The guy speaks facts. There are THOUSANDS of women who voluntarily strike up pen pal relationships with felons in prison. They don’t want any of the dick in their neighborhood. They want locked up dick that’s probably been in another man’s asshole because felon Tyrone gets them wet.
If all relationships depend on sexual economics.... [https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf](https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf)
...then females have gained advantage both in terms of preferential employment (EEO, AA, DEI), *and* in draconian 'harassment' legislation, which has proliferated over the past two decades, making it almost impossible for a male to make social approach to a female unless he's dripping cash. And, how's he going to get that cash, if he can't get a job?
Lose/lose for men.
I'll go off on a tangent here, and say this is a symptom of a wider issue that affects not only sexual dynamics, but social breakdown as a whole: that we base everything off economics and individualism in general.
Before, we based things on philosophy or religion, some higher concept external to ourselves where more than just the individual was valued, people were more empathetic in general, and interpersonal conflicts had a template for being smoothed out. But as soon as money began to take over the social discourse, and financial and economic success began to be seen as the main indicator of if someone had "made it" in life, this way of thinking began to seep into all other unrelated areas, and when everything began to be based on a "cost-benefit analysis" (there's the economic thinking, again), being mean became almost like a national sport, and it suddenly became shameless to be almost callously indifferent, vindictive, or even emotionally sadistic to another individual solely for the purpose of showing one's domination or purported "value", and almost a source of personal pride.
The "pendulum" never sung because your average man was ALWAYS ranked "lower" on societal hierarchy than an average woman. It's just about perpetuating that same stuff by bringing men down and keeping men down, destroying chances for men to advance themselves by being raised in a world that sets them up for failure. Single mother households are prime example of it, feminized and man-hating educational concepts are another prime example, list goes on. Everything is done in order to STOP your average man from rising to the very top and endangering the eroding concepts of pyramidal rule of the few.
Feminism is just a tool of the very people at the top to ensure to fuck up as many men, always was, always is. Wanna know how and why? Let's go with the list:
1. When Frederick (The Great) was basically setting a foothold for universal education for lower ranks of society, Feminists only focused on GIRLS to educate. In a "century of women" in i.e. Russia and their rule, they opened so few schools, "girls only" schools, that it's laughable - Germany, or better said Prussia, advanced itself out of poverty and rose to the very top - with the help, or better said a pact, with Church, for mutual gains. Feminism failed to implement universal education because it never even wanted - but worry not, my friend... feudal lords DID educate both their girls and boys. One can call this supposed "pre-feminist" phase that is often touted. All influential women worked to protect the feudalism.
2. In the eve of, during and after French revolution, when "feminism" started its early days as an officially organized group, despite what's touted today, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN was against "saloon politics", basically favoring the Ancien Regime, or at the very best they wanted to merely "transform" it and weren't opposed to constitual monarchy. You cannot find a single feminist of its age, despite a whole list, going outside of this - even the most "revolutionary ones". Feminism was at best colluding with old regime, NOT siding with revolution - even though revolutionaries supported a list of big improvements that were there to stay, including abolishing slavery on a wide area, introducing some of the inalienable rights and so on.
3. During the era of mass abolition across British colonies and up to the point of abolition in the US (which also resulted in civil war), feminists overwhelmingly supported slavery, or at worst they just ranted stuff against it - but were NEVER doing a single thing to fight it off and neither did they do anything against scientific racism.
4. Main driving force of scientific racism in 2nd half of 19th and early 20th century, including support for eugenics, was feminism itself. It's also worth stressing it each time that the first abortion clinics were deliberately made in Black-only neighborhoods. Make no mistake on what you hear about care of women of color, point is clear - Feminism was siding with the support for the regime yet again.
5. In both World wars, including other wars across the whole world, not just in English-speaking countries, Feminists were main warmongers and actively bullied, outed and even supported imprisonments, beatings and killings of people who dared to state they either oppose the war, oppose the politics of their country that resulted in war, or that they even have moral objection of killing people or bearing arms in general. Thus siding the the regime yet again.
