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



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


Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Vent your rants and raves here about whatever makes you mad, angry or frustrated.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Postby skateboardstephen » October 24th, 2012, 7:58 am

Winston wrote:Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?


I hate this deflection tactic.Has anyone all so noticed that in a debate women never back up anything they say with tangible facts that one can prove to be true.They all ways refute with some lame ass position that is based on their own personal experience with out seeing the bigger f***ing picture .
se eu soubesse o que eu sei hoje, teria mando mulheres americanas para foder-se há muitos anos.que deus abençoe o brasil!
skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 756
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil




Check out our Dating Sites and HA International Romance Tours!



Postby skateboardstephen » October 24th, 2012, 8:04 am

Adama wrote:Women impose PC on men. They do not impose it on their personal friends. They are only interested in controlling male opinion. They dont give a shit about female opinion. It really is a p***y cartel.


Yeah women can make all the generalizations they want to in the presence of women and have nothing tangible to back up their statements and all the bitches with in earshot will co-sign to everything. When was the last time you hear a women say ''not all men are like that''.
se eu soubesse o que eu sei hoje, teria mando mulheres americanas para foder-se há muitos anos.que deus abençoe o brasil!
skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 756
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil

Re: Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Postby WPO » October 25th, 2012, 1:54 am

Winston wrote:Has anyone noticed that it tends to be women who are big on political correctness, and not so much men? I wonder why. Not only do they get more offended when you say something that's not politically correct, but their views tend to be more politically correct than truthful or factual. I wonder why that is? Could it be cause they are more emotional and political correctness tends to be more emotional than logical?

With men, you can be more upfront about things without offending them. When guys are offended, it's not in a "twisted" way like women are. Ever notice that?

I wonder why women are much bigger on political correctness than men are. Any thoughts?


American women are obviously emotional (and we all know that emotions blunt rationality). AW also tend to be do-gooders (no one appreciates a do-gooder... especially in sports). Also, anyone who has a mind of his/her mind is perceived as a threat and anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or an attacker. They have double/triple/quadruple standards indeed.
Go east, young man. Go east
WPO
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 172
Joined: August 28th, 2012, 3:54 am
Location: north east US

Postby WPO » October 25th, 2012, 1:59 am

skateboardstephen wrote:
Winston wrote:Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?
I hate this deflection tactic.Has anyone all so noticed that in a debate women never back up anything they say with tangible facts that one can prove to be true.They all ways refute with some lame a** position that is based on their own personal experience with out seeing the bigger f***ing picture .


They say things at random, yet when you challenge them they get all uptight. If what is said is true and backed by logic (noncontradiction), there's no need to be upset. When you say something, you should be able to back it up. If not, then expect a long night at the office. AW tend to say a lot of dumb $hit without reason behind it.
Go east, young man. Go east
WPO
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 172
Joined: August 28th, 2012, 3:54 am
Location: north east US

Postby Jester » October 25th, 2012, 7:22 am

skateboardstephen wrote:
Winston wrote:Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?
I hate this deflection tactic.....


Good term.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby skateboardstephen » October 25th, 2012, 8:05 am

Jester wrote:
skateboardstephen wrote:
Winston wrote:Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?
I hate this deflection tactic.....


Good term.


Yeah.The ''not all are like that'' is all ways the avenue women and manginas take when they don't have to intellectual capacity to prove that what you are saying is wrong.And they all ways accuse people of making generalizations but the irony of this is the same people(usually women) accusing you of generalizing are usually part of a demographic that benefits from generalizations, for example through government programs that provide them provisions under the generalization that women can do no wrong and are better parents by default.Generalizations are only o.k to make around women if it supports their wack ass agendas.
se eu soubesse o que eu sei hoje, teria mando mulheres americanas para foder-se há muitos anos.que deus abençoe o brasil!
skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 756
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil

Postby Jester » October 25th, 2012, 8:09 am

Jester wrote:
EvilBaga wrote:It is possible its completely environmental. Certainly partially environmental.
But heres a different view : http://www.love-shy.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... tas#p76660

