notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Hi guys.
What's the meaning of life?
This thread is for serious philosophical discussion only. Please leave your derailments in another thread.
|
|
|
|
FulofGladbach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
The Meaning of Life? 42.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I've been reading a lot of modern philosophy lately, particularly what has been coined "the red pill".
Basically embracing the biological imperative of man and accepting the inherent differences between men and women. I have always been an egalitarian, but have come to understand that equal opportunity does not mandate equal outcome.
By implementing some of the core tenants of the philosophy I have improved just about every facet of my life. Work is more fulfilling, family life is much better and my sex life has never been this good.
There's an excellent subreddit at /r/theredpill.
Has anyone else come across TRP and used it to have a significant positive impact on their life?
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.returnofkings.com is another site that delves into that modern male philosophy/red pill stuff. Some of it is crap, but a lot of it is useful. Take it with much salt. As for Philosophy, I'm starting to look into the 'stoic' philosophy. It should be an interesting journey. I need a more balanced and grounded view of life, with better control over my thoughts.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
The rational male.com is another good one.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
What is this 'redpill'?
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Stanley Kubrick was the last great modern philosopher.
You guys should watch room 237
[youtube]qi0IjGC0K0w[/youtube]
|
|
|
DinosMum
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:I've been reading a lot of modern philosophy lately, particularly what has been coined "the red pill".
Basically embracing the biological imperative of man and accepting the inherent differences between men and women. I have always been an egalitarian, but have come to understand that equal opportunity does not mandate equal outcome.
By implementing some of the core tenants of the philosophy I have improved just about every facet of my life. Work is more fulfilling, family life is much better and my sex life has never been this good.
There's an excellent subreddit at /r/theredpill.
Has anyone else come across TRP and used it to have a significant positive impact on their life? Im glad you found something positive from the Red Piller's. Most people come out the other side a misogynistic prick. Some of their advice is flaky at best but if you pick and choose the different doctrines you can come up with something that adds value to your life. Unfortunately the majority of guys in there are a bunch of neck beards trying to upgrade to 'alphas' and will simply never make the cut
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:http://www.returnofkings.com is another site that delves into that modern male philosophy/red pill stuff. Some of it is crap, but a lot of it is useful. Take it with much salt.
As for Philosophy, I'm starting to look into the 'stoic' philosophy. It should be an interesting journey. I need a more balanced and grounded view of life, with better control over my thoughts.
why would you want control over your thoughts?
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
The Red Pill is an absolute embarrassment.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:The Red Pill is an absolute embarrassment. As stated in OP, this is a serious discussion thread. If you're going to call something out, show your reasoning.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Draupnir wrote:The Red Pill is an absolute embarrassment. As stated in OP, this is a serious discussion thread. If you're going to call something out, show your reasoning. I was browsing their web page and there's an article on there by a bloke named Chris Delamo. I assume that since he's posting articles on the home page he's a major spokes person for the doctrine. the article wrote:I tweeted out to Cara the following: “@CaraSantaMaria claims to be an empiricist, yet relies on hearsay from studies she didn’t conduct as foundation of her knowledge.”
The rationale behind the tweet was to show that, although Cara claims to be an advocate of science and empiricism, she is willing to BYPASS scientific empiricism by believing in the results of studies she did not personally conduct, on the basis of faith and hearsay alone. So basically he contends that in order to use a computer you must replicate all experiments of Nicolas Tesla (among others'). That's completely nonsensical. Edited by afromanGT: 17/4/2014 08:06:27 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:Draupnir wrote:The Red Pill is an absolute embarrassment. As stated in OP, this is a serious discussion thread. If you're going to call something out, show your reasoning. I was browsing their web page and there's an article on there by a bloke named Chris Delamo. I assume that since he's posting articles on the home page he's a major spokes person for the doctrine. the article wrote:I tweeted out to Cara the following: “@CaraSantaMaria claims to be an empiricist, yet relies on hearsay from studies she didn’t conduct as foundation of her knowledge.”
The rationale behind the tweet was to show that, although Cara claims to be an advocate of science and empiricism, she is willing to BYPASS scientific empiricism by believing in the results of studies she did not personally conduct, on the basis of faith and hearsay alone. So basically he contends that in order to use a computer you must replicate all experiments of Nicolas Tesla (among others'). That's completely nonsensical. Edited by afromanGT: 17/4/2014 08:06:27 PM Link to page and article so I can see it in the intended context rather than cherry picked quotes.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
I dont know anything about "The Red Pill" but i support your open minded attempt to find meaning "notorganic".
discussion about particular tenets of this movement or any others would be more interesting than glib character assassination attempts by those who wish to quell thoughts about anything that doesnt sit in their comfort zone
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Link to page and article so I can see it in the intended context rather than cherry picked quotes. http://redpillphilosophy.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/skeptics-arent-really-skeptics/
|
|
|
DinosMum
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:The Red Pill is an absolute embarrassment. I lurk there a lot but never post. To be fair there have been a few horseshit threads bit for the main part it gives an alternative to the overly feminised culture that young men have forced upon them.
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Always preferred Eastern philosophy over Western philosophy, but I think learning both is crucial as they are culturally relativised attempts at understanding the same environment
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Wonderful stuff. Notor has realised men and women are different and Mack has discovered he is unbalanced.
Did you know a university in the US conducted a study and eventually concluded (after long research) that the elephant is a descendant of the mammoth? True story.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Had a quick squiz at red pill. Seems the usual pseudo-spiritual, self-affirming psychobabble that excites those looking for 'something deeper'. Just found out about this male support subculture; 'alphas', 'betas', 'omegas', etc etc. Looks to be composed entirely of gentlemen who can't get laid, and are bitter as a result.
Re. philosophy; find David Hume incredibly insightful.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Just found out about this male support subculture; 'alphas', 'betas', 'omegas', etc etc. Looks to be composed entirely of gentlemen who can't get laid, and are bitter as a result. :lol:
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
It always interesting to see people's reactions the first time they hear about TRP.
I reacted much the same way that Humbert did the first time I looked at the subreddit.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
he's def not an alpha
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:It always interesting to see people's reactions the first time they hear about TRP.
I reacted much the same way that Humbert did the first time I looked at the subreddit. What's changed?
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:he's def not an alpha The answer to the question no one asked.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:It always interesting to see people's reactions the first time they hear about TRP.
I reacted much the same way that Humbert did the first time I looked at the subreddit. What's changed? I realised that I was wrong. It's not misogynistic or bitter to embrace reality.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:It always interesting to see people's reactions the first time they hear about TRP.
I reacted much the same way that Humbert did the first time I looked at the subreddit. What's changed? I realised that I was wrong. It's not misogynistic or bitter to embrace reality. Might you explain what you mean?
|
|
|
Neanderthal
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4K,
Visits: 0
|
The whole red pill thing sounds like it has some great values that it champions. But at the same time it does sound a little bit desperate to be special and "in the know". To my limited reading it also sounded like the culture is a little overly pessimistic and negative about alot of things. Also some of it's claims, like the inherent differences between male and female are not backed up by anything credible.
Why not just skip all of that and go straight to modern psychology? Cognitive behavioural psychology can tell you generally what kind of thinking, behaviour and values make a happy fulfilled individual. And it's generally backed up with evidence which makes it alot more worthwhile.
Edited by neanderthal: 20/4/2014 11:00:16 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:It always interesting to see people's reactions the first time they hear about TRP.
I reacted much the same way that Humbert did the first time I looked at the subreddit. What's changed? I realised that I was wrong. It's not misogynistic or bitter to embrace reality. Might you explain what you mean? http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Neanderthal wrote:The whole red pill thing sounds like it has some great values that it champions. But at the same time it does sound a little bit desperate to be special and "in the know". To my limited reading it also sounded like the culture is a little overly pessimistic and negative about alot of things. Also some of it's claims, like the inherent differences between male and female are not backed up by anything credible.
Why not just skip all of that and go straight to modern psychology? Cognitive behavioural psychology can tell you generally what kind of thinking, behaviour and values make a happy fulfilled individual. And it's generally backed up with evidence which makes it alot more worthwhile.
Edited by neanderthal: 20/4/2014 11:00:16 PM I generally agree. The important thing to remember is that the subreddit is a discussion forum, not a dogmatic pulpit. Concepts are discussed, debated, rationalised etc. There is quite a lot of discussion revolving around various studies and evidence that back up some of the conclusions, but you are right that it is often thin on the ground.
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Hi guys.
What's the meaning of life?
This thread is for serious philosophical discussion only. Please leave your derailments in another thread. Does the question "What is the meaning of life" make sense? Will drinking more make this essay more interesting?
|
|
|
Bowden
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
KiwiChick1 wrote:notorganic wrote:Hi guys.
What's the meaning of life?
This thread is for serious philosophical discussion only. Please leave your derailments in another thread. Does the question "What is the meaning of life" make sense? Will drinking more make this essay more interesting? I remember you!! Welcome back :D :D :D
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
n/m. I derailed my own thread.
Edited by notorganic: 3/5/2014 06:13:10 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
n/m. I derailed my own thread.
Edited by notorganic: 3/5/2014 06:12:58 PM
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:n/m. I derailed my own thread.
Edited by notorganic: 3/5/2014 06:12:58 PM Better off just to delete the post fully and flame moderators, Gyfox style.
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
It's a legitimate discussion point, guys :P I'm meant to be writing a 2000 word essay for a philosophy paper I'm taking, but I'm stuck on about 500 words lol.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Kiwichicks first post back and already a return of the sexism that always seemed to follow. DinosMum wrote:Most people come out the other side a misogynistic prick.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
KiwiChick1 wrote:It's a legitimate discussion point, guys :P I'm meant to be writing a 2000 word essay for a philosophy paper I'm taking, but I'm stuck on about 500 words lol. I think there are substances more efficient than alcohol :)
|
|
|
General Ashnak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18K,
Visits: 0
|
What are you writing about?
