MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »lol silly girl as a general rule men don't date down we ? down No man really wants an emotionally unstable woman but we will have sex with one.
Younger women generally look better that's why many men prefer them...... also no man wants an old haggard ? with a 100000 miles on her ? .
Lol
Boy bye
See it every day
Looks are important yes
But there are a lot of men who like having the advantage when dating -whether it be financial, personality-based, or looks-wise
Rather then date the young girl with looks and drive they go after the young irresponsible girl with looks who needs saving... Who will put up with ? when her light bill needs to be paid
I know men who have a lot to offer a woman but prefer not to date 10s because they are "trouble"...aka they are intimidated by her looks... scared they can't keep her attention when they know other ? are going to be getting at her
Theres the rkellys of the world who like young women not because of their looks but because they are easier to control
Or they prey on the women who are insecure or traditionally unattractive because they are "more grateful" , "less work"
Yall not just these simple creatures yall like to pretend to be
And its not always about control ...men in general like to feel needed
First of all r.kelly really wants girls not legal age women so leave him out of this
Those men you know that are intimidated by 'LOOKS" really just don't want to deal with all the possible personality flaws usually come with 10"S and has nothing to do with them wanting to be with a girl who need saving. if those men can find a young woman that is a 10 and doesn't have those flaws they will 90% of the time prefer her over an older woman that has hit the wall.
The only men who want women who need saving are " captain save a hoes" and other men despise these kinds of men because they are insecure weaklings
You and your girlfriends are probably guilty of doing what you accuse men of doing, you go after these weak insecure ? of all stripes because you know that NO stable and mentally secure man will put up with your liberated woman feminist ?
women are guilty of there own ?
but there are lot of "captain save a hoes" out here
sometimes its just about the circles they run in and proximity...maybe its even just chemistry
but let's not act like the appeals of dating dating down goes beyond looks for a lot of men
my overall point being men, like women, struggle with insecurity, can be manipulative, can be exploitative, are self sabotaging, etc
*shrugs* -
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »but I ask all the dudes....
what is your responsibility in a chick acting like this?
didn't a ? just tell me. toman up about buying shoes? but y'all can't man up to check these chicks an get them inline? y'all want the work already done for you?
kinda like everybody want a ? but nobody got the patience to deal with the training that comes with it.
so yall running from chicks now?
y'all holding out the dikk on chicks like a chick withholds ass?
these chicks got y'all that shook?
@CapitalB has chicks giving him money. @EmM HoLLa stay dropping jems. but where all the other playas at? where all the pimps? where all the scumbag ? ? where all the ? that smash dimes?
somebody lying or somebody real hurt.
just saying.
I'm not red pill or blue pill...I'm white pill. ambien cause all this fukkery is making me sleepy.
ummmmm this ? is on page 38..
imma jus stay out of this one. lmmfao
-
I agree but we know there isn’t a 50/50 split as to who puts who through more ?Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »lol silly girl as a general rule men don't date down we ? down No man really wants an emotionally unstable woman but we will have sex with one.
Younger women generally look better that's why many men prefer them...... also no man wants an old haggard ? with a 100000 miles on her ? .
Lol
Boy bye
See it every day
Looks are important yes
But there are a lot of men who like having the advantage when dating -whether it be financial, personality-based, or looks-wise
Rather then date the young girl with looks and drive they go after the young irresponsible girl with looks who needs saving... Who will put up with ? when her light bill needs to be paid
I know men who have a lot to offer a woman but prefer not to date 10s because they are "trouble"...aka they are intimidated by her looks... scared they can't keep her attention when they know other ? are going to be getting at her
Theres the rkellys of the world who like young women not because of their looks but because they are easier to control
Or they prey on the women who are insecure or traditionally unattractive because they are "more grateful" , "less work"
Yall not just these simple creatures yall like to pretend to be
And its not always about control ...men in general like to feel needed
First of all r.kelly really wants girls not legal age women so leave him out of this
Those men you know that are intimidated by 'LOOKS" really just don't want to deal with all the possible personality flaws usually come with 10"S and has nothing to do with them wanting to be with a girl who need saving. if those men can find a young woman that is a 10 and doesn't have those flaws they will 90% of the time prefer her over an older woman that has hit the wall.
