British Police: Hitting on women is now a hate crime | TheRedPill

I'm not sure how to even process this. "Unwanted verbal contact".
If you even so much as ask the wrong woman what time it is, you can be arrested for a hate crime.

Women now have the power to destroy men at will. At least previously, you might've got a root out of it before she cried rape and ruined your life. Now all she has to do is say you spoke to her and that that contact was unwanted.

Does anyone else feel like we should pool our funds and buy an island? I'm sure we could get something nice in the South Pacific...

Permalink

GinoGInoGIno 9y ago

I enjoyed reading this self pity chat, soooo many opinions and so few facts.

Wilreadit 10y ago

So women can accuse men of misogyny, women can decide if it was actually misogyny and women can punish men for misogyny.

Judge, jury, executioner something something.

azepaled 10y ago

honestly down for the island thing

landsoul 10y ago

hey uh, isnt this what hitler did? Limiting freedom of speech, and spreading antisemitism across the country? What's next? Male ~~concentration camps~~ behavorial correction facilities?

[deleted] 10y ago

It is a hate crime, though.

You're criminally hating yourself if you're talking to a woman who would take you to the police over this.

spire333 10y ago

Guys, before you grab your pitchforks keep in mind that this law only applies if you're white. All you have to do is convert to Islam, then you can flirt with them all you want and even rape them.

Wilreadit 10y ago

Once you convert to the religion of peace, you can do any thing legally as long as you do it with peace.

You can behead people, you can shoot people, you can fuck underage girls, you can fuck aged girls, you can have your own law and blatantly disregard the common law. But only if you do in in the name of peace.

May the religion of Peace reign over us for long.

newName543456 10y ago

Have a refugee status, and preferrably be under 18 for absolute impunity.

Wilreadit 10y ago

If you are a Romanian or a Kurd you will be treated like shit. The only way you are getting the Royal treatment is if you are islamic.

TightMouthLarry 10y ago

Just saying you're under 18 is sufficient.

Wilreadit 10y ago

Shave off your grey pubes before you say that too.

mlgpc 10y ago

So should we eject if the girl doesn't show interest within the first seconds? what is a good strategy to deal with this?

666Evo 10y ago

I honestly don't know how to deal with it other than completely ignore every woman in England. Go OS whole they're still in the EU...

PantsonFire1234 10y ago

Well in all fairness. I do understand that bitches don't like being hit on by the creepy beta. The problem is that they made a law that covers all verbal contact. Knowing if yours was unwanted remains a risk to be seen.

Now you get the lifelong problem women face. They like a guy want want him to approach because their to chicken to do it themselves. But the guy isn't in the mood for another lashing out or feminist hate cry. And thus the woman remains single through her proud life of ever newer cock.

[deleted] 10y ago

Lol, even though I've seen this 3 times on this sub already, this story is so comically sexist I'm going to upvote it anyways

Sepean 10y ago

Note that this is only in Nottingham county.

drallcom3 10y ago

That's what everyone seems to miss in their blind rage. It's not a law, it's just a local formality of categorizing reports (which is most likely done to bend statistics in your favor).

Blacklabellogics 10y ago

I view this more as an extension of the old sexual harassment paragraphs, that when viewed in context are merely saying "If you are not an alpha, do not hit on me". It's flirting if I like you, sexual harassment if I don't.

143

enkae7317 10y ago

Even alphas have their off days in regards to approaches. I'm sure not 100% of their approaches will be solid lays. That means their warmup set or their blowouts might come back to fuck them in the ass one day. Great to know!

maxbrooksmacbook 10y ago

Women could hold it over the alphas head

B_uckets 10y ago

It's flirting if I like you, sexual harassment if I don't.

That's what makes these "harassment is in the eye of the beholder" laws so dangerous.

One of the core principles of due process is that a reasonable person should be able to know whether their conduct is legal under the law. In this case, any woman can decide that your conduct is illegal on a whim. How do we protect against arbitrary and capricious application of the law when the only context in which it applies is arbitrary and capricious itself?

It's the same reason so many vague loitering laws have been struck down. When you give individuals (usually police) too much leeway to determine what conduct is legal and what isn't, they use selective enforcement to turn the law into a weapon and aim it at whichever group they don't like.

Ifuckinglovepron 10y ago

Not exactly sure how British law works, but you are removing a whole bunch of filters such as prosecutor, judge, jury. The woman cant just speak and you are guilty.

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

But they can just speak and you get arrested.

666Evo 10y ago

100% that's exactly how it will be utilised.
"Creeps" will be thrown in jail.

IGoYouStayTwoAutumns 10y ago

Yep you beat me to it. This is the ultimate alpha / beta filter. "Get those filthy beta males OFF the playing field!!"

TheEagleAndTheSnake 10y ago

Perhaps it's a way to make sure only the top male genes will make up the gene pool in the future. Lessons learned: Be attractive, don't be unattractive.

[deleted] 10y ago

Although that's what'll happen, I doubt they thought it through. They're probably just following the feminist agenda.

[deleted]

Luckyluke23 10y ago

it just annoiys me that it's like oh "i'll flirt with you" * wich is meaning less really) to If i don't like you, you are put in jail ( fucks up a mans life completely) like ffs.

-6

[deleted]

darthvitium 10y ago

Soon they will cover their bodies to avoid prying eyes and never walk without a male companion, you know, just in case

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

RedDeadCred 10y ago

Seriously women would gladly let a thousand betas enjoy her naked body if one alpha is in the mix. Women know they are wearing whore uniforms but as long as they aren't shamed for it by the alphas they will continue to do so.

