MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE

[atribecalledgabi]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

Nobody gives a shit about your personal reality or circumstances.

You're conflating a system with ground level interaction.

You'd do better if you'd made the assertion that families had more to do with mate selection than an individual woman. Because Most of Human history and Even current history marriages are arranged between families.

To Which my response would be that women had suitors according to her station. That could range from 0 to 100. It's all based on her family lot. A woman would be encouraged to choose from among her suitors with advice from the elder women.

And what you conveniently forget is the role women play in the bed chambers next to powerful men, as elder women wielding subtle covert power and influence.

The myth and narrative that women were a universally oppressed class up until 50years ago is a myth.

For each scenario you used there were laws in place that protected females from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children.

lol

theories begin as personal observations...the question is can they be proven, duplicated/ maintained against objections

that said, the average woman wasn't cozing up with the rich and powerful...and elder women ultimately had to yield to men

as i've always maintained at one point in time the general consensus was that women were thought to be spoils of war or and the property of their tribes/fathers/ husbands. as little as 2,3 centuries ago there were laws that stated as such

she had suitors depending on the station of her family but her father generally had ultimate veto power regardless of her thoughts on the matter

research historical record, across tribes and cultures its generally the same story..with very few exceptions

and regardless of whether or not there were laws in place that protected women from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children, women having rights of there own legal and otherwise that didn't derive from the men in their lives is a relatively new concept

and throughout history you could see there were concerted efforts, here in america and beyond, to keep women from owning property; credit; voting; seeking out of higher education; owning their own businesses

here in america, until the late 1970s, 80s there were state laws on the books that required women to have male relatives sign business loans and the like....

WATCH THIS VID

This the one i couldn't find.

Karen Straughan is G.O.A.T. and even she admits to her own fuckery

She's a woman so it doesn't matter what she says or does tho

Strawman Alert.

Never said that it doesn't matter what a woman does. In fact i said the exact opposite. Karen's resume is dope.

You can't even meme right bitch.

Her resume and what she does is her talking...you don't know her to know if she actually applies what she says. But if a chick here says what they do, out come the pejoratives.

 

[LordZuko]

You don't like a challenge. You post here because you like male attention

 

[LordZuko]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

Nobody gives a shit about your personal reality or circumstances.

You're conflating a system with ground level interaction.

You'd do better if you'd made the assertion that families had more to do with mate selection than an individual woman. Because Most of Human history and Even current history marriages are arranged between families.

To Which my response would be that women had suitors according to her station. That could range from 0 to 100. It's all based on her family lot. A woman would be encouraged to choose from among her suitors with advice from the elder women.

And what you conveniently forget is the role women play in the bed chambers next to powerful men, as elder women wielding subtle covert power and influence.

The myth and narrative that women were a universally oppressed class up until 50years ago is a myth.

For each scenario you used there were laws in place that protected females from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children.

lol

theories begin as personal observations...the question is can they be proven, duplicated/ maintained against objections

that said, the average woman wasn't cozing up with the rich and powerful...and elder women ultimately had to yield to men

as i've always maintained at one point in time the general consensus was that women were thought to be spoils of war or and the property of their tribes/fathers/ husbands. as little as 2,3 centuries ago there were laws that stated as such

she had suitors depending on the station of her family but her father generally had ultimate veto power regardless of her thoughts on the matter

research historical record, across tribes and cultures its generally the same story..with very few exceptions

and regardless of whether or not there were laws in place that protected women from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children, women having rights of there own legal and otherwise that didn't derive from the men in their lives is a relatively new concept

and throughout history you could see there were concerted efforts, here in america and beyond, to keep women from owning property; credit; voting; seeking out of higher education; owning their own businesses

here in america, until the late 1970s, 80s there were state laws on the books that required women to have male relatives sign business loans and the like....

WATCH THIS VID

This the one i couldn't find.

Karen Straughan is G.O.A.T. and even she admits to her own fuckery

She's a woman so it doesn't matter what she says or does tho

Strawman Alert.

Never said that it doesn't matter what a woman does. In fact i said the exact opposite. Karen's resume is dope.

