argument can be summed up like so:

"Since women deal with pay issues in the workplace, we are going to compensate for that by taking money from our husbands."

This isn't a strong argument to entice men into marriage. In fact, it does the opposite.

Haven't had a chance to read that article, but I'll take a look at it when I have a moment. I have many questions and I'm hoping it addresses them.


----------



## tech-novelist

lateralus said:


> I wouldn't say I'm *very* popular with the ladies. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I've got women throwing themselves at me on a regular basis. But I've had more success with women than I expected, including when I wasn't even trying.


I'm going to assume you are aged 25-44; I don't think the numbers vary too much after age 44 anyway.

In that case, the most recently published data from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime) shows that "Median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among men" is 6.6. If you have had significantly more that that number, then I think it would be fair to say that you are very popular with the ladies.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> I don't. You misinterpreted my post. What I said was that I don't agree with the MGTOW mindset that a man must have a very specific formula of physical traits in order to have some success with women, and that my experience corroborates that. I'm not classically alpha physically...at all. And yet, I've been with some beautiful women.
> 
> I figured you would have looked at my post and agreed with it, and looked at it as an affirmation of what many women say: that an "average looking guy" can indeed be successful; all it takes is the right attitude.


I absolutely agree that a man need not be an alpha chest thumper to find and enjoy successful relationships with women. I absolutely agree that men can have a lot to offer that has nothing to do with being a muscle man or a Michelangelo-style David, and that women find a wide variety of men attractive.

I find it incredibly obnoxious this incessant need to rank women on a scale of 1-10, reducing them to nothing but beauty objects that serve only to establish a man's social position and rank.


----------



## always_alone

tech-novelist said:


> I'm going to assume you are aged 25-44; I don't think the numbers vary too much after age 44 anyway.
> 
> In that case, the most recently published data from the CDC (NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth) shows that "Median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among men" is 6.6. If you have had significantly more that that number, then I think it would be fair to say that you are very popular with the ladies.


Since it is clear that quantity means so much more to you than quality, it makes total sense that you would see relationships as a giant and terrible risk that couldn't possibly be worth undertaking.

(Except of course that you were twice too young to know better.)


----------



## SimplyAmorous

tech-novelist said:


> Different people use different terminology, but this is Vox Day's terminology, I believe.
> 
> *Alpha = top dog. Gets high quality women to have sex with him.
> Beta = follower but not necessarily loser. Can do fine in the right circumstances but has to watch out not to go too easy.
> Omega = total loser like that idiot in San Bernadino.
> 
> Sigma = at the same rank as alpha but without any followers and doesn't want any. Very popular with the ladies also*.


This will help explain it a bit further... 



> The *Alpha Traits* are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> *Alpha *= attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.



> *Delta Males*: These kind of guys put off a good front of acting like they're "Alpha males" by conforming into whatever is fashionable and admired by the masses. Most of these men (if you can call them that) need a lot of assurance by society to the point of having little backbone to think for themselves. Sure, many Delta males are surrounded by "friends" and are good at get their fair share of girls by "wooing" them with some pop-culture nonsense (whether it's A&F-style gauche preppiness or poser hip-hop wannabe thuggishness), but that crowd and attention is more imperative for their self-esteem than anything else. For if you take away all of the girls from them and get these same males by themselves, a Delta male's personality completely changes and their "true self" is revealed. Many of these kind of guys are rather weak-minded, crowd-pleasing, conformists who aren't even worthy of the name "Covert Betas" and "Betas in the Closet."





> *Gamma Males*: These kind of dudes are more or less self-reliant, self-motivated, and self-assured in their own personality that no one can change their ways. Some of these kind of males are considered loners, but this is not to case for all Gamma Males. Because of their stern personality, many people tend to write off these men as "Betas" by default because they won't conform to being whatever "Chic Alpha" trait exists during that time period.
> 
> The man who's confident in his own self-worth and looks is said to go a long way with what women want. But as for recent times (I'll say since the early 2000s), most females are more impressed with being "wooed" with inane attributes, something that most Gamma males will refuse to do unless their original personality is what woos the female. These men, until recently, have had no problems getting with "American females" but recently, even these males are getting thrown in the "weak male" shelf because of their lack of conforming to the masses.
> 
> Though getting women - even in today's time - isn't as much of a problem as it is for the "stereotypical Alpha Male," this is still a concern for quite a few Gamma males who were either born too recent (those in their teens and twenties) or those who live in areas where narcissism and American pop-culture rule the minds of the masses.