ThrowyMcGruder 10y ago

The old classic.

[deleted]

ToSeeAndToHear 10y ago

They're not doing it for the betas, they're doing it to attract the alphas. So they have to counterbalance the slut signalling by aggressively rejecting anyone they see as beta.

"I want to feel sexy (to alphas), that doesn't mean I want sex (with you, disgusting beta scum)."

Wilreadit 10y ago

But I will take your money, you disgusting beta boi

HeatseekingLogicBomb 10y ago

Next up: stare rape becomes a real thing.

103

[deleted] 10y ago

you saw it here first, folks. /u/HeatseekingLogicPROPHET

[deleted]

Bottled_Void 10y ago

> use of mobile devices to ... take photographs without consent

So wait, it's now a criminal offense to take a photo with your phone in public?

batfish55 10y ago

At family thing. Just told my dad about "unwanted verbal contact." He said, "good, women are taken advantage of way too often."

Alright dad. I'll pretend that "hi, my name's Joe" is the same as telling a random chick I want to fuck her ass. I'll remind you of this conversation the next time you ask why you don't have grandkids.

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

saibot83 10y ago

Our fathers were fortunate to grow up in an era where you with ease found employment for life with more than decent pay and could afford to buy a house, a good car and live comfortably. That was enough to attract a mate. If my dad had been growing up today he'd be completely lost and thrown by the wayside.

[deleted] 10y ago

Yes. This is the reason why I generally don't follow my dad's advices.

Consilio_et_Animis 10y ago

Yes, I rang the "Hate Crime Helpline" (no, really) and a helpful guy explained it: Police forces can record whatever they want — regardless of whether or not they are crimes. They can also call things whatever they want, and in this case, they are calling actions which are not crimes, crimes.

Then they will use this "statistics" to claim that there is more hate against women ("misogyny") and claim more money from the government to fight it.

Thank God they will soon not be able to claim any more money from the EU who have allocated $7,000,000,000 USD — yes, 7 BILLION (not million) dollars to "gender equality" for 2015-2019.

Totally batty of course; but what do you expect from modern feminism?

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

Fucking hell. For feminists to get what they want, women would have to be forced into actual useful degrees - you know, the ones men generally pick - and then they'll be bitching about not having choice. As a woman in STEM, if I get bitched at by one more gender studies waste-of-resources about how there 'aren't enough women in STEM', I'm going to lose it.

bowie747 10y ago

As a man in medical research, I am literally surrounded by women. Surrounded. Don't get me wrong, I like it. Mostly they're cute, smart women. But don't tell me there is a shortage of women in STEM, I'm outnumbered 10:1.

I live in Sydney

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

I'm not the one saying it, it is generally the women who aren't in a STEM field - which is irritating for obvious reasons.

That being said, in my experience, life sciences seem to be female dominated, at similar proportions as those seen in the arts. As an undergraduate, I can't think of a life science subject where females weren't the majority. Comparing that to computer sciences courses my friends did where it was maybe 10% female, its obvious that there are areas where women are significantly less present. That doesn't mean women should be forced into them or anything, but there are certain areas (usually the TEM part, really) that women just don't choose to go into.

Also, because of the 'not enough women in STEM' stuff, women are hired preferentially, so you get imbalances in work through that, as well as the majority of applications to universities being by females. I looked up figures for Australia and in 2015 58% of applicants were female, but a similar imbalance as I described exists between degrees - "He said females were severely underrepresented in IT, engineering and architecture courses, while males were underrepresented in education, health and creative arts courses."

joeyjojosharknado 10y ago

I'm a geneticist, same deal. All my bosses are women, most of my colleagues. Medicine and life sciences are dominated by women. Nary hear a peep about that from the usual suspects though...

Wilreadit 10y ago

We should send more of them to war.

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

-2

bowie747 10y ago

Medical research = Science

TheSelfGoverned 10y ago

As a woman in STEM

STEM and posting on this sub? If true, I think we've found a unicorn!

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

Only if she has Asperger's too.

[deleted]

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

Well, maybe 'will be in STEM' is more appropriate in terms of actual work, but I am a graduate and about to begin postgrad haha

aDrunkenWhaler 10y ago

Until you find a husband, of course.

elevul 10y ago

Which shouldn't be difficult in an environment with 90% males that have very high future earning potential.

[deleted]

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

True, the same with nurses because of the (ridiculous) bursary given as an incentive. However, when you look at break downs of degrees by sex, the ones with the highest male percentages are things like engineering and maths, while for highest female percentage it is psychology and arts degrees. Picking a bad degree absolutely isn't the only problem, but it is a major contributor to the so called 'wage gap' - and obviously, to fewer women in certain jobs/fields.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

Women study psychology because they're fascinated by themselves.

VodkaTankerSpill 10y ago

They go into psych because it is easy major and doesn't require much effort.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

Yeah, it is a pretty common stereotype that people (and by sheer numbers, mostly women) go into psychology because there is something wrong with them that they want to understand themselves - whether they openly admit that or not is another thing.

dingman58 10y ago

Wage gap is difference in wage between genders for the same job

Damn y'all are fucking crazy. I don't believe the wage gap exists, but if it does too fucking bad. Get better at your job or get a higher paying one. Quit trying to blame your inadequacies on society.

