MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE

[LPast]

There is one truth you need to keep in the center of your heart.

Women do not love men. Women love what men can do for them. The person that a man loves is a performance, it is who she believes she must be in order to get you attached.

It is emotional manipulation 201.

It is why one of the biggest complaints men have post marriage is that the wife doesn't do the stuff she was doing at girlfriend level.

Have you been married?

Y'all need to share your PERSONAL experiences because y'all are giving off the Elliot Rogers vibe...

Shaming tactics don't work here. Invoking the memory of an unhinged murderer is ad hominem.

I could share one story or ten it doesn't matter because the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, this is exactly what goes on with the internet. People adopt ideas and ideals for things they have no experience in.

There are people that talk down about marriage... Who have never been married.

No shame. Y'all talking about personal things in a general fashion. You said "post marriage". Are you speaking from experience?

 

[sunlord]

There is one truth you need to keep in the center of your heart.

Women do not love men. Women love what men can do for them. The person that a man loves is a performance, it is who she believes she must be in order to get you attached.

It is emotional manipulation 201.

It is why one of the biggest complaints men have post marriage is that the wife doesn't do the stuff she was doing at girlfriend level.

Have you been married?

Y'all need to share your PERSONAL experiences because y'all are giving off the Elliot Rogers vibe...

Shaming tactics don't work here. Invoking the memory of an unhinged murderer is ad hominem.

I could share one story or ten it doesn't matter because the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, this is exactly what goes on with the internet. People adopt ideas and ideals for things they have no experience in.

There are people that talk down about marriage... Who have never been married.

No shame. Y'all talking about personal things in a general fashion. You said "post marriage". Are you speaking from experience?

SO do you have to have the experience of going to jail to talk down on being in jail???

 

[LordZuko]

There is one truth you need to keep in the center of your heart.

Women do not love men. Women love what men can do for them. The person that a man loves is a performance, it is who she believes she must be in order to get you attached.

It is emotional manipulation 201.

It is why one of the biggest complaints men have post marriage is that the wife doesn't do the stuff she was doing at girlfriend level.

Have you been married?

Y'all need to share your PERSONAL experiences because y'all are giving off the Elliot Rogers vibe...

Shaming tactics don't work here. Invoking the memory of an unhinged murderer is ad hominem.

I could share one story or ten it doesn't matter because the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, this is exactly what goes on with the internet. People adopt ideas and ideals for things they have no experience in.

There are people that talk down about marriage... Who have never been married.

No shame. Y'all talking about personal things in a general fashion. You said "post marriage". Are you speaking from experience?

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

The author of the quoted post would like to suggest that unless a person has been married they are not qualified to extrapolate and analyze data regarding marriage and divorce rates.

Relationship status has no bearing on one's ability to critique an institution. One can objectively analyze the data based upon innumerable divorce court cases and outcomes.

You have no case.

 

[gorilla]

That's a given in this whole conversation. My point is, men never called it "marrying down" then nor do they now. That's an insult and instates an "I'm better than you" attitude which is what we are discussing in here.

But my sista, you neglect to acknowledge that there was just a lot of work especially early on that women could not physically handle. Not that men were just being selfish assholes and keeping all the back breaking even life threatening tasks to themselves. I don't see a women's movement which addressed womens displeasure with not doing that kind of work.

And again, that devaluing "womans work" stuff came from your cac counterparts. Black men and women had the same value (or lack thereof) after being brought to this country in chains. Yet when the enemy came calling, some black women answered and joined them despite the fact that they wouldn't even let them march or congregate with them. Our original culture was one of family structure and women were very much a respected and necessary part of that as they should be today.

marrying down is used to describe when a person marries someone who has less education and lesser assets and or lesser earning potential...never did i suggest that a person who is marrying down is this superior human being...

though i do acknowledge the negative connotations...never meant to offend...but it's useful to describe and study social and economic trends

and marriage was originally though of as solely a business transaction and a way to bridge houses. so while it may have had had a different name, marrying down has always been a thing

it was frowned upon for men of wealth or wealthier families marrying women from lesser families...and vice versa..that was considering marrying down

men of means marrying women who were barren or not thought of as beautiful were considered to be marrying down

patriarchy, sexism was not imported from europe to africa. patriarchy as we know it. but it existed. there is much historical evidence of male dominant systems in precolonial africa where women's rights derived from their fathers and husbands. men could have multiple wives and had more a say in who they could marry

even during the slave trade there was a necessary relationship between colonial officials and some of our leaders. the chiefs would often trade women for resources and favor