Quoted from that article, written by fschmidt
This is the key point that you are missing. When you understand why stupid immoral men are the optimal choice for women in feminist societies, everything else will fall into place. So here goes:

The men that women seek in feminist cultures are omegas, not alphas. I have explained this many times. I also discuss the different male mating strategies in my description of co-alpha males. So let's review the different male mating strategies and see when each strategy works best. But first, we must remember that evolution is based on survival and reproduction. The goal is to survive, reproduce, and have your offspring do the same. So let's look at the options.

alpha - A successful alpha can have many children but takes high survival risks to do it. To make the risks worth while, the alpha has a harem that he mate-guards. The prize for getting to the top is exclusive access to a large number of females. In modern times, survival risks are low. But mate-guarding is banned in feminist societies, particularly with multiple females. The alpha instinct will drive this man to success and dominance in the male hierarchy but all this effort is wasted because the prize is not available. There is little evolutionary benefit to becoming a fortune 500 CEO. The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children. So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this.

beta - This is a compromise strategy of allying with an alpha to be part of the winning team. If your team wins, you get access to females, not as many as the alpha, but still some. And if your team loses, you are less exposed to survival risk. This strategy requires being a dependable guy that the alpha can count on without being too ambitious. In modern times, this strategy leads to becoming a good employee. This man is dedicated to his work and is a reliable provider. In modern times, this strategy has little evolutionary benefit. Thanks to feminism, mate-guarding is prohibited. The lower survival risk is no benefit now. So this strategy is inferior to alpha today. As a result, women today find betas unattractive and will only use them as needed for material benefits.

omega - These are the lowest men in status. They are not good providers and so are not good for long term relationships. These men reproduce through seduction. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they are not part of any alliance with alphas or betas, they do not hesitate to chase other men's wives. Women are attracted to these men specifically based on their seduction skill because this, passed on to the woman's sons, will spread her genes. The effectiveness of the omega strategy depends on the effectiveness of mate-guarding in a culture. In primitive times, mate-guarding was moderately effective, so omega survived but didn't thrive. In patriarchal societies, mate-guarding is highly effective and omegas become complete losers who are avoided by women. But in modern feminist cultures, mate-guarding is banned so omegas have by far the best strategy. Omegas are immoral but not necessarily stupid. But feminist culture combined with contraception has made stupidity a huge benefit. Smart omegas who want to avoid being stuck with child support will use contraception. It is generally the stupid omegas who don't use contraception. So by far the best male strategy today is to be a stupid omega. Women recognize this, which is why they are sexually excited by these winners (stupid omegas). It's true that women don't recognize this consciously. What women do recognize instinctually is which types of men are most successful at reproducing, and then women seek this type of man.

co-alpha - These men cooperative dominate a society and divide up the women using monogamy. The co-alpha strategy is about the same survival risk level as beta and about the same reproductive potential. The advantage of co-alpha is that a co-alpha tribe will beat a alpha/beta tribe in warfare because co-alphas all have more of a vested interest in tribal success. (The betas are always at risk of losing favor with the alpha, thereby losing reproductive access, so they have less of a vested interest in the tribe than co-alphas do.) The co-alpha strategy is the most effective mate-guarding strategy because co-alphas mate-guard cooperatively, protecting each other's wives, which makes things impossible for omegas. Co-alphas completely depend on cooperation. For this reason, co-alphas are highly moral and worry about things like justice all the time. When co-alphas are in control, you have patriarchy and a great respect for all traits that contribute to society, including intelligence, honesty, etc. In modern times, co-alphas are the ultimate losers. Mate-guarding is banned and cooperation fails. While modern women have no respect for betas, they are still willing to marry them for the material benefit and will simply cheat on their beta husband with omegas. But modern women will avoid co-alpha males like the plague because co-alphas are harder to cheat on and their failure to cooperate means that they have no advantage of any kind in modern culture. Co-alphas will likely be incels.


I think the argument speaks for itself. I do not know how much of it is right, but definitely it is part of the story. The 'thugs' are not 'genetically superior'. Indeed they will lead civilization back to the likes of current day Zimbabwe in due time. But they are superior at convincing women that they can get other women to sleep with them. By the sexy son hypothesis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis), this would make them attractive.


