empyblessing

so it's okay to believe women are superior but that believing men are better at anything is sexism. Who's the sexist?

There are more women on the internet than men. The only sexism I see is anti-male, bigoted females publishing misandrist stories in the mainstream, expecting special rights and privileges and abusing men. Women exempt themselves from their own rules of sexism constantly while exagerating their own stance as a victim.

Wait, is that site real or fake? I laughed at it cause it seemed too much even for a marxist.

[View: ]

I think I understand. But you did make a moral statement when you condemned sexism as being wrong. That's where I took the moral principle from. I believe gender roles relate to our need to survive and replicate. Women were kept pregnant most of their lives and reared children and developed behavior to best suit that. Men foraged, hunted, and competeted with one another to provide food and security for the pregnant women and children. Humans are very adaptable and I keep an open mind to most things.

that's hilarious.

There is a contradiction in your behavior. The moral principle underneath what you're saying is, "It's immoral to assume innate behaviorial tendencies between men and women." But If you don't believe in gender roles than why are you seeking only female friends on this board? If you've extempted yourself from your own moral principles than it's unlikely you believe what you say.

If gender does not correlate to an innate tendency toward behavior than how would gender be differentiated?

I consider myself masculine. I am attracted to the feminine because it's the opposite of what I am. The more feminine the more I'm attracted to it because it's what I am not. Saying that gender doesn't exist is denying my sexuality.

I've read parts of "Delusions of Gender", if that's what you're referring to. But DeMause's book on the origins of war seems to dispute some of that. Would you say men are as adaptive, emotional, nurturing, as women?

It's a tendency, not a rule, and I mentioned an accomplished female philosopher that I respect so obviously women can do it. As far as feminine women doing it, maybe. It sounds like having your cake and eating it too to be honest. Let me try and understand your point of view as accurately as I can so there's no miscommunication. Your thesis might be something like: gender and sex and have nothing to do with behavior. Is this accurate to what you're thinking?

Well let me say that I'm sorry for any pain or hatred you've suffered because you were born different. It must have been terrible to grow up so confused or forced into a role you weren't suited for. You have my sympathy. I did not mean to imply that it was environmental, not directly anyway. The mother's mental state can effect prenatal development and her mental state is dependent on environment.

Why is it sexist? Feminine/masculine is not male/female. The women in areas like philosophy (ie. Ayn Rand) are usually masculine women.

Why is it sexist?

philosophy, science, math, engineering etc. most ideas which deal with principled thinking.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective. AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way: JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals: AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux: TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables – they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them. And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote. This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but approval?” GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to protect their husband’s ability to provide for them." The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position. Also: GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith "Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!" That hitler reacts video is hilarious. If it's true that men are going to generate significantly less tax revenue for the state in the coming years than I have no doubt that politicians will line up to make changes. Nothing gets the state motivated like when there isn't enough money to steal. I'm interested in how others see this playing out.

Do you have other masculine interests?

I have no clue. I've been reading his posts on his site for a few years now but have no idea when it was first published. The guy is as morose as they come and I tend not to believe a lot of what he says simply out of self-preservation.

If you search online for "untested rape kits" you'll discover that it is a frequent occurrence which happens in many different places. It's hardly surprising since investigating real crimes, which involve actual victims, takes effort and resources while imposing fines, raiding businesses, and confiscating property takes less effort and raises revenue for the State. What's odd is the idea expressed by the media that most murders are solved. I'm totally naive on crime statistics so I don't know if it's true. Is it true that most murders are solved or are the police nearly useless?

I'm curious if most transgenders come from single mother homes.

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up. I can only communicate when I feel comfortable. I do not feel comfortable posting in this thread anymore. I want to be understood. That's not going to happen so I'll leave now.

Language in its imperfect state is in a constant state of change. Therefore, any attempt to record that language is erroneous before it even begins. Communication is facilitated chiefly through grammatical nuances within the language, in accordance with cultural, social, and temporal bias, and only presented in the vocabulary ipso facto. The majority use 1500 words to communicate and yet can string together billions of sentences using this limited amount because the structure of any given language is more important than its vocabulary. The closest approximation to a permanent language is a computer's language where the parameters are fixed. However, this does not allow for conceptual vagary within the language and so the efficacy of a widespread mathematical language remains diminished currently. Since the language is a representation of the individual than it is impossible for that language to be used colloquially and not change so long as the individual (and thus the environment) is in a state of change. However, there is a shared commonality to language otherwise it would serve no function. Concrete nouns are easy to convey. An apple is an apple is an apple. But red is only red to the individual. When communicating using abstract or conceptual terms it becomes easy to see the impotency of language. Otherwise, words like good, evil, truth, freedom, and love would not have such dichotomous interpretations. All language is in a state of flux, expanding, growing, dying, emerging. Its cycles are held to the demand of the people and more importantly to the individual. As the free market economy allows for businesses to expand, grow, and die in accordance with the needs of the individual so to does language grow and change. The notion of a central authority figure cannot allow for the adaptive nature of the individual (and all that entails) any more than a centrally planned economy can accurately and consistently anticipate the demands of the consumer. At best the language used in this writing is a vague approximation of billions of thoughts amalgamated into a semi-coherent structure of grammar, which by its very nature, will be obsolete before anyone reads it.

I cant understand you. Please define all words in those sentences. You are using all of these "words" in your reply, but you say they have no meaning until defined by the one speaking them, so either you are writing for no particular purpose or you do understand that we both agree to use words and there defined meanings, (which can be found in the dictionary) This is a huge contridiction. I've heard Stef talk about this sort of thing ad nauseum. Words have meanings. We agree to go by their meanings. Those meanings are shared through the invention of dictionaries. If a word no longer reflects reality, then you don't use it anymore. You use an assemblage of other words that will get you to your point. Stef also does this, very often, but he also doesn't stop to define words over and over and over, because he must believe that we all can agree that if we use a word, we are not making up our own meaning, but we are using the definition that is agreed upon, and reflected in the newest versions of dictionaries. You're wrong. You do understand what those words mean and are purposely misleading the conversation. I am done speaking with you.

It's good to know the government is compiling a list of people open to the anarchist approach. How thoughtful!

I remember a few years ago, the MRM was such a small, obscure part of the internet that I thought it would never become anything. Now it seems to have grown so fast I wonder if the state isn't involved with funding it already. There have been more and more stories of female child molesters in the news as well. I wonder if this isn't some way to divide men and women more, a coup d'etat to destroy the family completely. This is what Alan Watt predicted would happen to the family. His theory was that the elite would first use feminism to remove the husbands from the family and then decades down the line show that women were unfit mothers. The children would then be raised by the state from birth to death. Part of his predictions were that gender would be demonized on both sides. Boys would be raised as girls and girls raised as boys to creat an androgynous society. The male fertility rate has been declining at a rapid pace and very little alarm has been raised. It's now normal for a boy to dress as a girl. Effeminate men are the norm as well and there are a lot more violent "mean girls" than before. Alan Watt believed the final goal of the elite is to introduce pedophilia into the culture through woman/boy rape because of how it's often treated as a joke. I don't believe most of what he says. He's too depressing and provides little evidence but knowledge isn't a bad thing.