> *Lambdas* - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.





> *Sigmas* - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.





> *Omegas* - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.


----------



## azteca1986

lateralus said:


> What do pay issues in the workplace have to do with alimony?
> 
> My perception of your argument can be summed up like so:
> 
> "Since women deal with pay issues in the workplace, we are going to compensate for that by taking money from our husbands."


No that's not my argument at all. You made this statement:


lateralus said:


> But I do believe that society places a higher value on women because they possess a uterus.


This statement gets repeated over and over by MGTOW till it _almost_ becomes fact. But what does it really mean? What metric are you using?

I chose to use the metric of *remuneration*. How does the "society" of employers "value" people's time? When you find a man (sperm) and a woman (uterus) with exactly the same job having exactly the same qualifications and experience, the one with the penis gets paid more. (Hence the strike by the Met Office).

So, my argument is: If you look at how employers place a monetary value on their employees you would see that reality is completely at odds with the prevailing MGTOW narrative. 



> This isn't a strong argument to entice men into marriage.


It's not supposed to be. MGTOW have made the link. I have not. It is however a decent illustration, I think, of MGTOW's ability to cherry-pick a fact - Men pay 97% of alimony (I'll take your word for it) - without taking into account the wider *context*. If my wife and I do exactly the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, I will get paid more. This is the gender pay gap. Therefore in the event of a divorce, I will pay alimony. Does this demonstrate we live in a "feminized society" that "places a higher value on women because they possess a uterus"? Or opposite. The gender pay gap will not close in my working lifetime so I'm not going to pretend that I'm massively bothered to be living in a male dominated world.

However, I'm open minded. If there is some factor that is more all encompassing, with greater ramifications than what we get paid when turn up for work, I'm happy to hear it. 


> What do pay issues in the workplace have to do with alimony?


Not a great deal, I'll grant you, but I believe that I've demonstrated the _inter-relationship_ between the two. By the same token, what does alimony have to do with marriage? Alimony is to do with _divorce_ and marriage is the period immediately preceding divorce. 

If you've been married and are now divorced and now have a negative view about marriage I think that is perfectly understandable. But why buy into this MGTOW nonsense? MGTOW is a barely coherent bunch of factoids and pseudo-science, paying way too much attention to radical feminists and are the first generation of young men who have intellectualised their inability to relate to women. Insecurity and fear pervade the whole movement demonstrated perfectly by "hypergamy" as recently discovered by red pill scientists.

In the article linked in the OP of this thread you find the revelation that young men have done a cost/benefit analysis of marriage and found that it doesn't makes sense. This is handy because, ironically, the kind of person who does a cost/benefit analysis of marriage is self-selecting as someone you wouldn't want to be married to in the first place.


lateralus said:


> The inevitable conclusion I can come to is that it is socially detrimental to not have a uterus. As to why that is, at this point all we can do is guess. But there is evidence to suggest it is socially constructed. Other than action heroes, *there are no positive male figures anywhere. *Single men are portrayed as predatory, husbands are portrayed as idiotic, and fathers are portrayed as stupid. Little boys are unnecessarily medicated.


Fathers. Did you not get the memo? I am my son's primary role model. I'll give up that position when I die. And not a second before.

No mere portrayal of a father can hope to compete with the actual experience of living with me. You must understand why I questioned your self-worth if you're going to believe that stuff you've written. My experience has been that society loves involved dads. 


> Masculinity is shamed.


First I've heard of it. Tell me more. Who's doing the shaming?


----------



## azteca1986

tech-novelist said:


> Different people use different terminology, but this is Vox Day's terminology, I believe.
> 
> Alpha = top dog. Gets high quality women to have sex with him.


What do you mean by quality women? Noble Laureates? CEOs? Doctors? That sort of thing?


