MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE

[LordZuko]

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

 

[LordZuko]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

 

[deadeye]

Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.

you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority

The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders

Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying fuck that 'women CAN go their own way" men are pissed.

In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.

Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.

Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.

Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.

Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.

I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with shit like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.

Women have more freedoms without any obligations which makes you all in general entitled insufferable cunts.

Whatever freedoms men had there were duties that went along with that. The most basic is universal male suffrage which was met with the tacit understanding that along with the right to vote you were expected as a man to serve your country when called upon in war time.

Men are also obliged to take care of their children. There are no opt out clauses or measures for men as with women who have the option of abortion, adoption or legal abandonment.

Men are also expected to be accountable and bear the full weight of reckless or criminal action. Women will often times receive only 60% of or even suspended prison terms for crimes that if a man had committed he would be under the jail. Need we have to recall the onslaught of female teachers committing statutory rape on male students and receiving probation or light sentences.

Women do not fight for equal representation in the down and dirty jobs and hazardous careers that undergird the infrastructure of modern civilization. They only want fair treatment in comfortable safe environments air conditioned careers.

That's real shit right there

@jono

Don't mean to derail this thread, but what has happened and/or what have you observed over the past few years that caused you to modify your feminist beliefs.

I might be mistaken, but I don't remember you calling this type of foolishness out in the past.

So what changed?

 

[jono]

It just reached critical mass. When something gets the point of not being able to rationalize it or explain it effectively it's time to reconsider.

I noticed that there is a difference between supporting women and supporting "women's" activists.

I support women, not "women's" activists.

"Women's" activists have roped fictional characters and transgenders into their activism.

So it's no longer about womanhood or women's rights but redefining womanhood to mean being anti-male. To that point, there's nothing that can be said or done that will satisfy the activist.

They don't want dialogue and understanding, but domination and control. You cant just agree with them on some issues, you have to be a lemming and go along with everything.

I noticed that for them just being a man is a problem. Everything you do as a male is oppression and "problematic" these are things most normal everyday women don't give a fuck about.

*The male gaze

*Women want female superheroes but they can never get beaten up because violence against women is wrong

*Women want equality but only if that means they can do and say whatever they want while you have to "man up" and ignore being offended.

Regular women like my gf and my mom want to deal with domestic abuse, abortion etc not fighting for the rights of trannies and cartoon characters.

It was making the distinction between real women and onery activists that made me turn the corner. I can support women without supporting the fucked up worldview of "women's" activists hellbent on policing every facet of life.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.

you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority

The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders

Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying fuck that 'women CAN go their own way" men are pissed.

In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.

Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.

Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.

Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.

Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.

I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with shit like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.

cosign

and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts

while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks

men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men

low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well

Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.

today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well

men marry down more than women still

and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth

for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with

the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional

A man marrying a woman of means by no means prevents her from seeking his wealth during a divorce. There are innumerable high profile divorces to illustrate this.

The idea of generational wealth is archaic. The earth is overpopulated and it would do well for the vast majority to not reproduce.

Alimony should be banned. The idea of subsidizing the existence of an individual after you've parted ways is bullshit.

The idea that women aren't affected by mgtow is asinine. I've already linked reports of women complaining about men deserts across the globe. The men haven't disappeared they just are choosing other forms of fulfillment.

Your ignorance is appalling. Your very existence is reliant upon men who perform labor intensive hazardous jobs daily. You wouldn't even be able to feed your fat face or wipe your shitty ass if it weren't for men. You probably would not last more than a couple days outside civilization because your survival skills are less than paltry.

lol

you can believe the idea of generational wealth is archaic but that doesn't change the fact the most eligible men on the market are more likely to find a date and marry than their counterparts

the issue for most young women is not the lack of suitors but men their age whose earning ability that meets or exceeds their own ... reason why a lot of young women are marrying, dating down...

and for a woman who is looking to find a partner to build a family and estate with, she is better off without a man whose idea of self actualization is sitting on the couch, he shares with his roommate or whoever, playing 2k for 5,6 hours at a time

if a man views women as being inferior or emotionally manipulative or leeches, a woman looking for romance and companionship she is obviously better off without that individual

so yes go your own way....

i'll also note blk women who are 25 to 54 and not in jail outnumber black men in that category by 1.5 million, according to an Upshot analysis. For every 100 black women in this age group living outside of jail, there are only 83 black men
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html

alimony is still a necessity for the stay at home husband and wives who sacrifice the opportunity to develop his or her skills or put their career on hold to raise a family or/and do house work. otherwise you'd have women and men suddenly out on the streets unable to support themselves running to sign up for welfare...

especially in the case of a relationship where a spouse's work significantly helped their partner get into a strongly positive financial situation, such as a wife who helped her husband set up and run a profitable business that he'll own after the divorce, or even having paid for higher education for their spouse which results in a large increase of pay, such as medical school... pay that man or woman

 

[LordZuko]

Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.

you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority

The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders

Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying fuck that 'women CAN go their own way" men are pissed.