The thing about football - the important thing about football - is its not just about football. - Sir Terry Pratchett in Unseen Academicals For pro/rel in Australia across the entire pyramid, the removal of artificial impediments to the development of the game and its players. On sabbatical Youth Coach and formerly part of The Cove FC
|
|
|
General Ashnak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18K,
Visits: 0
|
As for TRP, as someone who has read nothing on the subreddit, but talks to Notor on a regular basis, a lot of it is just common sense. Also anyone who tries to argue that there are no differences between men and women is on a hiding to nothing.
The thing about football - the important thing about football - is its not just about football. - Sir Terry Pratchett in Unseen Academicals For pro/rel in Australia across the entire pyramid, the removal of artificial impediments to the development of the game and its players. On sabbatical Youth Coach and formerly part of The Cove FC
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Read through the link; nothing really untoward there.
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
General Ashnak wrote:What are you writing about? Literally: Does the question "What is the meaning of life" make sense? That's why it was semi-relevant :P
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Your average TRP dweller:
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
The top post on TRP right now:
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
What does anyone here think of Eugenics?
Telling those of weaker gene pools and lower demographics to abstain from reproduction and contributing to population
And telling those of strong gene pools to procreate as many people as possible with their dominant genes
Hmm... I think Herr Joseph Goebbels from the SS got wind of this...
|
|
|
DB-PGFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 499,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:The top post on TRP right now: He posted on the misc as well.Most thought he was trolling but that turned out differently
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Not surprised to be honest. Too many pathetic cunts despise women for seeing them as they are.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:What does anyone here think of Eugenics?
Telling those of weaker gene pools and lower demographics to abstain from reproduction and contributing to population
And telling those of strong gene pools to procreate as many people as possible with their dominant genes
Hmm... I think Herr Joseph Goebbels from the SS got wind of this... Could be biologically sound, but would make life & love pretty boring.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Condemned666 wrote:What does anyone here think of Eugenics?
Telling those of weaker gene pools and lower demographics to abstain from reproduction and contributing to population
And telling those of strong gene pools to procreate as many people as possible with their dominant genes
Hmm... I think Herr Joseph Goebbels from the SS got wind of this... Could be biologically sound, but would make life & love pretty boring. Sounds like something that suits the Germans to a T ^ Although knowing some Germans... :-k
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:http://m.smh.com.au/world/elliot-rodger-and-the-creepy-world-of-the-pickup-artist-20140528-zrqg1.html
Redpill:oops: I stopped reading after the first line. Rodger was both a madman and a misogynist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Imagine if he were a Muslim too - the narrative would be completely different. As for him being a PUA - he obviously wasn't a very good one.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Delusion coupled with entitlement; the essence of PUA hate, and redpill. Will never understand why such men obsess about sex.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:That ties into what some people I know were arguing on facebook- that, according to them, 'hes not to blame but rather societies sense of male entitlement.' Well that's ridiculous, and completely discounts the fact that he was suffering extreme narcissistic delusions that were exacerbated by his Asbergers Syndrome. MRA, MGTOW or TRP are not about entitlement and I'd be interested in reading any examples of what makes you throw out unsubstantiated claims like that. Humbert, you seem to have your terms mixed up. PUA is what is commonly linked to TRP, and Elliot was part of PUA Hate - a counter-PUA forum.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ the 'experts' in this thread
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me. What language? Rodgers, or the slang used in TRP circles?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me. so whats your solution feminist spokesperson?
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Slang. I can appreciate their frustration but some of them skirt very close to quasi Islamist rhetoric re. women.
The solution is to gauge your expectations. If you are a socially stunted narcissist like our deluded friend, then you shouldn't be altogether surprised if the stunning blondes want nothing to do with you. There is nothing whatsoever mysterious about most women. They are, after all, apes like us with similar interests and desires.
Women don't care remotely about looks as much as men. If you're any of funny, wealthy, distinguished, charming, or witty, then you have a shot at the least.
I sincerely doubt, for example, that most of these 'incels' have ever openly expressed an interest in a woman. More likely they shied away from contact, and then wondered why they weren't noticed.
Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 12:36:10 PM
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me. so whats your solution feminist spokesperson? Is feminist an insult now?
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:lol @ the 'experts' in this thread Good thing you're here now to set the record straight, as you are an expert on everything. -PB
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me. so whats your solution feminist spokesperson? Is feminist an insult now? if you took it that way then perhaps some introspection is required on your part [-x
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Slang. I can appreciate their frustration but some of them skirt very close to quasi Islamist rhetoric re. women.
The solution is to gauge your expectations. If you are a socially stunted narcissist like our deluded friend, then you shouldn't be altogether surprised if the stunning blondes want nothing to do with you. There is nothing whatsoever mysterious about most women. They are, after all, apes like us with similar interests and desires.
Women don't care remotely about looks as much as men. If you're any of funny, wealthy, distinguished, charming, or witty, then you have a shot at the least.
I sincerely doubt, for example, that most of these 'incels' have ever openly expressed an interest in a woman. More likely they shied away from contact, and then wondered why they weren't noticed.
Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 12:36:10 PM None of this explains your assertion that TRP and the MRM are about entitlement to women. I think that you'll find that the movement is far more diverse than you assume it is, and your impulse to rail against it can't be rationalised past "feelpinion".
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Doesn't take much to connect the dots.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
These are conversations happening all over the internet right now. http://i.imgur.com/tInQCse.pngI think, on balance, the extra attention is good for the movement. Most people in the world are able tosee the world in deeper shades than black & white. Just yesterday there was an article on a judge questioning why young men were being persecuted for consensual underage sex acts when women were not. This is the true "essence" of the MRM, not entitlement and rape. Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 01:20:57 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Doesn't take much to connect the dots. What a strange thing to say.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:These are conversations happening all over the internet right now. http://i.imgur.com/tInQCse.pngI think, on balance, the extra attention is good for the movement. Most people in the world are able tosee the world in deeper shades than black & white. Just yesterday there was an article on a judge questioning why young men were being persecuted for consensual underage sex acts when women were not. This is the true "essence" of the MRM, not entitlement and rape. Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 01:20:57 PM I have no qualm with the issues discussed but rather the rhetoric employed and conclusions reached by some within this movement.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:These are conversations happening all over the internet right now. http://i.imgur.com/tInQCse.pngI think, on balance, the extra attention is good for the movement. Most people in the world are able tosee the world in deeper shades than black & white. Just yesterday there was an article on a judge questioning why young men were being persecuted for consensual underage sex acts when women were not. This is the true "essence" of the MRM, not entitlement and rape. Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 01:20:57 PM I have no qualm with the issues discussed but rather the rhetoric employed and conclusions reached by some within this movement. Which rhetoric employed by who? If you're making the argument that an entire movement be discounted because of the bitterness of a few virgins that aren't even part of the movement itself (look up True Forced Loneliness and how the TRP/MGTOW communities feel about them) then your argument is no better than someone advocating for the outlawing of homosexuality because pedophilia exists.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:These are conversations happening all over the internet right now. http://i.imgur.com/tInQCse.pngI think, on balance, the extra attention is good for the movement. Most people in the world are able tosee the world in deeper shades than black & white. Just yesterday there was an article on a judge questioning why young men were being persecuted for consensual underage sex acts when women were not. This is the true "essence" of the MRM, not entitlement and rape. Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 01:20:57 PM I have no qualm with the issues discussed but rather the rhetoric employed and conclusions reached by some within this movement. Which rhetoric employed by who? If you're making the argument that an entire movement be discounted because of the bitterness of a few virgins that aren't even part of the movement itself (look up True Forced Loneliness and how the TRP/MGTOW communities feel about them) then your argument is no better than someone advocating for the outlawing of homosexuality because pedophilia exists. Get a grip lest your delusions take over. Where did I say anything to the effect that I supported outlawing? Your clowning about is becoming less and less endearing. Their introductory manifesto; Greetings, everybody. Welcome to the red pill. We've got almost a hundred subscribers, in exactly two weeks! This is incredible. Why have we grown so quickly? Because there's truth in the red pill. Because men are realizing that the sexual marketplace has shifted away from what we've been taught. Men who grew up over thirty years ago are discovering the world has changed. Men who are still growing up- from the 80s, 90s, and even the last decade, they're starting to realize that what their parents taught them, what television and chick flicks taught them, what church and sunday school taught them... it's all wrong. Our culture has become a feminist culture. A president cannot be elected today without succumbing to the feminist narrative and paying them tribute. How many times has Obama given credit for his manhood to his wife? How many times has the debate hinged on women's pay gap - which is a myth that gets lip service because if you don't you're a misogynist! I'm not here to parade the concepts of Men's Rights- nor am I here to discuss self-improvement tips that /r/seduction now purports are to make you a better man, not get laid more often. I am here to say, for better or for worse, the frame around public discourse is a feminist frame, and we've lost our identity because of it. But this isn't the end of the world. The world is changing, but men are still part of it. We just need to make sure we're changing with it. It's too easy to blame feminism for our troubles. Men, our happiness is our responsibility. Culture has always shifted, it's dynamic and fluid. It has never and will never stay still. Feminism was inevitable. Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women. Women have the right to pursue happiness. Nobody should tell them otherwise. Maximizing happiness is the goal of every living creature on this planet. Men, we need to recognize that since women are rightfully seeking out happiness, evolutionary psychology is more relevant today than ever in the past century. (and possibly longer). We no longer run the show. And I, for one, don't disagree that marriage had to change if we were to see equal rights. But now it's time to get serious and realize that our strategy needs to change. Feminism is a sexual strategy. It puts women into the best position they can find, to select mates, to determine when they want to switch mates, to locate the best dna possible, and to garner the most resources they can individually achieve.The Red Pill is men's sexual strategy. Reality is happening, and we need to make sure that we adjust our strategy accordingly.Welcome to the red pill. It's a difficult pill to swallow, understanding that everything you were taught, everything you were lead to believe is a lie. But once you learn it, internalize it, and start living your new life, it gets better. As an introduction to the topic, I want to outline what our focus is here at /r/theredpill. Mastering Game Game is an important portion of a sexual strategy. A lot of you probably came here from /r/seduction and are probably wondering why we'd need a new subreddit if one dedicated to game already exists. The reason is simple: Game is a facet of The Red Pill's sexual strategy. Determining good game is impossible to do so without first understanding the context given by The Red Pill's framework. Something I keep seeing over on the seduction subreddit is a problem taking over most relationship and sex forums: the desire to feminize the discussion (basically making it sound politically correct if read by a female).Yes, game got a bad reputation from girls who demonize manipulation. This is because game is an effective strategy against their own sexual strategy. I believe women's opposition to game can be attributed to the unconscious factors in women's sexual strategy (Please do read Schedules of Mating When women started becoming vocal about their opposition to game, that's when men decided it would be necessary to make game more politically correct. "Oh, we're not here to manipulate women to have sex with us- we're here to become better men!" And thus, the female imperative took over game. When men think they must define their own sexual strategy in a way that best delivers results to the female sexual strategy, you know your own strategy will suffer! In a game of chess, do I politely not take out the oppositions' queen in hopes not to offend or win the game? Defining the Strategy Because of the necessity to have good game, we must define what good game is. A large portion of Red Pill discussion revolves around evolutionary psychology. Understanding the facets of this psychology are key to developing a good sexual strategy. Because this strategy is useful not only in gaining the attention of the opposite sex, but continuing relationships, having children, and maximizing your own happiness throughout life, I'm going to argue that defining the strategy outside of just "good game" is an important facet of Red Pill Discussion. Acknowledging Reality Finally, I think our focus should always remain on ensuring that we challenge the reality we perceive and discuss precisely and objectively whether or not our beliefs line up with the testable results we can replicate. I am a firm believer that potential success can only be maximized by maximizing your knowledge of the factors surrounding your success. Keeping your eyes closed and ignoring evidence and facts will not benefit you. Opening your eyes and acknowledging everything no matter how good, bad, or painful it may seem, is instrumental in making decisions that will lead to the happiest, most successful outcomes. Distilling it down; - I resent feminism or laughably, our feminist culture. - Pseudo-babble about sexual alienation - I can't get laid. - pop psychology re. evolutionary theory and what it means for sex - the 'game' and how to improve on it I can provide more quotes if need be.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
From required reading;
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. [size=7]There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce [/size](in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.