-5

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

You read that wrong. She's saying exactly what you just did.

rightwing66 10y ago

And would you care to give examples of this 'wage gap' between men and women in the same job with the same skills and qualifications and experience. Oh, and the same level of productivity. I most eagerly await this epiphany. (yawn)

redwithahintofred 10y ago

He wasn't saying it exists. He is saying there is a distinction between a wage gap (the gap between gender in the same job) and the 'earnings gap' which looks at gender and just adds up all the money women and men make and compare them, not taking into account there are lots of male petroleum engineers and lots of female low-paid child care workers.

A wage gap doesn't exist.

An earnings gap exists because women don't go into high paying jobs.

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

But his reply wasn't necessary. She said the same thing.

rightwing66 10y ago

My bad. I get so used to shooting that one down I committed blue on blue in my haste.

dingman58 10y ago

No because I don't give a fuck about wage gap. I was just clarifying the definition of wage gap. The person I replied to was confusing wage gap with people working different jobs making different money AKA things that are different are different

-4

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

No I wasn't, which is what I said - i.e. that you misunderstood what was being said - when I replied to you and was then told I "responded to the wrong guy". Just admit when you're wrong, literally no one cares if you misinterpreted something.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

to the so called 'wage gap'

If you, in any way, got the impression that I believe in a wage gap existing in Western countries, that is your misunderstanding - not mine. Equally if you thought "so called" meant I didn't understand what people who spew this nonsense mean.

dingman58 10y ago

You responded to the wrong guy

-2

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

No... she responded to the right person. Perhaps your first response was to the wrong person.

[deleted]

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

Makes sense to get into STEM - as a woman you are legally guaranteed a job at the end of it.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

Pff, and people think women aren't smart! /s

Nah, its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment, despite being terrible in interviews (and generally bad investments if they want children, in many cases). I would be disgusted if I got a job because I am female because, unlike too many, I was raised to work for what I want - not demand or expect it without reason.

Also, to anyone about to start in a life science, do as many statistics courses as you can. Good applied statisticians are few and far between, in my experience, and even professors I've worked with use very simple statistical analyses because they can't use anything else.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

Pff, and people think women aren't smart! /s

There is solid research to back that up. It's quashed to fill the narrative of course.

Nah, its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment

Positive discrimination laws.

I would be disgusted if I got a job because I am female

Get used to it. Companies have quotas to fill. They'll never tell you if you wouldn't gotten the job if you were male.

Nice hamstering though... I can see you stamping your foot now... "But I am as good as a man! Positive discrimination laws didn't get me my job! They don't exist!".

You may or may not be as good as your male colleagues, but you'll never know because they legally can't tell you, and solipsism and the Dunning-Kruger effect will stop you finding out for yourself.

Wilreadit 10y ago

Is there any place in the modern world that does not HAVE to hire women if they do not want to?

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

If you're a small company you're fine. If large, you're fucked because they can just use statistics... ie... "you don't employ enough women in STEM subjects!"

And you can't say "there fucking aren't any decent women" because everyone knows that every woman is wonderful and at least the equal of any man.

Not sure where doesn't have these kind of dumb laws now in the West. It's a weakness of democracy that everyone ends up pandering to women.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

There is solid research to back that up. It's quashed to fill the narrative of course.

There is solid evidence that women cluster around the mean IQ, while men split into the extreme ends of the curve. The same research that would show women as dumber than men could be used to show that men are dumber than women, depending on how disingenuous you are when presenting data. You also have to be careful what groups you look at, given IQ is part nature and part nurture, and 12 year old brides aren't allowed to go to school. Yay.

Nice hamstering though... I can see you stamping your foot now... "But I am as good as a man! Positive discrimination laws didn't get me my job! They don't exist!".

"...its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment".

"But I am as good as a man! Positive discrimination laws didn't get me my job! They don't exist!".

"...women are preferentially treated in employment". Do you see where you went from rational to irrational? Because god forbid someone believe in actual equality, as impossible as it is to enforce these days, given the prevalence of "social justice" cry-bullies - the ones I was referring to when I mentioned working for what I want, not demanding it. I, frankly, don't care if I am better or worse than any of my colleagues, only that I am capable of doing my job. I work to make myself valuable by having a strong skill set, preferably that very few other people have - as all should who intend on working in academia. The only thing I could do to prevent being preferentially treated by employers, given the current system, is not apply for jobs in the field in case I take a man's job. That is ridiculous and not something anyone reasonable would expect of someone who has spent all but 3 years of their life performing well in formal education.

Wilreadit 10y ago

If you have clustering of IQ that means that IQ is not the skill for efficient reproduction in women.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

Averages result as a lack of selection pressure - where a trait (or in this case, several traits) are neither selected against or against. Selection against would be indicative of a 'bad' trait in the species/sex, but things like risk analysis and problem solving are not inherently bad qualities, they just haven't been directly selected for, hence variation in women but not to the extremes seen in males.

What you said means nothing. "Efficient reproduction" is not a trait of the brain which differs between sexes. It is a much wider selection pressure inter-species - not between sexes of a species - i.e. the relationships between r and K selection theory, the Grandmother Hypothesis, and biological aging, among other factors.

Wilreadit 10y ago

You said it better than I ever could. I agree with all you said.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

There is solid evidence that women cluster around the mean IQ,

The mean is different for men and women if you look more closely at any unbiased data you can find. They've been engineering the IQ test for years to try to fudge this to benefit women.

"...its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment".

hahaha... fucking women. You've literally cut and pasted the same thing you said the first time. Positive discrimination is a real law in the West. You cannot hamster it away with the word "bullshit". I know you want to flatter yourself that you deserve what you have and maybe you do, but you cannot say that women do not get preferential treatment. They do, by law.