The only men who want women who need saving are " captain save a hoes" and other men despise these kinds of men because they are insecure weaklings
You and your girlfriends are probably guilty of doing what you accuse men of doing, you go after these weak insecure ? of all stripes because you know that NO stable and mentally secure man will put up with your liberated woman feminist ?
women are guilty of there own ?
but there are lot of "captain save a hoes" out here
sometimes its just about the circles they run in and proximity...maybe its even just chemistry
but let's not act like the appeals of dating dating down goes beyond looks for a lot of men
my overall point being men, like women, struggle with insecurity, can be manipulative, can be exploitative, are self sabotaging, etc
*shrugs*
So , who in your opinion has more ? to deal with?
I’ve never heard a *male* say i need a *female* who can handle me, or he puts up with me that’s why i love him, or i know i get on your nerves or some other nut ?
I didn’t mean to offend you with female in advanced -
-
-
The fact that much of this stance is based on making sweeping generalizations against women...yet one of most oft repeated complaints men have against women is them making sweeping generalizations against men is hilarious. Once again a bunch of dudes doing the very thing they complain about and say is unfair and an inaccurate way to judge and approach a situation
-
There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same. -
There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold? -
-
-
There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
I'd be careful about thinking like this. When whites were writing books about how inferior nonwhites, particularly blacks, were, they claimed to be doing the same thing. They used biology, psychology, and history to prove their point too. Ultimately they were wrong and it was largely because they infused factual information with their own racist presuppositions. There seems to be a lot of that going on with the MGTOW rhetoric too. The merit in the MGTOW philosophy seems to be how it addresses societal inequalities in how the genders are treated and how males get shafted in several areas. There doesn't seem to be much merit at all to the generalizations about women. Anything in that vein that seems like it might be fair would probably be better addressed in the discussion about how women are raised or influenced by society than it is by attacking women and generating unnecessary generalizations. -
There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body -
There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body
lol No it wasn't. You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof is. You stating what you think women do is not proof that women don't have any formal studies of men. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably closer to right than wrong, but you didn't provide proof.
Ironically, your "proof" seems to be the same thing you're accusing women of doing. -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »
I gave in, clicked on the video...didn't watch the whole thing, I just skimmed through it to find the point...
Conclusion: ? is trash, has a stank attitude and brings nothing to the table. ? in her life reacted in kind and don't date her (as they should).
I mean....what are we talking about here? Don't date, impregnate or marry trash ppl. The end.
You can say this about virtually every woman.
Has a stank attitude. Over values herself. Devalues those she thinks are beneath her.
Brings nothing to the table. Most women believe that their ? is gold and is all that's required from them in a relationship. They also think that a man should have to constantly earn her ? like it's a prize
Most females are trash. If it weren't for the fact that y'all have a ? , no one would deal with you.
i say this all the time.
all the ? time.
i do things cause i want to not to re-earn ? that i already earned.
cause if that is the case......is cheating really that bad if i cant earn the ? anymore? cuz chicks be mad, if i cant earn it and someone else give it to me on the discount why cant i take it?
so are they mad i cant earn it anymore or are they mad someone else got that discount ? ? or is it that they dont feel like the center of the universe anymore?
My brother gotta home boy that's married & his wife cheated on him in the past before & during marriage. He said that he haven't smashed his wife for about 3-6 months & every time he try to attempt, then she'll make up excuses & say "she tired blah blah". I told that ? is a whole fool out here. Affection is a part of a relationship. I understand trying to stay loyal but if a chick block her husband/boyfriend from getting affection especially over a large amount of time then she planted the seed & making it okay for him to get it from somewhere else -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
I'd be careful about thinking like this. When whites were writing books about how inferior nonwhites, particularly blacks, were, they claimed to be doing the same thing. They used biology, psychology, and history to prove their point too. Ultimately they were wrong and it was largely because they infused factual information with their own racist presuppositions. There seems to be a lot of that going on with the MGTOW rhetoric too. The merit in the MGTOW philosophy seems to be how it addresses societal inequalities in how the genders are treated and how males get shafted in several areas. There doesn't seem to be much merit at all to the generalizations about women. Anything in that vein that seems like it might be fair would probably be better addressed in the discussion about how women are raised or influenced by society than it is by attacking women and generating unnecessary generalizations.