----------



## tech-novelist

azteca1986 said:


> What do you mean by quality women? Noble Laureates? CEOs? Doctors? That sort of thing?


Attractive women with good personalities.

While men should and usually do appreciate achievement in women, it doesn't make achieving women more attractive to men, unlike the reverse situation in which achievement in men is attractive to women.


----------



## soccermom2three

I can't believe the contradictory nature of some of the posts on this thread. These MGTOW types talk from both sides of their mouths.


----------



## tech-novelist

soccermom2three said:


> I can't believe the contradictory nature of some of the posts on this thread. These MGTOW types talk from both sides of their mouths.


For example?


----------



## lateralus

tech-novelist said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm *very* popular with the ladies. I certainly don't want to make it sound like I've got women throwing themselves at me on a regular basis. But I've had more success with women than I expected, including when I wasn't even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are aged 25-44; I don't think the numbers vary too much after age 44 anyway.
> 
> In that case, the most recently published data from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime) shows that "Median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among men" is 6.6. If you have had significantly more that that number, then I think it would be fair to say that you are very popular with the ladies.
Click to expand...

Really? 6.6? I'm 36 and I've had almost double that. I've honestly never looked at it that way. I wouldn't say that's significantly more (not enough to say I'm *very* popular), but I do see your point.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. You misinterpreted my post. What I said was that I don't agree with the MGTOW mindset that a man must have a very specific formula of physical traits in order to have some success with women, and that my experience corroborates that. I'm not classically alpha physically...at all. And yet, I've been with some beautiful women.
> 
> I figured you would have looked at my post and agreed with it, and looked at it as an affirmation of what many women say: that an "average looking guy" can indeed be successful; all it takes is the right attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that a man need not be an alpha chest thumper to find and enjoy successful relationships with women. I absolutely agree that men can have a lot to offer that has nothing to do with being a muscle man or a Michelangelo-style David, and that women find a wide variety of men attractive.
> 
> I find it incredibly obnoxious this incessant need to rank women on a scale of 1-10, reducing them to nothing but beauty objects that serve only to establish a man's social position and rank.
Click to expand...

As opposed to women reducing men to a walking ATM and a utility value that serve only to increase the quality of her lifestyle?

So you're happy that I came to my conclusion, just not happy with HOW I did.

This really shouldn't surprise me, and yet for some inexplicable reason, it does.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> As opposed to women reducing men to a walking ATM and a utility value that serve only to increase the quality of her lifestyle?
> 
> So you're happy that I came to my conclusion, just not happy with HOW I did.
> 
> This really shouldn't surprise me, and yet for some inexplicable reason, it does.


To clarify: I agree with aspects of your conclusions, in particular those that realize that women are attracted to a wide variety of men, and that the alpha nonsense is nonsense.

I don't know HOW you arrived at that conclusion, and don't really care.

What I was noticing was the way you talked about women, and how similar it is to many men here. And more notably how this way of reducing women to a single number is used to establish a particular social position.

I've never heard men do this before I came to TAM, and I find it a rather strange way of jockeying for social ranking. And pretty offensive to women in the way it reduces us to object status where only our looks could possibly matter. 

Also, I intended it as a generalized comment. I wasn't trying to single you out; you are by no means the first person here that I've discussed such issues with.

And for the record, I have *never* heard a woman talk about men as a walking ATM good for utility value only. Actually, on second thought I have: This is how prostitutes and trophy wives sometimes speak about men. No other women I've ever met or read. Certainly no one here at TAM.


----------



## lateralus

always_alone said:


> lateralus said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to women reducing men to a walking ATM and a utility value that serve only to increase the quality of her lifestyle?
> 
> So you're happy that I came to my conclusion, just not happy with HOW I did.
> 
> This really shouldn't surprise me, and yet for some inexplicable reason, it does.
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify: I agree with aspects of your conclusions, in particular those that realize that women are attracted to a wide variety of men, and that the alpha nonsense is nonsense.
> 
> I don't know HOW you arrived at that conclusion, and don't really care.
> 
> What I was noticing was the way you talked about women, and how similar it is to many men here. And more notably how this way of reducing women to a single number is used to establish a particular social position.
> 
> I've never heard men do this before I came to TAM, and I find it a rather strange way of jockeying for social ranking. And pretty offensive to women in the way it reduces us to object status where only our looks could possibly matter.
> 
> Also, I intended it as a generalized comment. I wasn't trying to single you out; you are by no means the first person here that I've discussed such issues with.
> 
> And for the record, I have *never* heard a woman talk about men as a walking ATM good for utility value only. Actually, on second thought I have: This is how prostitutes and trophy wives sometimes speak about men. No other women I've ever met or read. Certainly no one here at TAM.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you find it offensive. I'm happy to ship you a box of Kleenex, but that's where my care level ends.

