MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »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*
MEN don't date down we don't conceive of it that way. YOU are filtering your perspective through a female lens and apply the "up" or "down" hypergamous females instincts to male dating.
WHEN seriously looking for a mate no man looks around and says " let me find the most ? up woman I can find so that I can control her" Why??? BECAUSE no matter the who is chosen MEN expect to be the heads of their households and leaders. SO my girlfriend could have a million and one degrees or she could be a check cashing girls it would make no difference to how I expect to be treated.
call it what u want
but dating someone who is substantially younger than you, earns less than you, less cultured, less read, etc that's traditionally referred to as dating down ....
the unwritten expectation is that the partner who dates up will adopt the values, tastes, ideologies of the person they are dating (most evident in class discrepancies)
that said, my point still stands. a lot of times ppl "date down" because it is easier to find someone, and also easier to keep them and get them to do what you want opposed to someone you are at least equally yoked
see the mail-order bride industry ....you even have some men flocking to poor countries like brazil looking for a wife...that is no coincidence. what is one of if not their main complaint? women in america don't know how to be submissive and treat a man...
..this isn't a novel idea...and I'm not trying to argue most men are out here seeking the most ? up woman to take advantage of as some general rule
i don't even think at times its not about wanting to dominate over a person, but a way to cope/mitigate the risks and uncertainty that comes with relationships and life in general. or they could just be in love with how that person makes them feel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing
yes historically for men it was done out of necessity. but let's acknowledge how once women were systematically kept dependent upon a man's labor which justified in the eyes of many a man being head of house hold. and let's also acknowledge today traditionalism is no longer a necessity and less attractive for many women. we can, and have, and are, working like men and supporting ourselves.
no men dont care bout her job cultured etc... we care bout if she look good and is she down to earth and a good person.. the other ? u named is what career women use to choose men... not nan ? ever said oh she cool cute and nice but i cant date her cuz we not equally yoked.
lol
so you speaking for all men now?
but yes historically a man had the privilege of never having to worry about these things
today that ? will get u burned
this is why men so frustrated honestly
Men are frustrated because they think it's one way but really.... -
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
Yeah..it's not hard to prove
Then you really are a unrepentant cuck.... WHO does not understand what a culture is. For America to have a ? culture the act of ? would have to be essential and normative within American culture.
And when you resort to name calling and immature statements like such that further lets me know that some of you mgtow ? are no better than the women you ? about.
I can ? on you and make a good point at the same time. ME CALLING YOU A CUCK DOES not negate the fact that you cannot prove that America is a ? culture. Any man who honestly believes that America has a ? culture is not worthy of being called anything else
Now stop being a ? cuckboy . we don't live in a ? culture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=TZrzCAuiw7w
Using insults like a 12 year old as if that ? really holds any weight. Keep going maybe you'll actually be able to articulate your point -
Men are frustrated because they think it's one way but really....
Tell me something. Basically, the choices are that you either are willing to invest whatever you think is necessary to get the kind of relationship with a female (be it girlfriend, wife, ? friend, or whatever) or you're not and you either wind up finding another way to get a chick or you don't have a chick. That's how it's been for forever. You are on this blue pill/red pill ? like you've discovered some hidden knowledge. How is what you're saying any different than what's always been the case. You're just choosing to go the route with no women, which most men specifically don't want to choose. -
Good deflection. The "you're childish" attack throws a lot of people for a loop.
-
-
I mean I don't really agree with all the unnecessary name calling. But he's got a point about any dude that's running around here characterizing America as a ? culture.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Men are frustrated because they think it's one way but really....
Tell me something. Basically, the choices are that you either are willing to invest whatever you think is necessary to get the kind of relationship with a female (be it girlfriend, wife, ? friend, or whatever) or you're not and you either wind up finding another way to get a chick or you don't have a chick. That's how it's been for forever. You are on this blue pill/red pill ? like you've discovered some hidden knowledge. How is what you're saying any different than what's always been the case. You're just choosing to go the route with no women, which most men specifically don't want to choose.