and in more contemporary times, as you already know, women of all races around the world have faced systemic barriers to the highest paid professions, such as lawyers, surgeons and physicians, that require an education. colleges were late to accepting female students. not sure how you can justify that

but yes men and women are different. men are generally stronger and bodies more adapt to physical labor. but this idea that women are afraid or shy away from physical labor is bunk. given the opportunity women are more then willing to do "men's work" because it often pays better. for ex, women in the early 1900s america were barred from working underground in the coalmines. once the ban was lifted, women began to trickle in. but such is the case with integrating women into male dominated industry, female workers often faced verbal harassment, physical abuse, and discrimination from management and coworkers without much recourse. even rape. look up the women of north country and what they experienced in the 70s and 80s. even bigger problem for blk women. look up the blk women who sued GM in 76. plenty of stories of territorial harassment women of all races have faced throughout history, across industries and around the world. we see it today in the IT industry

Nope. I studied this in college (A- I might add). That shit was mos def Euro influenced. They did not value their women the same way we did. Of course there were still the physical difference and division of task among the more suitable, but our women weren't in general, treated like European women.

The major catalyst ultimately leading to the trans atlantic slave trade was the Portuguese coming to the coastal African countries to trade weapons for "workers" for their sugar cane fields among other things. The tribal kings initially traded prisoners from enemy tribes and "criminals" in exchange for these new weapons, not knowing the true intentions of the white man. Once chiefs became aware of what they were doing to these prisoners, some refused which led to Portuguese playing the "ok well I'll give these nice weapons to your enemy so they can come conquer you" game. That's a tough position to be in.

You're trying to make it seem like women were used as gift/currency when they weren't. Men and women both were traded, although initially it was far more men. If you're looking for someone to do hard labor, a woman is not going to be your choice when there are plenty strong men around. It wasn't until later they decided the women were also suitable.

As for the second bolded, again, you're trying to create this situation that's exclusive to women and it ain't. Poor people in general have had limited access to quality education and as a result higher paying jobs. FF to present day and women can pretty much go to school damn near free. How many grants and programs are there for women, especially with children, to complete their studies? And that's not a bad thing. But don't act like this isn't the other side of why women are getting degrees at the rates they are now. They are getting plenty assistance and again not that it's a negative.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination....

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

 

[sunlord]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you believe women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

YES working in a coal mine especially in the 1900s was risky SO WHY should men have made it risker by hiring masses of women??? who we all know are physically weaker then men. SPECUCALTION ??? nope just logical deduction. You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness?? well that is hard to do because women don't do those kinds of jobs because the typical women does not want them. If there will always be some man more qualified for those jobs then we should look to hire those men instead of women AND STOP pretending that women are equally competent.

we can look at the military and there is abundant proof that they had to lower the standards for women and that is a major concession in an area where there should be no concessions.

WOMEN DON'T COMPETE THEY CHEAT.

 

[ineedpussy]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you believe women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

YES working in a coal mine especially in the 1900s was risky SO WHY should men have made it risker by hiring masses of women??? who we all know are physically weaker then men. SPECUCALTION ??? nope just logical deduction. You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness?? well that is hard to do because women don't do those kinds of jobs because the typical women does not want them. If there will always be some man more qualified for those jobs then we should look to hire those men instead of women AND STOP pretending that women are equally competent.

we can look at the military and there is abundant proof that they had to lower the standards for women and that is a major concession in an area where there should be no concessions.

WOMEN DON'T COMPETE THEY CHEAT.

great shit and to add @Madame_CJSkywalker my dude was in the army and i asked him why dont they let women on the front line and he explicitly said if youre shot who do you want to carry you back to safety. a woman who cant lift your 200 plus pound body or a man who can? and i said a man. also i work in the electrical industry and there are women who cant lift a 140 pound stick of rigid pipe. they need help. these women usually have to be the material bitch (no pun intended) cause they cant lift the heavy pipe. but they get the same pay.....is that fair that they cant lift the heavy pipe like the men but get the same pay? answer me that. cause if you cant lift that pipe like i do why do you get the same pay when you get to sit on your ass all day and basically do nothing? answer me that and dont give me that bullshit either cause like i said i work in the industry and seen it done. so should these women get the same pay even though they dont do the same hard labor?

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

That's a given in this whole conversation. My point is, men never called it "marrying down" then nor do they now. That's an insult and instates an "I'm better than you" attitude which is what we are discussing in here.

