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       Mobile Friendly Theme


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

skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
Posts: 756
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil
Contact:

Post by 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
Contact:

Post by 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!

WPO
Freshman Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: August 28th, 2012, 3:54 am
Location: north east US

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

Post by 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

Post by 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

Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by 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.

skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
Posts: 756
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil
Contact:

Post by 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!

Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by 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: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by 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..."

Ginger
Freshman Poster
Posts: 391
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 9:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Post by 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

Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by 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)

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27618
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

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

Post by 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 FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"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

josephty1
Freshman Poster
Posts: 69
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

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

Post by josephty1 » November 20th, 2015, 10:57 am

Idk
Last edited by josephty1 on July 27th, 2018, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

josephty1
Freshman Poster
Posts: 69
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

Re:

Post by josephty1 » August 19th, 2017, 8:49 am

skateboardstephen wrote:
Winston wrote:nice insights
Last edited by josephty1 on July 27th, 2018, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yohan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3071
Joined: April 3rd, 2014, 6:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN
Contact:

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

Post by 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.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Rants and Raves”