[Benjamin88]

I went into dept in male vs female sexual orientation and why it matters for feminism vs male movement.

Feminism is often associated with being lesbian and so I looked up top 50 women who wrote multiple feminism bookes and had a realtionship. The percentage women with relationship men or women was exactly 50/50.I also looked up celebrity women that identify as feminst and random celebriy women.Feminist had more often relationship with women but were much less overrepresnted then women that wrote books and diud make feminism there life work so to speek.

I also went a bit into dept into female sexual orientation.Self report often have women at over 90% straight.On the other hand you have arousal studies that ( concluded most women are mostly attracted to women) .I think they are both far from the truth.What the scientist misinterpretated is that they accept the self identified sexual orientation automatically as their true sexual orientation of the women.But most women take a straight untill proven otherwise approach to their sexual orientation.So the measurments of straight women got diluted with lesbians, and bisexual women.This wasn't much the case with lesbian and bisexual identified women in the same manner.Women that identified as straight had much less attraction to men then lesbians to women, but as I tried to explain earlier this is logical. women that identify as bisexual were more like the opposite to straight women in attraction on average then were women that identify as lesbian . Identifying as bisexual is also a big step for women so it explains the stronger attraction to women in the identified( straight until proven otherwise again).If the scientist didn't automacally assumed identified orientation with real orientation and was aware that the identified as straight was over 90%, he would realise when taking measurments of all women across orientatons and give weight to identified orientation according to % identified as such , avg of women was stronger attracted to males, even as avg lesbian are much more attracted to to women then straight identified to males and even who identify as bisexual are stronger attracted to women.Women that identify as lesbian or bi score on average higher higher then 78% of the population in openess to experience for example.I think dreaming only about women or mostly, enyoing kissing more etc. says a lot but most women think that this and curiousness in same sex did fall from the sky or something.
(And I think you dont think have to eat shit to know you dont like it, this is fucking a man to me lol)Becuase most men are mostly straight ( more about this later) and most women follow the crowd the % of women that have a realtionship with men is relatively high.

What i think the real % of women sexual orientation is :28,6 % straight 63,2 % bisexual spectrum , 8.2 % gay. and the % stronger attracted to males then to females is 71,6%( 2,5/1 ratio) ( 28,6 % straight + 43 straight leaning bisexuals) and stronger to females ( 8,2% gay+ 20,2 lesbian leaning bisexuals).When you ask women would you rather have sex with 2 men or 2 women in threesome, 71,6% said 2 men 28,4 % 2 women. when you ask same question to men 91,8% 2 women 8,2 % 2 men.I went to forum and they asked women have you kissed with women and did you enjoy it or more then men etc.It could be extracted that the same ratio 2,5 women to 1 women prefering men.For dreaming it was once again the same.I also looked at comment in youtube with alexandra bruke and half naked men and other clips again again it looks the same.You could say porn is not real life but I say it is not a considence you see the women most of the time in threesome with 1 men 1 women dive between other legs in no time and most men don't play with eachother ( also amateur vids)
Some men identify as bi but in arousal, 90% had gay response and 10% gay. it could be that gay men that first act like what they see around them and later follow instinct identify sometimes as bi when they are just gay.also then threesome shows 91,2 versus 8.2% ( 2 women versus 2 men).if there are bi men they are like a clover 3.

Because men are much more likely to be straight and feminsim is related to same sex attraction they have become relatively dominating to male interest groups .Often men is it just that they find some things not fair but don't have the passion of women with little to no attaction to males, were you see the fire and hate in the eyes.( it sometimes looks likle they blame men for not being attracted to them)



women attraction to women is advantage in polygamy.In some places in the world and in our history you had that a lot. bunch of men without women and a few with a lot.The men with lots of women couldn't handle all of them so their bisexualness could help them pleasure eachother.

[scotian]

Because bitches can spell and use paragraphs.

[Benjamin88]

I am not native english speaker and about spelling you are correct. I am higher then 98% in IQ but lower then 80% of population in consientiousness.( maybe lower then 90% with long sentences)
You could much better be higher then 85% in IQ ( above that most people can't understand you anyway and makes you loneley) and be higher then 50% in conscientiousness. ( which have 2nd highest predictive power in career success). But this is all off topic.

