Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Decline Of The West

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby Truthville » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:51 am

Our primary drive is for survival and reproduction. We will fight hard for resources to the extent that these resources promote these basic ends. In a traditional monogamous society, everyone gets one mate and no one is allowed more. This means that acquiring additional resources or status will not have reproductive benefit and so has little value. Instead, men tend to focus on supporting the tribe in a fairly ego-less way and women focus on raising their children. This makes for a stable and virtuous society. In contrast, in a promiscuous society, there is desperate competition between men for women. In this contest, men fight to acquire status in order to attract women. Promiscuous women also behave very differently from monogamous women. Women have a pecking order that depends on their ability to attract men and to show off resources. Promiscuous women will compete in this pecking order based on consumption. In a monogamous society, women's place in the pecking order is largely determined by the success of her husband and so her best way to improve her status is to support her husband. Feminism is basically anti-marriage, pro-promiscuity. It causes an extremely selfish and immoral culture for reasons just explained. Only traditional monogamous societies can be moral and non-materialistic.


Loved this fschmidt! +1

publicduende? Totally agree with your points about classical feminism NOT having a pro-promiscuity bent to it!

IMHO, somewhere the message of modern feminism morphed from equal rights/opportunities for women to a cultural messaging of "Let's be equal to men by behaving how we think men are!"

One thing I have stated in the past here is that I don't believe that human beings being "slaves" to some DNA programming and/or biological imperative. Many here seem to think that men have no choice BUT to be promiscuous because of aforementioned "programming" when in reality it's just a choice a man makes. 10,000 years ago when man was not much more than a slightly smarter animal? Sure! Now? No!

Berlusconi is a classic example, in my limited view of the man, of the aging, rich, powerful vain man whom clutches onto and worships his vanished youth and refuses to let go. Like America's Hugh Hefner!

One thing I am curious about in regards to the "natural" promiscuity of man IS has it always been this way, throughout history? Always lurking under the restraints of the society a man finds himself in? Or is it a modern cultural phenomena encouraged, perhaps even created by modern cultural programming!

Doesn't the promiscuity of men ALSO lead to the cultural disintegration of western society?

Love this thread!
"What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: "I am a wretchedly longstanding victim;therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition."

"It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised."
Truthville
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:42 am







Postby fschmidt » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:33 am

publicduende wrote:Yet I don't see how this has something to do with feminism as in the "women's rights movement". I don't even believe the historical version of feminism ever was pro-promiscuity. The last period of extreme promiscuity you Americans lived in is the 1920's, a time when the rest of the world was recovering from a devastating war and you could go full steam with an intact industrial output and rivers of cheap debt. Life seemed easy and entire swathes of the upper and middle class were up for a little swinging. You probably remember how it ended: sweeping STDs (some of them a lot less curable than they are now), loads of unwanted kids shut away in orphanages, and signs of severe social disgregation everywhere. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that points to any involvement of prominent female figures, or the feminist movement in such a catastrophic social experiment.

I want to comment on this specifically. In America, women got the right to vote in 1920. This exactly coincides with the period that you are talking about. Women exercised their new found power as you describe with disastrous consequences. I also believe that the great depression was a consequence of this same mentality. The women's suffrage movement was the beginning of feminism and it was quite strong in the 1920s. The depression ended this cultural episode and gave America a respite from the horrors of feminism until the 1960s when it resurfaced.

In contrast, read about American in the 1800s as described by de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont. Here are some samples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The morality of a population may be judged by that of its women, and one cannot observe the society of the United States without marveling at the respect in which the married state is held. This respect never existed to so high a degree among any of the ancient peoples, and European society, corrupt as it is, cannot conceive of such moral purity.

In America they are no severer than elsewhere toward the irregular life and toward even the debauches of a bachelor; many young men can be found here whose dissoluteness is well known, and whose reputations do not suffer thereby; but their excesses, to be pardoned, must be committed outside the circle of family and friends. While indulgent concerning the pleasures obtainable from prostitutes, society condemns without pity those who obtain them at the expense of conjugal fidelity; it is as inflexible toward the man who incites the transgression as toward the woman who acquiesces. Both are banished from society; and to incur this punishment it is not even necessary to have been guilty; to have aroused the suspicion suffices. The domestic hearth is an inviolable shrine which no breath of impurity must besmirch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women. It is not thus that the Americans understand that species of democratic equality which may be established between the sexes. They admit, that as nature has appointed such wide differences between the physical and moral constitution of man and woman, her manifest design was to give a distinct employment to their various faculties; and they hold that improvement does not consist in making beings so dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but in getting each of them to fulfil their respective tasks in the best possible manner. The Americans have applied to the sexes the great principle of political economy which governs the manufactures of our age, by carefully dividing the duties of man from those of woman, in order that the great work of society may be the better carried on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby publicduende » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:15 am

Truthville wrote:
Our primary drive is for survival and reproduction. We will fight hard for resources to the extent that these resources promote these basic ends. In a traditional monogamous society, everyone gets one mate and no one is allowed more. This means that acquiring additional resources or status will not have reproductive benefit and so has little value. Instead, men tend to focus on supporting the tribe in a fairly ego-less way and women focus on raising their children. This makes for a stable and virtuous society. In contrast, in a promiscuous society, there is desperate competition between men for women. In this contest, men fight to acquire status in order to attract women. Promiscuous women also behave very differently from monogamous women. Women have a pecking order that depends on their ability to attract men and to show off resources. Promiscuous women will compete in this pecking order based on consumption. In a monogamous society, women's place in the pecking order is largely determined by the success of her husband and so her best way to improve her status is to support her husband. Feminism is basically anti-marriage, pro-promiscuity. It causes an extremely selfish and immoral culture for reasons just explained. Only traditional monogamous societies can be moral and non-materialistic.


Loved this fschmidt! +1

publicduende? Totally agree with your points about classical feminism NOT having a pro-promiscuity bent to it!

IMHO, somewhere the message of modern feminism morphed from equal rights/opportunities for women to a cultural messaging of "Let's be equal to men by behaving how we think men are!"

One thing I have stated in the past here is that I don't believe that human beings being "slaves" to some DNA programming and/or biological imperative. Many here seem to think that men have no choice BUT to be promiscuous because of aforementioned "programming" when in reality it's just a choice a man makes. 10,000 years ago when man was not much more than a slightly smarter animal? Sure! Now? No!

Berlusconi is a classic example, in my limited view of the man, of the aging, rich, powerful vain man whom clutches onto and worships his vanished youth and refuses to let go. Like America's Hugh Hefner!

One thing I am curious about in regards to the "natural" promiscuity of man IS has it always been this way, throughout history? Always lurking under the restraints of the society a man finds himself in? Or is it a modern cultural phenomena encouraged, perhaps even created by modern cultural programming!

Doesn't the promiscuity of men ALSO lead to the cultural disintegration of western society?

Love this thread!


I agree with the fact that there is a modern mock version of feminism that purports women as a caricature of all that's wrong with being a man. It's just that I can't pinpoint any single group, think tank or institution in particular, even for the sake of giving more blood to the conversation. I have never heard of any serious women's right movement that condones sexual promiscuity or campaigns against marriage and towards preferential treatment over men. There might have been a few experiments in sexual libertarianism back in the 60s or 70s, but I believe they were embraced as an expression of cultural revolution by both sexes, not just the men or the women.

The only one delicate nerve I am aware of is the issue of kids custody in divorced couples. A good friend of mine from Florence has risked to lose her daughter over a bitter divorce case against her ex wife, a real and complete nutcase truth be told, and he packed enough experience to start campaigning in favour of men's right to see their kids more often even when the judge has agreed to let the ex-wife keep the kids (sadly it happens in 90% of the cases, in Italy). That is one good pro-male cause I would marry straight away, even if I have never been involved in a divorce.

About male promiscuity, I think both men and women are born as promiscuous animals. After all if the most useful act of our life as a species weren't also the most pleasurable one, we would be long extinct. Yet as you say our primitive, instinctual self has been buried under centuries of social and moral structures. Most modern men and women are well prepared to restrain their hormones in exchange for the privilege of having something to trust and count on, especially when working towards the common goal of giving the kids a loving environment and a healthy upbringing. So, the usual story of nature vs nurture. Call it programming if you like, albeit it's a centrury-long-running program we're talking about.

Then let's be honest: the kind of sexual freedom and promiscuity discussed almost everywhere on this forum has nothing to do with fulfilling some primitive, vitalistic need for sex. Many young men here seem to be stuck in a teenage time warp where they still feel they have to prove their worthiness to the world by being "alpha", having "game" and winning a snog from a random bimbo met in a club. When met with failure and rejection, they prefer blaming ___ (insert Western country) for having the worst females on the planet and dreaming of an exotic land where local girls will give them attention and sex in exchange for money, or the chance of hooking up with a Westerner and escape a life of misery and get lifelong financial support for themselves and their families. The self-delusion is always that these girls are accepting them for who they are because their culture is different, or because they are more traditional, and never have ulterior motives. When in fact the truth is, if they can't accept themselves for who they are right where they are, nobody else will, not even on the other side of the globe. This is where some of the good expats' advice that, if you can't be happier at home you won't be happier abroad, comes.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby PeterAndrewNolan » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:35 am

publicduende wrote:
PeterAndrewNolan wrote:
publicduende wrote:DA you're a pathological case of social paranoia.

