Quote: (11-02-2012 06:49 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Why would you be giddy about women disrupting conversation among men?
Quote: (11-02-2012 07:02 PM)megatron Wrote:
There are some female MRAs.
Girlwriteswhat on Youtube makes witty, finely researched anti-feminist videos.
There's also christy0misty on youtube. She's this hot midwestern blonde college student. Conservative, anti-feminist and very intelligent.
Both are highly recommended, especially Girl.
![[Image: mindblown.gif]](http://www.rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/mindblown.gif)
Quote: (11-03-2012 07:59 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:
Girl Writes What is legit. Here a is a PM she wrote in response to a simple forum question about what "Privilege Blind" means -
""It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don't realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn't have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements "privilege". They call traditional female entitlements "benevolent sexism" (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can't really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations "oppression". They call traditional male obligations "rights" (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or "patriarchy hurts men too".
What feminism has really done in the advancement of women's interests is take men's patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as "rights" that women can choose or not as they see fit. It--with the help of advancements like the pill--has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
And please don't get me wrong. I'm not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what's been happening over the last 40 years.
The problem with what's going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements...things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders--it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member's obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.
A great deal of women's traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now--because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations--and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment...well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.
Men aren't being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore--women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we're trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There's a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not "manning up". Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They've always put more in than they've taken out--women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they're being asked to put even more in, and get less out.
Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.
But what's this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she's put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.
And I'm not saying that women shouldn't be doctors--hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven't embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you're a man or a woman, and society doesn't enforce this role with women the way it does with men.
You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.
You're young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality--emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don't get sucked in by them.
There are women's issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power--how even women won't vote for them--and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I'm a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.
Anyway, I thought I would reach out to you--off thread, because I don't want to cause another shitstorm right now. I'm a mother of three kids, two of them boys. My oldest is 17, and I worry about the world he and his brother are growing up in. I know my daughter will be just fine. That's gotta tell you something."
Quote: (11-03-2012 07:59 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:
Girl Writes What is legit. Here a is a PM she wrote in response to a simple forum question about what "Privilege Blind" means -
""It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don't realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn't have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements "privilege". They call traditional female entitlements "benevolent sexism" (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can't really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations "oppression". They call traditional male obligations "rights" (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or "patriarchy hurts men too".
What feminism has really done in the advancement of women's interests is take men's patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as "rights" that women can choose or not as they see fit. It--with the help of advancements like the pill--has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
And please don't get me wrong. I'm not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what's been happening over the last 40 years.
The problem with what's going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements...things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders--it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member's obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.
A great deal of women's traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now--because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations--and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment...well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.
Men aren't being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore--women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we're trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There's a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not "manning up". Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They've always put more in than they've taken out--women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they're being asked to put even more in, and get less out.
Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.
But what's this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she's put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.
And I'm not saying that women shouldn't be doctors--hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven't embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you're a man or a woman, and society doesn't enforce this role with women the way it does with men.
You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.
You're young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality--emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don't get sucked in by them.
There are women's issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power--how even women won't vote for them--and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I'm a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.
Anyway, I thought I would reach out to you--off thread, because I don't want to cause another shitstorm right now. I'm a mother of three kids, two of them boys. My oldest is 17, and I worry about the world he and his brother are growing up in. I know my daughter will be just fine. That's gotta tell you something."
Quote: (11-03-2012 06:35 AM)TheMan Wrote:
a perfect positive working real life example would be (please correct me if iam wrong as im REALLY hung over) the interaction between privateman and the lady from "and thats why youre single"
Quote: (11-02-2012 06:49 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Why would you be giddy about women disrupting conversation among men?
Quote:Quote:
If you're a woman of average or better looks, you have one under-spoken superpower. Namely, how you interact with other men will have a huge effect on their social status. I'm not talking about overt flirtation (don't do it) or office relationships (avoid, avoid, avoid). I'm talking about more subtle stuff, like who a woman smiles at, who she initiates conversations with, and what her body language is toward various people. This will have huge ripple effects on the male status hierarchy. Much of the reason why men tend to seem "afraid of" women in the office is that they're afraid she'll judge him lowly and send out "loser signals" about him, bringing him down a notch or two. Since everything that happens at most workplaces (especially cliquish startups, so don't give me this "meritocratic" bullshit) is really about social status-- "performance" is a myth made up to justify firings and scare the mediocre-- this is huge.
Overtly flirting with the men in the office will destroy a woman's reputation, for sure. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the subtle fact that, among groups of people, women have the capability to exert a disproportionate influence on the status ordering. In fact, the best way to use this is to do exactly what a young man would do: be nice to everyone, reach out and try to make allies, seek mentors... but also take a small comfort in the fact that men have an added incentive to be nice to you-- you have a disproportionate effect on their image, and they want to be seen with you.
For example, a 23-year-old with 6 months on the job comes into the office of a powerful person (MD in banking, Partner in a law firm) and says that (s/)he is bored with the work that (s/)he is getting. If male, he's just another entitled fuck looking for an advantage. The response usually is: go away, pay your dues, and come back in 7 years after you've proven yourself (if I haven't fired you before that). That's because humans have a visceral hatred of low-status males, and in the workplace, men in the youngest 15% are almost always of low status (hence, they get the shittiest work).
If the 23-year-old is female, this 45-year-old executive might realize that having a 23-year-old woman come into his office once a week might give him a younger, "cooler" image and prevent him from getting "managed out" (read: fired) for being "resistant to change" (read: old). So he might give her the kind of work that most people have to wait a few years to have a crack at.
Again, she's not flirting with him, or compromising herself in any way. She's doing exactly what a man would do if he had the courage: going into a powerful person's office and asking for better work.
It doesn't always happen this way, but it can. Career advancement is about stringing together a large number of high-impact, low-probability prospects (with enough parallelism that the likelihood of some success becomes high) and waiting for one to hit. The "superpower" that an attractive woman has doesn't turn the low probability into a high one; it makes it slightly less low.
I'm not saying life is fair and, on the whole, women almost certainly have to deal with more bullshit than men. It's wrong that women's looks are taken to matter so much. It's wrong that people are huge dicks to women about aging. Some of the "old lady" comments I heard when Clinton was running for President in 2008 made me want to vomit.
Men have a huge and unfair advantage after 32, which is that they can have children with their careers interrupted, and that their social status (being abysmal, in the workplace, at 22-24) peaks around 40-50. Men can (and are expected to) work through child-rearing, while for it to make sense for a woman to keep working after having children, she has to make about 2.5 times the average income (to hire help, day care, etc.) On the other hand, women have a huge advantage from 22 to 32, which is that they have the subtle but potent ability to determine who's "cool", and if they're aware of how to use it, they can speed up their careers. And given the heaping plate of bullshit that society gives women once they get older (and it starts in the 30s) they pretty much have to use this advantage while it's there.
Quote: (11-02-2012 02:43 PM)TheMan Wrote:
I had no idea that this (women visiters that are genuinely interested and not trolling or seeking blog or but-hurt fodder) was a thing....
http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2012/...for-women/
but i for one am damn near giddy about it.
Quote: (08-18-2016 12:05 PM)dicknixon72 Wrote:
...and nothing quite surprises me anymore. If I looked out my showroom window and saw a fully-nude woman force-fucking an alligator with a strap-on while snorting xanex on the roof of her rental car with her three children locked inside with the windows rolled up, I wouldn't be entirely amazed.