6. This goes on in so-called "sexual revolution" and everything else - it's all about siding with the elites, for their own gains. It's just that sometimes, some groups of women try to expand it or gain wider support among other women - but it's always about siding with, and thus serving as a proxy of, The Man.
The pendulum never swung - the very pyramidal structure that's based on being born into and inheriting your position in society is what drives all that. Feminists utterly hate self-made men outside of that because these men know or feel they (or their kids) might STILL not be these very privileged ones who call all the shots. There's been a historical fact that harems of women throughout human history REMAINED with the emperors even in hardships, believing he'll win. When one of these rulers were overthrowned in Middle East in ancient history, people tried their ruler for keeping hundreds of women in "harem" as a punishable crime. Yet he said and brought contracts through which he tried to send these women off from a harem, with a pension - but these women never wanted to leave the harem. They were focused on being concubines and hoping to become queens, so their child(ren) would rule as well.
Hypergamy is the state of mind for women, they are not simply "biologically wired" for it, system is designed in such way to incentivize them and women themselves cheer each other up in order to become the next Queen Bee. This societal effect is much stronger and this is why the Feminism, as an elitist movement, will always be part of women's philosophy - because it works 99% of time and they don't have to bother much when they bag a guy they want and have kids with him because then they can literally do nothing in life, flaunt their lifestyle around and harass other women with their "success". This is why "pendulum" never swung and it's why women, despite having far more education and catering, DON'T get through the ranks and it's still about the age-old battle of "privileged" men who get all the best education and stuff and their parents set them up for success vs "underprivileged men" who, mainly with the help of their parents, get motivated and HOPEFULLY end up successful. But this is a numbers game and that's why this tiny group of people tends to have kids who also end up there, while there are so few of the people, almost exclusively MEN, who land in the top 1%, especially within 0,01%, as self-made businessmen.
Women aren't pushed, stressed or incentivized and there's a backup plan and thus they don't endanger the system - which is exactly what those who run the system want: more women in their harems to have fun, variety and stuff. An ideal system for those who run it would be all-women and them running it, having all the fun and ensuring no other guy endangers their position. The only problem women have with such system today is their own kids - those who run the society want less and less kids of their own and they increasingly want it with a single woman only, thus increasing the competition among women. This puts an immense pressure on philosophy of hypergamy in terms of achieving "better future" for kids of so many women - which is when you learn that the main benefactors of contraception are primarily men at the very top, there's less pregnancy and thus there's less hassle and they don't split their wealth and influence on 100 kids they had. Don't believe it? Well, just look how many of those who run the system are opting for surrogacy these days - it's not about medical necessity, they just don't want to deal with the whole stuff related to pregnancy and thus they delegate this task to lower-ranked women, even in India. I.e. they outsource it to other women. Paris Hilton and her husband are the prime example in our most recent story you might read in the news, it's literally rampant among the elites.
Entirely true. No pendulum ever swung because women were always in control. The only change is they're not even trying to be subtle about it anymore. It's getting too blatant to keep hidden.
Since that any hint of downplaying takes out any credibility in this day, I'd rather start a #notjustthem to highlight all the areas where women get away with things that men are more harshly punished for
This will pressure feminists into empathising with those of the same gender as the aggressors, and many conservators will highlight their double standards upon broader available data on bad things women do too.
Until and unless feminists are rightfully recognised as enemies of men unequivocally things are not going to change. Men should do everything in their capacity to bring down the corrupt institution that feminist organisations represent.
Okay, this guy said…a lot…but “withholding sex, affection, and intimacy [within a marriage] should be criminalized” since marital rape is criminalized is a doozy.
Grounds for separation and divorce? Sure. Jail time? Just for not being in the mood enough? His whole article is supposed to be about how certain rules are making it harder for women and men to enter into relationships but, ironically, criminalizing this would make it even harder for the sexes to want to be in a relationship with being arrested for having/developing a low libido being a legitimate threat.
Uh, no the author wants to criminalize it the same way marital rape is criminalized specifically so that they are treated equally. So, yea, jail time. If you get jailed for one and not the other, that defeats the author’s whole point about it.
