Bloomberg had a widely shared article on the most stressful person in America.
The study breaks out the most stressed people in America as:
1- Women in their 20s and 30s
2- Millennials
3- Women in general
In the rush to be politically correct, they failed to realize that all of the stressors highlighted for women and millennials are all things that men have to deal with at very similar levels if not higher.
Example: Single mothers complain about having to work and raise a child, but they did not mention the child support that the fathers are paying in most instances nor the welfare that they receive from the government.
Men deal with these issues, and many more, without appearing nearly as stressed as these women. Men give up 20%+ of their incomes to support these women, and rarely qualify for any kind of government assistance.
Feminism publicly says that they are pushing for equality, but what they really want is preferential treatment. Since no amount of preferential treatment will ever deal with all issues in their lives, they will be forever looking for more and more preferential treatment without regard for the damage to society or the burden that it places on men around them.
Equal is equal.
Demand equality.
[deleted]
watersign 11y ago
as a millenial with a good job whose about to switch to a better one and has no debt, its refreshing to see that i dont relate to these people.
raob11 11y ago
While I agree with the statement "The results of Feminism are negatively affecting entire generations"
... I don't think this is the best evidence to support that statement.
We already have all the evidence necessary, in the single mother pattern, the feral children, the lost boys (in the US we are now entering our 3rd generation of lost children raising lost children)....
And, sure it's fun to come here and blow off steam. But that does nothing to change anything. Not about yourself, not about the world around you.
Maybe, just maybe, there's some guy reading this sub, looking for answers... do you think this post will help him?
If not, then you're just masturbating in public.
krakosia 11y ago
That's the moneyshot right there
[deleted] 11y ago
I think this is a sort of introductory type thing for new redpillers which we are never short on, this sort of thing bears repeating.
As for actual solutions we must end no fault divorce and push for the vows in marriage to be legally binding, and end this concept of marriage entitlement that has ruined 3 generations.
curious97 11y ago
I'm way less optimistic. This is not something that is fixed by a law or two, God knows our ancestors have tried it and failed (see roman bachelor tax). We will need an ideological revolution, a paradigm shift the likes of which haven't been seen since 1789 (yes, feminism is merely a symptom, the root cause is much deeper than that.) but in the opposite direction, towards collectivism this time.
I have no doubts about this happening eventually. All past civilizations have gone through the same cycle. Be assured that the new civilization will also get infected by something like feminism towards its end (we're talking quite a few centuries into the future now)
Otioseone1 11y ago
The change to no fault and the pill were the shift. We need to start the shift back on those. Men should hold reigns on conception.Turning back no fault begins the paradigm shift to the proven method of doing it right.
I agree we can learn from the past but not just that we are doomed,destined to stay the same course. Instead we can re learn that no other system works but families.We still have a shot,perhaps a "let them eat cake" event will awake a giant in our world.
Elodrian 11y ago
You're oversimplifying. If you model interactions between rational actors employing different strategies to govern their interactions you will commonly see that, instead of one strategy winning out entirely, you end up with a stable equilibrium with disparate strategies co-existing in some ratio that is determined by the relative payouts of each strategy.
The nuclear family is one strategy for interaction. So is a communal extended family. So is complete promiscuity with children raised by whomever loses the game of musical chairs. All of these strategies "work" insofar as they reproduce the genes of the individuals involved. Things get interesting when we start to analyze the relative utility of each strategy compared to the others and then to assess how intervention by the state (and, believe it or not, we are all beneficiaries of the state) artificially advantages one strategy over another.
Otioseone1 11y ago
Find an example from past where I am wrong.
Now from the unneeded technical terminology, I see your first paragraph states something I assumed we both know. Most cultures based on this system where not the nuclear family from old black and white TV families were not the norm of real world families in their day,there is always variance.The family on TV the was the idealistic goal.An arrow pointing up to guide, not a thumb pressing down to force into a mold. It was the goal, and as a result you got yer basic " with a stable equilibrium with disparate strategies co-existing in some ratio that is determined by the relative payouts of each strategy.",or as I call it, the society of the day.
but
it only works with this as the acknowledged only working strategy of building and not destroying a civilization.The other options work for tribal and primitive societal cultures in practice only.This is not a relative truth.