So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?
This one-page site has more links about the[size=7] brutal tyranny[/size] that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, [size=7]has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks.[/size]
'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.
Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.
[size=8]This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century.[/size] Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, [size=8]without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today.[/size] The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow. [size=7]Men have been killed due to 'feminism'. Children and fathers have been forcibly separated for financial gain via 'feminism'. Slavery has returned to the West via 'feminism'. With all these misandric laws, one can fairly say that misandry is the new Jim Crow.[/size]
'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. [size=8] By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation. [/size]
Concluded with a tawdry apologetic for domestic violence. ](*,)
Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 02:50:21 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Sure, get more quotes.
Will respond in an hour or so.
|
|
|
petszk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
thupercoach wrote: Did you know a university in the US conducted a study and eventually concluded (after long research) that the elephant is a descendant of the mammoth? True story.
Humiliatingly wrong. :oops: The correct statement would be; "Elephants and mammoths have a (relatively recent) common ancestor" just like it is incorrect to say that humans came from chimpanzees. In fact, it's even "more" wrong than the human/chimpanzee comparison, since African elephants branched off before Mammoths and Asian elephants split, so the correct statement would be; "Mammoths and Asian elephants share a (relatively recent) common ancestor. That common ancestor itself shares a (relatively recent) common ancestor with African elephants".
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
i concur with the feminist theredpill do look like a bunch of insecure losers
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Get a grip lest your delusions take over. Where did I say anything to the effect that I supported outlawing? Your clowning about is becoming less and less endearing. I'm going back to the very beginning, because you've conflated a lot of different groups and ideas and have significantly muddied the water on what we are talking about. It's important for you to understand that there are dozens of different mens groups, and they are not all the same and do not work together towards the same goals. Here's just a few that we have already discussed. MRM - Mens Rights Movement: Primarily concerned with highlighting the instances in our modern society where men are actively discriminated against. Usually concerning mental health, family law, affirmative action, "reverse" sexism, misandry and feminist narrative of masculinity. Occasionally, but rarely, overlaps into sexual strategy. TRP - The Red Pill: Primarily concerned with "sexual strategy" and self-improvement. Seeks to teach men to act in their own best interests within the framework of society as it is, not how we wish it to be. Commonly strays into Mens Rights territory. TRP is what piqued my interest in mens issues, and as discussed earlier in the thread has been of noticeable benefit to myself and my family. Become A Man: How-To and challenge community linked to TRP. PUA/Seduction - Pickup Artists: Primarily concerned with "game" and how to sleep with women by any means necessary. As a married man with a kid I have never looked into this community, so can't tell you much about it. I do know that there is a counter-community called PUA Hate which seek to expose PUA practitioners MGTOW - Men Go Their Own Way: Similar to TRP, with the main difference being that these men are not accepting the challenge to live within society as it is, and have chosen to go it alone without the need for relationships or regular romantic interactions with women. TFL - True Forced Loneliness: An extreme fringe group that do blame women for their woes with women. This is the group that Rodger would be most likely to be a member of, if he were connected to ANY mens groups other than PUA Hate. These are the bitter men that can't get a root that you talk about, and are routinely rejected by other mens groups. Going back to my original post on TRP: notorganic wrote:Basically embracing the biological imperative of man and accepting the inherent differences between men and women. I have always been an egalitarian, but have come to understand that equal opportunity does not mandate equal outcome. This view is consistent with most mens groups, although probably not with TFL. I have never seen any MRA say that women do not deserve equality of opportunity with men, and I would be keen to see if you have had a different experience than I have. You went on to post: humbert wrote:http://m.smh.com.au/world/elliot-rodger-and-the-creepy-world-of-the-pickup-artist-20140528-zrqg1.html
Redpill:oops: So, a misrepresentation of who Rodger associated with as well as a conflation of communities and sweeping judgments & assertions with zero rationalised analysis. humbert wrote:Delusion coupled with entitlement; the essence of PUA hate, and redpill. Will never understand why such men obsess about sex. None of these things are the correct essence of PUA (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you typo'd PUA Hate and that you're not completely talking out of your butthole) and Red Pill. No-where have you demonstrated a sense of entitlement, and you have completely ignored the actual thrust of what TRP is (I won't talk to PUA, because like I said I don't have experience with it). humbert wrote:The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.
Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me. If you're talking about TRP specifically here - why read between the lines? Everything is there for you to read IN the lines - there is no implied subtext. If you want to talk about TRP specifically - let's talk about it. I'd even like to talk more about the MRM, because that's what I have been researching more recently further to TRP. But... if you do want to actually discuss TRP and/or MRM, let's actually discuss it. No more talk of Rodger, if you're going to make accusations of misogyny at least try to back it up, and if you are going to make assertions then it would be nice to see you rationalise your way to them. No more attempts to conflate all the above groups into some kind of woman-hating hive-mind. Taking a large chunk of text and bolding the things that you disagree with, without saying why you disagree with them, is not a discussion - it's just projection. humbert wrote:- I resent feminism or laughably, our feminist culture. - Pseudo-babble about sexual alienation - I can't get laid. - pop psychology re. evolutionary theory and what it means for sex - the 'game' and how to improve on it Oversimplifications. Let's discuss further.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
You said something to the effect that I should not make summary judgments based on the actions of a few. I do not and did not. I quoted directly from the recommended reading on RedPill which you have repeatedly praised as having a good influence on your own life.
There are obvious and unfortunate inequities in gender relations which need to be addressed. But one needs to be serious about such things. Conspiratorial delusions about imagined feminist plots aren't the way to go about things for the very simple reason that the merest attempt at rational thinking tends to disprove such notions.
The claim that ours is a feminized culture is self-evidently ridiculous. As is the conspiratorial nonsense about feminists being responsible for the decline of the family. As is the claim that there has never been organised opposition to women's participation in the workforce. As is the cheap and very offensive blabber about Jim Crow discrimination. As is the elevation of contemporary 'misandry' to "right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century."
Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.'
It's a familiar pattern. These delusions do not emanate from a rational mind, but rather from a self evidently delusional one. Just as the man (Afroman) who obsesses about the dangers of the 'jews', RedPill obsesses about the seemingly genocidal intentions of feminists in such a hysterical manner that I can't help but piss on them.
I'm actually disappointed they haven't mentioned Hitler, and the illuminati.
Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 06:23:29 PM
Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 06:27:24 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:You said something to the effect that I should not make summary judgments based on the actions of a few. I do not and did not. I quoted directly from the recommended reading on RedPill which you have repeatedly praised as having a good influence on your own life.
There are obvious and unfortunate inequities in gender relations which need to be addressed. But one needs to be serious about such things. Conspiratorial delusions about imagined feminist plots aren't the way to go about things for the very simple reason that the merest attempt at rational thinking tends to disprove such notions.
The claim that ours is a feminized culture is self-evidently ridiculous. As is the conspiratorial nonsense about feminists being responsible for the decline of the family. As is the claim that there has never been organised opposition to women's participation in the workforce. As is the cheap and very offensive blabber about Jim Crow discrimination. As is the elevation of contemporary 'misandry' to "right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century."
Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.'
It's a familiar pattern. These delusions do not emanate from a rational mind, but rather from a self evidently delusional one. Just as the man (Afroman) who obsesses about the dangers of the 'jews', RedPill obsesses about the seemingly genocidal intentions of feminists in such a hysterical manner that I can't help but piss on them.