But my sista, you neglect to acknowledge that there was just a lot of work especially early on that women could not physically handle. Not that men were just being selfish assholes and keeping all the back breaking even life threatening tasks to themselves. I don't see a women's movement which addressed womens displeasure with not doing that kind of work.

And again, that devaluing "womans work" stuff came from your cac counterparts. Black men and women had the same value (or lack thereof) after being brought to this country in chains. Yet when the enemy came calling, some black women answered and joined them despite the fact that they wouldn't even let them march or congregate with them. Our original culture was one of family structure and women were very much a respected and necessary part of that as they should be today.

marrying down is used to describe when a person marries someone who has less education and lesser assets and or lesser earning potential...never did i suggest that a person who is marrying down is this superior human being...

though i do acknowledge the negative connotations...never meant to offend...but it's useful to describe and study social and economic trends

and marriage was originally though of as solely a business transaction and a way to bridge houses. so while it may have had had a different name, marrying down has always been a thing

it was frowned upon for men of wealth or wealthier families marrying women from lesser families...and vice versa..that was considering marrying down

men of means marrying women who were barren or not thought of as beautiful were considered to be marrying down

patriarchy, sexism was not imported from europe to africa. patriarchy as we know it. but it existed. there is much historical evidence of male dominant systems in precolonial africa where women's rights derived from their fathers and husbands. men could have multiple wives and had more a say in who they could marry

even during the slave trade there was a necessary relationship between colonial officials and some of our leaders. the chiefs would often trade women for resources and favor

and in more contemporary times, as you already know, women of all races around the world have faced systemic barriers to the highest paid professions, such as lawyers, surgeons and physicians, that require an education. colleges were late to accepting female students. not sure how you can justify that

but yes men and women are different. men are generally stronger and bodies more adapt to physical labor. but this idea that women are afraid or shy away from physical labor is bunk. given the opportunity women are more then willing to do "men's work" because it often pays better. for ex, women in the early 1900s america were barred from working underground in the coalmines. once the ban was lifted, women began to trickle in. but such is the case with integrating women into male dominated industry, female workers often faced verbal harassment, physical abuse, and discrimination from management and coworkers without much recourse. even rape. look up the women of north country and what they experienced in the 70s and 80s. even bigger problem for blk women. look up the blk women who sued GM in 76. plenty of stories of territorial harassment women of all races have faced throughout history, across industries and around the world. we see it today in the IT industry

Nope. I studied this in college (A- I might add). That shit was mos def Euro influenced. They did not value their women the same way we did. Of course there were still the physical difference and division of task among the more suitable, but our women weren't in general, treated like European women.

The major catalyst ultimately leading to the trans atlantic slave trade was the Portuguese coming to the coastal African countries to trade weapons for "workers" for their sugar cane fields among other things. The tribal kings initially traded prisoners from enemy tribes and "criminals" in exchange for these new weapons, not knowing the true intentions of the white man. Once chiefs became aware of what they were doing to these prisoners, some refused which led to Portuguese playing the "ok well I'll give these nice weapons to your enemy so they can come conquer you" game. That's a tough position to be in.

You're trying to make it seem like women were used as gift/currency when they weren't. Men and women both were traded, although initially it was far more men. If you're looking for someone to do hard labor, a woman is not going to be your choice when there are plenty strong men around. It wasn't until later they decided the women were also suitable.

As for the second bolded, again, you're trying to create this situation that's exclusive to women and it ain't. Poor people in general have had limited access to quality education and as a result higher paying jobs. FF to present day and women can pretty much go to school damn near free. How many grants and programs are there for women, especially with children, to complete their studies? And that's not a bad thing. But don't act like this isn't the other side of why women are getting degrees at the rates they are now. They are getting plenty assistance and again not that it's a negative.

u can argue women in precolonial africa were treated better then european women by their men all you want.... but sexism , patriarchy existed... as i stated before in most cultures the rights of women derived from their husbands and fathers. or in other words women were second hand citizens

men and women captured during tribal wars were traded for other resources never denied that. women were always considered of value in the slave trade because the goal was to produce more and more slaves at a lesser expense. unlike higher born men or warriors of the tribe, women regardless of status were sold off to be the colonists given the right price and favor to be married, raped, etc

and i'm not trying to play the oppression olympics with you, the truth is we are all oppressed, exploited, and discriminated against in some way. we’re also all privileged in other ways as well

and i'm discounting the full range of their experiences and trying to place women's struggles ahead of anyone else

but let's keep it real. using education as an example, while it took luck and a lot of persistence for a poor boy to make it to college, for along time women of any status were denied the opportunity altogether because of no other reason then we were women

yes things are changing for the better but again let's keep it real

a lot of women are drowning in school debt, especially blk women

while i feel my degree was a good investment, i know i can't wait to get sallie mae off my back