In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.

Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.

Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.

Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.

Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.

I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with shit like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.

cosign

and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts

while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks

men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men

low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well

Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.

today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well

men marry down more than women still

and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth

for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with

the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional

A man marrying a woman of means by no means prevents her from seeking his wealth during a divorce. There are innumerable high profile divorces to illustrate this.

The idea of generational wealth is archaic. The earth is overpopulated and it would do well for the vast majority to not reproduce.

Alimony should be banned. The idea of subsidizing the existence of an individual after you've parted ways is bullshit.

The idea that women aren't affected by mgtow is asinine. I've already linked reports of women complaining about men deserts across the globe. The men haven't disappeared they just are choosing other forms of fulfillment.

Your ignorance is appalling. Your very existence is reliant upon men who perform labor intensive hazardous jobs daily. You wouldn't even be able to feed your fat face or wipe your shitty ass if it weren't for men. You probably would not last more than a couple days outside civilization because your survival skills are less than paltry.

lol

you can believe the idea of generational wealth is archaic but that doesn't change the fact the most eligible men on the market are more likely to find a date and marry than their counterparts

the issue for most young women is not the lack of suitors but men their age whose earning ability that meets or exceeds their own ... reason why a lot of young women are marrying, dating down...

and for a woman who is looking to find a partner to build a family and estate with, she is better off without a man whose idea of self actualization is sitting on the couch, he shares with his roommate or whoever, playing 2k for 5,6 hours at a time

if a man views women as being inferior or emotionally manipulative or leeches, a woman looking for romance and companionship she is obviously better off without that individual

so yes go your own way....

i'll also note blk women who are 25 to 54 and not in jail outnumber black men in that category by 1.5 million, according to an Upshot analysis. For every 100 black women in this age group living outside of jail, there are only 83 black men
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html

alimony is still a necessity for the stay at home husband and wives who sacrifice the opportunity to develop his or her skills or put their career on hold to raise a family or/and do house work. otherwise you'd have women and men suddenly out on the streets unable to support themselves running to sign up for welfare...

especially in the case of a relationship where a spouse's work significantly helped their partner get into a strongly positive financial situation, such as a wife who helped her husband set up and run a profitable business that he'll own after the divorce, or even having paid for higher education for their spouse which results in a large increase of pay, such as medical school... pay that man or woman

Once we get a divorce, you are no longer my responsibility. You better learn to live within your means like if you just got fired. That's a big reason why men go mgtow.

The reason these well off women have to marry down is not because their are significantly less men in their income bracket, it's because the men in their income bracket have far more options than she.

Money doesn't do for women what it does for men which is why these women end up buying dick, or marrying down.

Women can't find the men to build these estates or families with that's why they are settling and freezing their eggs. Because as much as women like to pretend that being in a man's world is what they want they aren't satisfied unless they can surround themselves with a network that emotionally validates them aka husband and kids.

Women crave emotional validation. That's y'alls raison d'être

 

[blackrain]

Women have no honor nor any sense of sacrifice so they cannot appreciate these qualities in men.

This reads like the he-man woman haters club motto. You off the deep end with this one

 

[sunlord]

Women have no honor nor any sense of sacrifice so they cannot appreciate these qualities in men.

This reads like the he-man woman haters club motto. You off the deep end with this one

I think he means they have no comparable sense of honor OR sacrifice

 

[LordZuko]

Women have no honor nor any sense of sacrifice so they cannot appreciate these qualities in men.

This reads like the he-man woman haters club motto. You off the deep end with this one

You stay tryna add something of value to this thread. Keep at it, you'll get there someday

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

 

[sunlord]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

live in reality, our species is dimorphic and that has consequences on any society we create men and women can never be "on par" without women rigging the system.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

live in reality, our species is dimorphic and that has consequences on any society we create men and women can never be "on par" without women rigging the system.

You two really do think women are just tall children don't you?

 

[sunlord]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

live in reality, our species is dimorphic and that has consequences on any society we create men and women can never be "on par" without women rigging the system.

You two really do think women are just tall children don't you?

I would not call women children but the reality is that women and men are different by nature and our natures have an effect on society.

currently western society is attempting to subvert nature and it is leading to a crash

 

[deadeye]

Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.

you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority

The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders

Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying fuck that 'women CAN go their own way" men are pissed.

In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.

Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.

Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.

Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.

Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.