I'm actually disappointed they haven't mentioned Hitler, and the illuminati. "x is self-evident" is not an argument. It's also not just men decrying the militant rise of feminism. [youtube]flZoMLZgdUo[/youtube] [youtube]D3TtOpfWsFA[/youtube] Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 06:39:24 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.' I'm assuming that you're referring to this quote. " By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation." I think you're misreading the quote, as I don't see this as making an excuse for domestic violence.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.' I'm assuming that you're referring to this quote. " By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation." I think you're misreading the quote, as I don't see this as making an excuse for domestic violence. I misconstrued nothing. It is what it is.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.' I'm assuming that you're referring to this quote. " By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation." I think you're misreading the quote, as I don't see this as making an excuse for domestic violence. I misconstrued nothing. It is what it is. And its very different than what you're asserting.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.' I'm assuming that you're referring to this quote. " By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation." I think you're misreading the quote, as I don't see this as making an excuse for domestic violence. I misconstrued nothing. It is what it is. And its very different than what you're asserting.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Simply reading between the lines, 'by trying to excuse domestic violence then invite other men to commit domestic violence'.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Simply reading between the lines, 'by trying to excuse domestic violence then invite other men to commit domestic violence'. :roll: there is no such thing as "simply" reading between the lines because you are literally reading into something that is not there.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
If this was a speech against domestic violence then there would be no need for gender specifics. It's making an excuse for men to be violent. End of.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11 wrote:[YouTube]mzXkbJwrN38[/YouTube] Love the "BY THE WAY, HE'S STILL MARRIED" at the end. [youtube]AlvvCYUDHrQ[/youtube]
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11 wrote:[YouTube]mzXkbJwrN38[/YouTube] Oh dear. ](*,)
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
That last Bill Burr bit about arguing with women for some reason had the middle bit cut out - the full bit: [youtube]iNSt3wJXZk0[/youtube]
Edited by notorganic: 30/5/2014 06:54:05 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/04/im-an-anti-sexist-liberal-doctoral-student-wife-and-mother-who-supports-the-mens-rights-movement-over-feminism-heres-why/#5mrscD8U4ArvXlPS.01 Quote:I’m An Anti-Sexist, Liberal Doctoral Student, Wife, And Mother Who Supports The Men’s Rights Movement Over Feminism, Here’s Why
I’m a pro-abortion, pro-marriage equality, anti-racism, anti-sexism, small “L” liberal, doctoral student, wife, mother and woman and I support the Men’s Rights Movement. Here’s why…
Like many, if not most, of my liberal arts educated contemporaries, I spent most of my college years immersed in feminist theories and thoughts, all of which appeared to give me new tools to understand the world I was living in, and suggested concrete ways I might go about changing the parts of the world I didn’t much like. The first inkling that there might be something amiss with my new tools arose when I gave birth to my first child and became a stay-at-home-mother, dependent on my husband for economic security. It wasn’t so much the sneering contempt for my choice that clued me in. I met the ubiquitous “goodness! What do you do all the day?” comments with aplomb, I thought, answering, “the same thing the people you pay to care for your children do all day”. No, it was the frightened, anxious, concerned whispers that gave me my first insight into a culture that doesn’t like or respect men very much.
“But what if he abandons you and the children to starve in the streets? What if he decides to trade you in for a younger model? What will you do if he just disappears?”
The questions were serious. Everyone seemed to know someone who had suffered that fate. Everyone but me. The idea that my husband would just up and leave his children, his wife, his home, his friends, his family – everything we’ve built together over the years, struck me as preposterous. He would have to be a monster to do that! Is that what men are, at heart? Monsters? Just waiting for a chance to destroy the people they love? But what if he just left us in poverty? Took his income and delivered, begrudgingly, whatever the courts ordered and then partied happily with bikini-clad twenty-year olds and left us to struggle to buy food or heat our house or find the money to take our beloved pets to the vet? What if he did that? Again, he would have to be, maybe not a monster, but a seriously cruel, callous person. And he’s not. He’s the most loving, kind, thoughtful, intelligent and caring man I have ever met, which is obviously why I married him. “It happens!” insisted the voices! “All the time!”
But does it?
My own lived experience told me a very different story. Given that nearly 50% of marriages do fail, it was no surprise that marriages around us started to fall apart. But with one single exception, all of those marriages were terminated by the women. The only man I know who initiated his divorce did so only after the violence in his home escalated past shameful and slightly painful to life-threatening, and yes, it was his wife who was the violent domestic partner. It was only after she threw a stoneware dinner plate and cut open his head, nearly severing his carotid artery, that he left. Despite the encouragement of many friends, he refused to file charges against her. It was too humiliating. Besides, who would believe him?
I remember taking my young son to visit the kindergarten class he was supposed to join when the new school year started. He saw a friend from swimming lessons and was overjoyed and they ran towards each other and ended up in a rolling, laughing pile of little kid arms and legs on the floor. The teacher intervened immediately, patiently and kindly explaining that the classroom was strictly no-contact and that wrestling, even play-wrestling was not allowed while two little girls went skipping by, holding hands. I asked her, “if the classroom is strictly no contact, then why are the girls allowed to show affection for one another?” “Oh”, she said, “that’s different. They’re not violent and destructive.”
Violent and destructive.
Two little boys tussling on the floor, having a ball, delighting in each other’s physical company was violent and destructive. But two little girls holding hands and skipping was perfectly fine. Needless to say, he didn’t go to that kindergarten class. He didn’t go to any kindergarten class at all. I kept him home until the second grade, until his unbearable loneliness made me relent. I talk to him about the expectations at school and make sure he understands that they are unfair. School is designed for children who like to sit quietly, learn abstractly and listen carefully. See what I did there? Children. Not girls. Children. It just so happens that most of the children who fit the school’s criteria for “good students” happen to be girls. Not all, by any means. One of my son’s dearest friends is a lovely, bookish boy who much prefers reading and cuddling his kitten to shrieking through the alleyways with water guns, and that’s perfectly okay. There are plenty of girls who prefer to pull things apart to see how they work and put object in motion to understand their physics and jump and bounce and scream. And a whole lot of boys, too.
But they can’t do that. Those bouncy, energetic, tactile, physical children are given a medical diagnosis. Drugged. Stupefied. Pacified. And they are mostly, but not all, boys.
I look at newspapers and see headlines like “Is It The End of Men?” and “Are Men Obsolete?” and then I look out my windows at the men collecting my garbage, the men repairing the broken water main, the men fixing the fallen electrical wires, the men installing windows at the neighbours, the men pouring a driveway, putting on a new roof, framing a house, fitting solar panels, repairing a broken concrete sidewalk and I think “have you lost your minds?” And yes, all those jobs are almost always performed by men. Why? Well that’s an interesting conversation to have, but beginning it by asking “are men obsolete?” is not only insulting, it’s infuriating. I go through my life simply taking for granted that the lights will turn on when I flip a switch, the furnace will kick in when I adjust a thermostat, clean water will flow from my taps when I twist them and my smartphone will keep me up to date with any information I care to know. Do you? Those things are overwhelming provided by men. The food in the grocery stores is driven there mostly by men in refrigerated trucks designed, manufactured, maintained and repaired by mostly men. Why those occupations are dominated by men may be an interesting conversation, but to suggest that the men currently doing them are “obsolete” is deeply offensive.
I hear the word “patriarchy” and I want to laugh. What patriarchy? Are you sure you don’t mean oligarchy? There is absolutely a small class of individuals who exercise disproportionate power and control over the rest of us, but those individuals are more appropriately recognized by class, not gender. Rich women seem no more likely to concern themselves with the plight of poor women, or women of color, or women struggling for access to adequate food or medical care or shelter than rich men. Do you think Sheryl Sandberg pays her nanny a living wage with full benefits? Does Marissa Meyers? Does any rich woman?
But all I hear from feminists is “patriarchy”. Male power. Male privilege. Male influence. Male authority. Which males? Which men have this power and authority and privilege and influence? Is it black men, hispanic men, white men from poor backgrounds, all of whom are disproportionately incarcerated and denied educations that reflect their talents, understandings, and needs? Is it homeless men? Gay men? Transgender men? Illegal immigrant men? Middle-class men struggling to hang on to houses with mortgages that will never be paid? Is it the vast majority of men?
I don’t see feminism attempting to answer any of these questions, other than to say, “patriarchy”, as if that means something important. I find it highly ironic that the feminist dislike of victim-blaming does not extend to men. Patriarchy = the rule of men = problems for men, too = it’s your fault, since you’re a man. This is a laughably inadequate explanation. The real problem for both men and women alike is that there is an increasingly powerful upper class in our society that is brutally exploiting and profiting from the labor of the poor(er) majority. It’s far more comfortable to blame “patriarchy” when the reality is that the rich, both men and women alike, are the real problem.
The only place I have encountered any willingness to set aside a conspiracy of wide-spread, omnipresent male power that ruthlessly exploits female powerlessness is the Men’s Rights Movement. Once “patriarchy” is discarded as a viable explanation, a far more nuanced and complex analysis proceeds. I may not agree with every single thing ever written or uttered by self-identified MRA but since when is that a requirement of feeling part of a general movement? Does every self-identified feminist agree 100% with every word ever uttered by any feminist in history? Of course not.
Men are lacking some very, very basic rights. The right to an education that doesn’t require them to be stupefied with drugs to participate. The right to choose parenthood. The right to have their healthcare equally funded. The right to equal sentencing under the law. The right to parent their children when relationships fall apart. The right to be considered something other than “obsolete”. Do rich men have these rights? Of course they do. The rich always have all the rights they need. But most men aren’t rich. Neither are most women.
And as long as feminism is going to hold on to the “patriarchy” as an explanation for why so many men are suffering, rather than looking at the real economic, social, political and cultural reasons for that suffering I will continue to turn my back on it. What is the point engaging with a movement that thinks 50% of our human population just might be “obsolete”? I’m much more interested in engaging with a movement that begins with the assumption that men and boys are human beings, and human beings cannot be disposed of, like machinery that is no longer useful or worn down. I’m with the Men’s Rights Movement, and I’m quite comfortable here.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
MGTOW community figure Sandman is getting doxed for calling Rodger a feminist to highlight the idiocy of calling him an MRA.