I will speak in any manner I choose that does not violate the T&C. If you choose to be offended, that is your choice and I don't need to hear about it. Your offense is your problem.


----------



## always_alone

lateralus said:


> I don't care if you find it offensive. I'm happy to ship you a box of Kleenex, but that's where my care level ends.
> 
> I will speak in any manner I choose that does not violate the T&C. If you choose to be offended, that is your choice and I don't need to hear about it. Your offense is your problem.


Well that makes us even then. I will continue to make any observations I wish about the posts I read here right up until the mods start removing them or ban me.

Frankly, I don't care what you think any more than you care what I think. I just participate in these threads because I find the MGTOW attitudes and philosophy so completely bizarre. Plus I've learned a ton about red flags to look out for.


----------



## Catherine602

@lateralus Why are so easily and predictably provoked? Anyone can make sport of prodding you until you erupt in anger and snarkiness. Instead of wasting time crafting a calm exterior to hide the roiling spite and rage you harbor, put some energy into making yourself better. It will pay off, you'll enjoy your life and the gifts you have been granted. 

You don't need to get into a relationship but you need to get rid of the hate for yourself not women. Women don't care if you hate them, there is no shortage of men who don't. That's what fuels your desire for revenge, you want women to be as lonely as you?

Your bad experiences in relationships were in part due to your deficits, it's never just one person. You seem to live a joyless life now because you can't face your problems. The degree to which you are able to restore your compassion and empathy for others, you will restore them for yourself.


----------



## tom67

Saw this earlier...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBQ8_qS7Bkg

Cha ching baby.

By the way a good restaurant in Chicago. :wink2:


----------



## azteca1986

tech-novelist said:


> For example?


"Women are now out-performing men in education due to more female teachers and are doing better in higher education, becoming financially independent making men disposable"

whilst _at the same time_...



lateralus said:


> As opposed to women reducing men to a walking ATM and a utility value that serve only to increase the quality of her lifestyle?


So which one is it? Is it the same women or different women? More importantly, if you distill each statement down to it's underlying message you are faced with a choice of "Life is unfair to men!" or "Life is unfair to men!". And of course "It's all women's fault!".
Strangely, for a group who seem to believe that they know _how the world really works_, MGTOW don't appear to realise that blaming other people and telling us over and over how unfair they think life is makes them sound like whiny teenagers, which is not very attractive to women. Or other men.


----------



## tech-novelist

azteca1986 said:


> "Women are now out-performing men in education due to more female teachers and are doing better in higher education, becoming financially independent making men disposable"
> 
> whilst _at the same time_...
> 
> "As opposed to women reducing men to a walking ATM and a utility value that serve only to increase the quality of her lifestyle?"
> 
> So which one is it? Is it the same women or different women?


These are not contradictory. One and the same woman can see a man as being disposable and at the same time see that same man as a walking ATM having only utility value.

This is the concept known as "her money is her money, my money is our money".



azteca1986 said:


> More importantly, if you distill each statement down to it's underlying message you are faced with a choice of "Life is unfair to men!" or "Life is unfair to men!". And of course "It's all women's fault!".
> Strangely, for a group who seem to believe that they know _how the world really works_, MGTOW don't appear to realise that blaming other people and telling us over and over how unfair they think life is makes them sound like whiny teenagers, which is not very attractive to women. Or other men.


No, of course *everything *is men's fault, including the fact that most divorces are filed by women, that divorced men commit suicide at several times the rate of divorced women, and that some men are told to pay more than 100% of their net pay for "child support" under threat of debtor's prison in the form of contempt citations that these men have no way to fight.

