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


Why are women more likely to conform to culture and trends?

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Why are women more likely to conform to culture and trends?

Postby rome86 » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:22 pm

more so than men.. if we take the Philippines and USA .we notice that those countries have different set of values therefore the women are different

-Philippines promotes family values, community, respect of elders, humility which are reflected on the majority of the women

-USA promotes narcissism, materialism, capitalism, independence, arrogance which are reflected on the majority of American women

all my foreign female friends have all changed ( though still better than American women) compare to the guys.

what do you think ?
hello
rome86
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:42 pm

Postby momopi » Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:13 pm

Women get over old relationships and adopt to new ones quickly. This is possibly due to natural selection. Say if you're a women and your mate was killed while hunting for bacon, you must find/accept another mate within the tribe to increase your chance of survival. If you're unable to adopt to a new mate quickly, then you'd be rejected, lowering your chance of survival.

When humans evolved from hunter-gatherers to agricultural societies, conflicts changed from raids where the loser ran away, to wars where the victor massacred the village/town, killing off all the men and older boys, raping the women and taking the women as their own. Again, the women must adopt quickly to her new master, those who fail to do so would be sold as slaves or killed. The ones who are most successful are those who can adopt quickly to change and learn how to please her new master, gaining his affection and therefore increasing her and her offspring's chance of survival.

...and then when monotheist religions came around, the victor sometimes put the loser's men, women, child, infant, ox, donkey, and sheep to the sword.



Image

Not historically accurate, but fun to read. Or you can just watch the movie.
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby odbo » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:24 am

ok momopi cut the crap. evolution is absolute nonsense, we did not come from tadpoles who then decided to walk and became apes who then decided to be really smart and became humans. i don't know where we came from but i do recognize lies when i see them, and i know the integrity of darwin and other elitists who convinced the people to accept this junk science over 2 centuries.

the idea that women grew to accept change out of the necessity to avoid suffering while men remained stubborn is reaching to say the least. there could be many arguments made for the reasons why women are easily tricked and are ready to jump on any new fad, even if it's the road to degradation and misery, while grown men are suspicious of change. the important thing is that you recognize this fact, not why it exists. in the mean time i'll hypothesize this is simply the reality of femininity vs masculinity, which is why they are meant to work together. of course the same families who pushed darwin's dogshit have successfully divided us people along a million fault lines (sex, age, class, race, politics, etc)
odbo
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 pm

Postby FreeYourMind » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:22 am

LinuxOnly wrote:ok momopi cut the crap. evolution is absolute nonsense, we did not come from tadpoles who then decided to walk and became apes who then decided to be really smart and became humans. i don't know where we came from but i do recognize lies when i see them, and i know the integrity of darwin and other elitists who convinced the people to accept this junk science over 2 centuries.

the idea that women grew to accept change out of the necessity to avoid suffering while men remained stubborn is reaching to say the least. there could be many arguments made for the reasons why women are easily tricked and are ready to jump on any new fad, even if it's the road to degradation and misery, while grown men are suspicious of change. the important thing is that you recognize this fact, not why it exists. in the mean time i'll hypothesize this is simply the reality of femininity vs masculinity, which is why they are meant to work together. of course the same families who pushed darwin's dogshit have successfully divided us people along a million fault lines (sex, age, class, race, politics, etc)


Bingo! The "theory" of evolution is ridiculous. I don't know how we got here either, but I give more credence to the explanations of shamans than I do Darwin.
FreeYourMind
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:15 am

Postby Winston » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:47 am

Perhaps "conform" is a more accurate word than "accommodate", so I changed the title to "conform".

Momopi probably does believe in Darwinian Evolution, but he wasn't talking about that here. He was giving some plausible reasons why the behavior of women might have evolved the way it did from human tribal times til now. Evolution is a whole nother subject, which other threads on this forum have already covered.

This question is related to my question on another thread about why women are bigger on political correctness and fear the truth more than men do. We all know that around women, you can't be too truthful about everything. This goes for everything, not just about dating abroad. Instead, you gotta sound innocent, be politically correct and say only positive things. That's how they are. I don't know why. But that's how they are, and we've all learned that as part of our socialization process.

Women definitely get offended easier than men do. I don't know why, perhaps they are more sensitive or narcissistic? And emptier, so that they don't have a strong internal sense of value or self-worth?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23594
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby S_Parc » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:01 am

Winston wrote:Women definitely get offended easier than men do. I don't know why, perhaps they are more sensitive or narcissistic? And emptier, so that they don't have a strong internal sense of value or self-worth?


Well, if my sister can provide any guideline here, the female version of narcissistic personality disorder is histrionic personality disorder.

And yes, if you do the psych review, it's about low internal self-worth and a need for glamor and self-adulation for any sense of purpose.
S_Parc
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:01 pm

Postby gsjackson » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:06 am

Ditto -- evolution is mostly nonsense. It's exhilarating to be able to say that without some intellectual bully like Richard Dawkins telling you you're stupid. I've got no brief for Biblical creationism, but I just see next to no evidence supporting macro-evolution or natural selection. It's basically a power game run by academics, a way of attempting to demonstrate superiority.

Women are nesters, and they have to build the nest in the tree at hand. Part of nesting is having a suitable social status, and they are finely attuned to the necessary opinions and attitudes for establishing it in the particular culture. Truth is relative for them. See G.B. Shaw -- Man and Superman.

And dear God, do be careful about teasing American women, whatever PUA con men may have to say on the subject. I grew up in the culture of sports-minded American males born between 1930 and 1960. Giving each other the needle was a regular part of that culture. That emphatically does not translate to relations with AW. Especially nowadays when they are always alert for evidence to confirm the presumption that you are heinous. The moment they meet you they're beginning to build the case against you.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby S_Parc » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:14 am

gsjackson wrote:I grew up in the culture of sports-minded American males born between 1930 and 1960. Giving each other the needle was a regular part of that culture. That emphatically does not translate to relations with AW. Especially nowadays when they are always alert for evidence to confirm the presumption that you are heinous. The moment they meet you they're beginning to build the case against you.