I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with shit like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.

cosign

and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts

while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks

men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men

low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well

Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.

today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well

men marry down more than women still

and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth

for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with

the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional

A man marrying a woman of means by no means prevents her from seeking his wealth during a divorce. There are innumerable high profile divorces to illustrate this.

The idea of generational wealth is archaic. The earth is overpopulated and it would do well for the vast majority to not reproduce.

Alimony should be banned. The idea of subsidizing the existence of an individual after you've parted ways is bullshit.

The idea that women aren't affected by mgtow is asinine. I've already linked reports of women complaining about men deserts across the globe. The men haven't disappeared they just are choosing other forms of fulfillment.

Your ignorance is appalling. Your very existence is reliant upon men who perform labor intensive hazardous jobs daily. You wouldn't even be able to feed your fat face or wipe your shitty ass if it weren't for men. You probably would not last more than a couple days outside civilization because your survival skills are less than paltry.

alimony is still a necessity for the stay at home husband and wives who sacrifice the opportunity to develop his or her skills or put their career on hold to raise a family or/and do house work. otherwise you'd have women and men suddenly out on the streets unable to support themselves running to sign up for welfare...

especially in the case of a relationship where a spouse's work significantly helped their partner get into a strongly positive financial situation, such as a wife who helped her husband set up and run a profitable business that he'll own after the divorce, or even having paid for higher education for their spouse which results in a large increase of pay, such as medical school... pay that man or woman

lol

And I thought we were all supposed to be equal.

 

[LordZuko]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

You speculate.

The existing matriarch societies function as little more than b.c. era villages.

There's no way that society could have developed both sexes on par because for the majority of human history progress has come at the hands of manual labor. MANual labor. Men laboring for the benefit of the whole society.

We have relatively recently advanced civilian society to the point women are virtually free from domestic labor. However, until the full implementation of automation sector wide, the world still relies on MANual labor.

Even in the short span of time where females outnumber males in post secondary education, females still flock to majority non stem fields. So we'll have to wait at least two generations before your statement can be seen as anything other than speculation

 

[LordZuko]

You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the fuck is digging the irrigation.

There is no way you can come to this conclusion since men have always had control

Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.

These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.

All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.

Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.

Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.

Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.

So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.

So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.

Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?

Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.

Women were subjugated right alongside men.

It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.

In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.

Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.

Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.

Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.

Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle.

You are trying to convolute the meaning of subjugation in the intention we're talking about. Women have always been seen as the 'lesser' sex. And therefore less smart. Who knows what would this place would like right now if our species grew up "on par" with each other. That's my point, you can only say the things you say, with the evidence you have because women have always been 'less'. Had the mind state been different who knows.

live in reality, our species is dimorphic and that has consequences on any society we create men and women can never be "on par" without women rigging the system.

You two really do think women are just tall children don't you?

Women conduct themselves as tall children.

 

[LordZuko]

Subjugation only has one meaning to forcefully impose a level of peonage or inferiority upon someone.

For most of human history men were subjugated right along with women. Their labor and duties were imposed on how best they could serve that society.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I guess it only follows suit that if the ruler subjugate their people, their people will do the same to each other. But it doesn't detract from the fact that women were held back because of certain perceptions held by men who control practically everything. The most important position being the top. Which I would bet money still hold many of those beliefs.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

Once we get a divorce, you are no longer my responsibility. You better learn to live within your means like if you just got fired. That's a big reason why men go mgtow.

The reason these well off women have to marry down is not because their are significantly less men in their income bracket, it's because the men in their income bracket have far more options than she.

Money doesn't do for women what it does for men which is why these women end up buying dick, or marrying down.

Women can't find the men to build these estates or families with that's why they are settling and freezing their eggs. Because as much as women like to pretend that being in a man's world is what they want they aren't satisfied unless they can surround themselves with a network that emotionally validates them aka husband and kids.

Women crave emotional validation. That's y'alls raison d'être

men worried about alimony don't get married ....subscribing to this mgtow ideology is something different...maybe its a growing movement but where is the hard evidence

and key phrase is 'earning ability'

the last few decades way more women have graduated college than men...fact is a college degree will afford an individual with more opportunities in the job market than not having one...and many male dominated industries that don't require degrees have been cutting jobs and or wages

assuming these women will want to marry college educated men....there’s simply not enough men to make all those trips down the aisle a reality

also...

In 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young, single, childless women under 30 are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

It is frustrating though because there is differences, and differences aren't bad. If seen correctly they're strengths. Life shouldn't be a war, men and women fighting for rights not to be infringed upon, fighting each other and anyone else who disagrees with them. Men AND women are vital to society but I think wanting to force society back to the good old days or whatever ever it is being implied is unrealistic. The cat is out of the bag! they say. We should be focusing on how to live cuz this shit isn't going anywhere.