I feel like a ? tryna explain game when you know it's got to be sold not told.
Imma try anyway.
Knowledge has nothing to do with emotions. I believe I've said this in other threads. Our desire to be with women is a deep conditioned programming that goes back to Our own mothers.
Men are always searching to recreate aspects of that nurturing relationship with every woman. It's called the "male-mother need" look it up.
Females understand this overtly or subconsciously so they mimic the behaviors a man is looking for or wants.
So whether he is red pill or blue pill these actions by women circumvent the logic centers and go straight to the emotions.
Even if a man logically is redpilled. Emotionally he sets himself up to look for a nawalt figure. Nawalt is an acronym look it up. So a man has to constantly redpill so that he can not succumb to his deep conditioning. Men are social creatures we desire what women pretend to be. Most men get emotionally attached to the chameleon. She's this she's that, but a woman is whoever she needs to be to get a man emotionally attached.
There's a lot you don't understand and i can't fit it into one post.
If you are actually trying to comprehend then read my post on brifault's law when i post it. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Men are frustrated because they think it's one way but really....
Tell me something. Basically, the choices are that you either are willing to invest whatever you think is necessary to get the kind of relationship with a female (be it girlfriend, wife, ? friend, or whatever) or you're not and you either wind up finding another way to get a chick or you don't have a chick. That's how it's been for forever. You are on this blue pill/red pill ? like you've discovered some hidden knowledge. How is what you're saying any different than what's always been the case. You're just choosing to go the route with no women, which most men specifically don't want to choose.
I feel like a ? tryna explain game when you know it's got to be sold not told.
Imma try anyway.
Knowledge has nothing to do with emotions. I believe I've said this in other threads. Our desire to be with women is a deep conditioned programming that goes back to Our own mothers.
Men are always searching to recreate aspects of that nurturing relationship with every woman. It's called the "male-mother need" look it up.
Females understand this overtly or subconsciously so they mimic the behaviors a man is looking for or wants.
So whether he is red pill or blue pill these actions by women circumvent the logic centers and go straight to the emotions.
Even if a man logically is redpilled. Emotionally he sets himself up to look for a nawalt figure. Nawalt is an acronym look it up. So a man has to constantly redpill so that he can not succumb to his deep conditioning. Men are social creatures we desire what women pretend to be. Most men get emotionally attached to the chameleon. She's this she's that, but a woman is whoever she needs to be to get a man emotionally attached.
There's a lot you don't understand and i can't fit it into one post.
If you are actually trying to comprehend then read my post on brifault's law when i post it.
While I do believe there is merit to what you said. We are all subject to emotional conditioning, even those of us that don't believe we are particularly emotional. But I don't think it's nearly as powerful as you're suggesting. For example, many of us guys go through a phase where we think much like you MGTOW dudes even though we aren't consciously subscribe to that philosophy. What I mean is, we're not looking for emotional attachments and we're only really looking for sex and fun from females. I can't say how many guys think like that. I know I did. I didn't settle down because of some psychological need to be with women. I settled down because I found a woman I liked and I was tired of the grind of single life. It wasn't about being pressured into that because I really wasn't being pressure. It was a conscious choice.
You guys seem to believe that anyone who makes that choice is doing so under duress, coercion, or foolishness. It's almost like feminists who can't accept that some women actually want to be housewives. -
It doesn't matter what you think. Human beings are organisms that act and behave on subconscious desires and deep conditioned responses.
The average person doesn't quite know why they do what they do because they don't even understand this. Men don't understand the choices in women they make beyond the feeling they derive from that woman. But what are the origins of those feelings? -
Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it. -
Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:
Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise -
It doesn't matter what you think. Human beings are organisms that act and behave on subconscious desires and deep conditioned responses.
The average person doesn't quite know why they do what they do because they don't even understand this. Men don't understand the choices in women they make beyond the feeling they derive from that woman. But what are the origins of those feelings?