Also contains a more succinct explanation of MGTOW than I mustered. [youtube]3GXKJ4pS9aw[/youtube]
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Anecdote masquerading as analysis. I've said it before, there are things that I dislike in modern society;
- the immediate presumption that men working with children are potential paedophiles for example - hypocrisy regarding violence - unequal custodial arrangements
This is all good stuff, but then she pisses it all away by deriding 'feminism' as responsible for it all. As if there were one feminism dominated by cock hating dikes.
Clearly has a straw man understanding of feminism.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Anecdote masquerading as analysis. I've said it before, there are things that I dislike in modern society;
- the immediate presumption that men working with children are potential paedophiles for example - hypocrisy regarding violence - unequal custodial arrangements
This is all good stuff, but then she pisses it all away by deriding 'feminism' as responsible for it all. As if there were one feminism dominated by cock hating dikes.
Clearly has a straw man understanding of feminism. What's the true definition of feminism then, humbert?
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Whilst there are legitimate concerns regarding double standards in our society that affect men, it is still my belief that being a man in a western country makes me very lucky. Women still have to deal with more issues in my opinion. The right to wear what she wants without being judged, the right to walk down the street without feeling threatened or frightened, the right to not be discriminated against in the workplace, the right to not be harassed when she goes out with friends.
I feel men should be more concerned about creating a culture that not only respects other men, but one that respects women too. A real man respects women, and a real woman will respect him back.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:A real man respects women, and a real woman will respect him back. Shouldn't the default position be mutual respect, rather than a man needing to proactively win the reciprocal respect of a woman? u4486662 wrote:Women still have to deal with more issues in my opinion. Other than the debatable issues that you listed (there are laws against workplace discrimination, women judge each other on what they wear far more than men judge them etc.), are there any other issues that you think women have to deal with? For me, I don't see it as a zero sum game as some do and I'm happy to support womens issues (and have been accused of being a "leftist" for voicing those opinions) where they exist, but do think that on balance the battle for equality of opportunity has already been won and is now straying too far the other direction.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ too far the other direction
of course quotas and affirmative action etc are a bad idea however almost every woman on the planet has had to deal with some kind of sexual harassment in everyday life.
thats the reality that men dont appreciate because we dont experience it first hand.
my opinion there is nothing wrong with admiring women's physical attributes...even talking about it among ourselves.. but when it becomes a physical or verbal harassment its going too far as women are in constant fear of physical harm that men will never know
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol:
ricecrackers taking the alternate stance is probably the biggest confirmation bias an argument could receive.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote::lol:
ricecrackers taking the alternate stance is probably the biggest confirmation bias an argument could receive. i pegged you for an idiot a long time ago
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:Anecdote masquerading as analysis. I've said it before, there are things that I dislike in modern society;
- the immediate presumption that men working with children are potential paedophiles for example - hypocrisy regarding violence - unequal custodial arrangements
This is all good stuff, but then she pisses it all away by deriding 'feminism' as responsible for it all. As if there were one feminism dominated by cock hating dikes.
Clearly has a straw man understanding of feminism. What's the true definition of feminism then, humbert? As you well know, feminism is many things; a fact which most of these people keep on not getting.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:lol @ too far the other direction
of course quotas and affirmative action etc are a bad idea however almost every woman on the planet has had to deal with some kind of sexual harassment in everyday life.
thats the reality that men dont appreciate because we dont experience it first hand.
my opinion there is nothing wrong with admiring women's physical attributes...even talking about it among ourselves.. but when it becomes a physical or verbal harassment its going too far as women are in constant fear of physical harm that men will never know Fml, rickecrackers talking sense. :lol: =d> =d>
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
I always talk sense its not always apparent to some however
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:I always talk sense its not always apparent to some however A broken clock is right twice a day...
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:I always talk sense its not always apparent to some however A broken clock is right twice a day... =d>
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:lol @ too far the other direction
of course quotas and affirmative action etc are a bad idea however almost every woman on the planet has had to deal with some kind of sexual harassment in everyday life.
thats the reality that men dont appreciate because we dont experience it first hand.
my opinion there is nothing wrong with admiring women's physical attributes...even talking about it among ourselves.. but when it becomes a physical or verbal harassment its going too far as women are in constant fear of physical harm that men will never know Fml, rickecrackers talking sense. :lol: =d> =d> I imagine it's a familiar feeling to what ALP supporters feel when listening to Clive Palmer speeches lately.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:Anecdote masquerading as analysis. I've said it before, there are things that I dislike in modern society;
- the immediate presumption that men working with children are potential paedophiles for example - hypocrisy regarding violence - unequal custodial arrangements
This is all good stuff, but then she pisses it all away by deriding 'feminism' as responsible for it all. As if there were one feminism dominated by cock hating dikes.
Clearly has a straw man understanding of feminism. What's the true definition of feminism then, humbert? As you well know, feminism is many things; a fact which most of these people keep on not getting. How so, and what reference are you using for "most"?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:I always talk sense its not always apparent to some however A broken clock is right twice a day... a drone comment not sure what your issue is. i often agree with your positions... not always but often Edited by ricecrackers: 30/5/2014 09:57:01 PM
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:433 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:I always talk sense its not always apparent to some however A broken clock is right twice a day... a drone comment not sure what your issue is. i often agree with your positions... not always but often Edited by ricecrackers: 30/5/2014 09:57:01 PM It was in jest. ;) Edited by 433: 30/5/2014 11:27:22 PM
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:of course quotas and affirmative action etc are a bad idea however almost every woman on the planet has had to deal with some kind of sexual harassment in everyday life.
thats the reality that men dont appreciate because we dont experience it first hand. Of course they do. It's just less prevalent. I've seen plenty of male bar staff groped inappropriately by middle aged women. If it was the other way around all hell would break lose but as a guy you're expected to just deal with it. That's just a small segment of society but to say "men don't experience it first hand" is entirely untrue. I think in the case of men it's actually worse because there's a social stigma that men always want sex and there's no such thing as unwanted sexual advances from women, so in the event that it does occur it's inevitably dismissed. ricecrackers wrote:i pegged you for an idiot a long time ago It must be hard for you and your inflated sense of self importance posting on a forum populated exclusively by people who disagree with you and who are therefore idiots. If I was you I'd quit the forums.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
As I said the other day, the extra exposure has been massive for the movement and the irrational hatred pushed by feminist's in major media outlets has only amplified the positive effect. All MRM communities that I follow are currently littered with posts and comments from new people (about 50/50 men/women) saying "I came here to see the hatred for myself, but after not seeing any hatred and agreeing with the objectives, I think I am now an MRA/TRP/MGTOW/Ally".
Meanwhile, feminism subreddits are actively banning anyone not following the hivemind, driving further traffic to the MRM. It's very gratifying.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Feminists threaten staff of the hotel hosting Men's Rights conference with violence and harassment. http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/Letter from the hotel is linked in the article.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I wonder what would happen if you petitioned for feminist groups to be listed as terrorists after this :lol:
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:I wonder what would happen if you petitioned for feminist groups to be listed as terrorists after this :lol: There's certainly much more justification than for the MRM to be labelled such.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:I wonder what would happen if you petitioned for feminist groups to be listed as terrorists after this :lol: There's certainly much more justification than for the MRM to be labelled such. They're both stupid movements as far as I'm concerned. Placing the importance of one gender over the other defeats the purpose of the whole discussion.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. It shouldn't be a case of men's rights or women's rights, it's simple human rights and equal opportunity for both genders.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. False. Edited by notorganic: 31/5/2014 04:45:43 PM
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. False. Edited by notorganic: 31/5/2014 04:45:43 PM Good rebuttal. =d> =d> =d> Real depth of contention there.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. It shouldn't be a case of men's rights or women's rights, it's simple human rights and equal opportunity for both genders. What a load of populist drivel :lol:
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]hWiBt-pqp0E [/youtube]
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. False. Edited by notorganic: 31/5/2014 04:45:43 PM Good rebuttal. =d> =d> =d> Real depth of contention there. Only in-depth assertions require in-depth rebuttals. To say that being an MRA pisses on women's suffrage both completely ignores fact and comes directly from the scouse_roar playbook of "if I say somethingooutrageously stupid and unfounded over and over it doesn't require any actual evidence". Even writing "false" was more than your idiocy deserved, really.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:agree but that point of view will drowned out by one side more than the other. If you even remotely agree with the MRM you're labelled anti women Frankly, you are. If you're MRA you flagrantly piss in the face of the problems that women have battled against for the last two centuries. Men have never had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for an education, or fight for the right to determine what happens to their bodies. While I find the feminist movement to be often populated by annoying, petty, and bigoted women who do more damage to the cause than good, it's hard to pretend that men's "rights" is even on the same plane of contention. False. Edited by notorganic: 31/5/2014 04:45:43 PM Good rebuttal. =d> =d> =d> Real depth of contention there. Only in-depth assertions require in-depth rebuttals. To say that being an MRA pisses on women's suffrage both completely ignores fact and comes directly from the scouse_roar playbook of "if I say somethingooutrageously stupid and unfounded over and over it doesn't require any actual evidence". Even writing "false" was more than your idiocy deserved, really. You're right, it's completely unfounded of me to point out that men have never had to fight for the right to vote, be educated or determine the fate of their own body. How idiotic of me to think that men's and women's rights bickering with each other are the correct flagships for gender equality.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Correct, although we're all used to a certain level of idiocy from you so let's all move on.
|
|
|
quichefc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 832,
Visits: 0
|
Interesting thread that I've mostly dipped in and out of but haven't contributed much...
On the topic of men's rights movement...
Men are losing (and in some instances have lost) control of aspects of the society that they have predominantly created. It should be said that while it's true that they created it was predominantly done so with the exclusion of women not because women didn't want to contribute... if women were able to contribute at an earlier juncture a feminist movement might never have had to eventuate.