Now the obvious rejoinder to the last of these is that most legislators are men, so that really is men's fault. However, this is an example of the apex fallacy: namely, the implication that all men must have power if most of the people with a lot of power are men.


----------



## always_alone

tom67 said:


> Saw this earlier...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBQ8_qS7Bkg
> 
> Cha ching baby.
> 
> By the way a good restaurant in Chicago. :wink2:


You're right, I forgot a category: prostitutes, trophy wives and women who are paid by the entertainment industry to follow scripts.

If all you watch is reality TV, then, well, you aren't going to be in touch with reality. Just sayin'


----------



## always_alone

tech-novelist said:


> Now the obvious rejoinder to the last of these is that most legislators are men, so that really is men's fault. However, this is an example of the apex fallacy: namely, the implication that all men must have power if most of the people with a lot of power are men.


I just don't understand why you don't take this up with those particular men, instead of blaming women for it.


----------



## always_alone

azteca1986 said:


> "Women are now out-performing men in education due to more female teachers and are doing better in higher education, becoming financially independent making men disposable"
> 
> whilst _at the same time_...
> 
> So which one is it? Is it the same women or different women? More importantly, if you distill each statement down to it's underlying message you are faced with a choice of "Life is unfair to men!" or "Life is unfair to men!". And of course "It's all women's fault!".


My favorite one is the one where they blame women for feminizing men, and then turn around and blame women for not allowing men to be vulnerable and show their emotions.

Or another one: arguing that women have no right to tell men how to be or "define masculinity" and then blaming women because men "have" to be this way because that's what women want.

(Wait for it: we will soon be told that these aren't contradictions either. It's just that women are too stupid to know what they want. It's women's fault these contradictions are there, dammit)


----------



## always_alone

Oh, here's another goody: Blaming women for ruining boys by taking over the school system and then blaming women for choosing to work in low paying jobs.


----------



## azteca1986

tech-novelist said:


> These are not contradictory.


Financial independence and relying on someone else's money are contradictory. 


> One and the same woman can see a man as being disposable and at the same time see that same man as a walking ATM having only utility value.
> 
> This is the concept known as "her money is her money, my money is our money".


Okay so we're no longer talking about "women" but a particular woman (I could take this as a concession that NAWALT. But I won't). I agree that these contradictory concepts can exist within the same person. Women are complex. People are complex. As are their motivations and behaviours which are hard to gauge or even understand if your main tools are - logic, probability and statistical analysis. In the example above I would recommend not marrying a woman that held such views.



> No, of course *everything *is men's fault,


Why does everything have to be someone at fault? Men's fault. Women's fault. Risk. Divorce. Why the obsession on when things go wrong and pointing fingers of blame?


> including the fact that most divorces are filed by women,





> that divorced men commit suicide at several times the rate of divorced women,





> and that some men are told to pay more than 100% of their net pay for "child support" under threat of debtor's prison in the form of contempt citations that these men have no way to fight.


Thank you for this bunch of factoids totally devoid of context or any apparent relevance to what we were discussing. I do note that once again you're focussing on _divorce_. I prefer to focus on getting married and staying married as in this way I get to enjoy 100% physical custody of my children and pay no alimony.


> Now the obvious rejoinder to the last of these is that most legislators are men, so that really is men's fault. However, this is an example of the apex fallacy: namely, the implication that all men must have power if most of the people with a lot of power are men.


No, I don't do rejoinders. I do not value logical reasoning and have no interest the apex fallacy, so you're going to find it tricky to predict my responses. The way you think and the way I think are very different, best illustrated by the contrasting ways we both look at statistical probability: 

What brought me to TAM was finding out that the failure rate for couples in the UK with an autistic child was 80%. This has since been refuted but at the time we thought it our reality and found it alarming. So I told my wife "You and I have the greatest say in whether we fall with the 80% that fail. Or the 20% that succeed. Don't worry because those stats refer to other people's relationships. The only thing we should take from them is that our relationship is likely to be under considerably more stress than a typical marriage".

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but I've so far managed to keep my wife's traitorous, hypergamous nature at bay (not that I blame her - its apparently written into her DNA) and for looking for my replacement is by being - Man who is totally unfazed by overwhelming odds.