There isn't anything you can do about it. It just is. You can hamster and bicker and argue about this any which way - and I see that you are trying to.

But... positive gender discrimination (in favour of women, especially in STEM) is a real law, with real effects and real bias towards employing women who would otherwise not have gotten the job.

There are very few women genuinely interested in STEM and even less that are any good at it. Yet the positive discrimination laws mean that these less-good and less-motivated women get jobs.

You cannot just call me irrational because you believe that women are always the equal of men. Women are just fundamentally disinterested in STEM for the most part, with few exceptions. There are a lot of women out there taking advantage of an easy ride into a cushy job on the back of these positive discrimination laws.

You may or may not be one of them, but don't pretend the effect isn't there.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

The mean is different for men and women if you look more closely at any unbiased data you can find. They've been engineering the IQ test for years to try to fudge this to benefit women.

Absolutely men perform better in original IQ tests. The fudging is as a result of a) pressure to not show differences in the sexes and b) to make it less of a test of the male brain (e.g. visio-spatial awareness, systemising, etc.). Women have strengths in emotional factors, and in detail and attention (e.g. baby girls are more soothed by looking at faces and do so for longer than baby boys). Attention span is certainly more evident at young ages where boys are held to female behaviour standards.

Females cluster around the mean IQ because male and females brains are a series of traits (developed by the appropriate hormonal environment, are produced and result in typical male or female behaviour), of which they may have stronger or weaker/less or more of these 'male' traits. [Female brains are generally weaker in systems processing (the male brain), than in empathizing (the female brain), both as described by Baron-Cohen (Simon, not Sasha).] (http://images.slideplayer.com/23/6911370/slides/slide_59.jpg). He also suggested that Autism is the extreme male brain, as show in that diagram, as they are particularly weak at empathizing but very good with systems (generally speaking, obviously other problems may impede these skills).

Now, as I was saying, intelligence tests have been changed over time and have come to include things which women are stronger in too (e.g. language skills), to be less male-brain testing, and more general-brain testing. However, there is also the nurture aspect where women have been in education for decades now, which gives potential to pass on a better environment to their children, etc., and will work to raise IQ through the crystallized intelligence component. Both males and females should benefit from this as a booster to education (as well as being likely to gain the genetic component from two higher IQ parents), which is likely part of the reason IQ has gone up for both over time. Women were reported as over-taking men in IQ for the first time in the past couple of years but this is likely due to more women than men now going to university, thereby improving the tested skills of both the fluid and crystallized components.

Tl;dr: Men and women have different brains and strengths, which the 'right' test could show one to be much better than the other in. However, given groups which are as homogeneous as possible (similar parental IQs, upbringing, similar education, etc.) and a comprehensive test of all/as many as possible traits of both sexes, you'd be hard pressed to find a significant difference. Its not as simple as just fudging numbers to benefit women although that is more than likely what spurred the creation of such comprehensive tests.

hahaha... fucking women. You've literally cut and pasted the same thing you said the first time.

That was the fucking point. Is reading comprehension not a strong skill of yours or are you willfully misconstruing what I am saying? I said, repeatedly, that there IS preferential treatment of women - or to word in a way you understand, positive discrimination for women. It is bullshit that it occurs, not the concept is bullshit.

Look at the full sentence: "Nah, its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment, despite being terrible in interviews (and generally bad investments if they want children, in many cases)." If you are honestly reading that and seeing it as "women aren't treated preferentially", then holy hell, I don't even know what to say. The context is pretty clear, and if there was any doubt "despite" should have been a big indicator as to what I was saying.

You cannot just call me irrational because you believe that women are always the equal of men.

I called you irrational for saying that I was saying positive discrimination in favour of women didn't occur, because I am a woman - when I said the exact opposite. However, reading this comment, it appears you misunderstood what I said (the sentence I copied into the previous paragraph). We're arguing the same point, you just either misinterpreted or assumed I was arguing against the existence of preferential treatment of women, which I was not. I would assume it was the latter given your "fucking women" response, though.

Wilreadit 10y ago

I would have loved to hear what Sasha Baron Cohen had to say about women's brains.

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

College shouldn't really affect your IQ. IQ is about problem solving and logic. It's not meant to be an emotional standard test. I'm sure they have empathy tests out there. By changing the Logic/Problem solving test to go more in line with girls just push our narrative. That they are pussifying us starting in school (and single mother households).

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

IQ tests have crystallized and fluid components, giving an overall intelligence based on long-term knowledge and ability to problem solve without prior knowledge, respectively. A course at university should definitely expand your knowledge, thereby increasing the crystallized component through your ability to recall this. Naturally, this can only happen in subjects which require relevant skills (e.g. STEM). It is pretty generally accepted that crystallized intelligence has scope to improve throughout life (to some extent, there is a proposed critical period), with additional education, experience, etc., Fluid intelligence is concerned with reasoning, problem solving, and pattern recognition.

Since 1916, the Stanford-Binet test has testing these as subcategories within the IQ test, although not simply as two groups (rather, five) but with specific sections which can be divided into fluid and crystallized. None of that is an emotional test, its just more robust in estimating aptitude - i.e. it is better to be balanced, than to be great at problem solving and all but unable to recall and apply information you've learned throughout life.

There have definitely been changes (e.g. teaching and testing in schools) to benefit girls, which have disadvantaged boys. However, to use a test that is based (almost) entirely on male brain traits isn't a accurate way of comparing men and women. Hence, why I was saying there needs to be either a completely gender neutral test (testing all/as many as possible/equal numbers of male and female traits). Alternatively, we have a male and female test, have everyone sit both and put up with people moaning about men and women being different based on new male-IQ and female-IQ scores.