This is brilliant, brilliant stuff. Explains a lot.


I say again: brilliant stuff.

I was thinking about this in connection with the Philippines. An Alpha/Beta society. leaders at the top can have discreet harems. Thanks to conservative Catholicism, marriage is respected for Betas, too, so we have a patriarchal society where Betas can have stable marriages. Mate-guarding lives.

Except - except for the fact that Filipinas date out, and they go abroad to work. So the misery of the Filipino Beta is increased by the fact that his potential or actual bride can go abroad to work. If they were smart, they would limit girls going abroad. Well, now that i think about it, they do. I think you have to be 25 before you can go abroad as a maid. So they are preserving the under-25 bride-pool for the working class males to have a crack at them before they leave the country. Good for the Philippines!

Come to think of it, Belarus, Cambodia and one place in Central Asia also have restrictions on mail order brides. I always assumed it was because of jealous dictators. But maybe I should give the dictators more credit. Limiting women's options actually may preserve patriarchy at home for the Beta masses.

And how about another example of FSchmidt's theory in action. Armenians. Not the FSU kind, the Middle East kind. Monogamous and patriarchal. Stable permanent marriages. No option for women except to stay loyal and subservient to their husband. And guess what? Incredibly resilient tribe, victorious in war and street fights against more numerous enemies, feared and respected everywhere, persistent and prosperous wherever they go. They are an example of a "co-Alpha" culture. Did they become co-Alpha because of Christianity? Or for survival reasons? Chicken or egg? But now I can see why Middle East Armenians will fool around, but never really have a second family. It doesn't fit.

FSU of course is going to be more of an Alpha/Beta place, still patriarchal. You do well if you're an oligarch, or a "biznesman", or even a corrupt Church official. But this is why we caution each other about trying to tame a Ukrainian gal over here. With no patriarchal environment to restrict her, one would expect change.

If I go to the FSU, I can get a gal, but since I won't be rich, I can only be Beta - and monogamous.

And smalltown Armenian areas in general are looking less attractive. Can be an Alpha, sure, with my American aura, but it's a co-Alpha culture. A pretty young virgin would be obtainable, but not open multiple relationships in the same area.

If I go to a "Third World" country, where I will be Alpha (most of SEA, and poorer cities in LA), and whose women are freely allowed to "date out" (Phil's, Peru), then I should have the best of all possible worlds.

Phil's is looking better and better. Easier to be a social Alpha via doing a little TV and radio where I am fluent in one of the languages. Plus there's karioke!


8)
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » October 25th, 2012, 8:15 am

Final thought:

If Belarus, Cambodia etc. preserve male power by protecting their female herd, what does it mean when AW's discourage men from going abroad?

Protecting their herd - their male herd.
:shock:
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Ginger » November 2nd, 2012, 5:11 am

Deleted my post :)
Last edited by Ginger on June 26th, 2013, 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
I do not promise to be gingerly :P
Ginger
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 391
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 9:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Postby Jester » November 2nd, 2012, 5:54 am

Ginger wrote:I concur with most of Jester's posts here :)

Women, including me, just tends to be more emotional and tends to focus on the details, instead of the big picture..

example:

me: Does this dress make me look fat?
guy: It hugs you on the correct places, and emphasizes your curves, especially your backside.
me: So you are saying my a** is fat??? How could you?
guy: I'm saying the dress fits well
me: {hadouken}

haha :D


Ah yes, details. (Or "de tails"?)... Since your man is a member here, co-Alpha courtesy prevents me from suggesting what **I** would do to your backside, in order to settle your nerves, in this particular situation...

8)
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Re: Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Postby Winston » November 19th, 2015, 10:07 am

Have you all noticed that when you talk about cultural differences or compare people in different cultures around women and girls, that they tend to play devils advocate and look for exceptions to try to prove you wrong? I experience this all the time.