[deleted] 11y ago
As a Man, society has taught me that my problems, my pains, my challenges, my feelings, my health, my wants and needs, and my overall well being is not even remotely as important as that of a female citizen. I have also learned that I must keep any problems I have to myself or they will be interpreted as weakness of character and selfishness. I have come to understand that questioning feminism or women's rights in any way is misogyny. And lastly, any attempt by me to find a partner gets me labelled as a creep or a rapist despite never touching anyone inappropriately, ever, not even once. So, I only date prostitutes because at least her and I both know what and who we really are and do not have to play make believe like most married men do their whole lives. We just have good sex. Sometimes if she has no other clients we watch a movie after but she does not make me pay for the "cuddle" time. All I want is someone to have sex with, and someone else to be my maid. And I am honest about it. So that's what I have. And I am quite smug and happy thank you very much. I spend $600 a month on sex and maid service. That is much cheaper then a wife and kids, and from my perspective, far more rewarding. Don't get me wrong, we need breeders who can spend 50 years taking shit from their old lady, just, i am not one of them. I am not one of those people who can look at this world and genuinely feel that its a reasonable or appropriate thing to bring children into a society I believe will become totalitarian. My life is basically, "fuck you world", I do what I want. I call it living life to the fullest. You may call it something else. I call it survival. And that's ok because I feel damn good either way. The truth about equality and freedom is that if you do not have it in you to begin with, then you never really have it at all. Your minority affiliation based on race, religion, or sex do not change this simple fact. How many married couples do you know who seem happy and free anyways? Half of them maybe? Besides, since I turned 40 and lost a little weight woman look at me again like they did when I was younger and its nice feeling handsome and wanted at 40 while woman of the same age are realizing their magical powers are fading. When a 20 year old hooker is loving your Dick and your at it without a care in the world, you tell me your not in fucking Heaven. I sure am. You could nuke the whole planet and you wont get me down. All because the only interaction I have with woman in private is with a hooker. Say anything you like, it fucking works for me, and no words can change it. All men should try a hooker before they judge.. The values of modern woman would make sense to me if they were not overwhelmingly such duplicitous hypocrites. *Shrugs oh well.. Not my problem. Go find your next Divorces and continue making ungrateful children, suckers.
TheWorldToCome 11y ago
Greatest life philosophy right there.
[deleted]
duke442games 11y ago
Exactly my point, but far more elegantly stated.
no_respond_to_stupid 11y ago
Your characterization of the link is completely made up. Have you no intellectual honesty??
Their first demographic was millenials. This includes men and women. No "feminist" issue there.
Their next demographic was women. Women make less money on average than men (I'm not talking about any gender-wage gap BS either, just the overall non-adjusted fact of the matter). Why do they earn less? A big part is they take on more of the responsibilities at home, especially childcare. Again, on average (spare me your anecdotes and I will spare you mine). Thus the fact that a survey will show an overall difference makes perfect sense and also has little to do with feminism.
The next group was "Parents". This also includes men.
So, you made up 3 categories, pretended they all didn't include men, and in fact there was only one such category in the linked article, and there was no narrative at all about how it's because the world is unfair to women.
I mean, I've seen people with rose-colored glasses, but this is really something else. More murky dark brown glasses. You seem hardly able to see at all.
MattyAnon Admin 11y ago
Women make less money.
And they get to spend MORE TIME WITH THEIR KIDS.
[deleted]
sir_wankalot_here 11y ago
Democracy works well when people have skin in the game. The millenials gamed the system to thier advantage.
nzgs 11y ago
Cultural marxism is negatively affecting entire generations, and feminism just falls under that umbrella. The same forces that claim to empower women, are actually hurting them and society in general, much the same as the forces claiming to support blacks are harming them by expanding black welfare culture and single parenthood. Feminism is just one symptom of a much larger ideological disease that has been around for more than 100 years.
[deleted] 11y ago
Anytime people write about 'stress' in America it's a joke.
People living in slums of India, boko harem targets in Nigeria, any place near Syria, etc. all have actual stress.
Americans stress about "how am I going to pay my next private university student loan payment" while people in other countries go to bed not knowing whether they will be alive when they wake up.
[deleted] 11y ago
Pretty sure fear and stress are relative to how your mind preserves it. If the worst thing in the world is that your iPhone got stolen then your body will react with the same velocity as if a lion where chasing you. Most fear stems from the unknown. Stress is stress.
[deleted] 11y ago
Almost all people in the western world have a hostile attitude when dealing with other people. Even if they all are too much of cowards to do actually do anything the reptile brain treats it as true dangerous hostility.
cocaine_face 11y ago
They will most definitely be alive when they wake up.
[deleted] 11y ago
I see what you did there. Chapeau.
[deleted] 11y ago
Here is yesterday:
Boko Haram 'kill 70' in Cameroon border town of Fotokol:
The Islamist militants attacked civilians in their homes and in the town's mosque, local officials said, setting many buildings on fire.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31141097
vengefully_yours 11y ago
What he meant is you don't wake if you're dead.
Glenbert 11y ago
Any one else read that as Fuck-it-all?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] 11y ago
Stress feeds unhappiness.
If you think you can remove men's stress by saying "At least you're not in Syria; hashtag first world problems" then you're wrong.
Play the hand you're dealt.
[deleted] 11y ago
I mean, yes and no. You're probably better off running from lions (or boko haram) occasionally than constantly dealing with low level stress. Rationally, you're right, but our endocrine systems don't obey our rationality, and we aren't evolved to handle the high levels of chronic stress often felt in the first world. It's easy to roll our eyes at first world problems like loan payments, but first world problems are many times of a recent birth; and so we aren't equipped to handle them very well.
[deleted] 11y ago
I used to get massacred by the good old Boko Haram all the time when I were a young 'un (memories, I tell you!), did me the power of good, much better for the ticker than macheteing my way through thickets of fishwife branch-swingers to get to the coffee machine.
[deleted] 11y ago
Stress is a perfectly normal and common response to these types of situations.
Was trying to emphasize that when people complain about how hard their life is and all their stress etc.
Caoimhin-even 11y ago
yes i used to think that way as well but I read something somewhere that it really doesn't do you good to think there is always someone worse off. And so now i take my own problems more seriously. "Treat small matters seriously and big matters lightly" - Mushashi
SlappaDaBayssMon 11y ago
Agree. When a problem comes up and you go "Well at least I'm not in Somalia right now" all that does is give you enough comfort to forget you have a problem that needs addressing in the first place. You still gotta fix that leaky roof.
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
It's a choice between "Quality" and "Equality".
"Quality" means civilization is built to adhere to the unique character of men and women. This is Red Pill.
"Equality" seeks to blind people of the truth that fundamental differences exist.
Red Pill is for "Quality" but against "Equality".
...what the Feminists are doing is using abstract notions of "Equality" (which are intellectually blinding) in order to achieve Machiavellian goals for women.
"Equality" is a smokescreen phrase... it's anti-truth. Anti-Red Pill.
Never, ever, ever, ever embrace the notion of "Equality" in anything but a cynical context.
[deleted] 11y ago
Equality can only be achieved by suppressing overachievers and elevating underachievers, it's that simple.
vengefully_yours 11y ago
Equal rights, equal basic opportunity, but people will never be equal in capabilities, resources, advantages, intellect, and knowledge / understanding. Feminists want to say people are equal, but don't want to talk about how they aren't.
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
Well I know the Founding Fathers thought that men without land should not vote because they didn't have skin in the game. They were not fully "men". (more like Betas)
The Enlightenment had dozens of philosophies that often conflicted with each other. Some argued for "Natural Rights" which is more like Red Pill in that they thought the laws should reflect nature. Men and women are different, so laws should reflect nature in this way.
"Blind Equality" was more of the French ideal than the American.
"Blind Equality" has given us Marxism and Feminism. (generally a bad thing)
Choosing "Quality" above "Equality" seems more like "Natural Rights".
[deleted] 11y ago
[deleted]
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
Zionists are only concerned with the state of Israel and generally have distanced themselves from meddling with "the Gentiles".
Jews outside of Israel tend to be Marxists.
The saying goes:
"Jews are a tribe pretending to be a religion."
...I don't mind tribes who are "honest" and defending themselves, but Marxism is a massive deception and Jews are definitely participating.
But there are plenty of non-Jewish Marxists too, so it's not all their fault.
There were no Jews in China and they went through their Marxist period (before they went Authoritarian) so Marxism has a life of it's own. It's like a fire that consumes everything, once it burns out (Misandry Bubble) it ends.
We will end up here eventually:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
vengefully_yours 11y ago
Agreed, the interesting thing is how the laws do apply differently for wome, yet they never bitch about getting lighter sentences and cash and prizes in divorce.
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
In the bizarre world of 1984 like thinking the Feminists say they are pursuing "Equality" (the lie) while really exaggerating their advantage and at the same time rejecting their own true nature to themselves. (Hamstering)
"Quality" has an honesty to it.
Upon "Quality" you can build things like "Honor" which is meaningless in our Marxist world. To act with "Honor" in a system of lies is to be Beta.
vengefully_yours 11y ago
Honor is not a feminine quality. It's entirely masculine, same with duty. There is a reason we have 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451. They served as warnings of human nature, the direction of civilization if not purposefully prevented. Instead, it appears they have been used as a blueprint to subjugate the masses.
[deleted] 11y ago
Hear, hear! I get rightly miffed when someone says "Red Pill is... against 'Equality.'" No fucking way is that the case. It's just that many of us here have a certain kind of equality in mind: "Equal rights [and] equal basic opportunity..."
People are not naturally equal, as you say. I'll add that this simple fact of life does not necessitate that we create the social equivalent (with the corresponding legal shadow) of a "Harris Bergeron" world. We can be for equality as a basic set of rights and opportunities and stay within reason. I firmly hold that nothing within the intellectual framework that is TRP contradicts this, and in many cases supports it.
vengefully_yours 11y ago
The thing is we actually talk about the disparities rather than hope they go away through positive thinking or hope, butterfly farts, and unicorn jizz. Any chick who thinks she is my equal is welcome to arm wrestle me, then we can do something that doesn't require brute force, like a spatial exercise.
[deleted] 11y ago
I get you. Disparities exist, and we talk about them around these parts, and that offends some people, but I think most of use agree with Stephen Fry about people being offended.
I think a lot of this discussion comes from different ideas of what 'equality' actually means. When I refer to it, I'm talking about a legal/philosophical idea, that includes, by it's very definition, equal responsibilities as well as equal rights. Equality of outcome is a different thing entirely. I'm not going to be a woman's equal at forming a baby inside my body, and she probably cannot engage in fisticuffs as well as me - both are essential for the human species. These two things are not equal or unequal - that kind of thinking just leads one astray when it comes to the many differences among people.
I am saying that talking about the disparities is not in any way in conflict with accepting a basic premise that all people deserve equal rights (the concept of which essentially includes equal responsibilities). Whether they are actually equal in any given area of endeavour - we can talk about that realistically around here, and I appreciate it.
It just sounds like we are speaking about equality in a different sense. I'm talking about the kind of equality discussed at length in philosophy, Hell, I wrote a term paper once on how equal rights must go with equal responsibilities and that therefore, because of that, the incarceration of prisoners and the wardship of the mentally invalid was not a contradiction of the concept of equal rights.
It sounds like you mean equality in a functional, as applies to a given situation, manner. I'd say we're on the same page there. Perhaps I can use a more specific term when talking about rights equality in the future, to clarify discussion. My jury is still out on whether rights equality can actually exist - as in, is it really possible to have equal responsibilities? I'm not convinced that it's not, but it merits a deeper look.
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
The Enlightenment had a mixed bag of ideas.
The French leaned towards "Equality" while the Americans (once) leaned towards encouraging "Quality".
They are fundamentally different ideas.
"Equality" has a sort uniformity and blindness to it.
"Quality" has the idea of observing nature and maximizing things based on merit.
Red Pill leans towards "Quality".
Our culture has so completely changed that we have a hard time breaking free of the concept of egalitarianism, but that's part of unplugging.
vengefully_yours 11y ago
I'm not much of a philosopher, the only 'what if' I ponder is how fast my car will go with some new heads and a cam. I stay in reality, the one I can see, measure, and affect. That being said, I view people on meritorious qualities, what they can actually do, what they are capable of, not how they can obfuscate the meaning of a word to make themselves feel better.
It's been my experience that white males such as myself are held to a different standard than women or other races, not better usually, but very different. Even in the military where meritorious conduct is the entire basis, there were very different standards applied individually based on race and gender. In my experience, nobody is equal, but most want to be more equal than others.
Demonspawn 11y ago
I am against equal rights.
Why? Because we don't have equal responsibilities. To give the same rights to a group with less responsibilities is to create a moral hazard.
We will never have equal responsibilities because men and women are not equally disposable. As such, equality is not only a farce, but seeking it harms men.
I do not support equal opportunity because men and women don't behave the same. To give equal opportunity harms working systems, and for what goal? For equality? No... we should be seeking quality instead. Otherwise, we'll continue to waste resources on groups which give a significantly inferior ROI leading to waste, corruption, and an overall decline of quality in the society.
[deleted] 11y ago
There is no decline in the quality of society, not really. That's because, in one sense, society does not really exist. It's a delusion, an illusion, and barely even a shared one by the people who believe they are 'part of' the same society.
We are a bunch of animals trying to live out our instincts. Inasmuch as there is anything central to a so-called society, it is constantly in flux, and constantly in conflict. You live beside people who have a completely different idea of what 'society' is and is not than you do. It's mostly chaos, cleverly managed near the edge of anarchy by people who mostly do it by the overt and covert use of force.
That having been said, if you were thinking of some previous iteration of 'our society' that was somehow more stable and objectively better than what we have today, you'd be dreaming of a thing that never existed. Any moment in the past of the various tribes that make up the human animals living in a given geographical area was just as unstable and close to chaos as any other. It's easy to romanticize the past. Not everyone was happy in any given era, though, and there were always groups that were unfairly marginalized.
Equal rights means equal responsibilities. That is just understood in intellectual discourse. That's why I didn't specify it, just like I don't tell guys not to rape when giving advice on how to get with girls, because there is no need to say it. It requires a special exception to exclude the concept of equal responsibilities from equal rights. If you want to argue that there is a modern and popular concept of equal rights that excludes equal responsibilities, then you have a point. Just to be clear, I generally do not feel the need to state the obvious, but there is room for legitimate misunderstanding in this situation.
Nobody behaves the same, whether it be men as a group and women as a group, individuals, families, language groups/cultures. There is no need whatsoever to restrict rights or grant or withhold rights from one 'group' or another based on an assumption of their behaviours. Instead, we can throw out that ridiculous idea and let everyone do as they will, with reasonable restrictions on how it harms others. People will certainly behave in many different ways and there will certainly be identifiable trends, especially between the sexes. That's okay. Attempts to control that are utterly pointless and do nothing but restrict individual freedom, which some of us hold to be greater than all but the most basic and necessary duties to 'society' (as in, the conglomeration of tribes and bloodlines which share space and sometimes language with you.)
There is no 'we' who should be seeking quality. My definition of 'quality' might well be very different from yours, and in fact might be opposed to it. What you consider a waste of resources, I might see as important to keeping individual choice and freedom as the primary goal of a legal system. What you see as a decline in the quality of 'society' might well be an improvement in my eyes, even if it's kind of ugly right now... some of us would rather see it burn than return to the structures and legal realities that you see it as having declined from. There's a lot of realities I'm not personally fond of, but I don't actually want the pendulum to swing back the other way - I have a different set of ideas that make up my 'ideal society' and the current state of affairs might just be a chrysalis that helps it happen. Or that could be wishful thinking on my part, but my point is that there are other ways to see this.
Well, that was quite a rant. You are of course entitled to think as you will - that's a freedom I've been willing to defend with my life, and it's a freedom and right you share equally with everyone, no matter their sex or other characteristics that might influence their behaviour. Sexual strategy is complex, central to the human experience, and cannot be separated from the political sphere, certainly - but I'm not going to just nod with assent when someone comes along and publicly states Red Pill is against equality. You can have your political beliefs, but there's nothing about a realistic view of human sexual strategy that excludes a basic equality under the law for people that transcends their sex, whether or not they are treated as disposable by other people - as long as they are treated equally disposable by those rights and the laws meant to enforce them.
I'll grant it's a valid argument to say that is not what is happening - but I think you'd have to establish that corruption of equality as unavoidable before you can go about saying equal rights cannot work. Which is something you may have done, but I've certainly not seen it done to my satisfaction, just like I haven't seen the most common claims of academic feminism get out of the charge of Special Pleading by demonstrating that appropriate criticism has been applied and is accepted by all parties to the argument.
So, I respect your opinions even if I don't agree, but almost certainly don't share your politics.
F9R 11y ago
♂
Thanks for writing this comment; it's very eloquent and thought-provoking. You have a knack for writing, my friend.
trpbot 11y ago
Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/critter_about_towne by F9R. ^[History]
[This is an Automated Message]
Demonspawn 11y ago
There was society. There were nations. Now we just have countries.
Back when people were united with common beliefs and common goals, nationhood meant something. They were a unified tribe competing against other unified tribes.
Today we have multiculturalism, where everyone is an "individual" and they form smaller tribes within the whole that compete against each other for the whole.
Thanks to seeking equality and multiculturalism, that is true today. It was not true in the past.
No, it really doesn't. Go talk to anyone discussing "equal rights" and talk about responsibilities with them. They'll draw blanks.
It might have started earlier, but it definitely started in 1920 when women got suffrage without conscription, when the SCouTS ruled in 1918 that conscription was the responsibility for the right of suffrage.
The biggest of which is how people think responsibilities can be equalized between men and women when the disposability between them cannot. Therefore, the whole argument of equal rights is a false premise.
Generalizations exist.
Bigots think there are no exceptions.
Idiots think everyone is an exception.
I am neither.
Right, because who wants to have enough doctors.
And pay the price for it with a failing society. I accept that there are exceptions, which is why I prefer social rather than legal restrictions of roles, but having no restrictions is failing us and leading to our downfall.
So you value "choice" more than 30% waste in college educations? You value "choice" more than a 2000% increase in government size? You value "choice" more than you value the restrictions of Constitutional rights?
See, here's the problem: once it burns down it is going to return to the reality of strictly enforced gender roles. I will say that again: we are returning to gender roles. Period. The only question is if we do that by choice or if we are forced into it.
But on top of that: fuck you. You'd rather have society burn down, taking everyone with it, rather than not getting your way? Some moral choice there. That the problem with kids like you, you are a 5 year old screaming that you want what you want and damn the consequences.
The very premise of TRP is against equality. Otherwise, all sexual strategies would be equally valid, no?
Other than recognizing the fundamental differences between the sexes.
Which will never happen, due to the fundamental differences between the sexes.
"Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin (legal download, book is out of copyright).
"Unwin analyzes 80 primitive cultures and a number of past empires and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline."
Try giving this a read (the link inside to Baumeister's speech is now here), or this which goes down the lists of types of equality.
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline."
That summarizes Red Pill's view of Hypergamy very well.
Demonspawn 11y ago
Hypergamy exists despite culture's control of it.
The difference is between a culture which focuses it (strong lifelong marriage) and one which allows it to run wild (serial monogamy)
NeoreactionSafe 11y ago
Hypergamy is like Gravity... in order to fly an airplane successfully you need to counter the force of gravity with a lifting force. The moment your airplane stalls it falls like a rock.
Without masculinity in control we never leave the ground.
Demonspawn 11y ago
I like that analogy, because without gravity, we wouldn't have the air in place to use as that lift.
Hypergamy is like fire: very useful when controlled and focused, entirely destructive when out of control.
[deleted] 11y ago
Yet men who are smart, avoid the holocaust of marriage and exploit the situation for their own advantage, have more at their fingertips than any men in the history of civilization.
Go figure.
thereddespair 11y ago
The inspiration of feminism seem to be aligned with the level of ignorance amongst it's audience.
[deleted] 11y ago
Yes, the idiots who support it trump out the same false statistics and blindly find insisting women are "oppressed". They're very simple-minded with hamsters in overdrive, so it's really impossible to tell them shit. It's like arguing with a religious person, only LESS logical because the whole movement is a REAL WORLD one. I don't think I'll ever leave the anger phase..This is such a great country. It saved the world. It brought the world into the greatest most advanced age ever. And it's the center of pop-culture for decades. And now we let it fall to shit pandering to dumb cunts who have never had to run a civilization before and don't care about the society because they only want shit for themselves. And then every PLUGGED IN dumbass bootlicks feminists to get a fucking pat on the head. You're not even getting pussy for it, you fucking boygina. How about we call them this from now on? They don't deserve to be called men.
thereddespair 11y ago
There's been a lot of theories on how this came to me. Like one radical idea that these 'ideas' are pushed forward and backed by certain outside forces to slowly weaken leading societies. People, end of the day, they are what builds countries. Damage them, weaken them, turn warriors into faggots, and what do you have?
Women being supposedly those responsible for their men, not just in the family but the men of their nations, I think it is their duty to raise generations of men who are strong and capable of defending their values, lives and way of life. Instead, they are corrupted and infected by these destructive ideas, as they spread so does the ruin of our society. And what do you see now, americans destroying america from within, its own values it's own character being degraded and replaced by what
These modern feminists are worse than disease spreading whores
Women are not oppressed, they are stirred into thinking they are. Their vulnerabilities taken advantage of. Just the same, I think it is a part of the duty of men to help their women resist such corruption - and the men, those boy twats, who feed this even more indeed shouldn't even be seen as men and only a shadow of their former selves.
I have not seen so much freedom and power in women like what I see here. Greed, that's what it is.
Just woke up, forgive the weird ideas.
[deleted] 11y ago
Very well said, I agree completely. Feminists and boyginas are destroying the country from the inside.
All of the armies of Asia could not, by force, take a drink of the Ohio River. Surely if America faces destruction, it is from within. --Abraham Lincoln.
These women should be the other half of a backbone of America. They should be growing up the future leaders and members of this once-proud nation. Instead, they contribute willingly to its eventual downfall. Only societies that constrain women and refuse to give in to their inane demands will survive. See: Middle East.
Sinborn 11y ago
20%? Ha! 2 kids, 1 divorce, 35% of my income BEFORE taxes. Yet I pay taxes on my pre-CS check amount so it's closer to 50% of my check gone before I even see it.
[deleted]
RPenetrate 11y ago
I'm going to take that data with a grain of salt. Money and work are listed as the top sources of stress, yet despite the GFC in 2008 and a decline in wages ever since, stress levels are going down?
yummyluckycharms 11y ago
One quick comment, see the article on the red pill front page regarding women trying to adopt voltron style romances? This is a good thing for all men - even those of low smv as it allows them to quickly cut through the bs.