It is wrong that half the population is disadvantaged in education, as a result of generations of feminism pushing absolute equality rather than accepting "different but equal". It would probably be beneficial in class to separate boys and girls, but in terms of social development perhaps not. Even having mixed teaching methods would be a reasonable option, with half-female learning, half-male. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon - at least not mainstream - with the leftist aggression over the slightest thing, unless there is a real, equally vocal effort towards getting boys the equality they deserve.

Actually, I wonder if all boys/girls schools have different teaching methods or if boys schools are forced into the 'standard', which would (obviously) disadvantage all students. Something I've never thought about before.

A two parent home with at least one sibling is the best situation for a child to be in. Of course you'll get shitty parents ad horrible siblings occasionally, but in general that gives the single biggest indicator of child success in life...and avoids the weird, self-obsessed only child with complete inability to share with others.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

re original IQ tests: agreed.

re "clustering around the mean", your explanation is wrong. Men are the experimental gender - we shower wider variation in almost all traits because it suits our high risk life and mating strategy (on average).

However, there is also the nurture aspect where women have been in education for decades now, which gives potential to pass on a better environment to their children, etc., and will work to raise IQ through the crystallized intelligence component.

Except the female IQ hasn't gone up as a result of women spending longer in education.

Men and women have different brains and strengths, which the 'right' test could show one to be much better than the other in.

True... it would make more sense to just ditch the vagueness and evaluate on specific traits and forget any idea of an averaged "iq" itself.

Is reading comprehension not a strong skill of yours or are you willfully misconstruing what I am saying?

Typical female bullshit now .... rather than replying, you attack me personally. This is why you can't have a rational argument with a woman for long. Sooner or later (and especially when she's losing), she attacks the MAN rather than the ARGUMENT.

Nah, its bullshit that women are preferentially treated in employment

Your phrasing here is ambiguous, and an example of poor (and ambiguous) female communication style.

Does "It is bullshit" mean "it is factually untrue" or "it is true but it is wrong that" ? You have to admit that it could be interpreted either way, and as such isn't a good communication style.

Look at the full sentence:

Ah but you didn't paste the full sentence, did you? You did the first time but not the second. Reread the first version and it is at best ambiguous and puts punctuation in a place so as to give perhaps a different impression to what you're trying to say.

holy hell, I don't even know what to say.

blah blah blah stupid argument that's attempting to attack me for your poor ability to get your point across.

it appears you misunderstood what I said

I didn't misunderstand, you phrased extremely poorly. But of course, it's always the man's fault if male-female communication is misunderstood. Because women are soooooooooooooo good at communication. Yes that it is sarcasm.

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

re "clustering around the mean", your explanation is wrong. Men are the experimental gender - we shower wider variation in almost all traits because it suits our high risk life and mating strategy (on average).

No, I agree with that, what I was saying is the measurable result of that biological phenomenon is seen in IQ tests as polar male groups and a female mean cluster. Obviously males are the experimental sex, even just looking at sex chromosomes in humans that is clear, with the extreme effect of that being in X-linked diseases. What I meant was the general nature of a male-female trait spectrum could produce the same variation in each, but the nature of the sexes alters what variation will occur (through sexual selection). So, with regards to original IQ testing, women could have more of these traits/strength in specific ones/combinations thereof but its unlikely anything would have selected for or against this specifically, so it just stays average because its generally not needed but having none of these skills at all would be detrimental (e.g. risk analysis).

In humans, the males must stand out but the females must fit in with the crowd. Selection pressures for men would be regarding providing resources, whether that is in territory defence, hunting and so on, they all rely on strong analysis, strategy and visio-spatial awareness - although obviously it depends how far back you're looking (i.e. what weapons/tools/etc.). The selection pressure on females is to get along with the group because if you're not in the group, you're on your own, (likely) unable to provide and defend yourself, so women are better at sharing, being empathetic, and are soothed by social interaction as babies. Hence, the proposed extreme male brain is super systems focused with little in the way of social skills, and the proposed extreme female brain is obsessive concern with perception by others with poor systems skills (I think it was a Gallup Jr study, but don't quote me on that).

When I said "females cluster around the mean IQ because male and females brains are a series of traits...of which they may have stronger or weaker/less or more of these 'male' traits", this is what I meant. That there are traits to be selected for/against but being tests of male traits, they average in females. I was trying not to write on forever but that happened anyway. haha

Except the female IQ hasn't gone up as a result of women spending longer in education.

Is that opinion evidence based? Obviously altering of numbers would also produce an increase, but IQ tests also look at certain skills which can be improved by the right education.It isn't so much longer in education per woman I was basing it on, but that women have been going on to higher education for decades now. IQ is nature and nurture, so it lends itself to improvement where parents are in a position to enrich the child with stimuli growing up. As women have generally spent more time raising children, I was suggesting that with each generation, the potential to improve the IQ of children would go along with increasing higher education in women. Also, there is the genetic component of couples capable of getting to higher education passing on higher IQs, which must be considered.

True... it would make more sense to just ditch the vagueness and evaluate on specific traits and forget any idea of an averaged "iq" itself.

It would, but even the testing we have isn't really used. Certainly not where I am, beyond people entering IQ societies, so I'm not sure there is much focus on developing them really. Psychology isn't my area though, so there could well be people doing work on these for 'general use' (rather than ones which look at autistic traits, which do exist and could technically be used in some tests of male-ness and be applied as aptitude for certain professions). Although I imagine such tests wouldn't be popular if brought out since they would show differences between the sexes. Statistics doesn't care about feels.