You can't even meme right bitch.

Her resume and what she does is her talking...you don't know her to know if she actually applies what she says. But if a chick here says what they do, out come the pejoratives.

Either you're an idiot or you think I'm one. You are conflating two distinctions. A person who makes a self identifying proclamation is nowhere near a person who publicly speaks to introduce ideas into the public narrative.

That's a blatant false equivalence

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

You don't like a challenge. You post here because you like male attention

lol

why do you post here?

for the comradery?

think you may be projecting

 

[atribecalledgabi]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

Nobody gives a shit about your personal reality or circumstances.

You're conflating a system with ground level interaction.

You'd do better if you'd made the assertion that families had more to do with mate selection than an individual woman. Because Most of Human history and Even current history marriages are arranged between families.

To Which my response would be that women had suitors according to her station. That could range from 0 to 100. It's all based on her family lot. A woman would be encouraged to choose from among her suitors with advice from the elder women.

And what you conveniently forget is the role women play in the bed chambers next to powerful men, as elder women wielding subtle covert power and influence.

The myth and narrative that women were a universally oppressed class up until 50years ago is a myth.

For each scenario you used there were laws in place that protected females from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children.

lol

theories begin as personal observations...the question is can they be proven, duplicated/ maintained against objections

that said, the average woman wasn't cozing up with the rich and powerful...and elder women ultimately had to yield to men

as i've always maintained at one point in time the general consensus was that women were thought to be spoils of war or and the property of their tribes/fathers/ husbands. as little as 2,3 centuries ago there were laws that stated as such

she had suitors depending on the station of her family but her father generally had ultimate veto power regardless of her thoughts on the matter

research historical record, across tribes and cultures its generally the same story..with very few exceptions

and regardless of whether or not there were laws in place that protected women from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children, women having rights of there own legal and otherwise that didn't derive from the men in their lives is a relatively new concept

and throughout history you could see there were concerted efforts, here in america and beyond, to keep women from owning property; credit; voting; seeking out of higher education; owning their own businesses

here in america, until the late 1970s, 80s there were state laws on the books that required women to have male relatives sign business loans and the like....

WATCH THIS VID

This the one i couldn't find.

Karen Straughan is G.O.A.T. and even she admits to her own fuckery

She's a woman so it doesn't matter what she says or does tho

Strawman Alert.

Never said that it doesn't matter what a woman does. In fact i said the exact opposite. Karen's resume is dope.

You can't even meme right bitch.

Her resume and what she does is her talking...you don't know her to know if she actually applies what she says. But if a chick here says what they do, out come the pejoratives.

Either you're an idiot or you think I'm one. You are conflating two distinctions. A person who makes a self identifying proclamation is nowhere near a person who publicly speaks to introduce ideas into the public narrative.

That's a blatant false equivalence

Neither. I'm bored and am lazy posting.

 

[LordZuko]

You don't like a challenge. You post here because you like male attention

lol

why do you post here?

for the comradery?

think you may be projecting

*camaraderie*

No i post here because the ic is one of the few places that allow the free exchange of ideas.

You literally post popular femtrash.

It's cool. I get to dust off my red pill hat and fuck niggas up real quick.

 

[LordZuko]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

Nobody gives a shit about your personal reality or circumstances.

You're conflating a system with ground level interaction.

You'd do better if you'd made the assertion that families had more to do with mate selection than an individual woman. Because Most of Human history and Even current history marriages are arranged between families.

To Which my response would be that women had suitors according to her station. That could range from 0 to 100. It's all based on her family lot. A woman would be encouraged to choose from among her suitors with advice from the elder women.

And what you conveniently forget is the role women play in the bed chambers next to powerful men, as elder women wielding subtle covert power and influence.

The myth and narrative that women were a universally oppressed class up until 50years ago is a myth.