----------



## tech-novelist

azteca1986 said:


> I do not value logical reasoning and have no interest the apex fallacy, so you're going to find it tricky to predict my responses.


Thank you for letting me know that you do not value logical reasoning. That is all I need to know about your comments.


----------



## azteca1986

tech-novelist said:


> Thank you for letting me know that you do not value logical reasoning. That is all I need to know about your comments.


What do you think you know?


----------



## reasons

From the Japanese herbivore perspective, relationships are just too much of a burden. Why bother with it? From the MGTOW perspective, the game has changed and is anti-male. So no marriage, commitment and be darn sure to video tape her affirmative consent. This is how you end up losing a million in population over five years like in Japan.

The two mindsets overlap one another but I find myself more of a Japanese herbivore than a MGTOW. I agree with both mindsets however. Men that never heard of either herbivore men or MGTOW are, more and more, subconsciously becoming a bit of one or both because that's the natural outcome of tilting the balance of power too much into women's hands. I don't know if there's ever been a lasting matriarchal society. Sweden seems to come closest but they heavily subsidize (pay) women to have babies there.

Men stop committing and will most certainly stop producing if there's no incentives and/or rewards. In other words, once a man figures out that the game is rigged against him or that the work outweighs the rewards - it's bye bye marriage, commitment and productivity. When you drive down the road, most of what you see was built by men for this very reason. Men built the world you see today so that they can rule and screw. Take that away and men go their own way or go herbivore. Women will most certainly need to be strong and independent because, over time, men will simply stop caring about them all together.

Japan is a great example of the above but so is most of Europe, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. A few Westernized countries besides Japan had even lower birth rates than Japan and nearly non-existent marriage rates. The US would be in the same position as Japan had it not been for mass immigration. The best kept secret these days is that those European/Scandinavian countries are not mass importing refugees out of the kindness of the government heart. In truth, they're mass importing refugees because it they don't, thanks to declining marriage and birth rates among the indigenous in Westernized countries, the social welfare (Ponzi schemes) will collapse - leaving inconceivable numbers of elderly to starve to death. You need lots of taxpayers to support those schemes. Mass immigration of refugees just might ensure a comfortable retirement for the aging indigenous of Westernized societies but will wipe out their culture and legacy - which is why Japan abhors mass immigration.

The part that most interests me is what happens when feminism takes over the patriarchal countries that are currently supplying the Western/feminized countries with human replacements and keeping them on life support? I'm guessing they'll have a huge decline in marriage and birth rates there as well, cutting off the lifeline of refugees, resulting in a global population decline like Japan. Some theorists even think that this was the whole plot of feminism - to reverse population growth.

For me, none of this matters much. I'm happily single, introverted, moneyed, child-free and most of my working years are behind me. I'm looking at a luxurious retirement. If it ever gets to the point where I can't take care of myself anymore - I'll find a bridge and jump. There might even be more legal assisted suicide by then. If that's the case, I'll go out that way. It's going to be really interesting for future generations however. I'm almost glad I'll be dead before the real problems begin - though I have a morbid fascination with the eventual outcome of it all.


----------



## always_alone

Feminized countries :rofl: !

Another fun contradiction: holding up certain countries as the ideal model for patriarchy (rule and screw!!!) and advocating for the ongoing bombing and exclusion of refugees of those same countries


----------



## always_alone

reasons said:


> Men stop committing and will most certainly stop producing if there's no incentives and/or rewards.


To address your points more specifically:

The single most influential factor over birth rate is education. The more well educated a society becomes, the lower the birth rate.

Japan is about as patriarchal as they come, and so it's a bit odd to attribute the herbivores to a "feminized society."

The roots of marriage have everything to do with men ensuring their own ancestral lines and control of wealth. It's not like we had a few thousand years of men acquiescing to something they never wanted to get other rewards: on the contrary men *wanted* marriage precisely because it was reward in itself. With it they could track their progeny and ensure inheritance, wealth and privilege went to their own


----------



## reasons

intheory said:


> Your first paragraph is why there is militant feminism. When all men want from women is to "screw" them; as well as rule over them; it creates so much abuse, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Since women are human beings (they are, you know), they don't want to exist solely to be "screwed" and ruled over. Amazing, huh?
> 
> I too, see the need for legally assisted suicide. It would be wonderful if it was in place when I am at the end of my life, possibly terminally ill, with no family and little money.
> 
> But you know who will stop it from happening? Not the religious people. It will be blocked, instead, by the long term care and pharmaceutical industries. Do you realize how much money those businesses would lose if people ended their lives in their late 70's, versus being on prescriptions and living in rest homes 'til their mid 90's and beyond? Come on now! Not saying euthanasia will never come to pass; but it will be one h*ll off a fight to get it legalized.


Just telling it like it is folks. Nothing pisses people off more than the realities of life.

Modern militant feminism exists because too many fatties got beer goggle pump and dumped by alpha Chads, which got the dawarkians (or whatever her name is) of the world organized and all man-hating. Now, feminists rule the schools and teach man-hating courses from kindergarten through doctorate degree. Mrs. Click from Mizzou is a likely byproduct of that brainwashing. Today's representation of this man-hating training is Jackie and the Rolling Stones, Brian Banks, Duke Lacrosse and my latest and greatest favorite, Souad Faress (Game of Thrones actress) of the UK who accused a man of sexual assault for bumping into her while passing in the tube station. If you haven't looked her story up, it's a chilling read and telling tale of what modern feminists are really after. That's one deeply sociopathic woman.

Modern feminism is about the acquisition of total power and control over men by the most privileged and disturbed gender to have ever lived - Western feminists. Modern feminism is about absolute power and absolute corruption. The latest sociopathic effort by feminists is to remove due process and presumption of innocence from men when they've been accused of rape or sexual assault. "Oooh - Don't have a video tape of her saying yes at every stage of the encounter? Well, you're guilty unless you can prove she consistently said yes, enthusiastically, all throughout the encounter and never withdrew consent. Too bad for you! Bye, bye!" Add to that the deeply falsified feminist book-cooked rape stats that started the rape hysteria in the first place and the patently false false rape stat of 1-8% and you've got a certified department of loony bin ready feminists on every college campus in the US.

There are lots of women who just want to screw too, right? Right. This is a power struggle see which gender comes out on top. I'm not foolish enough to believe this is about me wanting to screw and forgo the often life destroying consequences of marriage and divorce.

Agree with you on thing about those that profit from long-term care doing everything they can to prevent people from humanely ending their own lives however. We do it for our pets out of love so they don't suffer. I don't see why we can't do it for ourselves when we can no longer care for ourselves late in life, too. I don't want anyone bathing me or wiping my @ because I'm too out to lunch or physically incapable of doing it myself. If you'd rather scrape me from the front of a semi or scrape my brains from a wall, so be it. Now that's inhumane. I refuse to die drooling 24/7 if I can help it.


----------



## always_alone

reasons said:


> Modern feminism is about the acquisition of total power and control over men by the most privileged and disturbed gender to have ever lived - Western feminists. Modern feminism is about absolute power and absolute corruption.



If Western feminists are all about absolute power and are currently ruling the legal system and the schools, how do you explain the fact that both Afghanistan and Iraq have a higher percentage of women in parliament than the US?

Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) | Data | Table

Speaking of the realities of life!


----------



## reasons

always_alone said:


> If Western feminists are all about absolute power and are currently ruling the legal system and the schools, how do you explain the fact that both Afghanistan and Iraq have a higher percentage of women in parliament than the US?
> 
> Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) | Data | Table
> 
> Speaking of the realities!


You tell me. Women are the majority of voters in the US. If the patriarchy is so evil - why are women hesitating to vote us out? We ask ourselves this same question at every patriarchy meeting. "Why haven't we been voted out yet?"


----------



## reasons

reasons said:


> You tell me. Women are the majority of voters in the US. If the patriarchy is so evil - why are women hesitating to vote us out? We ask ourselves this same question at every patriarchy meeting. "Why haven't we been voted out yet?"


Ah - I just looked it up. Quotas. It's the same reason women make up half of the Chad's cabinet in feminist Canada. Affirmative action.


----------



## reasons

always_alone said:


> To address your points more specifically:
> 
> The single most influential factor over birth rate is education. The more well educated a society becomes, the lower the birth rate.
> 
> Japan is about as patriarchal as they come, and so it's a bit odd to attribute the herbivores to a "feminized society."
> 
> The roots of marriage have everything to do with men ensuring their own ancestral lines and control of wealth. It's not like we had a few thousand years of men acquiescing to something they never wanted to get other rewards: on the contrary men *wanted* marriage precisely because it was reward in itself. With it they could track their progeny and ensure inheritance, wealth and privilege went to their own


Herbivore men are the result of salarymen having to work seventy hours a week only to have to hand their husband-hating wives their paychecks. Why do that when you can live a reasonably simple life, have lots of fun and avoid the wifely disdain? Same for America. One in two married men will end up divorced. For those with kids, its years and sometimes decades of living in poverty while handing your check over to your X wife - who's now treating her boy toy boyfriend to dinner with your earnings - and writing off the money you give her on her taxes. If you fail to pay - you'll go to jail, where you'll be raped - even if you lose your job, become unable to work - or take a huge pay cut.

Herbivore men and MGTOW exist for very good - risk vs reward - reasons.


----------



## tech-novelist

reasons said:


> Just telling it like it is folks. Nothing pisses people off more than the realities of life.
> 
> Modern militant feminism exists because too many fatties got beer goggle pump and dumped by alpha Chads, which got the *dawarkians *(or whatever her name is) of the world organized and all man-hating.


Andrea Dworkin.


----------



## tech-novelist

reasons said:


> You tell me. Women are the majority of voters in the US. If the patriarchy is so evil - why are women hesitating to vote us out? We ask ourselves this same question at every patriarchy meeting. "Why haven't we been voted out yet?"


Why don't *I *ever get an invitation to one of those meetings?


----------



## azteca1986

reasons said:


> Just telling it like it is folks. Nothing pisses people off more than the realities of life.


You are badly misinformed. Or deluded. Or both.


> Modern feminism is about the acquisition of total power and control over men by the most privileged and disturbed gender to have ever lived - Western feminists. Modern feminism is about absolute power and absolute corruption.


If you made a heat map of the UK where the hot spots indicated an absence of modern feminists they would centre on:

The Houses of Parliament, The House of Lords (with there hereditary Peers - male line only), St. James' Palace (who tell the monarchy what to do), Whitehall (Civil Service & MoD), The Supreme Court (judiciary), The Home Office, The Treasury, The FCO, The City, The FA, etc


----------



## azteca1986

reasons said:


> The latest sociopathic effort by feminists is to remove due process and presumption of innocence from men when they've been accused of rape or sexual assault. "Oooh - Don't have a video tape of her saying yes at every stage of the encounter? Well, you're guilty unless you can prove she consistently said yes, enthusiastically, all throughout the encounter and never withdrew consent. Too bad for you! Bye, bye!"


It's this kind of thing that gives the clearest indication that MGTOW are utterly driven by fear; Fear of women (primarily), fear of the unknown, fear of uncertainty, fear of consent laws (that they clearly can't comprehend)

I think I've found the people who've been "shaming masculinity". It's been MGTOW all along


----------



## tom67

tech-novelist said:


> Thank you for letting me know that you do not value logical reasoning. That is all I need to know about your comments.


Come on now it's feelz. :wink2:


----------



## always_alone

azteca1986 said:


> I think I've found the people who've been "shaming masculinity". It's been MGTOW all along


^^^^This!


----------



## azteca1986

tom67 said:


> Come on now it's feelz. :wink2:


No Tom, not emotion. Not logic. Would you like to have another try?

I did ask techno but he appears to have Gone His Own Way.


----------



## tom67

Agree to disagree like the couple in the UK from Ireland on a lighter note
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gJ1tfid4hM


----------



## Imissmywife

MGTOW

Max Gross Takeoff Weight


----------



## Kivlor

azteca1986 said:


> No Tom, not emotion. Not logic. Would you like to have another try?
> 
> I did ask techno but he appears to have Gone His Own Way.


It's statements like this that really drive home that for some folks...


----------