Ethan_sg and i were talking about it last week. Its a very consistent female tendency, even in China. Its like they have some weird psychological need to believe that people and cultures are the same everywhere and that only small individual differences exist. No matter how much hard proof you give them, they still seem biased toward a more politically correct view like that. Have any of you noticed that? Why is that?
Check out my video series Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Also see my HA Grand Ebook and Join Our Dating Sites to support us!

"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: 24669
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm

Re: Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Postby josephty1 » November 20th, 2015, 10:57 am

Winston wrote:Have you all noticed that when you talk about cultural differences or compare people in different cultures around women and girls, that they tend to play devils advocate and look for exceptions to try to prove you wrong?

Its like they have some weird psychological need to believe that people and cultures are the same everywhere and that only small individual differences exist. No matter how much hard proof you give them, they still seem biased toward a more politically correct view like that. Have any of you noticed that? Why is that?


Along with biological differnence, Men were hunter gatherers, soldiers, travelers, etc. Men are more likely to see these observations. Women, seem to be 'stuck' in one location. They 'think' the world like its a tiny island...

Women transmit culture. They are good at this because, as a general rule, they blindly absorb the culture around them.
So they will support whatever the prevalent culture is.


It's like their souls are less individual, more like a programmed robot or organic portal of the time period in the first 20 years of women's lives. Yes they can deal with change and be 'brainwashed'. Some can be reprogrammed from ages 20-39, which explains numerous foreign women who come to America changing so dangerously....

The role of men? Protect women from negative influences in society. If reality is multidimensional than the threats are not the saber tooth tiger, but hidden forces of societies. Christians call it devils/demons, some new agers call them archons, etc.

Long term survival. And sex. Only things that matter to men biologically.

Truth is important to soul's evolution. Women are more intuitive/right-brained. But too much emotions and biological urge for stability (for the children's sake) can make the truth too dangerous. Women need to seek stability even in ideas, since children have to be raised without being killed, eaten, kidnapped, etc.

Men may have to experience something (travel, have an NDE, or discover a scientific idea) and make patterns based on the experience even if super crazy. They can 'travel'. In nature/natural law, women have to follow men, as men lead women and the children to different places. With increased abstraction and less emotion (important for maximizing chance of killing saber tooth tiger, or extracting resources or finding a good place and strategy to eat) humans can survive.

Plus men more likely to be leaders, taller, and more intellectual, if their ideas are crazy but when implemented even in small samples, and the ideas work - well that's how the electronic camera and personal computer became popular. These ideas were first ridiculed and called crazy.

Even if an idea is so crazy but due to men's imagination/creativity, leads to increased survival rate, it benefits the human tribe. Men do not play as caregivers to babies for their first 5-10 years, they have to hunt, invent, adapt to new challenges if necessary (such as sudden ice age or recent major natural disaster) even if 'crazy' or 'offensive'. Women need the environment to be stable and predictable so their risk of losing their child doesn't become too great.

Like the 'crazy' politically incorrect idea of not allowing women to vote - yes in the long term it would ensure humans don't die en masse like the Roman Empire did with massive immigration, etc. Women would panic - they would lose their 'world' they grew up in.

Women mature earlier than men, both in puberty and the mind. This may not be such a good thing if you consider there is less time it takes for them to be completely brainwashed to the environment they grew up in. They are also exposed to less crazy ideas in the smaller amount of time before they 'matured'. They are exposed to idea that they need social acceptance to 'survive'.

Truth or being a social outcast is death to many women. Without the support of the tribe is the woman going to raise her child alone? Or herself? You know the negative outcomes of children raised by single mothers (even worse in countries with less generous government benefits).

The stability to raise the children. Only thing that matters. Sorry for going off tangent. Need to practice writing more.
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 90
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

Re:

Postby josephty1 » August 19th, 2017, 8:49 am

skateboardstephen wrote:
Winston wrote:Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?


I hate this deflection tactic.Has anyone all so noticed that in a debate women never back up anything they say with tangible facts that one can prove to be true.They all ways refute with some lame ass position that is based on their own personal experience with out seeing the bigger f***ing picture .