This said I've not heard of too many women (there are some and they are generally backed by women's advocacy groups) that have complained about not having to go/being able to war to fight for their country and way of life... having said this war is very much a men's way of solving political impasse's...
If women created our society what would we have and what might men have had to fight for - aside from perhaps the right to act with brutality when threatened...?
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Correct, although we're all used to a certain level of idiocy from you so let's all move on. So you're denying those things ever happened?
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:Correct, although we're all used to a certain level of idiocy from you so let's all move on. So you're denying those things ever happened? I'm denying that there is anything useful to gain in engaging straw men from you.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
quichefc wrote:Interesting thread that I've mostly dipped in and out of but haven't contributed much...
On the topic of men's rights movement...
Men are losing (and in some instances have lost) control of aspects of the society that they have predominantly created. It should be said that while it's true that they created it was predominantly done so with the exclusion of women not because women didn't want to contribute... if women were able to contribute at an earlier juncture a feminist movement might never have had to eventuate.
This said I've not heard of too many women (there are some and they are generally backed by women's advocacy groups) that have complained about not having to go/being able to war to fight for their country and way of life... having said this war is very much a men's way of solving political impasse's...
If women created our society what would we have and what might men have had to fight for - aside from perhaps the right to act with brutality when threatened...? Fair analysis, although I don't think that men are decrying the loss of "control", as that implies that women are not entitled to self-determination.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]mdsXG10wln8[/youtube]
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
quichefc wrote:Interesting thread that I've mostly dipped in and out of but haven't contributed much...
On the topic of men's rights movement...
Men are losing (and in some instances have lost) control of aspects of the society that they have predominantly created. It should be said that while it's true that they created it was predominantly done so with the exclusion of women not because women didn't want to contribute... if women were able to contribute at an earlier juncture a feminist movement might never have had to eventuate.
This said I've not heard of too many women (there are some and they are generally backed by women's advocacy groups) that have complained about not having to go/being able to war to fight for their country and way of life... having said this war is very much a men's way of solving political impasse's...
If women created our society what would we have and what might men have had to fight for - aside from perhaps the right to act with brutality when threatened...? From an evolutionary perspective, I still think our society has been formed by women. Thats why we are more like Bonobos rather then Chimpanzees, although we have aspects of the latter.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118036/sexist-pseudoscience-alpha-male-pick-artists Amazing article. Truly amazing. Well done finding it. Starts off with a cherry picked quote from Rodger's manifesto with an unrelated drop-quote in brackets and a small transcript of trolls uncovered by a "journalist" from a prominent feminist site well known for making up facts to suit the agenda as it pleases. Goes onto the familiar disrespectful dismissal of Rodger's mental illness and delusional misanthropy in favour of exclusive misogyny. Sweeps into a false link to PUA. Discusses one PUA theory for a little bit without any real analysis. Hooks onto a particular word - "alpha" One useful sentence, that is then just as casually disregarded: Quote:What makes someone alpha depends upon who is asked, but the rule of thumb seems to be it’s related to whatever constitutes mainstream, attractive heterosexual masculinity in Western society: standing up straight, wearing clean clothes, no spitting, presenting as physically and emotionally “normal.” It’s not necessarily about being physically strongest or smartest, but being strong or smart enough to usurp a rival’s position or to make oneself the only attractive option in the club. Sweeps into a false link to TRP and the entire MRM. Confused false equivalency rebuttal to animal social structures. Links to several studies that do little to rebut the value of the above description of alpha, and rather does a better argument against modern radical feminism. Confused discussion of physical attraction. A complete mess of a tie-in back to the actions of Rodger, and a false conclusion about what an "alpha" assumes he has the right to do which draws on nothing factual and everything emotional feminist rhetoric.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
you're going to end up on a watchlist mate
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:humbert wrote:http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118036/sexist-pseudoscience-alpha-male-pick-artists Amazing article. Truly amazing. Well done finding it. Starts off with a cherry picked quote from Rodger's manifesto with an unrelated drop-quote in brackets and a small transcript of trolls uncovered by a "journalist" from a prominent feminist site well known for making up facts to suit the agenda as it pleases. Goes onto the familiar disrespectful dismissal of Rodger's mental illness and delusional misanthropy in favour of exclusive misogyny. Sweeps into a false link to PUA. Discusses one PUA theory for a little bit without any real analysis. Hooks onto a particular word - "alpha" One useful sentence, that is then just as casually disregarded: Quote:What makes someone alpha depends upon who is asked, but the rule of thumb seems to be it’s related to whatever constitutes mainstream, attractive heterosexual masculinity in Western society: standing up straight, wearing clean clothes, no spitting, presenting as physically and emotionally “normal.” It’s not necessarily about being physically strongest or smartest, but being strong or smart enough to usurp a rival’s position or to make oneself the only attractive option in the club. Sweeps into a false link to TRP and the entire MRM. Confused false equivalency rebuttal to animal social structures. Links to several studies that do little to rebut the value of the above description of alpha, and rather does a better argument against modern radical feminism. Confused discussion of physical attraction. A complete mess of a tie-in back to the actions of Rodger, and a false conclusion about what an "alpha" assumes he has the right to do which draws on nothing factual and everything emotional feminist rhetoric. Delusional.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Your insult slinging is no longer "endearing" (that was the word that you used, wasn't it?)
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Be that as it may, you've been found a fraud. Your claims have been systematically ridiculed over the past few pages, and yet you persist with this nonsense about redpill, PUAhate, and others not being misogynistic. Though reading back into your elaborate claims about feminism, I should have known better than to engage with you at all.
Let us end with this;
1 - Don't blame women if they don't want to have sex with you. 2 - 'Feminism' is not responsible for your inadequacy, you are. 3 - Pop psychology and pseudo-biology is your friend. 4 - Be all the Alpha you can be. 5 - There is no global feminist conspiracy to emasculate men. 6 - No, feminists are not planning a genocide.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:Be that as it may, you've been found a fraud. Your claims have been systematically ridiculed over the past few pages, and yet you persist with this nonsense about redpill, PUAhate, and others not being misogynistic. Though reading back into your elaborate claims about feminism, I should have known better than to engage with you at all.
Let us end with this;
1 - Don't blame women if they don't want to have sex with you. 2 - 'Feminism' is not responsible for your inadequacy, you are. 3 - Pop psychology and pseudo-biology is your friend. 4 - Be all the Alpha you can be. 5 - There is no global feminist conspiracy to emasculate men. 6 - No, feminists are not planning a genocide. I can't handle all these strawmen :lol:
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I should find links to the forum discussions where feminists were discussing a male genocide. Would that make you a fraud, humbert?
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]nvYyGTmcP80[/youtube]
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
you should get a girlfriend mate
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:you should get a girlfriend mate I tried, but the wife wouldn't let me.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you should get a girlfriend mate I tried, but the wife wouldn't let me. "the wife" you speak of her as an object
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I just had a big wave of deja vu.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:I just had a big wave of deja vu. i suspect you can get medication for that Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 05:40:16 PM
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Somehow I don't think so.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]SgbgxB9O6AM[/youtube]
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Did you ever read the SCUM manifesto, humbert?
More strawman feminism?
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Did you ever read the SCUM manifesto, humbert?
More strawman feminism? Would it help if I drew you a picture? There is no 'one' feminism; this really is something people learn in high school. In the converse, you referred to redpill as a source of considerable insight. I proved direct quotes from redpill's recommended reading to gruesome effect - conspiracy theories, 'genocides', misogyny, etc etc. Are you now willing to distance yourself from redpill?
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Did you watch the Jehovah's Feminists video?
Btw, nothing you have posted has been to "gruesome effect". I'm sorry that you have that delusion.
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you should get a girlfriend mate I tried, but the wife wouldn't let me. I lolled.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I love how for YEARS notorganic has campaigned aggressively against the catholic church for providing a platform for pedophiles. The few bad eggs in the organisation were grounds for the entire organisation's public lynching.
Now with MRA's under the spotlight he is unwavering in defending redpill and other similar philosophies despite strong evidence that they provide a breeding ground for sexism, misogyny, domestic violence and mental illness.
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Well said.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
If only. Clearly neither of you watched the Jehovah's Feminists video, because it addresses both of the most recent points that you have made. Posting text showing disdain for feminisms effect on our society is not indicative of misogyny - that implies that all women are feminists - clearly they are not. No other evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the MRM and/or TRP encourage and "breed" sexism, domestic violence and (bizarrely) mental illness. Excellent work throwing your lot in with Mr Contrarian himself. Perhaps his wikipedia skills will be of use to your mangina.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
congrats, you've managed to unite several people with no love for one another against your disturbing new obsession
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:No other evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the MRM and/or TRP encourage and "breed" sexism, domestic violence and (bizarrely) mental illness. Like This thread which says rapists who are beaten in self defence are victims. Or This thread making sweeping generalisations that all white women are 'protected' their entire lives. Alternatively This wonderful piece attacking a woman for having the audacity to have changing tastes and life expectations. Of course there's also captain charming suggesting the best way to a happy relationship is to 'wave your dick in her face'.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:No other evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the MRM and/or TRP encourage and "breed" sexism, domestic violence and (bizarrely) mental illness. Like This thread which says rapists who are beaten in self defence are victims. Or This thread making sweeping generalisations that all white women are 'protected' their entire lives. Alternatively This wonderful piece attacking a woman for having the audacity to have changing tastes and life expectations. Of course there's also captain charming suggesting the best way to a happy relationship is to 'wave your dick in her face'. Did you forget to log back into your multi?
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:No other evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the MRM and/or TRP encourage and "breed" sexism, domestic violence and (bizarrely) mental illness. Like This thread which says rapists who are beaten in self defence are victims. Or This thread making sweeping generalisations that all white women are 'protected' their entire lives. Alternatively This wonderful piece attacking a woman for having the audacity to have changing tastes and life expectations. Of course there's also captain charming suggesting the best way to a happy relationship is to 'wave your dick in her face'. Did you forget to log back into your multi? Yeah my mistake, that should have been posted from my Kevin Airs account.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Nice try though.