About my secret inclinations, I make no secret of the fact that I'm inclined to give people like you a good reality kick in the arse when they need it.


He happens to be correct and you happen to be wrong.


No mate, you happen to agree with him, and nobody else does.

publicduende,
The truth is the truth in a minority of one.

Looking for how many people agree with you is the worst possible yardstick to determine the truth of the matter......which is why you are using it.

500 years ago "everyone knew" that the world was flat. To say the world was round put you in a small persecuted minority....who happened to also be right.

publicduende,
much of what you say is full of fail. I am not going to bother to say much to you. I have released so much information for lads to read and done so much for lads and they are such ungrateful little shits nowadays they can not even be bothered to read what I have published before trying to tell me how clever they are.

DA, and it would seem I, know so much more than you that you can not even comprehend what it is we might be talking about in many cases so you dismiss it.

I was talking to one of the lead guys at http://www.axj.com/ today. He said one of the main problems they experience is people do not understand and will not listen to explanations.

I assured him that was not a serious problem and the much more serious problem was that men DO understand they are hearing the truth but refuse to accept it and reject the truth out of hand.

We then went on to have a conversation where he made many mistakes and was clearly still deceived by the many deceptions in place such as "I am a US citzen" and "People who live in the USA" and other such comments. When I pointed out that these were deceptions he dismissed them out of hand....too busy trying to tell me things...

One of the BIGGEST problem with men is their hubris. They think what they have to say is sssssooooooooo important that they do not listen.

As I have stated. I think the Illuminati is correct. 95% of the worlds population needs to be killed off as useless eaters....these people are not even bothering to defend themselves from their criminal guvments...indeed in many cases they are openly supporting the very same guvments that are poisoning them. Not.....very......smart.
Feel free to check out my blog:Click ME!
PeterAndrewNolan
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:25 am

Postby publicduende » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:39 am

fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Yet I don't see how this has something to do with feminism as in the "women's rights movement". I don't even believe the historical version of feminism ever was pro-promiscuity. The last period of extreme promiscuity you Americans lived in is the 1920's, a time when the rest of the world was recovering from a devastating war and you could go full steam with an intact industrial output and rivers of cheap debt. Life seemed easy and entire swathes of the upper and middle class were up for a little swinging. You probably remember how it ended: sweeping STDs (some of them a lot less curable than they are now), loads of unwanted kids shut away in orphanages, and signs of severe social disgregation everywhere. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that points to any involvement of prominent female figures, or the feminist movement in such a catastrophic social experiment.

I want to comment on this specifically. In America, women got the right to vote in 1920. This exactly coincides with the period that you are talking about. Women exercised their new found power as you describe with disastrous consequences. I also believe that the great depression was a consequence of this same mentality. The women's suffrage movement was the beginning of feminism and it was quite strong in the 1920s. The depression ended this cultural episode and gave America a respite from the horrors of feminism until the 1960s when it resurfaced.

In contrast, read about American in the 1800s as described by de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont. Here are some samples:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The morality of a population may be judged by that of its women, and one cannot observe the society of the United States without marveling at the respect in which the married state is held. This respect never existed to so high a degree among any of the ancient peoples, and European society, corrupt as it is, cannot conceive of such moral purity.

In America they are no severer than elsewhere toward the irregular life and toward even the debauches of a bachelor; many young men can be found here whose dissoluteness is well known, and whose reputations do not suffer thereby; but their excesses, to be pardoned, must be committed outside the circle of family and friends. While indulgent concerning the pleasures obtainable from prostitutes, society condemns without pity those who obtain them at the expense of conjugal fidelity; it is as inflexible toward the man who incites the transgression as toward the woman who acquiesces. Both are banished from society; and to incur this punishment it is not even necessary to have been guilty; to have aroused the suspicion suffices. The domestic hearth is an inviolable shrine which no breath of impurity must besmirch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women. It is not thus that the Americans understand that species of democratic equality which may be established between the sexes. They admit, that as nature has appointed such wide differences between the physical and moral constitution of man and woman, her manifest design was to give a distinct employment to their various faculties; and they hold that improvement does not consist in making beings so dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but in getting each of them to fulfil their respective tasks in the best possible manner. The Americans have applied to the sexes the great principle of political economy which governs the manufactures of our age, by carefully dividing the duties of man from those of woman, in order that the great work of society may be the better carried on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for enriching the conversation with some historical commentary. I surely know less American history then you do, yet it still sounds difficult for me to believe that some 20 million more votes in 1919 or 1920 might have literally "voted the US down the drain".