[scotian]

Everyone knows that 87% of statistics are bull shit bro.

[Cobra]

After all these essays and threads on the forum by race trolls and such, here's my question.

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers? It's obvious that higher IQ helps but above 80%+ IQ percentile, is success just marginal or no?

Is there a direct correlation bbetween very high IQ and success with women? This may be a more obvious no.

[Cobra]

(09-11-2018 07:25 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Everyone knows that 87% of statistics are bull shit bro.

They're also a way for some guys to justify why they can't get laid. Just check out the political sections of the forum.

[Benjamin88]

Hi Cobra, I think 1 standard deviation above the mean is optimal for a lot ofd things, 115 IQ or something( in the west). A bit intelligent but average person can still understand what you are saying.Professors have on average 114 IQ.( 83 percentiel) in the usa.

[TheMaleBrain]

(09-11-2018 07:28 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

After all these essays and threads on the forum by race trolls and such, here's my question.

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers? It's obvious that higher IQ helps but above 80%+ IQ percentile, is success just marginal or no?

Is there a direct correlation bbetween very high IQ and success with women? This may be a more obvious no.

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers?
Quoting Jordan Peterson - YES.
IQ beyond the STDV means higher pay. It does not mean you will become CEO (other factors involved) or rich.
Actual success is more about "openness to experience" (personality trait). But we all know that one cannot have lower IQ and really succeed.

Is there a direct correlation bbetween very high IQ and success with women?
Refering to Chateau Heartiste's Dating Market Value Test For Men - question 15. You need to be a little bit smarter than the general population, but not too smart. So it's more of a reverse U shape correlation.

[godfather dust]

Not reading OP (wall of text) so here's a shitpost

It's in women's nature to bitch and complain and men to be stoic. Thus, the guys that bitch and moan the most in the manosphere (MRAs) don't get much of a following because they behave like women, and many of us here probably aren't "pro-male" in our day to day because we are decent enough to avoid religion and politics in casual conversation (and also aware that it could cost money if not location independent/business owner.)

Also, if the entire force of the establisment are "feminists" (really wanting to tax each family twice and pay half as much) the strongest opponents (see the founder of the forum) face heavy penalties, while "all men are rapists" will get you a spot opposite a gay pedophile crypto-Jew late-night-talk-show faggot.

[Benjamin88]

In short I was just saying that sexual orientation is related to feminism with women less attracted to men more likely to be feminist.And women have relatively high proportion with little attraction to opposite gender, causing a strong feminist movement.
I wanted to show why I think 28,6% of women are straight, 63,2 % bisexual spectrum ( 42,6% straight leaning 20,6% gay leaning) and 8.2 gay% despite always very high proportion of women that identify as straight.( low libido women and especially low and even medium open to experience women nearly always identify as straight no matter how gay they are)
men 91,8% straight 8.2 % gay. ( all bi claims were false in erotic testst, great majority were gay of the bi claimers).

[Brother Abdul Majeed]

This belongs on an MRA or MGTOW forum where dudes can bang on about this kind of stuff all day.

[Tactician]

(09-11-2018 06:53 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Because bitches can spell and use paragraphs.

Off the top of my head, here are some reasons why feminism has been a stronger movement in the last 50 or so years*:

Thirst - soys think that supporting feminism will get them laid.

Selection bias - Women are most attracted to the top few % of men, so these are the men that they see most clearly. Women then assume that these few % of men are representative of all men at large. They never stop to consider the huge bottom % of men in prison or whatever. Women are much more 'average' and men are more equitable in our attraction, so we don't have this issue.

Pussy pass - society is very lenient with women and doesn't treat them as rational agents the same way it treats men. E.g. women are acquitted far more than men and if convicted serve far less time for the same crimes. This lets feminists push the envelope.

Repeating big lies over and over - the 'wage gap' or 5/3 women are raped or whatever. Men tend to be more grounded in reality and facts, so we don't use b.s. tactics like this. Feminists don't care because they only seek power, or are too stupid to question their own claims.

Boiling the frog - feminists only care about power and slowly and methodically 'gain ground' with new progressive bullshit. If they get too much resistance, they pull back without ceding any territory and then try again later.