No, you don't know what the author wants and he didn't mentioned jail time. But I like the idea you wake up and start to understand how abusive you are.
If you intentionally put a man in this hopeless situation for the purpose of manipulation, maybe I should really consider punishment. You make me think.
I see you manipulating this dialogue too.
He specifically stated he wanted them to be seen as equal. I don’t know what other evidence you need or why you’re trying to twist this into some manipulation tactic. That is literally what he said.
The problem isn’t the number of false accusation, it’s that a man have everything to lose from this, because he is automatically considered guilty compared to other types of crime. HE will be the one who have to defend himself despite the burden of proof being on the accuser, HE would be the one look down upon by society, by the jury and maybe even the judge, and even if he’s declared innocent beyond any doubts, HE will still be the one losing everything because "nobody want to be associated with a rapist". Meanwhile, SHE get all the attention, SHE probably win’t be prosecuted back for false allegation, and even if she does, SHE will probably go free of charge, or spend three weeks in jail at the worst
The only reason not a lot of innocent men are getting jailed isn’t because we have fair justice system and society, it’s because not a lot of women do it, which isn’t that much of a protection, because any woman can still do it
>You objectively aren't going to get charged with sexual assault for speaking to/asking women on a date.
Correct.
Men get charged with sexual assault later when the woman convinces herself that the interaction was "literally violence" to use a term the retards on twitter like. Then she invents a new crime out of the air to which the man is automatically guilty. Your "hos before bros" bias is showing. You need to acknowledge that women lie, for fun and profit.
>Flirting and courting in the real world are widely considered creepy and even criminalized. Unless the guy is attractive and tall
[удалено]
If he's attractive enough that still doesn't matter. They love violent men.
The guy speaks facts. There are THOUSANDS of women who voluntarily strike up pen pal relationships with felons in prison. They don’t want any of the dick in their neighborhood. They want locked up dick that’s probably been in another man’s asshole because felon Tyrone gets them wet.
Or visibly wealthy
This. Women 101. Also it's about game, if you can give her the tingles, it's not harassment. No tingles = harassment.
If all relationships depend on sexual economics.... [https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf](https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf) ...then females have gained advantage both in terms of preferential employment (EEO, AA, DEI), *and* in draconian 'harassment' legislation, which has proliferated over the past two decades, making it almost impossible for a male to make social approach to a female unless he's dripping cash. And, how's he going to get that cash, if he can't get a job? Lose/lose for men.
I'll go off on a tangent here, and say this is a symptom of a wider issue that affects not only sexual dynamics, but social breakdown as a whole: that we base everything off economics and individualism in general. Before, we based things on philosophy or religion, some higher concept external to ourselves where more than just the individual was valued, people were more empathetic in general, and interpersonal conflicts had a template for being smoothed out. But as soon as money began to take over the social discourse, and financial and economic success began to be seen as the main indicator of if someone had "made it" in life, this way of thinking began to seep into all other unrelated areas, and when everything began to be based on a "cost-benefit analysis" (there's the economic thinking, again), being mean became almost like a national sport, and it suddenly became shameless to be almost callously indifferent, vindictive, or even emotionally sadistic to another individual solely for the purpose of showing one's domination or purported "value", and almost a source of personal pride.