Even if those links even remotely said what you say (they don't, you twat, certainly not to anyone able to read), you're of course inconsistent in your arguments after basing your objection of a few bad apples not spoiling the bunch.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
If you can't see what these people are saying, I weep for the deterioration of your already damaged mental state. LastRevision wrote:So, clearly, teaching men "not to rape" is the answer, because this lesson is what a potential rapist would listen to the most.
They, too, are a victim. Green_Square wrote:The two white women? They lose their shit and hide, leaving everyone else to protect them. Why? Because they've been protected their entire lives. chakravanti93 wrote:HolographicWhaleTail wrote:Shit, I'd just wave my dick in her face, to be honest. Why not? Worked for that guy. I'm not even going to get started on 'The Archetypal modern woman'. An article attacking a woman for deciding to settle down. That's the very definition of pathetic. And despite the fact that for years you've been attacking the catholic church for the antisocial behaviour of a few, you condone this movement despite equally antisocial behaviour.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Like I said, anyone that can read will see your pathetic contextual cherry picking for what it is.
Nice try though. Really.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
It's amazing how every time someone says something bat about TRP they're "Contextual cherry picking". It happens an awful lot for a group that's apparently so infallible.
|
|
|
stefcep
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
@afroman. Whether you like it or not there is a push against feminism. (And please don't play the "what is feminism" game.)
Contrary to what you might think, that movement isn't about promoting misogyny.
Its about promoting issues which are important to men, the role of men and the recognition of the enormous value to society of the contributions of men.
All of which are things that feminism has eroded over time, despite the rhetoric from feminists that feminism is good for both men women.
If you want a glimpse of the future, the Nordic states are the poster nations for what feminism and affirmative action can achieve. Highest taxing, most expensive to live in, high school and tertiary education favouring females. The Swedish government on its own web page admits they have problem of reverse-sexism!
Not sure if you have kids of your own, but I've raise a boy to the age of 18, and I can say categorically that the education system is designed to meet the needs of girls over boys. And as a young adult male, he is then subject to relationship laws that grossly favour females. As a married man who one day may be a father, he has very little protection and rights in the family unit under the law.
So fuck yeah, the backlash and the re-setting of the pendulum is well over due, and good on these guys who despite having the odds stack against them are trying to change things.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
stefcep wrote:Whether you like it or not there is a push against feminism. I've noticed this as well. Whenever someone brings up the fact that they're a feminist, the general consensus is an eye-roll and "what a whiny c*unt". Feminism has become a dirty word nowadays, because its laudable initial intention (to bring the rights of women to parity with men) has been driven to a culture of men-hating by social justice warriors pushing far left agendas.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism.
The idea that one gender needs special consideration over another is absurd. Labels like "men's rights activism" and "feminism", and phrases like "femi-nazi" and the ilk are the very reason that gender equality is not achievable in society.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ "gender equality"
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:stefcep wrote:Whether you like it or not there is a push against feminism. I've noticed this as well. Whenever someone brings up the fact that they're a feminist, the general consensus is an eye-roll and "what a whiny c*unt". Feminism has become a dirty word nowadays, because its laudable initial intention (to bring the rights of women to parity with men) has been driven to a culture of men-hating by social justice warriors pushing far left agendas. The feminist movement has been sullied by the likes of Germaine Greer being touted as the face of the movement with the aggressive man-hating diatribes she spouts.
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
No feminist is anywhere near annoying as TheAmazingAtheist
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
marconi101 wrote:No feminist is anywhere near annoying as TheAmazingAtheist Kind of reminds me of scouse.
|
|
|
stefcep
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism. Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women. BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men. Quote: The idea that one gender needs special consideration over another is absurd. Labels like "men's rights activism" and "feminism", and phrases like "femi-nazi" and the ilk are the very reason that gender equality is not achievable in society.
Gender equality is not achievable because the natural roles and abilities of women and men are not equal and the same, end of. Women will always give birth, and infants will always need their mothers first and foremost. But me's roles are also every bit as vital. What I object is how in the last couple of decades the roles of men have gone under-appreciated, and totally de-valued. Men are often depicted as bafoons when it comes to family life. OTOH the role of women in family life has been placed on a pedestal. As Uni friend years ago once said to a rampant feminist tutor on the difficulties of stay at home mums raising children: " Yeah, its tough putting the bowl of cereal on their table, packing a cut lunch or handing them lunch money, then driving 15 minutes to school and back, and deciding how to fill the next 5 hours, and cooking a crappy dinner, but try paying for the roof over your heads, clothes on your backs, food on your plates, your fully-maintained car, the school fees, books uniforms, the rates, the power, gas water, your annual holidays, home repairs, security, and then we'll meet you half way" Its funny how women in role reversal relationships often resent their partners for the above reasons! Men mostly accept that role and enjoy being the providers- but where is the recognition in their own homes, in the media and in the law? This is what makes men angry and bitter! This is what gives rise to MRA's. And good on them!
|
|
|
quichefc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 832,
Visits: 0
|
I am enjoying the debate and can genuinely see reason in both sides of the debate...
Men are generally locked out of the discussion on a lot of matters that affect them and the way they wish to contribute to family life, parent, engage with the rest of society in a traditional kind of way - you need only look at how men in Indigenous communities have had their traditional roles challenged/completely destroyed and the devastating impact it has had on their sense of worth and contribution in the modern age... the de-valueing of men in the modern world is a genuine challenge that can't simply be laughed off as women-hating or misogynism...
Women on the other hand have for centuries been living at the whim of their fathers/husbands and only in the last 100-150 years or so have they truly been able to have their voice and opinions heard and mostly respected. The 1960's was a watershed decade for feminism and bringing women's voice and genuine desire for equity of opportunity (different to equality). However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries.
Interesting times ahead... can't say I can predict a 'winner'.
Can we move to a new topic soon please - 'philosophy thread' presumes a number of topics could be discussed.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters? -PB
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
marconi101 wrote:No feminist is anywhere near annoying as TheAmazingAtheist As annoying as TAA is, I can think of a couple ;)
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?
-PB I want more of it.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?
-PB I want more of it. But money controls us, would we want to be controlled more by its grip on our lives? -PB
|
|
|
f1worldchamp
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar.
As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary.
Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Could quite be the first time I've 100% agreed on something you've posted.... paulbagzFC wrote: What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?
-PB
You can't always make more, but you can certainly spend less.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. I agree men get the raw end of the deal in these situations but I've always had the impression that it's more to do with the antiquated notion of women being better care givers. The woman having the majority of custody and the man paying child support has been like that for a very long time. I'm no expert in family law so happy to be corrected.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
f1worldchamp
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:I agree men get the raw end of the deal in these situations but I've always had the impression that it's more to do with the antiquated notion of women being better care givers. The woman having the majority of custody and the man paying child support has been like that for a very long time.
I'm no expert in family law so happy to be corrected. A cynic would suggest while feminists rail against stereotypes of women, ones like you point out about being better care givers are conveniently ignored as it serves their cause. While the stereotype of men being useless at child rearing is perpetuated.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
f1worldchamp wrote:mcjules wrote:I agree men get the raw end of the deal in these situations but I've always had the impression that it's more to do with the antiquated notion of women being better care givers. The woman having the majority of custody and the man paying child support has been like that for a very long time.
I'm no expert in family law so happy to be corrected. A cynic would suggest while feminists rail against stereotypes of women, ones like you point out about being better care givers are conveniently ignored as it serves their cause. While the stereotype of men being useless at child rearing is perpetuated. Yes I agree, from the most militant of types especially. There's a lot of me first going on. I personally don't have a lot of time for these activist groups. To the worst feminists, MRA groups saying men are discriminated against in certain aspects of life suggests to them that women aren't which seems to piss them off greatly. The same goes for the worst of the MRA groups. The reality is most of the things that I think are worth fighting for are complimentary/
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
stefcep wrote:afromanGT wrote:The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism. Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women. BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men. So we've allowed both the word feminism and sexism to become convoluted and hijacked by the aggressive anti-male movement of certain modern women. Which raises the question; exactly what the fuck is going on with society when words don't even mean what they're meant to any more?
|
|
|
quichefc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 832,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?
-PB My wife and I never argue about money and that is something that I'm so relieved about. I work in the community sector and have never earnt a large wage. We live fairly modestly but yes I do wish I could got on holidays more frequently or for longer... but otherwise I'm happy with my lot. It does concern me (concern is not the right word cos I don't actually stay awake and worry about this) but the things people put money ahead of does surprise me at times. I've elected to work a 4 day week cos my time is more valuable than the extra money.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I'd do anything for money. But I won't do that.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:stefcep wrote:afromanGT wrote:The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism. Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women. BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men. So we've allowed both the word feminism and sexism to become convoluted and hijacked by the aggressive anti-male movement of certain modern women. Which raises the question; exactly what the fuck is going on with society when words don't even mean what they're meant to any more? Word's don't "mean" anything objective: they're a collection of vocal noises to which we assign arbitrary meaning. 2deep4u
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube]
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:afromanGT wrote:stefcep wrote:afromanGT wrote:The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism. Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women. BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men. So we've allowed both the word feminism and sexism to become convoluted and hijacked by the aggressive anti-male movement of certain modern women. Which raises the question; exactly what the fuck is going on with society when words don't even mean what they're meant to any more? Word's don't "mean" anything objective: they're a collection of vocal noises to which we assign arbitrary meaning. 2deep4u To which end I from now on assign 433 the 'arbitrary meaning' of 'cockhead'.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:433 wrote:afromanGT wrote:stefcep wrote:afromanGT wrote:The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism. Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women. BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men. So we've allowed both the word feminism and sexism to become convoluted and hijacked by the aggressive anti-male movement of certain modern women. Which raises the question; exactly what the fuck is going on with society when words don't even mean what they're meant to any more? Word's don't "mean" anything objective: they're a collection of vocal noises to which we assign arbitrary meaning. 2deep4u To which end I from now on assign 433 the 'arbitrary meaning' of 'cockhead'. Look what thread you're in mate, we're allowed the license to delve into this sort of shit :lol:
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube] pwned.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
What do people think of Social Darwinism?