Yet they're allowed to make generalizations all they want. Go figure.
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 90
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

Re: Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Postby Yohan » August 21st, 2017, 3:25 am

Winston wrote:Has anyone noticed that it tends to be women who are big on political correctness, and not so much men? I wonder why. Not only do they get more offended when you say something that's not politically correct, but their views tend to be more politically correct than truthful or factual. I wonder why that is? Could it be cause they are more emotional and political correctness tends to be more emotional than logical?
With men, you can be more upfront about things without offending them. When guys are offended, it's not in a "twisted" way like women are. Ever notice that?
I wonder why women are much bigger on political correctness than men are. Any thoughts?


I find political correctness and feminism strongly interlinked.
For many women and some men too, political correctness might be very lucrative. I think, it has something to do with your wallet. If you act politically correct as a woman, you might be eligible for benefits, you might be financially rewarded without doing any productive work.

As a woman if you act not politically correct, you might find yourself in serious troubles - more even than men. Check out for example Cassie Jaye, who made the 'Red Pill' movie.
As man in the Western world, you will be anyway treated as 2nd class citizen, politically correct or not.
User avatar
Yohan
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: April 3rd, 2014, 6:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN

Re: Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

Postby josephty1 » September 6th, 2017, 7:02 am

I think it is the way girls are raised.

On the extreme end, girls can be raised to care about their feelings TOO much. Many have a difficult time with concepts that are based on THINGS not PEOPLE.

Political correctness is about shutting up overt displays of generalizations, "all _ people are _" or "__ people are __".



These liberal young people obsesses over 1 thing the uploader said in one video "Palestinians are cockroaches", when the topic of the debate was capitalism vs socialism.

The uploader, a former USSR citizen who immigrated to US, was only using cold logic, supporting capitalism. Didn't mention what he "felt" or anything.

Yet here's a scope of what the liberal socialist protestors said:

"you're racist to believe that black people are naturally predisposed to crime you don't even get your history biography of socialism program if you don't get your history

you can't even back up your america--the back what are you doing here I don't know it's a good question I will I will okay I'll give you the address do you say they like Hitler yeah that's exactly"

On the other extreme end of obsession over feelings and emotions, is emotion suppression. It is debatable what the key emotion that leads to emotion suppression (examples: inability for baby to cry, machismo, shame, etc.)

A prison psychiatrist for twenty-five years, James Gilligan writes about the many aspects of violence. Replete with case studies of both well-known and obscure violent criminals, the book delves into the writings of Freud, Erickson, and into myths and tragedic literature to support the points he is making. He writes that the violent criminals he has known were objects of violence from their early childhood. The author recounts a case of a prison suicide in which it was learned that the victim had been "subjected in childhood to both heterosexual and homosexual incest and pedophilia by both parents and several other relatives and friends of the family, being passed around nude from adult to adult at parties as a kind of sexual 'party favor.'"
"Children who fail to receive sufficient love from others fail to build those reserves of self-love" and mostly feel "numb, empty, and dead," he believes. When there is an absence of self-love in a person the resultant feeling is one of shame. Such feelings can include humiliation, bitterness, and anger. Deep shame often results in the death of the self with a resultant inability to feel anything.

The author believes that overt physical violence is not the only way to kill a child's soul. Words alone are capable of making a child feel and believe that he was worthless and rejected. Violent criminals seem unfeeling because they actually are. Many go to their execution with complete indifference, sometimes with relief. They cannot sympathize with others but neither can they sympathize with themselves. The person who was the receptacle of violence during his early life cannot give to others what he did not first receive. What lies underneath their rage and anger, Gilligan claims, is their early frustrated need to be loved.

Ritualistic murder is an attempt to eliminate the triggered shame by the use of magical thinking. By examining the modus of the murder one can find clues to make sense of senseless killings. The author delves into the lives and behaviors of well known as well as lesser known murderers, including Son of Sam, Starkweather, and others. Even collective violence has symbolism, be believes, as Nazi Germany's violent regime is discussed. Violent incidents recounted in the Bible and in world literature are examined. Dr. Milligan also analyzes the symbolism of shame and violence in myth and world literature.
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 90
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

Previous

Return to Rants and Raves

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests