MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE

LPast wrote: »

LordZuko wrote: »

There is one truth you need to keep in the center of your heart.

Women do not love men. Women love what men can do for them. The person that a man loves is a performance, it is who she believes she must be in order to get you attached.
It is emotional manipulation 201.
It is why one of the biggest complaints men have post marriage is that the wife doesn't do the stuff she was doing at girlfriend level.

Have you been married?

Y'all need to share your PERSONAL experiences because y'all are giving off the Elliot Rogers vibe...

https://youtu.be/t-jCSZh2tMk

blackrain wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

2stepz_ahead wrote: »

i honest blame the wanna thug super alpha ? .

so ready to show the world how much of a man they are when they nothing but overgrown kids.

chicks are tall kids and ? are overgrown kids.

its all thru this site...no ? ever lost a fight, everybody rich, everybody got a nice car, everybody fukks dime chicks.

no ? take loses on here. but none of the chicks hold them accountable until afterwards.
alot of chicks fall the salesman of a ? an not who the dude truly is.

alot of ? dont take care of they kids.....they ok with every other weekend cause it wont interfere with they pimpin..and ? pulling. but when they kid gets honors in high school....these ? poppin up like ricki bobbys dad like aint ? happen.

? aint teaching they lil girls what men are. the father is her first example. but they rather be absentee or barely around an wonder why poppin it at the elementary school is the thing to do...? then look at the mom.

? wanna have feel good moments when ? coming home from prison after 10 years...an thats cool.

but a ? who has he newborn with him....he aint the one thats proven yet. but ? ok with the jailbird.

why is fukery the rule and making something of yourself the exception?

i understand the whole police thing, bad hood thing, drug epidemic thing. i get all that. but when is it ever ok...to allow a group of ? to run your hood on fukk ? rules?

? is ass backwards and full of ? an wonder why alot of these chick are fukked up and desire fukked up ? .


everyone is responsible for their own actions.....but there are leaders that stand above them...who rather do fukk ? to lead an have people have fun vs being a real leader.

you either lead your people to the bar or to greatness.

most ? rather go to the bar and drop $300 on a ? that aint got no daddy cause she easier to pull with her daddy issues.

man let me stop.
you ? aint ready for me to go in

In other words...? aint' the leaders they claim to be but want to blame everyone but themselves for it...thus further making this mgtow ? stupid

? you still don't get it.............. men can no longer lead THE FAMILY because government has made us doing so almost impossible. THEY ? THE CULTURE UP

Men still can and do lead their families. Are there multiple factors that have led to the amount of single parent homes, and by single parent I mean fathers completely out of the picture not just parents who are no longer together, one of which is actions of the government..yes. is also a large part of that simply ? choosing on their own to not be involved more in their children's lives...yes...and the amount of bitter ass "I never knew my dad even though he lived 3 blocks away" ? out here prove that

The bold would be much less prevalent if the government was not so gynocentric and did not operate under anti-male laws. Men IN GENERAL don't lead the family anymore women simply give us the illusions that we do, men are simply being used.

As long as women can divorce you anytime she feels like it for any reason and take half your ? it means the real power is with her. whatever you can destroy you control and women with the help of the government destroyed the traditional family. Because it no longer served their selfish needs.

and women do initiate most divorces

Thats why you got all these older dudes dating women in their 20s after trading in their wife for a younger model types running around here.

LPast wrote: »

LordZuko wrote: »

LPast wrote: »

LordZuko wrote: »

There is one truth you need to keep in the center of your heart.

Women do not love men. Women love what men can do for them. The person that a man loves is a performance, it is who she believes she must be in order to get you attached.
It is emotional manipulation 201.
It is why one of the biggest complaints men have post marriage is that the wife doesn't do the stuff she was doing at girlfriend level.

Have you been married?

Y'all need to share your PERSONAL experiences because y'all are giving off the Elliot Rogers vibe...

https://youtu.be/t-jCSZh2tMk

Shaming tactics don't work here. Invoking the memory of an unhinged murderer is ad hominem.
I could share one story or ten it doesn't matter because the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, this is exactly what goes on with the internet. People adopt ideas and ideals for things they have no experience in.

There are people that talk down about marriage... Who have never been married.

No shame. Y'all talking about personal things in a general fashion. You said "post marriage". Are you speaking from experience?

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

gorilla wrote: »

That's a given in this whole conversation. My point is, men never called it "marrying down" then nor do they now. That's an insult and instates an "I'm better than you" attitude which is what we are discussing in here.

But my sista, you neglect to acknowledge that there was just a lot of work especially early on that women could not physically handle. Not that men were just being selfish ? and keeping all the back breaking even life threatening tasks to themselves. I don't see a women's movement which addressed womens displeasure with not doing that kind of work.