And saying that, ever find it weird that SJW/feminists always say there is no such thing as a male or female brain (because that means there are differences), but are super in support of people giving children GnRH blockade/cross-hormone therapy/genital surgery because they are transgender?

Typical female bullshit now .... rather than replying, you attack me personally.

That was a genuine question, there is just no tone on the internet. It isn't my fault you took a genuine question as an attack. If you were repeatedly explaining a physics principle and I wasn't getting it, it would be more than fair of you to ask if I am shit at physics or if I am purposefully not understanding (e.g. the way fat activists argue the laws of thermodynamics). The question isn't a personal attack and the answer would be that I am shit at physics. I was genuinely asking if you weren't understanding what I said or if you were purposefully twisting what I said to make it look like I was denying something I wasn't.

Your phrasing here is ambiguous

When taken out of context, which is why I a) clarified and b) copied in the full sentence, where it is clear what I meant. I assumed you'd remember the full sentence and carry over the context, since you did read and reply to it. Obviously not, that is fine and the problem is cleared up. The part I copied was ambiguous without context, that was my mistake, I'm not denying that. I never denied it, I just thought you were purposefully set on painting me as a discrimination denier by cherry picking what I was saying/ignoring the previous message with full context, which was why I asked.

You can accuse me of attacking you personally all you like but it was not meant that way and, therefore, was in fact not a personal attack. You, however, for the past few messages have seemed set on using female as an insult. I'm not one to try to psychoanalyze people online but dude, attitudes like that is why people think this sub is of the misogynistic persuasion. You were being dismissive and using my sex as a way to try to belittle me/my statements. That isn't normal, well-adjusted behaviour for either sex. I can't say I care what you think of women or how you treat them, it has zero impact on my life, but if you're going to try to frame someone as the illogical woman to your rational man, you might want to learn to not immediately jump to mockery and blaming things on sex. It sounds awfully like when feminists say men all rape because they are aggressive and lack self-control - utterly illogical.

JeremyHall 10y ago

This is why FREEDOM of speech is so important. Because when you put restrictions on it, it's no longer free by definition.

Starshitlord 10y ago

Dam kinda wanted to go to jolly ole England but now it seems like a waste if this is the direction things are going. Anyone got any good travel locations ?

Jedy_hacker 10y ago

Can this enter under UN classification of genocide? and at this i'm referring to:

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Could somebody sue and make a quick buck?

LoveYourSelfish 10y ago

Please read this as, "Make sure to hit the gym and get attractive BEFORE working on your game," as it sounds like doing it in reverse is now some dumb ass crime.

Luckyluke23 10y ago

Does anyone else feel like we should pool our funds and buy an island? I'm sure we could get something nice in the South Pacific...

we having a whip round to buy an island... count me in! I'm sure if we make it a tax haven people will help us out!

[deleted]

Momo_dollar 10y ago

The hate crime victim is whoever a women reports for merely approaching...cos let's face it whether it they accept or reject, a woman likes 98% of the attention she gets, the attention that offends her is from what repulses her and thus what she discriminates against.

[deleted]

casemodsalt 10y ago

Wow they really are making it fucking ridiculous to play the numbers game, aren't they?

They just want women to be left alone to hit on whoever they like...

RedDeadCred 10y ago

The government wants to enable hypergamy as much as possible because they know it breaks down social cohesion, which makes people apathetic about all the objects the government enjoys sticking in your ass.

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

This is a tough issue. On the one hand, hate crimes seem to say that it's more wrong to harm this person because of who they are than it would be to harm someone else of a different identity.

On the other hand, there is a difference (to me) in the level of moral abhorrence when a child is murdered than when an adult is. I guess with hate crimes, it's a matter of why you designate this class as protected and others not. You could make a case that women should be a protected class, but it would not be a case that would make feminists happy. You would have to highlight all the reasons a women is more vulnerable and more valuable: women are weaker than men, less able to defend themselves, their fertility gives them innate worth independent of their character or accomplishments.

I believe it's acceptable to create protected classes. But I also believe that there must be valid and sound reasons to do so.

[deleted]

BusterVadge 10y ago

Awesome, pretty soon fucking will be a crime too, and the human race will go away.

Eva3003 10y ago

Its already a crime for alpha who wont commit and pathetic betas: its called rape

AlerioX 10y ago

What will happen next?
Will germany pass a law that rewards every man who gets his testicles removed with a 5.000 € paycheck?
Or will the Sweds pass a law that prohibits white males from drinking alcoholic drinks at a bar?
Or will the UK force every woman to convert to Islam and to wear a niqab?
Find out in the next episode of 'Will europe get cucked again?'.

Wilreadit 10y ago

Swedes voted to make it illegal for men to stand and pee. Check it out on google.

[deleted]

Thewelshpill 10y ago

What if we all identify as women?? we can go around throwing people in jail!!!

suck on that feminism

drew967 10y ago

Damn i thought things were rough here in the states with feminism being intertwined into college classes that have nothing to do with feminism. An Sjw of a professor though teaching feminism in a Chicano Studies Class would be a good idea.

I had no idea things would be that bad in other parts of the first world. How are things in Canada?

LoveYourSelfish 10y ago

Yeah no kidding. Brit here, I don't believe all the feminist stuff that I see online, but I met some Americans while in Europe. I remembered they were talking about free the nipple movements, and they weren't sure if they weren't meant to find tits attractive on girls anymore, fucking seriously!