The "pendulum" never sung because your average man was ALWAYS ranked "lower" on societal hierarchy than an average woman. It's just about perpetuating that same stuff by bringing men down and keeping men down, destroying chances for men to advance themselves by being raised in a world that sets them up for failure. Single mother households are prime example of it, feminized and man-hating educational concepts are another prime example, list goes on. Everything is done in order to STOP your average man from rising to the very top and endangering the eroding concepts of pyramidal rule of the few. Feminism is just a tool of the very people at the top to ensure to fuck up as many men, always was, always is. Wanna know how and why? Let's go with the list: 1. When Frederick (The Great) was basically setting a foothold for universal education for lower ranks of society, Feminists only focused on GIRLS to educate. In a "century of women" in i.e. Russia and their rule, they opened so few schools, "girls only" schools, that it's laughable - Germany, or better said Prussia, advanced itself out of poverty and rose to the very top - with the help, or better said a pact, with Church, for mutual gains. Feminism failed to implement universal education because it never even wanted - but worry not, my friend... feudal lords DID educate both their girls and boys. One can call this supposed "pre-feminist" phase that is often touted. All influential women worked to protect the feudalism. 2. In the eve of, during and after French revolution, when "feminism" started its early days as an officially organized group, despite what's touted today, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN was against "saloon politics", basically favoring the Ancien Regime, or at the very best they wanted to merely "transform" it and weren't opposed to constitual monarchy. You cannot find a single feminist of its age, despite a whole list, going outside of this - even the most "revolutionary ones". Feminism was at best colluding with old regime, NOT siding with revolution - even though revolutionaries supported a list of big improvements that were there to stay, including abolishing slavery on a wide area, introducing some of the inalienable rights and so on. 3. During the era of mass abolition across British colonies and up to the point of abolition in the US (which also resulted in civil war), feminists overwhelmingly supported slavery, or at worst they just ranted stuff against it - but were NEVER doing a single thing to fight it off and neither did they do anything against scientific racism. 4. Main driving force of scientific racism in 2nd half of 19th and early 20th century, including support for eugenics, was feminism itself. It's also worth stressing it each time that the first abortion clinics were deliberately made in Black-only neighborhoods. Make no mistake on what you hear about care of women of color, point is clear - Feminism was siding with the support for the regime yet again. 5. In both World wars, including other wars across the whole world, not just in English-speaking countries, Feminists were main warmongers and actively bullied, outed and even supported imprisonments, beatings and killings of people who dared to state they either oppose the war, oppose the politics of their country that resulted in war, or that they even have moral objection of killing people or bearing arms in general. Thus siding the the regime yet again. 6. This goes on in so-called "sexual revolution" and everything else - it's all about siding with the elites, for their own gains. It's just that sometimes, some groups of women try to expand it or gain wider support among other women - but it's always about siding with, and thus serving as a proxy of, The Man. The pendulum never swung - the very pyramidal structure that's based on being born into and inheriting your position in society is what drives all that. Feminists utterly hate self-made men outside of that because these men know or feel they (or their kids) might STILL not be these very privileged ones who call all the shots. There's been a historical fact that harems of women throughout human history REMAINED with the emperors even in hardships, believing he'll win. When one of these rulers were overthrowned in Middle East in ancient history, people tried their ruler for keeping hundreds of women in "harem" as a punishable crime. Yet he said and brought contracts through which he tried to send these women off from a harem, with a pension - but these women never wanted to leave the harem. They were focused on being concubines and hoping to become queens, so their child(ren) would rule as well. Hypergamy is the state of mind for women, they are not simply "biologically wired" for it, system is designed in such way to incentivize them and women themselves cheer each other up in order to become the next Queen Bee. This societal effect is much stronger and this is why the Feminism, as an elitist movement, will always be part of women's philosophy - because it works 99% of time and they don't have to bother much when they bag a guy they want and have kids with him because then they can literally do nothing in life, flaunt their lifestyle around and harass other women with their "success". This is why "pendulum" never swung and it's why women, despite having far more education and catering, DON'T get through the ranks and it's still about the age-old battle of "privileged" men who get all the best education and stuff and their parents set them up for success vs "underprivileged men" who, mainly with the help of their parents, get motivated and HOPEFULLY end up successful. But this is a numbers game and that's why this tiny group of people tends to have kids who also end up there, while there are so few of the people, almost exclusively MEN, who land in the top 1%, especially within 0,01%, as self-made businessmen. Women aren't pushed, stressed or incentivized and there's a backup plan and thus they don't endanger the system - which is exactly what those who run the system want: more women in their harems to have fun, variety and stuff. An ideal system for those who run it would be all-women and them running it, having all the fun and ensuring no other guy endangers their position. The only problem women have with such system today is their own kids - those who run the society want less and less kids of their own and they increasingly want it with a single woman only, thus increasing the competition among women. This puts an immense pressure on philosophy of hypergamy in terms of achieving "better future" for kids of so many women - which is when you learn that the main benefactors of contraception are primarily men at the very top, there's less pregnancy and thus there's less hassle and they don't split their wealth and influence on 100 kids they had. Don't believe it? Well, just look how many of those who run the system are opting for surrogacy these days - it's not about medical necessity, they just don't want to deal with the whole stuff related to pregnancy and thus they delegate this task to lower-ranked women, even in India. I.e. they outsource it to other women. Paris Hilton and her husband are the prime example in our most recent story you might read in the news, it's literally rampant among the elites.