Surely there were other, more powerful forces in play. Bankers, industrialists, professional socialites who started promoting an atmosphere of moral and sexual relaxation, perhaps even unaware of the dire consequences.

Surely, even to the present time, women's voting patterns across the world show no signs of being biased towards a particular party, let alone an extreme and potentially disruptive one. It's like saying that in Greece women are voting en masse for the Golden Dawn party. In fact, I know this for certain as I have been involved in leftwing politics for 10 years, most of my fellow female political activists had more brains, ideological and dare say idealistic drive and political acumen than the average male counterparts. Proof of that is that almost every prominent female politician who managed to make it to the higher ranks of low chamber and Senate were of absolute intellectual quality and moral integrity. Too bad they were so few.

In fact we might just have to thank Berlusconi, who himself campaigned for the right of our parliament to have a higher percentage of women ("pink quotas" as he nicknamed it), only to litter the national and regional parliaments with a selection of his best young f***s.

Look, I am trying to be as open minded as I can here. Yet, I just cannot buy into the idea that women as a category are responsible for the rotting of our society. If anything bad has ever come from our governments and power boards, it must have come from a statistical majority of men, if anything because they are in such overwhelming majority of the people in control.

As I said elsewhere, if you or some other people want to embark in a blame game that stretches from your personal issues with women into some cosmic plan of a world dominated by degenerate bitches, then I can give you guys dozens of worthier candidates for your conspiracies.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby publicduende » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:48 am

PeterAndrewNolan wrote:
publicduende wrote:
PeterAndrewNolan wrote:
publicduende wrote:DA you're a pathological case of social paranoia.

About my secret inclinations, I make no secret of the fact that I'm inclined to give people like you a good reality kick in the arse when they need it.


He happens to be correct and you happen to be wrong.


No mate, you happen to agree with him, and nobody else does.

publicduende,
The truth is the truth in a minority of one.

Looking for how many people agree with you is the worst possible yardstick to determine the truth of the matter......which is why you are using it.

500 years ago "everyone knew" that the world was flat. To say the world was round put you in a small persecuted minority....who happened to also be right.

publicduende,
much of what you say is full of fail. I am not going to bother to say much to you. I have released so much information for lads to read and done so much for lads and they are such ungrateful little shits nowadays they can not even be bothered to read what I have published before trying to tell me how clever they are.

DA, and it would seem I, know so much more than you that you can not even comprehend what it is we might be talking about in many cases so you dismiss it.

I was talking to one of the lead guys at http://www.axj.com/ today. He said one of the main problems they experience is people do not understand and will not listen to explanations.

I assured him that was not a serious problem and the much more serious problem was that men DO understand they are hearing the truth but refuse to accept it and reject the truth out of hand.

We then went on to have a conversation where he made many mistakes and was clearly still deceived by the many deceptions in place such as "I am a US citzen" and "People who live in the USA" and other such comments. When I pointed out that these were deceptions he dismissed them out of hand....too busy trying to tell me things...

One of the BIGGEST problem with men is their hubris. They think what they have to say is sssssooooooooo important that they do not listen.

As I have stated. I think the Illuminati is correct. 95% of the worlds population needs to be killed off as useless eaters....these people are not even bothering to defend themselves from their criminal guvments...indeed in many cases they are openly supporting the very same guvments that are poisoning them. Not.....very......smart.


Hey hang on a minute! What are you talking about now? Nobody told you I am not a truth seeker who doesn't appreciate minorities bearing well-researched truths, or versions thereof.
I am open to debate, so long is supported by factual evidence, or at least well argued.

Somebody bring me some facts about women (and I mean only women, not aliens, Zionists or Mariano Rajoy) masterminding any act of political, social or moral decline, and I will give him thumbs up and a serious discussion, which might end up with me agreeing with them.

I am not against you or anyone else and I know full well that one wise man armed with the truth could be stronger than an army of sheeple. Just, give me something to agree on that you haven't written out of your own delusions or taken from questionable sites like Makow's.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby tom » Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:04 pm

Niall Ferguson: Why the West is now in decline?
"There are six killer applications that made the West dominant over the past 500 years. But is that age now over?"