For each scenario you used there were laws in place that protected females from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children.

lol

theories begin as personal observations...the question is can they be proven, duplicated/ maintained against objections

that said, the average woman wasn't cozing up with the rich and powerful...and elder women ultimately had to yield to men

as i've always maintained at one point in time the general consensus was that women were thought to be spoils of war or and the property of their tribes/fathers/ husbands. as little as 2,3 centuries ago there were laws that stated as such

she had suitors depending on the station of her family but her father generally had ultimate veto power regardless of her thoughts on the matter

research historical record, across tribes and cultures its generally the same story..with very few exceptions

and regardless of whether or not there were laws in place that protected women from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children, women having rights of there own legal and otherwise that didn't derive from the men in their lives is a relatively new concept

and throughout history you could see there were concerted efforts, here in america and beyond, to keep women from owning property; credit; voting; seeking out of higher education; owning their own businesses

here in america, until the late 1970s, 80s there were state laws on the books that required women to have male relatives sign business loans and the like....

WATCH THIS VID

This the one i couldn't find.

Karen Straughan is G.O.A.T. and even she admits to her own fuckery

She's a woman so it doesn't matter what she says or does tho

Strawman Alert.

Never said that it doesn't matter what a woman does. In fact i said the exact opposite. Karen's resume is dope.

You can't even meme right bitch.

Her resume and what she does is her talking...you don't know her to know if she actually applies what she says. But if a chick here says what they do, out come the pejoratives.

Either you're an idiot or you think I'm one. You are conflating two distinctions. A person who makes a self identifying proclamation is nowhere near a person who publicly speaks to introduce ideas into the public narrative.

That's a blatant false equivalence

Neither. I'm bored and am lazy posting.

So you're stupid and lazy, and not to be taken seriously. Copy that.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

You don't like a challenge. You post here because you like male attention

lol

why do you post here?

for the comradery?

think you may be projecting

*camaraderie*

No i post here because the ic is one of the few places that allow the free exchange of ideas.

You literally post popular femtrash.

It's cool. I get to dust off my red pill hat and fuck niggas up real quick.

Com·rad·er·y

ˈkämradrē/Submit

nounNORTH AMERICAN

another term for camaraderie.

"the project created a real sense of comradery among those involved"

i post trash... Ok

Whats less than trash? I'm tryna find a good word to describe ur opinions

 

[LordZuko]

I give fact based analysis.

You posit feminist vago-marxist excrement as superior think pieces. Parroted ideas based on flawed and scared little girl perceptions of the world.

Calling your posts trash is an insult to junkyards worldwide

Trash at one time was part of something useful

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

I give fact based analysis.

You posit feminist vago-marxist excrement as superior think pieces. Parroted ideas based on flawed and scared little girl perceptions of the world.

Calling your posts trash is an insult to junkyards worldwide

Trash at one time was part of something useful

Says the guy who likes to copy and paste shit from the cesspool known as reddit

Ok...

 

[LordZuko]

I give fact based analysis.

You posit feminist vago-marxist excrement as superior think pieces. Parroted ideas based on flawed and scared little girl perceptions of the world.

Calling your posts trash is an insult to junkyards worldwide

Trash at one time was part of something useful

Says the guy who likes to copy and paste shit from the cesspool known as reddit

Ok...

Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Attacking the source of information rather than the information itself.

I called your information wrong your perception wrong and conclusively your analysis, wrong

Now if you think my information is wrong strapon your big girl panties and so and why.

 

[atribecalledgabi]

briffault law?

while humans are animals in biology, but we have far more ability to act against instinct and to create complex systems of socialization than any other animals right?

and if you study briffault's work, there is 0 reason to believe his law has any relevance to contemporary gender roles or behavior

because you'd then be aware that the law was specifically describing the behavior of non human animals and to a lesser extent early human tribes. he also goes on to argue that those systems were replaced by male dominated systems around the time we began cultivating crops for food and such

and you have to also ignore the majority of the last 4, 5 centuries or so

and what about rape?

you still want to argue women determine the conditions on which men and women associate sexually or romantically, then you'd have to show that no statistically significant number of women had ever been broken up with

women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time, but now we're not talking about some kind of hard social power imbalance... at most, it's a tendency. not to mention recently divorced women are more likely to live in poverty

and while i agree a woman would prefer association where she gains something (protection, your company, emotion, financial security, sex) ...you can say the same of men (sex, emotion, company, children, a maid, etc). most human relationships men or women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

research also strongly suggest women afflicted with a serious illness were at least 3 times as likely to become separated or divorced as men with similar health problems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.24577/abstract
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/

In order for you to act against instinct you'd have to understand or be aware of subconscious desire or conditioning. Subconscious is wired to the emotions not the intellect, so what you know doesnt have as much bearing as what you feel.

There's plenty of reason to see correlation with Briffault's work and contemporary man. After all contemporary man is an invention of the industrial revolution. There is nothing that took place in the industrial revolution that conditioned humans to act against their base tribal instincts. In fact it exacerbated this instinct through basic competition for resources and need for man power. The agrarian age in regards to human history is relatively yesterday.

The development of male dominated societies does not negate the influence females have on mate selection. Unless you are about to argue that most breeding was a form of rape then you'd have to concede that females chose the highest caliber men available to them. Same as today. Women select or make themselves available to men who meet a certain standard. That's what you've been arguing in other threads and drawing as a conclusion as to why so many females are unmarried today.

my biggest contention is that only women, look for something to gain, exploit, learn, trade in a relationship

and this suggestion women show no gratitude, appreciation nor reciprocation for the past, and always look to the future for their behavior does not jive with my reality

also the link to the research about women than men being more likely to stay with spouse diagnosed with terminal illness or similarly disabled runs counter to what you would expect

what about the efforts to police women's sexuality, romantic relationships and autonomy period via the church or man made laws/policies that made women the legal property of men; gave women little to no legal existence apart from her husband/father

prior to maybe 40, 50 years ago the systematic effort to keep women from higher education and a living wage

that had no impact on male and female relations...mate selection.... or nah?

Nobody gives a shit about your personal reality or circumstances.

You're conflating a system with ground level interaction.

You'd do better if you'd made the assertion that families had more to do with mate selection than an individual woman. Because Most of Human history and Even current history marriages are arranged between families.

To Which my response would be that women had suitors according to her station. That could range from 0 to 100. It's all based on her family lot. A woman would be encouraged to choose from among her suitors with advice from the elder women.

And what you conveniently forget is the role women play in the bed chambers next to powerful men, as elder women wielding subtle covert power and influence.

The myth and narrative that women were a universally oppressed class up until 50years ago is a myth.

For each scenario you used there were laws in place that protected females from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children.

lol

theories begin as personal observations...the question is can they be proven, duplicated/ maintained against objections

that said, the average woman wasn't cozing up with the rich and powerful...and elder women ultimately had to yield to men

as i've always maintained at one point in time the general consensus was that women were thought to be spoils of war or and the property of their tribes/fathers/ husbands. as little as 2,3 centuries ago there were laws that stated as such

she had suitors depending on the station of her family but her father generally had ultimate veto power regardless of her thoughts on the matter

research historical record, across tribes and cultures its generally the same story..with very few exceptions

and regardless of whether or not there were laws in place that protected women from harsh punishment and bound the husband to provide for her and his children, women having rights of there own legal and otherwise that didn't derive from the men in their lives is a relatively new concept

and throughout history you could see there were concerted efforts, here in america and beyond, to keep women from owning property; credit; voting; seeking out of higher education; owning their own businesses

here in america, until the late 1970s, 80s there were state laws on the books that required women to have male relatives sign business loans and the like....

WATCH THIS VID

This the one i couldn't find.

Karen Straughan is G.O.A.T. and even she admits to her own fuckery

She's a woman so it doesn't matter what she says or does tho

Strawman Alert.

Never said that it doesn't matter what a woman does. In fact i said the exact opposite. Karen's resume is dope.

You can't even meme right bitch.

Her resume and what she does is her talking...you don't know her to know if she actually applies what she says. But if a chick here says what they do, out come the pejoratives.

Either you're an idiot or you think I'm one. You are conflating two distinctions. A person who makes a self identifying proclamation is nowhere near a person who publicly speaks to introduce ideas into the public narrative.

That's a blatant false equivalence

Neither. I'm bored and am lazy posting.

So you're stupid and lazy, and not to be taken seriously. Copy that.

Nobody told you to take me seriously. You've been rather pressed since I said I was up on briffault tho lmao

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Nobody told you to take me seriously. You've been rather pressed since I said I was up on briffault tho lmao

Na he legit thinks he's doing some samurai shit right now. A warrior for the men! Hahahahahhaha

 

[sunlord]

Nobody told you to take me seriously. You've been rather pressed since I said I was up on briffault tho lmao

Na he legit thinks he's doing some samurai shit right now. A warrior for the men! Hahahahahhaha

He has intellectually destroyed the women in this thread

 

[LordZuko]

I'm tryna figure why these three whores keep circling this thread.

I mean i know why. I just wanna know if they know why?

None of them are fuckin any man off the ic, yet they seem particularly disturbed by these revelations.

It's a topic I'll introduce later.

 

[LordZuko]

What is the source of male romantic attraction to females?

Introducing "Male-mother need" [no incest]

7m vid by bgs ibmor


7m vid by barbarossa


14m vid by thinking ape


Check out these vids bruhs, let's discuss.

@sunlord. @gorilla @LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY. @2stepz_ahead @deadeye

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I'm tryna figure why these three whores keep circling this thread.

Lmao ^^ that's why I keep coming in. I guess we can take away from your comment you want the ladies out so you can teach your stuff.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

What is the source of male romantic attraction to females?

Introducing "Male-mother need" [no incest]

7m vid by bgs ibmor


7m vid by barbarossa


14m vid by thinking ape


Check out these vids bruhs, let's discuss.

@sunlord. @gorilla @LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY. @2stepz_ahead @deadeye

ill check this out in a bit

 

[gorilla]

What is the source of male romantic attraction to females?

Introducing "Male-mother need" [no incest]

7m vid by bgs ibmor


7m vid by barbarossa


14m vid by thinking ape


Check out these vids bruhs, let's discuss.

@sunlord. @gorilla @LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY. @2stepz_ahead @deadeye

Watched the first two so far. The first vid is something I came to realize a short while ago and it does make perfect sense. The woman has relationship wih the child she is carrying for 9 months before anyone else. Actually, Even longer than that when you factor in the components of her body that produced the egg. It's hella deep and hella simple at the same time.

The second vid I agree with some assertions he's making regarding soceity. In a nutshell, society expects certains things from us and only us despite the so called push for equality. I don't believe the feminist movement at all is about equality. It's about control. And he is spot on about society not caring as a whole about the ills men face despite what nonsense our usual fem suspects spew in these threads.

With those things in mind, I am of a different thought. I acknowledge a female nature in which women are going to act a certain way by their own makeup as men are going to do the same. I know that just as women want us due to the reasons mentioned in the vids, we also want them for sex and child bearing. However, I think that's only a base level. Its what we share with the animal kingdom. Beyond that I beleive we have a unique want for companionship. It could be what the vids refer to and what we call daddy sydrome in women. They search for men that remind them of their fathers or the idea if they didnt that relationship with theirs. Why that is could be a number of factors. One of such is I believe we were designed that way purposely. To want that connection to our opposites. I do believe in a creator and that we were designed to need and function together.

I'll be back with more later. Just wome up and I need some coffee.

 

[LordZuko]

I think that outside of having children, men desire women because we possess that male-mother need. We look for a woman to love us and give us that same feeling of adulation our mothers give us.

We don't realize it's not possible. 1)women see men as tools and resources. As good and reliable as a hammer may be, you don't love it. If it breaks down on you or if you can get a better hammer, guess what? Ya dig?

Secondly, women can only love their children to that extent because her children were once part of her. So she sees her children as an extension of herself. Which is why women will love their children forever. In general.

As men, we project these feelings these desires onto women. That she loves you the same way you love her. Females love what men do for them, but loving him as a person, nah.

So that's our disconnect between men and women. Men project love they feel onto a woman. The woman imitates what that man desires to get his emotional attachment, because his resources go where his heart goes. but it can only last so long.