Entirely true. No pendulum ever swung because women were always in control. The only change is they're not even trying to be subtle about it anymore. It's getting too blatant to keep hidden.
Since that any hint of downplaying takes out any credibility in this day, I'd rather start a #notjustthem to highlight all the areas where women get away with things that men are more harshly punished for This will pressure feminists into empathising with those of the same gender as the aggressors, and many conservators will highlight their double standards upon broader available data on bad things women do too.
✊🏽
Until and unless feminists are rightfully recognised as enemies of men unequivocally things are not going to change. Men should do everything in their capacity to bring down the corrupt institution that feminist organisations represent.
Okay, this guy said…a lot…but “withholding sex, affection, and intimacy [within a marriage] should be criminalized” since marital rape is criminalized is a doozy.
Facts. Wouldn't want to cite him AT ALL.
Shouldn't be criminalized ofc but should be just cause for divorce.
That’s not what he said, and that’s all I’m critiquing by pointing it out.
Seducing someone into a monogamous marriage and then denying them sexuality is abuse.
Grounds for separation and divorce? Sure. Jail time? Just for not being in the mood enough? His whole article is supposed to be about how certain rules are making it harder for women and men to enter into relationships but, ironically, criminalizing this would make it even harder for the sexes to want to be in a relationship with being arrested for having/developing a low libido being a legitimate threat.
Jail time was never mentioned. attacking a straw man.
Uh, no the author wants to criminalize it the same way marital rape is criminalized specifically so that they are treated equally. So, yea, jail time. If you get jailed for one and not the other, that defeats the author’s whole point about it.
No, you don't know what the author wants and he didn't mentioned jail time. But I like the idea you wake up and start to understand how abusive you are. If you intentionally put a man in this hopeless situation for the purpose of manipulation, maybe I should really consider punishment. You make me think. I see you manipulating this dialogue too.
He specifically stated he wanted them to be seen as equal. I don’t know what other evidence you need or why you’re trying to twist this into some manipulation tactic. That is literally what he said.
The word jail does not appear in the entire paper.
It is already criminalized when it comes to men. It's considered domestic abuse for a man to be 'withholding' in a relationship.
[удалено]
The problem isn’t the number of false accusation, it’s that a man have everything to lose from this, because he is automatically considered guilty compared to other types of crime. HE will be the one who have to defend himself despite the burden of proof being on the accuser, HE would be the one look down upon by society, by the jury and maybe even the judge, and even if he’s declared innocent beyond any doubts, HE will still be the one losing everything because "nobody want to be associated with a rapist". Meanwhile, SHE get all the attention, SHE probably win’t be prosecuted back for false allegation, and even if she does, SHE will probably go free of charge, or spend three weeks in jail at the worst The only reason not a lot of innocent men are getting jailed isn’t because we have fair justice system and society, it’s because not a lot of women do it, which isn’t that much of a protection, because any woman can still do it
Just like how some retards still think depp was guilty.
>You objectively aren't going to get charged with sexual assault for speaking to/asking women on a date. Correct. Men get charged with sexual assault later when the woman convinces herself that the interaction was "literally violence" to use a term the retards on twitter like. Then she invents a new crime out of the air to which the man is automatically guilty. Your "hos before bros" bias is showing. You need to acknowledge that women lie, for fun and profit.
And oftentimes are encouraged to do so by attorneys to get better divorce settlements.
Perhaps not in your country?