And again, that devaluing "womans work" stuff came from your cac counterparts. Black men and women had the same value (or lack thereof) after being brought to this country in chains. Yet when the enemy came calling, some black women answered and joined them despite the fact that they wouldn't even let them march or congregate with them. Our original culture was one of family structure and women were very much a respected and necessary part of that as they should be today.

marrying down is used to describe when a person marries someone who has less education and lesser assets and or lesser earning potential...never did i suggest that a person who is marrying down is this superior human being...

though i do acknowledge the negative connotations...never meant to offend...but it's useful to describe and study social and economic trends

and marriage was originally though of as solely a business transaction and a way to bridge houses. so while it may have had had a different name, marrying down has always been a thing

it was frowned upon for men of wealth or wealthier families marrying women from lesser families...and vice versa..that was considering marrying down

men of means marrying women who were barren or not thought of as beautiful were considered to be marrying down

patriarchy, sexism was not imported from europe to africa. patriarchy as we know it. but it existed. there is much historical evidence of male dominant systems in precolonial africa where women's rights derived from their fathers and husbands. men could have multiple wives and had more a say in who they could marry

even during the slave trade there was a necessary relationship between colonial officials and some of our leaders. the chiefs would often trade women for resources and favor

and in more contemporary times, as you already know, women of all races around the world have faced systemic barriers to the highest paid professions, such as lawyers, surgeons and physicians, that require an education. colleges were late to accepting female students. not sure how you can justify that

but yes men and women are different. men are generally stronger and bodies more adapt to physical labor. but this idea that women are afraid or shy away from physical labor is bunk. given the opportunity women are more then willing to do "men's work" because it often pays better. for ex, women in the early 1900s america were barred from working underground in the coalmines. once the ban was lifted, women began to trickle in. but such is the case with integrating women into male dominated industry, female workers often faced verbal harassment, physical abuse, and discrimination from management and coworkers without much recourse. even ? . look up the women of north country and what they experienced in the 70s and 80s. even bigger problem for blk women. look up the blk women who sued GM in 76. plenty of stories of territorial harassment women of all races have faced throughout history, across industries and around the world. we see it today in the IT industry

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

what a load of ? ... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together
and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you believe women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

gorilla wrote: »

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

gorilla wrote: »

That's a given in this whole conversation. My point is, men never called it "marrying down" then nor do they now. That's an insult and instates an "I'm better than you" attitude which is what we are discussing in here.

But my sista, you neglect to acknowledge that there was just a lot of work especially early on that women could not physically handle. Not that men were just being selfish ? and keeping all the back breaking even life threatening tasks to themselves. I don't see a women's movement which addressed womens displeasure with not doing that kind of work.

And again, that devaluing "womans work" stuff came from your cac counterparts. Black men and women had the same value (or lack thereof) after being brought to this country in chains. Yet when the enemy came calling, some black women answered and joined them despite the fact that they wouldn't even let them march or congregate with them. Our original culture was one of family structure and women were very much a respected and necessary part of that as they should be today.

marrying down is used to describe when a person marries someone who has less education and lesser assets and or lesser earning potential...never did i suggest that a person who is marrying down is this superior human being...

though i do acknowledge the negative connotations...never meant to offend...but it's useful to describe and study social and economic trends

and marriage was originally though of as solely a business transaction and a way to bridge houses. so while it may have had had a different name, marrying down has always been a thing

it was frowned upon for men of wealth or wealthier families marrying women from lesser families...and vice versa..that was considering marrying down

men of means marrying women who were barren or not thought of as beautiful were considered to be marrying down

patriarchy, sexism was not imported from europe to africa. patriarchy as we know it. but it existed. there is much historical evidence of male dominant systems in precolonial africa where women's rights derived from their fathers and husbands. men could have multiple wives and had more a say in who they could marry

even during the slave trade there was a necessary relationship between colonial officials and some of our leaders. the chiefs would often trade women for resources and favor

and in more contemporary times, as you already know, women of all races around the world have faced systemic barriers to the highest paid professions, such as lawyers, surgeons and physicians, that require an education. colleges were late to accepting female students. not sure how you can justify that

but yes men and women are different. men are generally stronger and bodies more adapt to physical labor. but this idea that women are afraid or shy away from physical labor is bunk. given the opportunity women are more then willing to do "men's work" because it often pays better. for ex, women in the early 1900s america were barred from working underground in the coalmines. once the ban was lifted, women began to trickle in. but such is the case with integrating women into male dominated industry, female workers often faced verbal harassment, physical abuse, and discrimination from management and coworkers without much recourse. even ? . look up the women of north country and what they experienced in the 70s and 80s. even bigger problem for blk women. look up the blk women who sued GM in 76. plenty of stories of territorial harassment women of all races have faced throughout history, across industries and around the world. we see it today in the IT industry

Nope. I studied this in college (A- I might add). That ? was mos def Euro influenced. They did not value their women the same way we did. Of course there were still the physical difference and division of task among the more suitable, but our women weren't in general, treated like European women.