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you believe women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

YES working in a coal mine especially in the 1900s was risky SO WHY should men have made it risker by hiring masses of women??? who we all know are physically weaker then men. SPECUCALTION ??? nope just logical deduction. You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness?? well that is hard to do because women don't do those kinds of jobs because the typical women does not want them. If there will always be some man more qualified for those jobs then we should look to hire those men instead of women AND STOP pretending that women are equally competent.

we can look at the military and there is abundant proof that they had to lower the standards for women and that is a major concession in an area where there should be no concessions.

WOMEN DON'T COMPETE THEY CHEAT.

great shit and to add @Madame_CJSkywalker my dude was in the army and i asked him why dont they let women on the front line and he explicitly said if youre shot who do you want to carry you back to safety. a woman who cant lift your 200 plus pound body or a man who can? and i said a man. also i work in the electrical industry and there are women who cant lift a 140 pound stick of rigid pipe. they need help. these women usually have to be the material bitch (no pun intended) cause they cant lift the heavy pipe. but they get the same pay.....is that fair that they cant lift the heavy pipe like the men but get the same pay? answer me that. cause if you cant lift that pipe like i do why do you get the same pay when you get to sit on your ass all day and basically do nothing? answer me that and dont give me that bullshit either cause like i said i work in the industry and seen it done. so should these women get the same pay even though they dont do the same hard labor?

you're more likely to find a man who can lift 140 lbs pounds without assistance....unload and prep heavy equipment ...but there are women out there who can do it as well...trust

not every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place

you can't do the job, you get the boot

the military is a different story considering they use public dollars

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you bnot every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place

elieve women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness??

yes i would like proof

 

[sunlord]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you believe women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

YES working in a coal mine especially in the 1900s was risky SO WHY should men have made it risker by hiring masses of women??? who we all know are physically weaker then men. SPECUCALTION ??? nope just logical deduction. You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness?? well that is hard to do because women don't do those kinds of jobs because the typical women does not want them. If there will always be some man more qualified for those jobs then we should look to hire those men instead of women AND STOP pretending that women are equally competent.

we can look at the military and there is abundant proof that they had to lower the standards for women and that is a major concession in an area where there should be no concessions.

WOMEN DON'T COMPETE THEY CHEAT.

great shit and to add @Madame_CJSkywalker my dude was in the army and i asked him why dont they let women on the front line and he explicitly said if youre shot who do you want to carry you back to safety. a woman who cant lift your 200 plus pound body or a man who can? and i said a man. also i work in the electrical industry and there are women who cant lift a 140 pound stick of rigid pipe. they need help. these women usually have to be the material bitch (no pun intended) cause they cant lift the heavy pipe. but they get the same pay.....is that fair that they cant lift the heavy pipe like the men but get the same pay? answer me that. cause if you cant lift that pipe like i do why do you get the same pay when you get to sit on your ass all day and basically do nothing? answer me that and dont give me that bullshit either cause like i said i work in the industry and seen it done. so should these women get the same pay even though they dont do the same hard labor?

you're more likely to find a man who can lift 140 lbs pounds without assistance....unload and prep heavy equipment ...but there are women out there who can do it as well...trust

not every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place

you can't do the job, you get the boot

the military is a different story considering they use public dollars

I don't think anyone has said that ALL women are physically weak but overall as a SEX women are much weaker than men therefore we will always be able to find a man that is better suited for those physical labor jobs.

the military is funded with public dollars but the Job THEY do is vastly more important to the continuation of the state than any private sector job..... SO THERE SHOULD BE ZERO compromise BLUNTLY put women do not belong in certain areas of the military because they are not the physical equals of men

 

[sunlord]

what a load of bullshit... A female in a coal mine in the 1900s put every single man working with her at risk because she would not be able to work as hard or as long and on top of that if there is an emergency her weaker body would be of limited help. She can't drag a 220 pound man out of a cave in

Any kind of physical work that requires all participants to be strong women were barred from firstly because men and women in certain environments simply don't work good together

and because women are physically weaker hiring one of them would be a waste if stronger men are available.