You can see how many of the feminist philosophy's directly undermine many key strengths the West has.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRvBXE90Vg[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99avUOszsRw[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlbN4VM3iwY[/youtube]

Sorry I do not have any time to comment in detail.
tom
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:40 pm

Postby Maker55 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:34 pm

DevilsAdvocate wrote:
publicduende wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Most women are intellectually competent people driven by the same instincts and desires as men

This is sort of the liberal equivalent to believing that the earth is flat. Actually I am not being entirely fair to the flat-earthers because realizing that the earth is round requires some understanding of science, one can't just see this fact with one's own eyes. But seeing that men and women have different instincts and desires is completely obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and has been known throughout history. When I think of all the absurd beliefs that people have held through history, I cannot think of one that is more absurd than that men and women have the same instincts and desires.


Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.




The things you say sound to me like you're a women pretending to be a man....

I don't really know how it is in the UK, but what you describe has no basis for the USA....

In the USA fat girls believe they have a chance with good looking guys, and in many cases, they do. They will buy you gifts and presents and stalk you everyday until you finally throw them a bone....

Damn, I cannot believe I'm talking like this, never in my life did I think I would come down to this level but shit, rough times call for rough talk....

In the USA there is a broader culture of hatred of men, especially white men in general, but all men are fair game at being idiots and worthless....

This is being portrayed on TV where a fat guy is going out with a hot girl and she runs the show while he runs around being the idiot....

This is being done everywhere on every possible level there is, including all movies, all talk shows on TV, etc. Men are being portrayed as being dumb by their nature, dumb and shallow and stupid and only think about sex and can easily be controlled and manipulated because of their inherent stupidity of being a man. Not to mention how evil men are that they held women down and didn't allow them to vote and kept that as slaves in the home to have cook and clean and wash the mans dirty clothes (yuck) and have babies while the man goes out and get's sex from younger women, and then leaves you to have the kids by yourself and you're washed up and ruined as a person, all because of a man....

What good is a man? If a women has her own job, why would she want a man?

Oh yeah, for sex, and hmmm, a lot of men have money so that also is what men are good for, to extract money from....

This is what it's been reduced to, and it's called "feminism"....

Signed,

Devils Advocate


Great post.

This website is starting to attract manginas again.

publicduende actually said that gender equality is a good thing???

Please publicduende, leave this website and never come back again.
Maker55
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:08 am

Postby publicduende » Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:50 pm

Maker55 wrote:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
publicduende wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Most women are intellectually competent people driven by the same instincts and desires as men

This is sort of the liberal equivalent to believing that the earth is flat. Actually I am not being entirely fair to the flat-earthers because realizing that the earth is round requires some understanding of science, one can't just see this fact with one's own eyes. But seeing that men and women have different instincts and desires is completely obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and has been known throughout history. When I think of all the absurd beliefs that people have held through history, I cannot think of one that is more absurd than that men and women have the same instincts and desires.


Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.




The things you say sound to me like you're a women pretending to be a man....

I don't really know how it is in the UK, but what you describe has no basis for the USA....

In the USA fat girls believe they have a chance with good looking guys, and in many cases, they do. They will buy you gifts and presents and stalk you everyday until you finally throw them a bone....

Damn, I cannot believe I'm talking like this, never in my life did I think I would come down to this level but shit, rough times call for rough talk....

In the USA there is a broader culture of hatred of men, especially white men in general, but all men are fair game at being idiots and worthless....

This is being portrayed on TV where a fat guy is going out with a hot girl and she runs the show while he runs around being the idiot....

This is being done everywhere on every possible level there is, including all movies, all talk shows on TV, etc. Men are being portrayed as being dumb by their nature, dumb and shallow and stupid and only think about sex and can easily be controlled and manipulated because of their inherent stupidity of being a man. Not to mention how evil men are that they held women down and didn't allow them to vote and kept that as slaves in the home to have cook and clean and wash the mans dirty clothes (yuck) and have babies while the man goes out and get's sex from younger women, and then leaves you to have the kids by yourself and you're washed up and ruined as a person, all because of a man....

What good is a man? If a women has her own job, why would she want a man?

Oh yeah, for sex, and hmmm, a lot of men have money so that also is what men are good for, to extract money from....

This is what it's been reduced to, and it's called "feminism"....

Signed,

Devils Advocate


Great post.

This website is starting to attract manginas again.

publicduende actually said that gender equality is a good thing???

Please publicduende, leave this website and never come back again.


Feel free not to read my posts. I don't think your life will change much.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yick, zboy1 and 3 guests