Wilreadit 10y ago

If we see it everyday then you lose the mystique.

EM66 10y ago

Our prime minister is a feminist, who picked half of his cabinet specifically because they had vaginas, because it's 2016, so... not great.

bowie747 10y ago

Are you saying that "it is the current year" is not a valid political argument? You're a sexist pig

drew967 10y ago

Damn. Whats your exit plan if things get really bad? Bad as in somehow making things more in favor of women than they already are. I think the last thing I read about Canada was that theyre changing the national anthem because its sexist?

well-ok-then 10y ago

Colonizing another planet is out of my price range

slay_it_forward 10y ago

It's becoming a non-white country. All the major cities are under 50% white. In 1970 they were 95% white. Different strange country now.

Wilreadit 10y ago

The Arabs identify themselves as white in surveys.

balajig8 10y ago

Britain used to conquer the world,now everyone is conquering them. The downfall of Britain due to sjws.

Wilreadit 10y ago

Won't last 100 years. Wales hate Brits. Scots hate Brits. Even the Irish hate Brits. So no, they are not the most popular tag to be attached to.

james-watson 10y ago

There is no exit plan, because Soros sees all.

Asia is the last bastion of dwindling masculinity, and it is very rapidly being feminized as well.

Wilreadit 10y ago

We still have Africa. And middle east, but that is Asia.

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

Wait, what? The guys over here are the biggest pussies. Unless you're talking "Russia Asia". Anywhere else is a bunch of pussified bitches. That's what makes it so great being foreign and traveling to Asia, the chicks finally get to see men with balls.

Limekill 10y ago

Asia. Thank god for it. Of course its going to go bad their because all the foreign tourists are polluting the place. And now the girls there have unrealistic expectations.

[deleted]

Goomich 10y ago

Oh no. There's lots of masculinity in Middle East and it's being imported to the West in shiploads.

Sure, one have to pray 4 or 5 times by day, but on the other hand, book is instruction manual how to beat your 4 wives, so it evens out, I think.

-6

Wilreadit 10y ago

Not just beat them, stone them, rape them and even trade them. Man those are some alpha men.

Sheh8su 10y ago

It is an interesting to note the polarization we are seeing. Where's the middle ground our grandfathers had?

[deleted]

Saintmyname 10y ago

This is going to be very funny in five years when the UK tells men they need to actively participate in a war and the men get on airplanes and join ISIS.

[deleted] 10y ago

Now I'm starting to agree that ISIS are doing god's work in these western countries.

Kinda sad though.

Goomich 10y ago

Why airplane, if there will be mosque on every corner?

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

Just let Islam have the country already so we can nuke it.

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

-2

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

We might sound misogynist at times, but we aren't racist.

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

-5

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

Are you including Hispanic "Whites"? Because if you are, I'd say the "world understanding" comes from settling everywhere, being overall wealthy and traveling a fuckton. Not to mention how "12% of the worlds population" runs almost all of it. Not saying this as if they're superior, but if your ancestors made some smart decisions to put you in power, you have a lot more access than those without.

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

Today's Britain and Islam. Two things we can destroy in good conscience with nuclear oblivion.

-2

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

And some women blame men that they never had kids: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3387810/Are-men-blame-women-childless-Record-numbers-women-never-mothers-not-choice-FEMAIL-investigates.html

RunawayGrain 10y ago

TLDR:"I got tossed around like a dog toy by Chads back in the sixties, and now I regret my poor decisions. WHAT ARE MEN GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?"

Also, most of the stories on the sidebar at this rag have half naked young women for the thumbnail. They know what the score is, and what sells.

[deleted] 10y ago

This is what happens when you're always looking for something better, I guess.

Rooster1111 10y ago

'I'd shelved my dream of the perfect marriage by now and I took risks with contraception.' We all know what that means lol

[deleted] 10y ago

Yep. If things went according to plan, she'd have some news for the poor guy.

inspiron3000 10y ago

Great article!
Confirms RPT and shows women are in denial.

[deleted] 10y ago

It's their own fault for leaving it so long. These women are even worse than guys who complain about not being able to get laid.

Barmacist 10y ago

Great alpha widdow example there. Note how she refers to her life as before or after Duncan. Cant get a better example there

[deleted] 10y ago

This Duncan character has apparently left almost as much of an impact on this woman as he would have if he'd knocked her up and left her.

Momo_dollar 10y ago

Thinking about this new approach I think it might actually end up being a good thing. Think about women and how they will abuse it and remember that, for the most part police and prosecution services are not stupid.

1) We know women will use it against men that they find repulsive. Out of spite and feeling insulted that an ugly , disabled, fat, retarded whatever etc thought he had a chance they will file a complaint.

2)They don't want to drive away their average beta orbiters but will if forced use it against orbiters who become annoying ( that I have no sympathy for).

3) They won't use it against guys that they find attractive, BUT they will use it in anger or vengeance against a guy that they have fucked or want..

So why is this good? Because patterns will emerge that will show the nature of womens behaviour. Just like most people here think saying hello can be an arrestable offence, hopefully women will think so too and will go to the police station when an ugly guy says hello or asks them out to drinks, "officer that guy smiled and said hello as he walked past" "officer some guy messaged me and asked if I wanted to go out for a drink" how did he get your number? " I gave it to him" was that his first message? "No I used him as a text orbiter for a few days but then he asked me out" so you made him think your were friends? "Officer some guy text me saying come round for a quick fuck" officer reads message threads and sees she was a plate and he regularly fucked her, and messaged her like that before but on this occasion he had just refused giving her his commitment.