Making comparisons between race and sex are flawed.
Race is a social construct created by a myriad of policies and pseudo science meant to artificially prop one group up over the other.
Sex is biological and shaped by evolution. Observations can be made and have been made without confirmation bias.
Mgtow foray into studying women was out of curiosity as to why men often received the short end of the stick and trying to make sense of the gender power dynamic.
That's why mgtow men have introduced neologisms into the public consciousness words like gynocentrism, hypergamy, misandry, monkey branching. Even exploring concepts such as female narcissism, reverse hypergamy, female manipulation.
Concepts that have been verified through observation and even by female researchers from various fields of study. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
I'd be careful about thinking like this. When whites were writing books about how inferior nonwhites, particularly blacks, were, they claimed to be doing the same thing. They used biology, psychology, and history to prove their point too. Ultimately they were wrong and it was largely because they infused factual information with their own racist presuppositions. There seems to be a lot of that going on with the MGTOW rhetoric too. The merit in the MGTOW philosophy seems to be how it addresses societal inequalities in how the genders are treated and how males get shafted in several areas. There doesn't seem to be much merit at all to the generalizations about women. Anything in that vein that seems like it might be fair would probably be better addressed in the discussion about how women are raised or influenced by society than it is by attacking women and generating unnecessary generalizations.
Making comparisons between race and sex are flawed.
Race is a social construct created by a myriad of policies and pseudo science meant to artificially prop one group up over the other.
Sex is biological and shaped by evolution. Observations can be made and have been made without confirmation bias.
Mgtow foray into studying women was out of curiosity as to why men often received the short end of the stick and trying to make sense of the gender power dynamic.
That's why mgtow men have introduced neologisms into the public consciousness words like gynocentrism, hypergamy, misandry, monkey branching. Even exploring concepts such as female narcissism, reverse hypergamy, female manipulation.
Concepts that have been verified through observation and even by female researchers from various fields of study.
I'm not comparing race and sex. I'm pointing out that people can use research to push false narratives. I brought up race as an example of how it was done in the past. I'm not suggesting the research or observations are wrong in this case. I'm only pointing out that facts can and have been used to push false conclusions. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body
lol No it wasn't. You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof is. You stating what you think women do is not proof that women don't have any formal studies of men. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably closer to right than wrong, but you didn't provide proof.
Ironically, your "proof" seems to be the same thing you're accusing women of doing.
No it's not.
For comparison
Feminist theories
Patriarchy: debunked
universal oppression of women: debunked
? culture: debunked
Wage gap: debunked
These are the four cornerstones of feminist theory which were posited as immutable fact that is the foundation for numerous policies and legislation. Later to be found out as being at best rife with confirmation bias, at worst malicious sex based crusade.
Meanwhile the cornerstones of mgtow philosophy as aforementioned in my last post have been proven. Have not been debunked and are in fact the very tools used to deconstruct feminism. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
I'd be careful about thinking like this. When whites were writing books about how inferior nonwhites, particularly blacks, were, they claimed to be doing the same thing. They used biology, psychology, and history to prove their point too. Ultimately they were wrong and it was largely because they infused factual information with their own racist presuppositions. There seems to be a lot of that going on with the MGTOW rhetoric too. The merit in the MGTOW philosophy seems to be how it addresses societal inequalities in how the genders are treated and how males get shafted in several areas. There doesn't seem to be much merit at all to the generalizations about women. Anything in that vein that seems like it might be fair would probably be better addressed in the discussion about how women are raised or influenced by society than it is by attacking women and generating unnecessary generalizations.
Making comparisons between race and sex are flawed.
Race is a social construct created by a myriad of policies and pseudo science meant to artificially prop one group up over the other.
Sex is biological and shaped by evolution. Observations can be made and have been made without confirmation bias.
Mgtow foray into studying women was out of curiosity as to why men often received the short end of the stick and trying to make sense of the gender power dynamic.