working in a coal mine is a major risk period. women being present has not shown to have any adverse effects or an increase in work related deaths or injuries. would that have been the case had there never been a ban is purely speculation

if you can provide proof to the contrary please do. or could you provide evidence of a dip in output? doesn't have to be mining necessarily

and regardless of whether the ban is in place or not one could argue there is always going to be the chance there is always someone more qualified out there

as long as you can perform the job with any major concessions, everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place... there is no room for exceptions because that opens the door to other forms of discrimination

there is also no excuse for the extreme instances of abuse and harassment women faced when they began to gain entry into the field...and even face today like in most male dominated industries

otherwise if you bnot every woman is this frail and weak individual

like i said everyone should been given the opportunity on the entry level to compete and prove themselves on an individual basis in the work place

elieve women shouldn't be able to compete for the same economic opportunities as men, you should have no problem with

You want me to find evidence that adding females to a job that is dangerous and requires physical strength lowers effectiveness??

yes i would like proof

I already gave you one example The military.

 

[atribecalledgabi]

its crazy how this thread is avoided by chicks....

only 1 lady in here holding it down.

i give her props

@Madame_CJSkywalker

Honorable mention to @"BiblicalAtheist " and @atribecalledgabi as well.

Granted, they haven't been as active as @desertrain10 ........but it's probably because they just don't have the patience for it more than anything else.

nah....gabi cool with me.....i wouldnt hound her. she like a lil internet sister.

I mean...I already said what I had to say bout 10 pages ago lol

@Madame_CJSkywalker got stamina I don't have lol

 

[gorilla]

u can argue women in precolonial africa were treated better then european women by their men all you want.... but sexism , patriarchy existed... as i stated before in most cultures the rights of women derived from their husbands and fathers. or in other words women were second hand citizens

men and women captured during tribal wars were traded for other resources never denied that. women were always considered of value in the slave trade because the goal was to produce more and more slaves at a lesser expense. unlike higher born men or warriors of the tribe, women regardless of status were sold off to be the colonists given the right price and favor to be married, raped, etc

and i'm not trying to play the oppression olympics with you, the truth is we are all oppressed, exploited, and discriminated against in some way. we’re also all privileged in other ways as well

and i'm discounting the full range of their experiences and trying to place women's struggles ahead of anyone else

but let's keep it real. using education as an example, while it took luck and a lot of persistence for a poor boy to make it to college, for along time women of any status were denied the opportunity altogether because of no other reason then we were women

yes things are changing for the better but again let's keep it real

a lot of women are drowning in school debt, especially blk women

while i feel my degree was a good investment, i know i can't wait to get sallie mae off my back

Like i said, I studied the history of our people from pre slave trade throught the civil rights era. Thats a lot different from your speculation and quick googles. Hell if you look at African culture today, its still largely the case that women hold such positions as running the market place. So again no, black women were not treated in the same regard as their euro counterparts.

Nobody playing the oppression olympics but you. Every thread of men/women nature, you come in talking about how hard women have/continue to have it in this patriarchal society. Check my track record, my stance is always about black men and women working together and how the fact that many black women have desperately tried to seperate their struggle and make it the end all be all of oppression has hurt our community severely. When the threads come up about our issues as men, I respond accordingly as well. We cant make it outta this shit without each other. Ive always said that.

As far as student loan debt, you didn't dispute the programs and grants available exclusively to women for higher education. Hell I personally have watched females who have become career students because they take out the loans amd pocket the excess instead of getting fucking jobs. Been in school 8-10 yrs and shit. Plus, with the cost of tuition, it we all have to be more selective about the field we go into. In essence we need to be careful about racking up six figure college debt for jobs that pay not even half that. Even then, there are options if its a public need field. Lots of debt forgiveness options there.

I must have missed when women weren't allowed to go to school in this country. I read about when blacks weren't allowed to though.

I'm tired of debating this with you, my fingers hurt lol. We just have two different pov's. You play 2k18 tho?

 

[deadeye]

lol @"The Lonious Monk" sitting this out.

Guess dude's had enough of the back and forths.

 

[anduin]

From the first video the dude is already wrong because he thinks his behavior means it will get him pussy. Being nice might work for some women but it doesn't work for most and never has.

I'm still confused what the end goal of these dudes is. I get doing your own thing and recommend you never live your life trying to please someone else but do they think they will wait the women out or something? Dating can be a numbers game and you might run into 10 duds before you hit the right one but these guys are giving up after 2-3 tries. You have to know what you're looking for too or else you'll keep going for same kind of women.