Give a monkey a machete and his most likely going to cut himself with it.

youngredditaccount 10y ago

What if a lesbian were to hit on a woman?

FortunateBum 10y ago

Lesbians get away with shit you wouldn't believe.

NaughtyFred 10y ago

Doesn't count. Seriously.

The new legislation only applies to men speaking to women, the reverse is not covered, neither is any LGBT interactions.

HitlersCow 10y ago

Sounds like a loophole to me! Just pull a Caitlin Jenner

bestpractice1 10y ago

Hitting and hitting on women , got it

We can still play tennis though right?

SunnyFoxes 10y ago

Play tennis without talking? How will the score be kept? I'm 40, love.

Why am I in prison again.

The_BitterTruth 10y ago

So the question is, What are we going to do about it?

Trigger-Me-Daddy 10y ago

For a start, holding the police to account for the real crimes they don't pursue while wasting resources on non-crimes, like this.

chances_are_ur_a_fag 10y ago

stay the fuck out of britain

Dookiestain_LaFlair 10y ago

Have the police arrested for a hate crime whenever they speak to you.

[deleted] 10y ago

What I got from your answers is that there's nothing concrete that can be done.

666Evo 10y ago

I suggested buying an island that we can have total control over but it doesn't seem like anyone is too keen...

Goomich 10y ago

Well, that was the idea behind brexit...

[deleted] 10y ago

[deleted]

Moldy_Gecko 10y ago

U.S. Constitution isn't necessarily the best Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms isn't a human right.

Pastelitomaracucho 10y ago

1) stay out of Britain.

2) I you live there, boycott any interaction with women: go abroad to meet girls and have fun. Make international friends. Eventually women will complain they are not getting attention.

Wilreadit 10y ago

In the entire Europe, I do not think any group of women are as stuck up and feminist like the Brits. Maybe it comes with having a Queen and they are used to begging and scraping before women.

You cannot even compliment someone on their appearance without them insulting you for your sexist remarks.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

Eventually women will complain they are not getting attention

It's still legal to flatter them on Tindr. Oh wait... "unwanted text messages".

Well, it's still legal to... err... hope they approach you?

spunk_wizard 10y ago

No they won't. If you ignore them, there's hundreds of doormats ready to take your place

[deleted] 10y ago

Yes. I agree. It takes probably ten more years for women in brit to realize their mistakes. Let them enjoy beta dicks for now.

Pastelitomaracucho 10y ago

Let them be the ones facing justice :D

[deleted]

gum11 10y ago

i don't see this bs ever actually getting enforced. its like a law against jaywalking. how would it play out anyway? a woman calls the police to report that some guy asked her to go for drinks and thinks she has nice eyes, and the cops actually show up and arrest someone? no, the shit storm would be massive if this were the case. a stupid law is stupid but not enforceable.

[deleted] 10y ago

i don't see this bs ever actually getting enforced.

Me neither. A guy could just deny it, and ask the police re the evidence they have against him. Most cases wouldn't hold up in the law courts.

chaosmech 10y ago

I laugh at your assertion that the courts require evidence when it's a woman's word against a man's. Ha!

666Evo 10y ago

Jaywalking is enforced all the time...

RedDeadCred 10y ago

I watch myself and thousands of others jaywalking every day, often in front of cops, and I've never seen it enforced. It's effectively a gotcha for when they are suspicious of someone or want to harass them.

666Evo 10y ago

Not sure about where you're from but in Australia, we've fined 10,000 people in one city alone.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-pedestrians-stroll-straight-into-police-jaywalking-sting-20151014-gk9k5a.html

Ratherbefighting 10y ago

Someone with posting rights want to get this up ASAP? http://www.sciencealert.com/gonorrhoea-might-soon-be-resistant-to-all-antibiotics

Game is gonna be bumped up to "Hard" Difficulty soon w/ no reloads.

[deleted]

[deleted] 10y ago

Does anyone else feel like we should pool our funds and buy an island?

No, no need to. Just stop catering to the nonsense of women (once they see they're being ignored they will change tune). Do as men do and ignore them. Excel in those positions of leadership in any category and make sure women and there beta servants don't make it anywhere near positions of power.

It's actually pretty simple, but sitting back complaining about will only deeper the feminist nonsensical agenda.

[deleted] 10y ago

Soon enough just breathing in the same room with a women will be considered a hate crime

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

That's female oxygen you're breathing right there - some woman might need it one day. You can't just help yourself to it, that might make a woman unhappy.

MattyAnon Admin 10y ago

Unwanted texting too.

Yep - she can decide later what unwanted verbal contact and unwanted texting is.

While insane, this is on in Nottingham. I pray it will be quashed for being utterly fucking stupid rather than hailed as glorious and rolled out to the rest of the uk.

"Hate crime" is left-SJW-speak for "It's ok if it happened to a white straight male".

landbuffalo 10y ago

FYI Guys this is only applicable to the Nottinghamshire borough NOT the whole of the UK.

Unfortunately it is a demonstration of the "modern" times we live in and it probably will spread.

theBreadSultan 10y ago

I think this is mainly just PR guff -

they want less people to be doing the dodgy lame - builder style cat calling - so they are giving it a new label and getting some media exposure so that the people that do it - perhaps think about how their being dicks...

in truth - any verbal contact that is unwanted (and thus causes distress or alarm) - against anyone - is already covered by existing public order laws