That's why mgtow men have introduced neologisms into the public consciousness words like gynocentrism, hypergamy, misandry, monkey branching. Even exploring concepts such as female narcissism, reverse hypergamy, female manipulation.
Concepts that have been verified through observation and even by female researchers from various fields of study.
I'm not comparing race and sex. I'm pointing out that people can use research to push false narratives. I brought up race as an example of how it was done in the past. I'm not suggesting the research or observations are wrong in this case. I'm only pointing out that facts can and have been used to push false conclusions.
Answered in my previous post -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body
lol No it wasn't. You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof is. You stating what you think women do is not proof that women don't have any formal studies of men. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably closer to right than wrong, but you didn't provide proof.
Ironically, your "proof" seems to be the same thing you're accusing women of doing.
No it's not.
For comparison
Feminist theories
Patriarchy: debunked
universal oppression of women: debunked
? culture: debunked
Wage gap: debunked
These are the four cornerstones of feminist theory which were posited as immutable fact that is the foundation for numerous policies and legislation. Later to be found out as being at best rife with confirmation bias, at worst malicious sex based crusade.
Meanwhile the cornerstones of mgtow philosophy as aforementioned in my last post have been proven. Have not been debunked and are in fact the very tools used to deconstruct feminism.
The only thing in question is the issue of the wage gap...which differs when you break down the numbers for specifics within the study...ironically the same thing you're saying Monk is wrong for doing with divorce stats...but the other things you claim are debunked aren't hard to take note of. Men still by and large run society. There's no real question about that. Just look at the people who make major decisions around the globe. Majority are men. We have and do live in a society that has typically made either light of sexual assault/? or flat out making it hard to prove without in some way blaming the victim as well. See no further than judges who have said in court what ? victims should have done to prevent a ? or people who will go as far as to blame children for their own molestation...and you're blatantly ignoring history if you say women haven't been placed lower on the totem pole than men. Just look at the ways in which the role of what a women should or shouldn't be has often not been defined by women themselves until very recently thus causing the current shift we see today with women speaking up about the issues they do. The things you're saying are debunked have been studied for decades now. If you choose to ignore them that's on you but you're being intellectually dishonest to say they've been flat out debunked -
Black men don’t run society
And the average black woman makes more than the average black male...
So black feminists have literally no leg to stand on when making these claims
Feminism doesn’t even address the differences in wages amongst men...they make a sweeping generalization and say men make more than women which for certain groups isn’t true -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body
lol No it wasn't. You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof is. You stating what you think women do is not proof that women don't have any formal studies of men. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably closer to right than wrong, but you didn't provide proof.
Ironically, your "proof" seems to be the same thing you're accusing women of doing.
No it's not.
For comparison
Feminist theories
Patriarchy: debunked
universal oppression of women: debunked
? culture: debunked
Wage gap: debunked
These are the four cornerstones of feminist theory which were posited as immutable fact that is the foundation for numerous policies and legislation. Later to be found out as being at best rife with confirmation bias, at worst malicious sex based crusade.
Meanwhile the cornerstones of mgtow philosophy as aforementioned in my last post have been proven. Have not been debunked and are in fact the very tools used to deconstruct feminism.
The only thing in question is the issue of the wage gap...which differs when you break down the numbers for specifics within the study...ironically the same thing you're saying Monk is wrong for doing with divorce stats...but the other things you claim are debunked aren't hard to take note of. Men still by and large run society. There's no real question about that. Just look at the people who make major decisions around the globe. Majority are men. We have and do live in a society that has typically made either light of sexual assault/? or flat out making it hard to prove without in some way blaming the victim as well. See no further than judges who have said in court what ? victims should have done to prevent a ? or people who will go as far as to blame children for their own molestation...and you're blatantly ignoring history if you say women haven't been placed lower on the totem pole than men. Just look at the ways in which the role of what a women should or shouldn't be has often not been defined by women themselves until very recently thus causing the current shift we see today with women speaking up about the issues they do. The things you're saying are debunked have been studied for decades now. If you choose to ignore them that's on you but you're being intellectually dishonest to say they've been flat out debunked
Men are in positions of power because objectively the success or failure of a civilization a home or a corporation will be lain at the feet of a man.