The major catalyst ultimately leading to the trans atlantic slave trade was the Portuguese coming to the coastal African countries to trade weapons for "workers" for their sugar cane fields among other things. The tribal kings initially traded prisoners from enemy tribes and "criminals" in exchange for these new weapons, not knowing the true intentions of the white man. Once chiefs became aware of what they were doing to these prisoners, some refused which led to Portuguese playing the "ok well I'll give these nice weapons to your enemy so they can come conquer you" game. That's a tough position to be in.

You're trying to make it seem like women were used as gift/currency when they weren't. Men and women both were traded, although initially it was far more men. If you're looking for someone to do hard labor, a woman is not going to be your choice when there are plenty strong men around. It wasn't until later they decided the women were also suitable.

As for the second bolded, again, you're trying to create this situation that's exclusive to women and it ain't. Poor people in general have had limited access to quality education and as a result higher paying jobs. FF to present day and women can pretty much go to school damn near free. How many grants and programs are there for women, especially with children, to complete their studies? And that's not a bad thing. But don't act like this isn't the other side of why women are getting degrees at the rates they are now. They are getting plenty assistance and again not that it's a negative.

sunlord wrote: »

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

what a load of ? ... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together
and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you bnot every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place
elieve women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness??

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

sunlord wrote: »

what a load of ? ... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together
and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you bnot every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place
elieve women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness??

yes i would like proof

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

u can argue women in precolonial africa were treated better then european women by their men all you want.... but sexism , patriarchy existed... as i stated before in most cultures the rights of women derived from their husbands and fathers. or in other words women were second hand citizens

men and women captured during tribal wars were traded for other resources never denied that. women were always considered of value in the slave trade because the goal was to produce more and more slaves at a lesser expense. unlike higher born men or warriors of the tribe, women regardless of status were sold off to be the colonists given the right price and favor to be married, ? , etc

and i'm not trying to play the oppression olympics with you, the truth is we are all oppressed, exploited, and discriminated against in some way. we’re also all privileged in other ways as well

and i'm discounting the full range of their experiences and trying to place women's struggles ahead of anyone else

but let's keep it real. using education as an example, while it took luck and a lot of persistence for a poor boy to make it to college, for along time women of any status were denied the opportunity altogether because of no other reason then we were women

yes things are changing for the better but again let's keep it real

a lot of women are drowning in school debt, especially blk women

while i feel my degree was a good investment, i know i can't wait to get sallie mae off my back

2stepz_ahead wrote: »

blakfyahking wrote: »

2stepz_ahead wrote: »

LordZuko wrote: »

deadeye wrote: »

Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »

2stepz_ahead wrote: »

why do you keep saying this?

change aint a bad thing as long as its benefiting you.

these chicks going to college an ? just want options.

if i find a man great..i can fall back an dont have to use my degree and can have him pay for the loan

or

if i dont find a man, great..i can sleep around and be free and young an have simps pay for my loan

but if they can find a man...then its because its not men that meet their standards or just not enough of them.

nah thats ? ....maybe its because these women dont hold themselves like women but more like objects that can be manipulated with a dream thats sold.

how many women be on that..."i aint got time for a man" when they building or getting money or enjoying life? yet want to be apart of someone whos established.

nah lady...its a fly in your soup.

Fact is for many single women under 30 with no children they will have a hard time meeting a male counterpart their age whose earning ability meets or exceeds their own


For college educated blk women who want a college educated blk man the dating pool is even smaller


Will women have to adjust there standards yes. But this idea that taking a persons financial situation into consideration is objectifying or should discouraged is bunk

The bolded is part of the problem



You keep mentioning earning ability and level of education.......but nothing at all about compatibility and/or how well the man treats/respects you.

Don't set yourself up like that. Those are character traits. Numerous studies and dating coaches have revealed that Black women in particular do not consider character or principles when considering a partner. First they consider his fashion, then anatomy then his sexual performance then his finances. But fashion sort of clues them in on fashion. If he spends money on high end clothes for himself it indicates his financial level, but also that he'll do the same for her.

? this is far from the truth in my case.....wife got all this high priced ? an i wear $40 sneakers.
@blakfiya

LOL SMH but who's fault is that at the bolded, if u really the leader in ur house as a man is allegedly supposed to be?

lemme find out it's really ur wife who makes all the money in ur house......that would make sense that u would be nothing more than just a dependent on her taxes




or are u just admitting to us all that u just a simp of the highest degree? grow some ? and man up my ? , don't let wifey play u like that :joy:

she secured her position by holding me down. so shoes and ? dont mean nothing to me..its when it mattered that she stood tall next to me that matters. if that whats she asks for ....she deserves it.

you need to man up an give a ? credit. you still want to try to prove i aint got what i say even tho its been proven for years. you the only ? focused on that.

gotta let it go bruh.

an what man would not give his wife the world if he could?

you bitter for nothing