Even though Charles Darwin has debunked the Church and Intelligent Design with the thinking humans evolved from monkeys, there is an extreme form to this train of thought were there's Racism, Eugenics, Fascism, Nazism which is part and parcel that the evolution of man means "the weak should be left behind", and the strong shall inherit the earth
Evidence? The acts of Genocide in Australia where it was the European settlers with their advanced technologies would wipe out the indigenous population's inability to adapt, evolve to this change
Charles Darwin didnt know the land mine he stepped on when he voiced this
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:Charles Darwin didnt know the land mine he stepped on when he voiced this Much better to stay in the vast intellectualist and social egalitarian Dark Ages?
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Condemned666 wrote:Charles Darwin didnt know the land mine he stepped on when he voiced this Much better to stay in the vast intellectualist and social egalitarian Dark Ages? Hey, it works for Tony Abbott! *tidiboomtish!*
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Solipsism
Its an expansion of the human philosophy of Epistemology-> "How you know what you know" without knowing what someone else knows what they know- thus in turn it means you know nothing
But just watching the shots of those children crying in the stands at the World Cup Semi Final had me thinking people from South America would see an event like the world cup to be the most hedonistic experience (hedonism means - pleasure is good) in life. Even though life is more random, and how seldom is everything about something
But in terms of making a psycho-philosophical analysis to children crying in the stands - in terms of their epistemology - it pinpoints the moment a child's innocence has died; where resentment begins to be harboured; the cynicism of adulthood commences.
All of which comes despite the fact everything that was going on in the middle of the pitch between the two football teams had nothing to do with them
Hmm... I wont be going to a holiday to Brazil anytime soon :-K
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Anthropomorphism Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes - from afromanpedia.org All gods and spiritual entities are personifications which humanity invents within the natural world so as to make it more understandable and comfortable to reside in, especially with the the biological fact of death.
I tested this and other theories out when I did shrooms last week. Interesting to note the molecular similarities between psilocybin and DMT, which I think is absolutely fascinating. What really struck me was that my mind itself was also experiencing the same effects as my senses were, which has never happened before as I would usually experience the trip via my senses and process it with my mind which would be relatively normal during the event. The whole time was very dreamlike and was devoid of any ulterior meaning apart from having fun and creating something (2deep4me). My early conclusion is that personification is a big human psychological trait, and has a relative truth to it much like language, as it is an invention to understand, a tool made by a tool-making species to assist in its survival. The best thought I had was that the mind is a projection of the outside world, all self archetypes are based off our Sun, and that the best way to avoid trembling and suffering in the mind is to constantly keep moving and remain ecstatic. The universe, it seems, only exists because it is ecstatic (obviously)
As for solipsism, it is complete bullshit. I would love to see a room full of solipsists arguing about which one of them is really there.
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:Solipsism
Its an expansion of the human philosophy of Epistemology-> "How you know what you know" without knowing what someone else knows what they know- thus in turn it means you know nothing
But just watching the shots of those children crying in the stands at the World Cup Semi Final had me thinking people from South America would see an event like the world cup to be the most hedonistic experience (hedonism means - pleasure is good) in life. Even though life is more random, and how seldom is everything about something
But in terms of making a psycho-philosophical analysis to children crying in the stands - in terms of their epistemology - it pinpoints the moment a child's innocence has died; where resentment begins to be harboured; the cynicism of adulthood commences.
All of which comes despite the fact everything that was going on in the middle of the pitch between the two football teams had nothing to do with them
Hmm... I wont be going to a holiday to Brazil anytime soon :-K A mate of mine is in Brazil right now, and I was lamenting the other day that I wasn't there. He replied "At least you know who your kids are"
|
|
|
Eastern Glory
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube] Both fantastic posts. Notor's post scared the shit out of me, to be honest.
|
|
|
Eastern Glory
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:notorganic wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?
-PB I want more of it. But money controls us, would we want to be controlled more by its grip on our lives? -PB My old man has made a killing in his life time, but gives most of it away. Absolutely amazing man when it comes to things like that. He's set of life but doesn't let excess money control him at all.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Eastern Glory wrote:433 wrote:notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube] Both fantastic posts. Notor's post scared the shit out of me, to be honest. I think it's really a case of "be alert, not alarmed". Marriage in our society is completely unnecessary, but it's still kinda nice when you find the right partner.
|
|
|
Eastern Glory
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Eastern Glory wrote:433 wrote:notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube] Both fantastic posts. Notor's post scared the shit out of me, to be honest. I think it's really a case of "be alert, not alarmed". Marriage in our society is completely unnecessary, but it's still kinda nice when you find the right partner. Well put. It's certainly not necessary, but functional families certainly bare fruit in a functional society.
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Is the truth relative or absolute? If it's relative then saying it as that would imply it to be absolute If it's absolute then it would only be understood from a relative standpoint
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Facts are absolute.
The Truth is a matter of perspective, subjective to data observed.
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
All this was raised in my philosophy lecture today, very fascinating and painful to the cranium. I'm finding a lot of theistic arguments suffer not from a psychological disorder as many atheists/materialists point out, but rather a social disorder. How we understand and craft language on complex metaphysical issues such as the origin of consciousness and the universe need to evolve and match what science is finding in the natural world. The Big Bang for example is often viewed in the mind from the outside looking in, as some sort of vast cosmic explosion that extends violently outwards. This is false as, a) there is no outside to view it from so you immediately view it incorrectly b) it wasn't an explosion c) I doubt there was any light as no stars were near their formation d) it hasn't stopped, it continues with ever more expansion due to dark matter/energy It is difficult for the layman to understand because it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain as clearly and easily as 'God did it'
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
I think the issue isn't with portrayal but that the method of portrayal is determined by the lowest common denominator. Also it's very hard to visually portray an outwards moving explosion from a central viewing point.
|
|
|
General Ashnak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Eastern Glory wrote:433 wrote:notorganic wrote:quichefc wrote:However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries. Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar. As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary. Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics. Excellent post... here's a semi-related video: [youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube] Both fantastic posts. Notor's post scared the shit out of me, to be honest. I think it's really a case of "be alert, not alarmed". Marriage in our society is completely unnecessary, but it's still kinda nice when you find the right partner. I still have some moments even though it is mostly amicable; my partner's situation is totally like a movie though and I wish she wasn't going through it.
The thing about football - the important thing about football - is its not just about football. - Sir Terry Pratchett in Unseen Academicals For pro/rel in Australia across the entire pyramid, the removal of artificial impediments to the development of the game and its players. On sabbatical Youth Coach and formerly part of The Cove FC
|
|
|
jparraga
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 972,
Visits: 0
|
I'd check your stats, in Australia according to the ABS joint divorce applicants is highest at 39.7% followed by female and closely followed by male Granted the gap was significant a decade or so ago
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
jparraga wrote:I'd check your stats "I don't have the stats for Australia" I also said "instigators", which doesn't necessarily exclude joint application. If I use the anecdotal examples in my own family, the divorces were jointly filed despite being instigated by the female.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:jparraga wrote:I'd check your stats "I don't have the stats for Australia" I also said "instigators", which doesn't necessarily exclude joint application. If I use the anecdotal examples in my own family, the divorces were jointly filed despite being instigated by the female. It's often the female in my family - my mother instigated divorce proceedings with my father. Same with both my paternal and maternal grandparents' first marriages.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-digital-photograph-message-and-memory/6019424^ This is an interesting take on the era of digital photography and social media on the concept of presentism, perfectionist narcissism and existentialism inside all this technology
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Will we ever be able to demarcate science from pseudoscience? Edited by "9GABmeme420": 1/6/2015 08:18:05 AM
E
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
"Everyone's always wondering what happens to us when we die?
ALOT happens after we die- just none of those things that happen will involve YOU
There'll be a super bowl every year..."
- Louis Ck
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I wonder what people from Darwin, Northern Territory call themselves?
Darwinian? Social Darwinists? :-k
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Deep.
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Check out the first page :lol: Embarrassing.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]JXWBuoYc8SI[/youtube] The Harry Potter movies from a different perspective :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Social Darwinism is not so much an "extension" of Darwinism as it is a misapplication of it.
Darwinism, or natural selection via survival of the fittest is merely a description of HOW species evolve to survive in their environment.
Social Darwinism or Eugenics adds in an ETHICAL or MORAL element to how selection applies.
Just because natural selection occurs in nature, does not mean it is good or desirable.
The same process of evolution that produced homo sapiens also produced every other living thing - viruses, lions, birds, trees etc.
Natural selection has no relevance when society exists in a state of surplus, which we are in.
What I am saying is that social Darwinism tries to give a moral/ethical authority to something which is merely a biological and environmental process.
It makes no sense. You can't blame Charles Darwin for the creation of eugenics, as it is not a natural extension of his theory.
Edited by AzzaMarch: 23/7/2015 05:59:18 PM
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Narcissus"That's the thing about Narcissus, it's not that he's so fing in love with himself, because he isn't at all, he fing hates himself. It's that without that reflection looking back at him... he doesn't exist. "
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
AtavismBasically, its progress and evolution to the point it reverts to a form of primitivism, in extension to this is - in the laws of natural selection, it happens when recessive types thrive
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
This thread needs more epicureanism.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:This thread needs more epicureanism. too complicated stick to mindless hedonism
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:Draupnir wrote:This thread needs more epicureanism. too complicated stick to mindless hedonism No complaints here
|
|
|
Aljay
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:I wonder what people from Darwin, Northern Territory call themselves?
Darwinian? Social Darwinists? :-k If you're after a serious answer, Territorians, or 'from the Territory'.
|
|
|