We do not make light of sexual assault. Western society genuinely views it as a crime so heinous men accused are alienated over night, universities have special procedures to expel male students on accusation alone. Men are given harsh prison sentences and then have to register ona list after.
Judges who make recommendations on how to avoid ? from happening are no different from any other person giving advice on how to prevent themselves from being victims of other violent crimes.
Speaking of other violent we joke and ponder seriously about justification for murder assault robbery.
People who attempt to justify ? get ostracized.
? id's often a he said she said charge. Which means like sexual harassment it's subjective and based primarily on how a woman feels, not even what she says. So that means that the evidence for ? is the same as the evidence of consensual sex. So ? shouldn't be eezy peezy to just throw someone in prison for. The principle of the justice system is that it's better to let 9guilty men walk free than for one innocent man to be thrown in jail. However, with the expansion of the definitions of ? men often are convicted on testimony alone and have to prove that they didn't ? , and it's nigh improbable to prove a negative. Especially with ? shield laws and the inability to bring up an accusers past as evidence. -
The position of women is based on the needs and progression of society. We've already gone over that in the early pages so revisit those if you want my response to that argument.
-
Where in the hell do yall come up with this idea that ? is considered ok? I seriously don't get that ? . In a society where sexual allegations are propping up on a daily basis and the accused men are pretty much immediately ostracized, based on the words of the accuser alone. You'd have to be naive or outright ignorant to believe that to be true.
This whole thread has turned into fuckery for the most part due to some white night ? going on. Some of yall wanna counter argue just to be disagreeable. Like every thread of this nature you got the usual male feminists coming in arguing what amounts to little more than conjecture.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There's an important difference. Females dont study men. They look at men and impose narratives. They project these false narratives and turn them into "generalizations" but it's more or less sweeping accusations.
Men have studied women in accordance to biology psychology history in accordance to modern civilization to extrapolate data and information. To essentially understand the nature of females to draw reason for seemingly unreasonable action.
Not the same.
Can you prove the bold?
Answered in the body
lol No it wasn't. You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof is. You stating what you think women do is not proof that women don't have any formal studies of men. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably closer to right than wrong, but you didn't provide proof.
Ironically, your "proof" seems to be the same thing you're accusing women of doing.
No it's not.
For comparison
Feminist theories
Patriarchy: debunked
universal oppression of women: debunked
? culture: debunked
Wage gap: debunked
These are the four cornerstones of feminist theory which were posited as immutable fact that is the foundation for numerous policies and legislation. Later to be found out as being at best rife with confirmation bias, at worst malicious sex based crusade.
Meanwhile the cornerstones of mgtow philosophy as aforementioned in my last post have been proven. Have not been debunked and are in fact the very tools used to deconstruct feminism.
The only thing in question is the issue of the wage gap...which differs when you break down the numbers for specifics within the study...ironically the same thing you're saying Monk is wrong for doing with divorce stats...but the other things you claim are debunked aren't hard to take note of. Men still by and large run society. There's no real question about that. Just look at the people who make major decisions around the globe. Majority are men. We have and do live in a society that has typically made either light of sexual assault/? or flat out making it hard to prove without in some way blaming the victim as well. See no further than judges who have said in court what ? victims should have done to prevent a ? or people who will go as far as to blame children for their own molestation...and you're blatantly ignoring history if you say women haven't been placed lower on the totem pole than men. Just look at the ways in which the role of what a women should or shouldn't be has often not been defined by women themselves until very recently thus causing the current shift we see today with women speaking up about the issues they do. The things you're saying are debunked have been studied for decades now. If you choose to ignore them that's on you but you're being intellectually dishonest to say they've been flat out debunked
You really believe America has a ? culture and that women are universally oppressed??? can you look yourself in the mirror each has and actually affirm that you believe this
https://youtu.be/HI9IMG91CBQ
https://youtu.be/lUA4zReMeVU
https://youtu.be/vWBQaCIxoV4
https://youtu.be/K4_XTkI9lPo
https://youtu.be/n9c8DH2CJJg