 

[LordZuko]

From the first video the dude is already wrong because he thinks his behavior means it will get him pussy. Being nice might work for some women but it doesn't work for most and never has.

I'm still confused what the end goal of these dudes is. I get doing your own thing and recommend you never live your life trying to please someone else but do they think they will wait the women out or something? Dating can be a numbers game and you might run into 10 duds before you hit the right one but these guys are giving up after 2-3 tries. You have to know what you're looking for too or else you'll keep going for same kind of women.

It's a war of attrition. The effects will not be seen for thirty or forty years or maybe not in our lifetime

The ultimate goal outside of the short term personal goal of liberation is the collapse of the state.

By refusing to play the goal is for the state to collapse due to their not being enough revenue to keep up the welfare state. The secondary goal is for women to become primary bread winners and tax base so now the rich bitches have to subsidize the broke bitches.

 

[texas409]

If you want to see feminism at play just watch the Maury show daily. Them broads come on the show to find out who the father of their kids are cause they've Fucked so many different dudes theyve lost count who nutted in them. And then Maury cottles them like little children when he should be telling them hoes to stop fucking all these random men and destroying innocent kids lives. The dudes get vilified from the jump while the women constantly get made to be seen as the victim

 

[The Lonious Monk]

lol @"The Lonious Monk" sitting this out.

Guess dude's had enough of the back and forths.

lol I don't really have a dog in this fight. The feminists are foolish more often than not, but these MGTOW dudes are lame to me. Both groups should disappear.

 

[blakfyahking]

why do you keep saying this?

change aint a bad thing as long as its benefiting you.

these chicks going to college an shit just want options.

if i find a man great..i can fall back an dont have to use my degree and can have him pay for the loan

or

if i dont find a man, great..i can sleep around and be free and young an have simps pay for my loan

but if they can find a man...then its because its not men that meet their standards or just not enough of them.

nah thats crap....maybe its because these women dont hold themselves like women but more like objects that can be manipulated with a dream thats sold.

how many women be on that..."i aint got time for a man" when they building or getting money or enjoying life? yet want to be apart of someone whos established.

nah lady...its a fly in your soup.

Fact is for many single women under 30 with no children they will have a hard time meeting a male counterpart their age whose earning ability meets or exceeds their own

For college educated blk women who want a college educated blk man the dating pool is even smaller



Will women have to adjust there standards yes. But this idea that taking a persons financial situation into consideration is objectifying or should discouraged is bunk

The bolded is part of the problem

You keep mentioning earning ability and level of education.......but nothing at all about compatibility and/or how well the man treats/respects you.

Don't set yourself up like that. Those are character traits. Numerous studies and dating coaches have revealed that Black women in particular do not consider character or principles when considering a partner. First they consider his fashion, then anatomy then his sexual performance then his finances. But fashion sort of clues them in on fashion. If he spends money on high end clothes for himself it indicates his financial level, but also that he'll do the same for her.

shit this is far from the truth in my case.....wife got all this high priced shit an i wear $40 sneakers.

@blakfiya

LOL SMH but who's fault is that at the bolded, if u really the leader in ur house as a man is allegedly supposed to be?

lemme find out it's really ur wife who makes all the money in ur house......that would make sense that u would be nothing more than just a dependent on her taxes

or are u just admitting to us all that u just a simp of the highest degree? grow some balls and man up my nigga, don't let wifey play u like that :joy:

she secured her position by holding me down. so shoes and shit dont mean nothing to me..its when it mattered that she stood tall next to me that matters. if that whats she asks for ....she deserves it.

you need to man up an give a nigga credit. you still want to try to prove i aint got what i say even tho its been proven for years. you the only nigga focused on that.

gotta let it go bruh.

an what man would not give his wife the world if he could?

you bitter for nothing

the bolded doesn't make sense when u summoned me into this thread by name

and this ain't the 1st time I read a thread recently and u shot a subliminal at me...........but for now we just gon keep pretending that u ain't a rock throwing, hand hiding type of nigga SMH

and @ the underlined, yeah that sounds nice to be a "balling" ass nigga who don't care bout shoes/clothes/cars/whatever like u claim

but how u don't give a damn about luxuries, but yet u wifed a chick who still asking for that?

ya'll niggaz supposed to be evenly yoked right? if she earned her position then ya'll need to be out here rocking $40 shoes together as a couple

u telling me ya'll going out and she swerving in red bottoms while u stomping around with her in dirty construction boots? cut the shit my nigga :joy: