PGP

I came across this also: Towards the genderless society: equitable for female wellbeing and male health? http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.43380!/file/HEDS-DP-09-01.pdf It is a discussion paper on the health and longevity implications of a genderless society. Some excerpts: "This discussion is also related the sixth discussion point by Tsuchiya and Williams (2005), on why the health inequality between the genders may not be an inequity. Because men have more advantages in socio-economic status and opportunities than women, men’s disadvantage in lifetime health may be compensated for if we look at their overall well-being. In other words, Tsuchiya and Williams (2005) assume that a disadvantage in a given sphere of life can be substituted or compensated for by an advantage in another sphere. On the other hand, Månsdotter et al., (2004; 2006a) state that this substitutability view clashes with the genderless society since the latter requires virtual equality of women and men in all important spheres of life and does not accommodate trade offs across different spheres. How do these two positions relate to each other? If women have more advantages in a particular sphere of life and men have more advantages in another, this will not be regarded as genderless, even if the overall well-being of men and women across the spheres may be roughly comparable. This is because genderlessness implies that once genuinely equal opportunities are offered to men and to women, and once the asymmetric value system is removed, then there is no reason to assume biological sex will have much impact on what people aspire for in life. Thus, not only opportunities in different spheres of life will be the same for men and women, so will be the actual choices people make. Furthermore, the argument that it may not be inequitable that men have a lower ELQ provided this is compensated for in the socioeconomic domain potentially clashes with more liberal approaches in general. What about the preferences and choices of these people? Some men may want to have more lifetime health even if it meant less socio-economic opportunities. Many women actually seem to want to enjoy more socio-economic status even if it meant poorer lifetime health. The individual dimension of the gender system means that human identity is very much determined by collective opinions about “the proper woman” and “the proper man” (Harding, 1986). Could a society be regarded as equitable, where people are “forced” to live their life under a particular combination of health prospects and socioeconomic prospects, simply determined by their sex (or for that matter, any other randomly allocated accident of birth)? In the genderless society, women and men will participate more or less equally in various spheres ranging from unpaid childcare to high-level politics. Such a future should also entail that preferences and what is actually achieved (as a result of free informed choice), is independent of one’s sex. Hence, once this state is reached, there would be no conflict between the two ethical positions regarding the substitutability across the domains of well-being. The conflict is hence, if and how society should act after a commitment towards gender equality but before reaching this stage; what is the price acceptable in terms of restricting individual freedoms for the purpose of achieving gender equality of preferences. For now, we leave this as an open issue for a public debate, and concentrate on the genderless society and possible health trends. " "A move towards the abolition of gender will most likely involve two strands with contrasting health implications. The first is the one where women move into spheres that have traditionally been regarded as male, and as a result, expose themselves to higher levels of health risks. The second is one where men move into spheres that have traditionally been regarded as female. If men are to benefit from the lower health risks traditionally enjoyed by women, they will also have to reduce their labour market activities at the same time . In this respect, a re-assessment of what constitutes high status masculinity would be good for men’s health, and, to the extent that this is in line with what women want, it will be good for women’s well-being as well, if not their lifetime health or ELQ. The above seems to imply that if we are to achieve equality in ELQ between the sexes any time soon, this may well involve curbing, or even reducing female ELQ, at least in the developed world. In the developing world, it may be possible to “soft land” to a point with minimal sex gap in ELQ without going through a phase where female ELQ needs to diminish. But even then, the process will probably be associated with reduced growth in female ELQ: it cannot grow faster than male ELQ for the sex gap to reduce. " It's an interesting read. I don't really know what to think about it. It might take me a while to regain my faculties.

It was interesting that you mention this. After being with her for a few months I had exams and then work placement. I just presumed it was over as I was moving across country to work and would be flat out, so I jacked without a word. Didn't text, didn't call, nothing for a few months. I came back to the house after the work experience to see a mate who lived there with her still (they had normal college semesters) and she was angry with me. At the time I couldn't figure out why, but we ended up in the sack anyway. It was bizarre. I am certainly not proud of this period of my life and if it was now I would do things a whole lot differently.

I am curious. When the lady is part of the male group, what general issues does she talk about? Does it differ in any significant way to what men in the group talk about and if so, how? One instance sprang to mind for me here. I was "going-out" with a girl in college. She was holding out on sex. She had all kinds of issues that became apparent later on and that I think I would have seen earlier with my current knowledge. She brought a friend from home up and we went out for the night. Her friend was alot less good-looking than her. I completely ignored the girlfriend and focused all of my attention on the less-attractive girl. She laughed alot and was loving the attention. At the end of the night the friend and I were settling down for a couple of night-caps when the "girlfriend" literally had to drag her away up to bed. She was pissed off majorly. Guess what changed immediately after this?

Here is a remarkable narrative of a black mans experience from the 70's to this day as regards the welfare state, single parenthood, poverty, child-rearing and the social engineering he considers has been carried out on the black population of the US and is now graduating to the entire population. It gives a perspective on the origins of the reasons for MGTOW developing and perhaps the implications.

28 days later. With slightly more menacing teeth.

Dis-gusting. Not much to add to above excellent points. One thing that stood out for me at the end was the mothers eyes. Complete speculation but from the eyes and her speech, there is the hint of a certain spacing-out like she's on some medication.

Brainstorm answer: you could walk up to them with a notepad and say you are thinking of having children and you want the benefit of their experience on the best way to parent OR you are doing a survey on parenting. Random stuff like: why do black Americans hit their children so much? Are they racist against black kids?

I have some thoughts on this. What has been said so far is spot on and I want to add some thoughts I have had on education that came to me while pondering MGTOW, something that has alot of my attention lately. In the hunter-gatherer sense, women need "consensus" and social harmony, almost at any other expense. Human endeavour has centred around delivering the resources to women in greater quantity and quality and in more efficient manners. Once this could have been training men to go to war to secure resources, sail to undiscovered lands, dig deeper into the earth, develop new tech etc. With the welfare state and the state education system, we have seen in Western countries, women do alot better than men and stay in education alot longer in recent years and this trend does not seem to be changing anytime soon. It is a logical jump to make that conditions in society and education have made it more advantageous for women to remain in education than men. Some examples of this could be the use of ritalin, control on "aggressive" play, affirmative action, the "everyone wins" phenomenon and so on. I posit that women do not need men as providers any longer. Indeed, they do not need men as WILLING providers. This is done through the state. Furthermore, Western women may not even need Western men as UNWILLING providers as immigration from other nations, currency devaluation through future borrowing and subsidisation of basic produce continue. In short, the structure of education is now centred on conformity because this is the best structure that currently delivers resources to women. It delivers consensus, resources, "independence" etc. The cost of this, is IMO, enormous not just to men but to society. The very driving force of competition and incentive for men to risk all is disappearing. Watching other people achieve and vicarious existence has replaced real experience and endeavour. Risk-taking behaviour and therefore risk-taking are now "anti-social" where once it was lauded and to be aspired to. What concerns me now is that I can see these things because I remember a time and experienced a time in school where competition, aggression in sports and manliness were allowed. If we had a problem we sorted it between ourselves in whatever manner we saw fit and we had a code between ourselves for example that protected the weaker. Young men and boys are currently growing up where they have no idea what went before. For example in fatherless homes, the man-deserts of northern england and wales, almost exclusive female teachers, the drive to have "equality" in kids toys in Scandanavia etc. It is a big experiment in nature versus nurture and I fear for what will result. These are some random thoughts that are not fully formed and I recognise that and welcome correction and disagreement.

Wait, she partakes in a robbery of her boyfriends place of work and three years later she has a job there. Hmmm. I can see now that Sarkozy may actually have a chance in the next election. Such short memories when there's the drama of scandal and romance involved. Also, she bought Frys chocolate. Red flag straight away. Reminds me of this: and this:

Below article from: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/state-sanctions-phone-and-email-tapping-1.2027844 No real surprises as regards the tapping but what is of interest to me is the last paragraph and the Treaty of Lisbon. This, along with alot of other developments continues to confirm for me that the individual European governments are now completely irrelevant as decision-makers and leaders. They are a conduit for funds in/out of Europe and a buffer/apologist for EU commandments that will be rewarded with promotion to the hallowed halls of Brussels or Strasbourg if they tow the line. Federal Europe is only a matter of time. Article: Foreign law enforcement agencies will be allowed to tap Irish phone calls and intercept emails under a statutory instrument signed into law by Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald. Companies that object or refuse to comply with an intercept order could be brought before a private “in camera” court. The legislation, which took effect on Monday, was signed into law without fanfare on November 26th, the day after documents emerged in a German newspaper indicating the British spy agency General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had directly tapped undersea communications cables between Ireland and Britain for years. Section 541 enacts the third part of the 2008 Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act – which defines how Ireland will collaborate with other governments in criminal investigations – six years after the rest of the legislation was put in place.Vodafone and Eircom, who co-own the main subsea cable between Ireland and the Britain, both said they had no knowledge of GCHQ intercepts. Interceptions can only be used in cases with reason, where an investigation is under way, and cannot be used to tap calls indiscriminately. RequestsThe newly enacted section also allows the Minister for Justice to request tapping in other countries for an Irish-based criminal investigation, and sets out how requests from other countries to Ireland for such interceptions should be handled. These are separated into requests for technical co-operation, when the assistance of an Irish-based company is needed to set up an interception, and a requirement that the Irish State be notified when a foreign state intends to tap lines but can legally do so without direct Irish assistance. The provision for the secret courts is exceptionally unusual. “Even with very sensitive cases in Ireland they’re not prosecuted in camera,” said TJ McIntyre, lecturer at University College Dublin’s school of law and chairman of advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland. “It’s worrying because it means telecommunications companies might be pressured into doing things that aren’t entirely legal.” The companies would be prosecuted in secret, and would be unable to disclose their objections publicly – or even the fact that they were being prosecuted. Mr McIntyre said a minister should not have the power to force companies to comply with secret orders. One legal source said the legislation would likely be interpreted to encompass emails as well as phone calls as “telecommunications” data is generally seen to include emails and, potentially, text messages if they pass through provider networks. However, they would not include so-called “information society services” such as webmail, or social media services such as private Twitter or Facebook messages. Agency spyingIt is understood internet companies are concerned about the implications of the Act, especially after revelations about security agency spying on internet data from such firms. Many of the leading multinationals in the internet and social media sector have European headquarters and significant operations in Ireland. The Department of Justice said: “The decision to commence part 3 of the Act arises from an obligation under the Treaty of Lisbon whereby the State would otherwise be in breach of its obligation to fully implement the provisions of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters by December 1st, 2014.”

I always enjoyed (and still would enjoy) the Young Indiana Jones series. They bring in alot of cultural variation and themes and also explore the horrors of war.

Came across this gem: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/gendered-conference-campaign/ I think I need another hobby, coming across this stuff hurts my brain. Gendered Conference Campaign December 10, 2009 The Gendered Conference Campaign aims to raise awareness of the prevalence of all-male* conferences (and volumes, and summer schools), of the harm that they do. We make no claims whatsoever about the causes of such conferences: our focus is on their existence and effects. We are therefore not in the business of blaming conference organisers, and not interested (here, anyway) in discussions of blameworthiness. Instead, we are interested in drawing attention to this systematic phenomenon. (We also have an awesome theme song. And an interview about the theme song can be found here.) The harms: All-male events and volumes help to perpetuate the stereotyping of philosophy as male. This in turn to contributes to implicit bias against women in philosophy, which very likely leads even those genuinely committed to gender equality to evaluate women’s contributions as less good than men’s. (It may also in some cases be caused by implicit bias, which means that women’s names will leap less easily to mind than men’s, but that is not our topic here.) For a quick discussion, go here. It also perpetuates stereotype threat, which very likely keeps women from performing as well in philosophy as they otherwise would. For some longer discussions, you may want to look atSally Haslanger’s and Jenny Saul’s papers on the topic. (Jenny’s is a download from the right hand side of her page.) We would like these harms to stop, and we think that a significant step toward achieving that is drawing people’s attention to some of their causes.

And the Peter Joseph award goes to........;-P

I respect your position but I completely disagree. Whatever goes on in avfm or MRM or any other so-called representative group is irrelevant to me and to MGTOW IMO. Some may be advocates for both but they are mutually exclusive IMO. The very name avfm implies that someone is speaking for me. This will not happen by my consent. MGTOW is IMO a dislocation and partitioning from existing or any structure really insofar as it is possible. For me it is not to need anything from anyone, be independently sufficient and to pursue things if you desire them. In short IMO it is self-mastery and any political position is tertiary and IMO remote in importance if held at all. I wanted to explore the larger issue of a segment of the male population pursuing MGTOW here, the drivers and the implications, not individual mens reasons for pursuing MGTOW. Perhaps my first post was not clear on this. I will try to clarify in another post. Thanks all for the replies so far, much appreciated.

I want to explore the issue of MGTOW as a social phenomenon. The proponents/advocates of MGTOW present it as a rational path in the current society/culture/legal framework/economy etc. I have watched a number of the videos such as from Sandman, BarBar, Clarey etc. As an individual actor I can appreciate the rationality of their analysis. Some men get screwed badly and most men get screwed a little. So, there is the relationship dynamic with women and then the wider sociological conditions of state etc. I want to explore the sociological drivers for MGTOW here. Is MGTOW just another expression of something that has always been? Is it possibly a population-level stress response to conditions? If so, is it perhaps even a biological response as much as a rational response ie. population levels and differing stressors to the past. E.g. post WW2 period in the US vs now. As it could very possibly lead to alot of single men for life, the strategy for a search for meaning in life in MGTOW discards tradcon and questions the nature of the civilisation that has been cultivated. Hence the "red-pill" metaphor. It has occurred to me that it could very well be a sociological "branching-off" of perhaps some of the best minds and talents on the planet (possibly). What does all this mean?

Fair point. I had seen a few of Ken Cottons posts and he seemed to want to play "devils advocate". This seemed to amount to not applying any schema of morality and having relativism as a backstop and then even nihilism. I was fascinated by his posts on this thread, like a chimp fixated on a tiger in the brush I guess. I wasn't really sure why he was partaking in a philosophy forum tbh. I took the bait.

In line with what I think you are saying, why is rape a net negative? If a man/woman derives subjectively more pleasure from raping than the rape victim derives pain, then it may be desirable. As a human interaction with no connection to good or evil, it is relative, is it not? I'm not sure using the example of non-human animals is relevant. After all, if it doesn't bother the animals, why would it bother us? AFAIK, Nuremburg was quite specific to the extermination issue. They drew the line at this. Nonetheless, it seems your position here is that evil exists but that it wasn't applied as a charge in a consistent manner. It was a win/lose situation and the morality was applied differentially. The recognition of the morality was there and the recognition of evil was there. Nuremburg was "legitimate" in and of itself, there were crimes committed. The failure is that this is not applied in a wider sense as it should in order to be consistent. Would you agree?

Is it your position that everything is relative? ie people disagree on what is evil and it cannot be defined therefore.....? Afaik, there was actually a position taken in the Nuremburg trials on evil. Officers that were "just carrying out orders" were tried for crimes against humanity. In your opinion, should they have been tried under such a charge? They were just having fleeting and subjective connections to those around them I suppose and in an immense universe of indestructible energy whom is to say what is good and what is evil or if they even exist or if it matters.

Years ago I watched the first couple of seasons of "Survivor". It could have been the first one where most of the contestants went in ripped with like 10% body fat. The guy who won went in with approx. 80lbs of spare tyre. I reckon the US will be ok even in the event of an economic collapse.

Nice work. The sight of Scarlett "profit from the occupation of the West Bank" Johanssen sets it back a bit at the end though. Yes, I am picky. But, fuck it!!!

EDIT: I just read the story, and the husband is complete garbage. That's like reverse spermjacking+demanding child support. Probably worse, since she can't get back those years no matter what; whereas child support can be repaid. I'm not sure if this is why you brought up the story, but if there was a birth control pill for men, and he was doing that without telling her, it would be the same. I would like to add my thoughts to this. It seems, as far as I can tell, that the wife went off the pill unbeknownst to the husband while he had made it clear he didn't want to try for a baby. This is the primary concern IMO. What happens between consenting adults is theirs to gain/lose from. In this case, the wife was willing to bring a child into the world without the stable and consenting environment that should be necessary. This prospective child had no choice in the matter. What he did was wrong in terms of honesty to his wife, what she did was reckless and utterly selfish. It also seems to me that they did not have an accurate or sufficient knowledge of each other for the purposes of marriage and both were dishonest. IMO it worked out, luckily for them and any child, with divorce sans said child.

EDIT: I just read the story, and the husband is complete garbage. That's like reverse spermjacking+demanding child support. Probably worse, since she can't get back those years no matter what; whereas child support can be repaid. I'm not sure if this is why you brought up the story, but if there was a birth control pill for men, and he was doing that without telling her, it would be the same. I would like to add my thoughts to this. It seems, as far as I can tell, that the wife went off the pill unbeknownst to the husband while he had made it clear he didn't want to try for a baby. This is the primary concern IMO. What happens between consenting adults is theirs to gain/lose from. In this case, the wife was willing to bring a child into the world without the stable and consenting environment that should be necessary. This prospective child had no choice in the matter. What he did was wrong in terms of honesty to his wife, what she did was reckless and utterly selfish. It also seems to me that they did not have an accurate or sufficient knowledge of each other for the purposes of marriage and both were dishonest. IMO it worked out, luckily for them and any child, with divorce sans said child.

What do you know that is not an artifact of history?

They're way ahead of you bro. They already surveil the nether regions by having their head up their own arse.