The problem is that if a man doesn't treat them in either an aloof or "brush off" player's mentality, they immediately put the guy in a 'Beta' male position and take him for granted. Thus, don't worry about the 'case' file, just take care of yourself.
S_Parc
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:01 pm

Postby Winston » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:05 am

gsjackson wrote:Ditto -- evolution is mostly nonsense. It's exhilarating to be able to say that without some intellectual bully like Richard Dawkins telling you you're stupid. I've got no brief for Biblical creationism, but I just see next to no evidence supporting macro-evolution or natural selection. It's basically a power game run by academics, a way of attempting to demonstrate superiority.

Women are nesters, and they have to build the nest in the tree at hand. Part of nesting is having a suitable social status, and they are finely attuned to the necessary opinions and attitudes for establishing it in the particular culture. Truth is relative for them. See G.B. Shaw -- Man and Superman.

And dear God, do be careful about teasing American women, whatever PUA con men may have to say on the subject. I grew up in the culture of sports-minded American males born between 1930 and 1960. Giving each other the needle was a regular part of that culture. That emphatically does not translate to relations with AW. Especially nowadays when they are always alert for evidence to confirm the presumption that you are heinous. The moment they meet you they're beginning to build the case against you.


I'm with yo on Evolution and Creation. Neither one make sense and fail to account for much. The Creation story is based purely on text in a book called the Bible, and on the assumption that the Bible is infallible literal truth beyond all question, which there is not one good reason for.

The biggest problem with Macro-Evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. Evolutionists have slides they call "transitions fossils" but they have not proven that they are, for they could merely have been a separate species. Furthermore, if Macro-Evolution were true, there would have to be millions of transitional fossils among the millions we have already collected. But there aren't. Evolutionists just keep making excuses and act like their belief is a religion, masquerading behind science.

Check out this video by Lloyd Pye, whom I've met, where he explains why the DNA/Genetic evidence points toward an intervention in our genes at some point in our history, which explains many things that conventional theories don't.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4[/youtube]
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23594
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby rome86 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:38 am

what i meant by accommodate/conform is that the environment tends to have major influence over women more so than men. So basically in order to predict how most women might act you just have to watch and study the environment that surrounds them.
humble surroundings = humble women (the majority of course)
shallow/arrogant/materialistic surroundings = shallow/materialistic women

So boys when you travel watch closely the environment you set your feet in to have a faint idea of what kind of women you might end up with... :lol:
hello
rome86
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:42 pm

Postby momopi » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:07 pm

LinuxOnly wrote:ok momopi cut the crap. evolution is absolute nonsense, we did not come from tadpoles who then decided to walk and became apes who then decided to be really smart and became humans. i don't know where we came from but i do recognize lies when i see them, and i know the integrity of darwin and other elitists who convinced the people to accept this junk science over 2 centuries.

the idea that women grew to accept change out of the necessity to avoid suffering while men remained stubborn is reaching to say the least. there could be many arguments made for the reasons why women are easily tricked and are ready to jump on any new fad, even if it's the road to degradation and misery, while grown men are suspicious of change. the important thing is that you recognize this fact, not why it exists. in the mean time i'll hypothesize this is simply the reality of femininity vs masculinity, which is why they are meant to work together. of course the same families who pushed darwin's dogshit have successfully divided us people along a million fault lines (sex, age, class, race, politics, etc)



What I talked about was behavioral genetics, as opposed to tabula rasa. Look up "MAOA gene" controversy for example.

IMO within this century, the debate will become irreverent as mankind march toward human genetic engineering. We've already done primitive versions through in-vitro and ooplasmic transfer. But in the future it'd be those who can afford it, will produce "perfect" babies through germinal choice technology, kids that will grow up to be taller, faster, smarter, better looking, and free of most genetic diseases, allergies, etc., leaving the poor-er population behind on the "natural" curve.

The future, I think, will be more "Gattaca" than "Idiocracy". However, since Americans tend to be opposed to human genetic engineering due to religious-morality reasons, the US will probably be left behind for couple generations.
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Postby Grunt » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:23 am

Females, not being able to forcefully influence their environment to the degree that males can, tend to lean on subtlety and guile to survive.

In more comfortable and prosperous cultures, this tendency of females to dissimulate becomes less a matter of survival and more a matter of petty manipulation.

Put simply, today females will lie even when the truth would suffice, and enjoy doing so.
How to deal with newbies that talk much but do little.

Pics or it didn't happen.

YES/NO

Cool story, bro.

Problem solved.
Grunt
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:13 pm

Postby The_Adventurer » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:11 pm

I think women conforming to environment can be a great thing. The environment I'm in seems to contain a lot of mothers who would beat the living daylights out of their daughters if they were promiscuous or even chose the wrong kind of boyfriend. Makes it far more likely one can find a loyal, family oriented partner.
“b***y is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of b***y in another dimension." -- Joe Rogan
User avatar
The_Adventurer
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:17 pm

Postby MrPeabody » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:51 pm

Women are submissive by nature. This use to be common knowledge before men were confused by feminist delusions.
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:53 pm

Postby Benj » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:48 pm

MrPeabody wrote:Women are submissive by nature. This use to be common knowledge before men were confused by feminist delusions.


Agreed. I would also like to add: before women got confused by feminist delusions as well. It just seems to me that most women lie to hide their actual feminine instincts. It's all delusion. But that could just be me.
Benj
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:14 pm

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: starchild5 and 6 guests