The main difference, however, and what makes most of the above possible, is that men are waaaay more concerned with the greater good than women and so we criticize one another in search of the truth. We aren't on 'Team Men.' On the other hand, women are solipsistic as hell and are playing for 'Team Women.' That's Hillary can make statements such as, "women and children are the real victims of war" with a straight face.

If a man tried to make up some bullshit about a wage gap, other men would be the first to call him out on it. We care about truth & facts. Feminists simply don't. They only care about what advances their agenda.

* Anyway, I don't think Feminism is long for this world. There are only a handful of feminists periods in history. None of them lasted and none of them ended well. Men, on aggregate, can only take so much bitching and moaning - especially when it flies in the face of what we see in everyday life.

By watching red pill truths percolate thru the mainstream consciousness + watching the dating market + recent political shifts, I predict that modern day feminism will suffer a serious decline by around 2022, although the less extreme stuff like women voting won't go away for a long time. Here's a long-ass, but good, article that supports this view: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/t...ubble.html

[Simeon_Strangelight]

You have to separate between the things.

Men compete between each other, but work much better together as a team especially when group-goals are to be achieved that lead somewhere. They also have no tendency to just complain about injustices, but rather move to resolve them.

Women work much worse together, but cooperate under certain conditions very well when for example caring or egalitarian goals are concerned - for the children, for other women.

However both underlying basic social and psychological gender behavioral patterns are not the reason why feminism is so much stronger than the MRA part. Feminism has the full trillionaire backing of the world and the entire globohomo-banking establishment is behind it. It's also based on an insane ideology, but it does not matter. The MRAs in contrast have the reason and the high ground behind them (most - not all), but it does not matter. MRAs have been around since the 1920s with no budging of the status quo, because the elite is opposed towards the serfs having strong patriarchal families.

That is why feminism is winning - remove the globalist support and all the gender courses, all the feminist articles and "studies" get laughed out within a few years. We could even easily show the full scientific backing of the Red Pill and seduction and why our view of the world is much better for both men as well as women. It would not even have to be based on blind tradition, but you could back up why the church elders were right or why the Bible was right on some topics. Evo-psych and science would support that.

And it does not matter whether some men support feminism - men do all kinds of things to try to get laid or some to align themselves with the mainstream. Again - it's more based on what gets the full globalist power structure support - their madness does while our side is ostracized and villainized. If both sides got an equal amount of financial support, then we would blow them out of the water and they would lose all the time. They could not stand the onslaught of the Red Pill.

[MongolianAbroad]

(09-11-2018 07:09 AM)Benjamin88 Wrote:  

I am not native english speaker and about spelling you are correct. I am higher then 98% in IQ but lower then 80% of population in consientiousness.( maybe lower then 90% with long sentences)
You could much better be higher then 85% in IQ ( above that most people can't understand you anyway and makes you loneley) and be higher then 50% in conscientiousness. ( which have 2nd highest predictive power in career success). But this is all off topic.

(09-11-2018 07:35 AM)Benjamin88 Wrote:  

Hi Cobra, I think 1 standard deviation above the mean is optimal for a lot ofd things, 115 IQ or something( in the west). A bit intelligent but average person can still understand what you are saying.Professors have on average 114 IQ.( 83 percentiel) in the usa.

The guys in the politics section of the forum are going to love you.

[Thot Leader]

Summarizing what's been said here as succinctly as possible...

Why feminism is stronger than any male-oriented ideology or movement:

1) women moreso than men are collectivist thinkers
2) both men and women have a protective instinct toward women
3) men have a competitive and dominance instinct toward other men, so when we see another man getting fucked over, we tend not to empathize

(09-11-2018 07:28 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers? It's obvious that higher IQ helps but above 80%+ IQ percentile, is success just marginal or no?

I've read that IQ is positively correlated with career and general life success up to a point of 120IQ. ie. a 120 is more likely than a 110 to become a doctor, lawyer, CEO, etc. But 120 is the plateau.

[Cobra]

(09-11-2018 12:58 PM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 07:28 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

After all these essays and threads on the forum by race trolls and such, here's my question.

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers? It's obvious that higher IQ helps but above 80%+ IQ percentile, is success just marginal or no?

Is there a direct correlation bbetween very high IQ and success with women? This may be a more obvious no.

