yeah didn't think you'd grasp it.
Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'
- Thread starter Buddy Bradley
- Start date
yeah didn't think you'd grasp it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Oh yes, definitely, sometimes the same people too. In the US I had people talking about immigrants coming over and taking our jobs and how awful that was, even though hello I am literally an immigrant who has come here to take an American job you can tell by my accent.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
"huh" as in... looks thoughtful: "i see", "never thought of it that way", "oh really...", "learn something new every day", "makes sense I guess", "eggs evolved before chickens you say", and so on.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
tribal_princess can do words, but camouflage, apparently, prefers to rely on grunting.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
meh.
Women have been shamed into accepting these things, not liking elements of sex acts etc, women shame each other and shame themselves in the form of internalised misogyny, this is everywhere, is it any wonder a group of men put their heads together and used this shame to their advantage for monetary gain.
much in the same way self proclaimed male feminists are championing 'sex workers' (fluffier more acceptable way of saying prostitution which in itself is highly questionable) rights, they have something to gain from it.
huh is more regularly read as a question
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
fair nuff.
About that drag king question, this doesn't look like someone who feels oppressed mocking the oppressor to me anyway...
looks like, I dunno... a form of art/performance. I reckon what you say about Drag Queens is true at least sometimes though, hadn't really thought about it. Just not sure that everything women do in culture is because they suffer at the hands of men sort of thing.
that is blatantly a modelling shot, the drag king is more than looks it's the act, you cannot know the act from a single image, all drag is about the act, I have no idea why you are pulling up imagery which has little to do with the subject, I aint doing this
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
camouflage There's a whole thread to be had about performative art and how much it's subject to patriarchy/capitalism/religion and who wins In terms of profit (it'll be men).
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I guess you don't mean this thread. Hadn't realised it was controversial to talk about it. I'd imagine it'd be an interesting subject, I found trying to describe what that one Drag King image made me feel surprisingly tricky. Something about Art as Being or whatever. Also considered those men wot dress as women in the Hindu tradition. I think they follow the goddess Kali, wondered if what was said about Western Drag Queens could be said to apply to them too, and in fact to other practitioners of cross dressing in other times/cultures. Then I wondered if anyone had seen the film Tangerine. Anyway, bollocks to all of that.
toggle
wobbly
`
not the first time he has shown his grasp of history to be somewhat lacking in depth.
this is early whig history, as taught in middle school
culture is created by humans, in which not too long ago it was men who held the power, they held the jobs, the money, the church, the media, everything, women couldn't work couldn't vote, couldn't go out without being covered up, in a world that essentially men created and treated women as second class, not even human you are not sure that everything women do in culture is because of men?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
If people want to talk about it on this thread it's up to them of course. I like talking about that shit, the performative art thing really interests me. But yeah, I'm not feeling the MRA aspect driving performative art side spin.
well theres a line imo between cross dressing to be yourself or cross dressing to play a comedy stereotype.
I love the taxi drivers in london who speak broken english and complain about the 'immigrants'
america is weird, white people there go on about immigrants and it's like errr.... guys...
More ...
The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble
"Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has funny tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further. "
"
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of. "
The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble
"Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has funny tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further. "
"
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of. "
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
And the question of who draws that line.
Edit: men. Or women conforming to what men decide is authentic woman.
not really, you either are taking the piss out of women for money or fame or you aren't.
I'm not entertaining anything that involves studies of monkeys, we have evolved past being primitive, the last time someone groped me they justified it by going on about touch being natural and monkeys do it to bond and show affection. I ain't buying it. neither should any other woman, it's a standard MRA argument.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Wtf did monkeys come into it?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Do you have some particular context in which you want us to read that deranged nonsense?
You never knew I cared eh?
Seriously though, consider this--the result of an exhaustive five minutes of research.
When women and men are asked how many sexual partners they've had, the male average is always more than twice as high as the female. The reason for this is that a small number of men have absolutely loads of sex partners: 5% of men report having over 100 women, while only 1% of women report having over 100 men. Also, 80% of women pass their genes to the next generation, while only 40% of men do.
From this, or from something else, experts deduce that 20% of men get 80% of women, which is pretty much what I said before. It seems to be called the "Pareto Principle."
it's also been proven that men over exaggerate their numbers due to social pressure stud status, you ain't a man unless you are fucking a different bitch every night init and on the other hand women under report their numbers because of the social stigma of being the local bike branded a dirty slag
Plus someone who is an "incel" might be reluctant to admit it ...
Of course those findings are correct, but I have to say that looking at monkeys (or even so-called "primitive" human societies) is not a good way to find out what's going on in the twenty-first century Western world. That's the mistake that Roosh makes with his "alpha/beta" nonsense--it's drawn from apes, and we are not apes.
Unless you are a social Darwinist, in which case we are. I guess that's why these incels are into Dawkins and his ilk.
Not these days, they love it these days. They're proud of it. They boast about it on the internet. Most probably they think it will get them some pity sex.
bi0boy
Power User
Experts? All those numbers you quote are traceable to a certain R. Baumeister, who happens not to be an eminent geneticist.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
From irf520's deranged nonsense:
"Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all."
What genetic research would this be, then? Because I've not heard this one before, ever, and I've been knocking around physical anthropology on and off over the years.
Edit: ah, just saw bi0boy's post. I take it this R.Baumeister is not a reliable source then (or are the "cultural marxists" in conspiracy against him?)
"Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all."
What genetic research would this be, then? Because I've not heard this one before, ever, and I've been knocking around physical anthropology on and off over the years.
Edit: ah, just saw bi0boy's post. I take it this R.Baumeister is not a reliable source then (or are the "cultural marxists" in conspiracy against him?)
Similar threads