Do you really believe that humans act only based on subconscious conditioning? You think you MGTOW cats are the only ones capable of rising above biological and societal programming to to make their own choices? Again, what about the guys that don't subscribe to your philosophy, but still decide they aren't going to settle down. They likely never heard of Briffault, but still were capable of assessing their situation and making a decision. If you can believe them of capable of making their own conscious decision, do you think it's not possible for those who make decisions you don't agree with to do the same? -
I speak in generalizations not absolutes because there are always outliers.
I believe that is sufficient to answer your question -
Not sure if this is red pill or not (dont really consider myself as such) but since I can remember, I've always been cautious when dealing with girls/women. Although I definitely have a couple check marks in the loss column. I noticed early on how manipulative females can be and how quick and over the top males can be to try and win their affection. Usually what would happen is the girl every other boy was chasing liked the one boy who barely paid her any attention.
I've always played the game aware of the wins and losses. Happily retired now tho.
-
Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things. -
Good deflection. The "you're childish" attack throws a lot of people for a loop.
The moment in a discussion somebody resorts to name calling is the moment they lost the ability to actually state their point. Its not a deflection on my part...its one on the part of the person doing the name calling -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I mean I don't really agree with all the unnecessary name calling. But he's got a point about any dude that's running around here characterizing America as a ? culture.
I never said America is ? culture I said there is a culture that has existed where sexual assault/harrasment and ? has treated as not as serious as it is and even joked about. I mean ? you can search for posts on here about the idea that its impossible for a man to ? his wife because in some minds wife=do whatever I want whenever I want...or even ? as simple as think about all the tv shows in the 80s and 90s that had jokes about drilling holes in the girls locker room to watch them. That's some creep ? . ? there's an entire thread in IllPix dedicated to taking pictures of women and posting them without their knowledge and its been going for years and seen as ok. ? in another thread arguimg that continuously going after a woman even after she has said no just shows persistence instead of annoying the ? out of her. There's a certain expectation that we are entitled to women just because we are interested even if she's not she better be happy she's just getting some attention. That is what I'm talking about. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.
It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.
Anyways. Happy turkey day ? . -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.
It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.
Anyways. Happy turkey day ? .
How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?
Or explicitly or implicitly offered ? to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?
You are who you are. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.
It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.
Anyways. Happy turkey day ? .
How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?
Or explicitly or implicitly offered ? to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?
You are who you are.
If I said never, then what? Exactly.
But you probly don't believe it so....
Happy turkey day bro
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.
It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.
Anyways. Happy turkey day ? .
How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?
Or explicitly or implicitly offered ? to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?
You are who you are.
If I said never, then what? Exactly.
But you probly don't believe it so....
Happy turkey day bro
Exactly. He has in his mind what he believes to be the truth and nothing but the truth. It's like talking to a brick wall. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.
Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yooooo I saw a video in a class I took years ago about briffault...made me check some ways I went about relationships. Good drop.
It doesn't matter, @atribecalledgabi. You're a woman. The things women do are deeply ingrained successful breeding tactics hundreds of thousands years old. You can't help but do these things.
It doesn't matter that I'm a woman. If you're consciously aware of a certain behavior you either gon consciously keep doing it or you're not. If that wasn't possible there would be mgtow.
Anyways. Happy turkey day ? .
How many times have you as a grown woman cried to get your way?
Or explicitly or implicitly offered ? to get a man who had no previous interests to do things for you?
You are who you are.
If I said never, then what? Exactly.
But you probly don't believe it so....
Happy turkey day bro
Never believe anything a woman says. Believe her actions. You lie to yourself. And think its the truth. So you could never be honest.
Perhaps you don't do these things to the degree of the worst, but you still do them. -
Disrespect is not mutually exclusive to making a point. In fact there is a long tradition of them existing side by side. I fundamentally don't respect male feminist or their positions they are objects of ridicule nothing more.
-
Male feminists are the extreme end of blue pill.
https://youtu.be/X_Y9XByQg1Y