Is there a direct correlation between very high IQ and significantly more success in careers?
Quoting Jordan Peterson - YES.
IQ beyond the STDV means higher pay. It does not mean you will become CEO (other factors involved) or rich.
Actual success is more about "openness to experience" (personality trait). But we all know that one cannot have lower IQ and really succeed.

Is there a direct correlation bbetween very high IQ and success with women?
Refering to Chateau Heartiste's Dating Market Value Test For Men - question 15. You need to be a little bit smarter than the general population, but not too smart. So it's more of a reverse U shape correlation.

One of the most relevant posts I have read in a while. I'm not surprised.

This is very interesting and likely we should have another thread on the topic. We recently went through an exercise at work to determine our Emotional Intelligence. This starts off with Self-awareness but Social awareness is the other major component. The reports were extremely interesting and from my perspective, an accurate representation of personalities.

My point being that there are a lot of CEOs and doctors that don't have the emotional intelligence to get laid.

Before I derail this thread further, someone please feel free to start a "IQ vs Emotional Intelligence in Game and Lifestyle" thread. If not, I can later.

[MANic]

I really think that the current status quo is a peculiarity of this epoch rather than some enduring disparity. The locus of feminism's genesis was a male dominant society. At that point there was no apparent need for a strong male movement given that it was the enduring status quo.
With time and the pernicious influence of a few untoward forces the power dynamic began shifting. At firat slowly, under a banner of progession which cleverly disguised the inefficiencies and fatal flaws of the feminist movement. Our fathers nurtured the tender roots of this disaster unassumingly. Male laxity was primarily due to the pervasive lack of prescience as to the consequences of feminist action. It is really only within the last decade or so that some form of a resurgence has occured and rest assured "patriarchy" will soon reign supreme again.

[kurti]

The number 1 reason is that women almost intuitively very form strong alliances among each other in mixed groups to support their interests (can be more than one alliance of course, depending on the size of the group), men don't do this based solely on their gender. Women do this even if they don't like each other or have nothing in common with one another than being female. You can see this in micro and macro environments.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Because the oligarchy uses feminism to ensure total control over the population femisim therefore enjoys virtually limitless funding and top-down cultural support.

23 words.

[casa-nostra]

Because mens aren't united like womens are , remember one day in a bar , a girl told me ok " I will fuck off from here " I said ok " fuck off " another girl heard that and she come " don't say that to a women ..." mens don't do that.

Also mens movement needs more advertisement , feminism is so advertised in the media , that's why got more power

[Bazzwaldo]

Feminism is not stronger, it is openly supported in the west through:
1) Government legislation/Court system
2) Media

Male movements create redpill men, who are the main threat to the oligarchy, Feminism creates entitlement and division.... perfect for the ruling elite because it keeps us distracted fighting among each other
Women unconsciously incarcerate themselves and us (via their ability to vote) by giving up freedoms in exchange for safety that the state offers and benefits from
Remove those and feminist hypocrisy would die
Men are the stronger sex both physically and mentally, patriarchy gave purpose and synergy to both sexes, feminism gives power to rulers to divide and rule us both

[exmormon]

Ya'll are missing the real gem in Benjamin's post:

"women attraction to women is advantage in polygamy.In some places in the world and in our history you had that a lot. bunch of men without women and a few with a lot.The men with lots of women couldn't handle all of them so their bisexualness could help them pleasure eachother."

Harem genre anime is not a sound source for the theoretical utility of bisexuality as a behavioral adaptation for polygamy.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-21-2018 11:30 PM)exmormon Wrote:  

Ya'll are missing the real gem in Benjamin's post:

"women attraction to women is advantage in polygamy.In some places in the world and in our history you had that a lot. bunch of men without women and a few with a lot.The men with lots of women couldn't handle all of them so their bisexualness could help them pleasure eachother."

Harem genre anime is not a sound source for the theoretical utility of bisexuality as a behavioral adaptation for polygamy.

That is backed up by Muslim cultures. When the top dogs have 4 wives plus many loose harem girls, then the bottom 50% are left scrambling.

In Saudi Arabia getting gay sex is easy - heterosexual one hard. They even made up mental contortions that you are not gay if you are the one fucking a power bottom or getting your dick sucked by a bearded man.

These are disgusting adaptations to a bad situation - and when men do this or are enticed to do this, then this is a sign that the system is shit.