[Panokko]

Traditional gender roles simply work better. There is really no question about "keeping" gender roles, as if there was a choice. Gender roles are the way they are because they work best. The gender roles have evolved the way they have, because they were more succesful than other ways of going about it. If a group abandons the way that works best, eventually it will get replaced by a group that does things in a better way.

[debeguiled]

Just tell them that they are hard wired to think gender is a social construct and then change the subject.

[questor70]

(04-28-2018 12:06 PM)Repo Wrote:  

Have you ever used reason and logic to get a women in bed? Probably not. So don't expect reason and logic to win a debate with them.

I've come to understand how gender influences political ideology.

Both genders care about social status but women are more concerned with group acceptance / reputation and men are more concerned with personal success.

Therefore the main weapon women use in political discourse is shame. Feminists channel shame towards men while simultaneously erecting barriers against shame for their own hedonism/deviance.

Men focus more on getting shit done and moving up the ladder than worrying about how other people feel about them. Shame only gets their attention when it impacts their ability to get work (hence the use of shame as a way to make men unemployable.)

So when you're talking politics with women you have to speak their own language otherwise it won't make any impact. Their sense of self is derived from the group. Feminism is mostly about changing the metrics and norms of society to make it easier for women to gain acceptance or get a free-pass for things that wouldn't fly in the 50s or earlier. That's really the power proposition for women. Men are told from an early age that they have to man up and compete or you're out of the game, and so they do not attempt to crack or game cultural attitudes for their benefit. This would be interpreted as lowering the bar.

So it's considered healthy activism for women to fight for fat acceptance but it's not okay for men to try to convince women to love dad bods.

This is because in a peaceful society politics is wrapped up in the social sphere with is ultimately still within the feminine domain. Therefore women's attitudes are what defines culture as a whole.

[questor70]

BTW, this article seems related to this.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-sh...has-it-all

For an article that talks about her having it all, it sure as hell comes across as a whine-fest shrouded in a comedic veil.

Also absent in her list of everything she has is any mention of a husband or even a lover for that matter. Apparently, men are either a low priority item or not considered valuable enough to mention when counting your blessings.

[Repo]

(04-28-2018 01:05 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-28-2018 12:06 PM)Repo Wrote:  

Have you ever used reason and logic to get a women in bed? Probably not. So don't expect reason and logic to win a debate with them.

I've come to understand how gender influences political ideology.

Both genders care about social status but women are more concerned with group acceptance / reputation and men are more concerned with personal success.

Therefore the main weapon women use in political discourse is shame. Feminists channel shame towards men while simultaneously erecting barriers against shame for their own hedonism/deviance.

Men focus more on getting shit done and moving up the ladder than worrying about how other people feel about them. Shame only gets their attention when it impacts their ability to get work (hence the use of shame as a way to make men unemployable.)

So when you're talking politics with women you have to speak their own language otherwise it won't make any impact. Their sense of self is derived from the group. Feminism is mostly about changing the metrics and norms of society to make it easier for women to gain acceptance or get a free-pass for things that wouldn't fly in the 50s or earlier. That's really the power proposition for women. Men are told from an early age that they have to man up and compete or you're out of the game, and so they do not attempt to crack or game cultural attitudes for their benefit. This would be interpreted as lowering the bar.

So it's considered healthy activism for women to fight for fat acceptance but it's not okay for men to try to convince women to love dad bods.

This is because in a peaceful society politics is wrapped up in the social sphere with is ultimately still within the feminine domain. Therefore women's attitudes are what defines culture as a whole.

Ok, so have you ever convinced a group of feminists or leftists to change their mind? If not then I really don't want to hear about "how to debate women". The best way is to not debate them as far as I'm concerned.

[demolition]

All human knowledge is a social construct to some greater or lesser degree. The fact that a thing is a social construct doesn't change the fact that underlying biological reality is what actually drives human social organization.

If you ask someone how much of human behavior is nature and how much is nurture, you are likely to get an answer of, 50/50. But where is the evidence?

As science has progressed over the past half century we have learned more and more about biology and are able to attribute more behaviors to biological factors than ever before. We can now pinpoint down to individual genes effects for such things as disease vulnerability, sociability, intelligence, aggression, and so on. We can actually point to biology and demonstrate that biology has an inherent impact on behavior.

What we can't do at all is quantify the effects of nurture. The reason why this is so is twofold: One being it's simply impossible to know the effects of socialization without knowing the effects of biology. Since biology is, despite our efforts, still a vast area of unknown knowledge, attributing differences to culture rather than biology is worse than guessing, it's lying. Secondly, we don't even have a clear understanding of what "environmental" variables even are when it comes to social outcomes. Nature comes down to biology, but environmental variables are generally not influenced by shared family environment.

The only rational approach in my mind is to accept that we are something like 70-80% biologically driven. The feedback loop mechanism of culture can affect expressions of underlying biological realities, but it can never warp them to such an extent that the biological reality isn't the ultimate arbitration of what's actually real & true. Because we know so little about the social feedback mechanism, it's actually unscientific in most cases to even bring it up. We need more thorough knowledge of biology before it even makes sense to discuss.

[questor70]

(04-28-2018 02:19 PM)Repo Wrote:  

Ok, so have you ever convinced a group of feminists or leftists to change their mind?

Not necessarily change their mind but hoist them on their own petard, sure.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-28-2018 02:13 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

BTW, this article seems related to this.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-sh...has-it-all

For an article that talks about her having it all, it sure as hell comes across as a whine-fest shrouded in a comedic veil.

Also absent in her list of everything she has is any mention of a husband or even a lover for that matter. Apparently, men are either a low priority item or not considered valuable enough to mention when counting your blessings.

That picture is misleading of the hot working mother:


That is her:



I disagree - this 3-4 does not have it all. She is post-wall and ugly.

Also she says that she is the main breadwinner and lead-parent - so I guess the husband has a low-paying job. If she were the hottie in the first picture, then she would have a husband making 7-8 figures and she would not be so stressed and aggressive all the time. Her biggest concern would be to get the bast caterer for the next Hampton-party.


Nope - you won't dupe those goys so easily with your bullshit.

[ElFlaco]

(04-27-2018 09:15 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I was having a friendly debate with some co-workers today. Usually I steer of these touchy topics, but we got sucked in to a long discussion, mostly amiable.

If they've been influenced by post-modernism, as you say, the debate probably wasn't as friendly as you might think. Any challenge to their views is interpreted as you being a bad person. A honest exploration is always impossible.

I made the mistake the other day of mentioning 'soy' to a female family member. Just something like 'I heard that high soy consumption might have a negative effect, so I'm going to look into that.' Well, she must have heard somewhere that questioning soy was a right-wing point, because she was not pleased.

Confirmation bias is something we all have to watch out for in ourselves, and I sometimes ask myself what it would take to change my core beliefs at this point. I can imagine having experiences that drive me further into dark corners, but I can't imagine anything that would cause me to re-embrace what I used to think.

[CynicalContrarian]

(04-28-2018 08:04 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Alright, I think we've well established the innate physical differences in men and women. Cheers.

The whole discussion arose because of "incels" which has now hit mainstream. One girl said that the van attack by the incel was "Weaponized masculinity" (Whatever that means). She said that men are raised to think that they are entitled to women, and when they don't get their way, such as being rejected, they feel entitled to lash out.
Another example was that men lack coping mechanisms. They say that because it is not socially acceptable to cry or talk about issues, that men bottle this anger and frustration up and then it manifests itself in violence against women.
Like some suggested, I don't plan on really arguing with them anymore. No point. They can keep taking their anti-depressants. At this point it is more for my intellectual curiosity.

Huh.
She talks 'incels', yet fails to see that it is 'toxic feminism' which has partly subverted the well established order of society leaving these soy-boy's bereft of any clear or true identity & any clear or true purpose.

These 'incels' are brainwashed by soycialism that to be cavalier, charismatic cads is double-plus un-good.
That being masculine in an old school sense is double-plus un-good.
All the while, they need to take a back seat & allow 'the girls' to prosper...

How could anyone be surprised that sentient beings would feel angst in such an environment & when unable or not allowed to express themselves normally, they then act out in weird ways...

After-all. If an 'Elliot Roger' type was caught before committing some kind of violence, would these "progressive" chicks be willing to show the incel some genuine affection & camaraderie to make the incel happier?
Or would the "progressive" chicks sneer & think the incel is merely "creepy" ?