PatrickC

Great post Omega and I'm pretty much in agreement with your experience. This is particularly true of high status women. At least the unconscious ones, that never question their motives. It was telling and not altogether surprising that she lost interest in your relationship when you began to provide her some tough insight into her history.

Thanks for the feedback guys and sorry I took a while to confirm. I haven't been able to get hold of Tom to confirm his preference which held me up. Be that as it may, I think we will go for the 6 pm schedule. Look forward to hearing you, I'll host the call, so ping me.

I know a lot of post modernists like to suggest there is a difference between gender and sex, but really there isn't. There are men and there are women, of which some choose to identify themselves with whatever they feel most comfortable with. I have no problem with that. They are free to gender bend as they please. I would just wish they would stop using their preference or self described (sexual/gender) identity as a political or cultural sword against those that don't (and have no reason too) feel the same as them. Categorizing yourself as one thing or the other, is not an ethical or moral issue, it's a private one, despite the howls.

This is because they are classist's terms, like middle and working classes. They are segregated in order to create an 'imaginary' divide between them. Just another way for slaves to fight amongst themselves, albeit for some, perhaps unconsciously. The masters of course benefit from this divide, as they rule over them.

I've had a request whether we could do the call later tomorrow, around 6 pm. I've not had a lot of feedback on call time as it stands. But let me know if 6 pm rather than 2 pm doesn't work for you. I'm easy here and apologies for the short notice. But if you can let me know, so that I can get some idea of people numbers in the call. If I get no feedback I will default to my original 2 pm slot, given the short notice of change.

Thanks MrCap for explaining your position on it. There is certainly a lot of ambiguity within the manifesto, which would certainly give a philosopher pause.

I have no wish to get into a debate about this, as there are plenty of resources on this forum to guide you. But respectfully you do not understand UPB. It's not a prescription. UPB is a methodology for testing moral theories.

You need to read UPB fella, this topic has been thrashed out ad infinitum on this board. Plus I just wanted to point out, that there is no such thing as a 'collective'. They are all made up of individuals.

I haven't watched the video yet. But I thought Chris had changed his mind on this issue after hours of listening to stefs take on male disposibility.

So I was thinking about perhaps 2 pm as a time for the call. That said, if the weather is of the Mediterranean kind, I can already hear the howls of objections, So let me know, otherwise I'm going with this time for now. Look forward to talking with you all this Sunday.

As philosophers we all know why philosophy is dead for these academics. And of course it's for none of the reasons they cite.

Yea, just kidding with you, you were of course 29 at the time of posting. No, I wasn't aware of any meetup this Thursday. Is it reasonably local for me in London? Or is this a Melbourne event perhaps. That said, I have organised a Skype call for those tentatively interested in meeting up in the UK for this Sunday. Excuse my blatant marketing here. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39956-a-google-or-skype-hangout-for-those-interested-in-meeting-before-any-plannned-events/

Yea, some women are only bold this way because they know how it will end up. White knights will jump out from nowhere to protect her sorry arse. I wonder though, if the guy was built like the 'Mountain' (GoT's), would she ever be so bold. I doubt it

Oh boy, I flicked through a bit of it and it reminded me of this style of (post) modern debate. That said, I could at least make out the Professors constant flow of ad hominems.

I've Heard Plum debate and he's a pretty sharp debator. He reminds me of Bill Gaede's sidekick 'FatFist'. Both of them are pretty abusive to their debating partners. And they both take great pleasure in not just winning the argument, but completely humiliating them as well. I've yet to listen to the above (at work), but I already sense exactly how this debate probably transpired.

I scored a 3 btw My whole life was spent questioning things. All of course in the wrong quarters and with the wrong people. Thankfully i was intelligent enough to smell BS when I heard it. I just struggled with connecting the dots.

Thanks for posting

Well therein lies the irony. Many men's clubs from working to gentlemen clubs were actually a way in which men could discuss and improve upon their resource yield. There were mutual associations that provided healthcare and life assurance handouts and even 'widows pensions'. Friendly societies, which did very similar, including food stamps and unemployment benefit. Some of which developed into unions that negotiated (reasonably) with employers. They were also often key social hubs for local communities as well. All of which was meant to benefit the lives of women and children and not merely with just themselves. Ironically (for feminists) the only places guys get to hang out with each other now are strip clubs and sporting events like football or rugby. Which might partly explain the disdain people currently feel about men hanging out together. I think for feminists, this was just a reaction to their fathers. Either their fathers were too busy working or socializing that they experienced a strange kind of jealousy with what them whilst they weren't at home. It was probably true that many men in the past probably neglected their children's emotional needs, whilst they scavenged around finding ever more and improving upon their existing resources. This could perhaps relate to the male version of Stefan's 'estrogen based parasites' video (testosterone emotional avoidance) . Men please stop, we have enough resources now! Again, just another hunch of mine to add to this particular discussion. EDIT - In the wake of this issue. I'm currently writing a blog post on the historical and contemporary value of mens private spaces. I'll post here when I'm done for those that are interested.

Ah Alexander (Critical G), why am I not surprised. What a great introduction and welcome to the boards. EDIT - Ahem, technically 30 now I hear..

Ok, just a gentle reminder regarding the call next Sunday. Did people have a preference on the time at all. I've pretty much given the day up to be being at home, apart from before 12 pm. Any further ideas for an activity beyond what's already been discussed are welcome too. Just to let Ryan and Rue know, that the rest of us here loosely reside in the south east of england.

Great.. Be sure to check my profile for Skypage. Look forward to chatting with you all..

Hey dsayers, why not suggest a natter with Stef sometime. I'm concerned this conversation isn't going anywhere for you at the moment and the board can be the worst place to try and have it.

Hi Ross, nice to hear from you.. If you were interested in a local meetup. Then feel free to include yourself with a local meetup group here.

Many thanks for the links MrCap. I'm taking some interest in this topic. Do you mind sharing more about how it's helped and inspired you?

Well, from the little I know, is that many feminists since Valenti wrote her piece in the Guardian now consider that Elliott Roger was an MRA. From what I hear that wasn't true, although I haven't researched directly myself to confirm that. But this wouldn't be the first time feminists have put 2 + 2 together and get 5. I'm not surprised you find them the way they are, feminists are frankly the last people I would debate with, since they always argue from emotion or hysteria even. As for Elam's piece on jury service. On the surface perhaps not the greatest thing he could have written. But in all honesty there's literally an army of feminists scouring absolutely everything that is written about or discussed on AVFM. Then doctoring it, taking it out of context etc. I guess we'll have to hear what Elam says about it. I have no doubt he will offer a rebuttal to all the vitriol. My other theory, is that feminists have historically hated men's private spaces. They campaigned very successfully throughout the 60's & 70's to have gentleman clubs banned in the UK and elsewhere perhaps. It never fails to amaze me when some women have wanted to intrude or denigrate men hanging out together. These calls to boycott the conference just seem like an extension of the same kind of behaviour in my opinion.