The glaring inconsistency of the manosphere

[jurry]

Comments in bold

Ok, now I understand. But this generates a new question.

If equal outcome lags equal opportunity by about 20-30 years, which you agree with....
And if we do not have equal outcome now using women and CEO's/Politicians as the benchmark...

What exactly was not "equal opportunity" 20-30 years ago which prevented the equal outcome from happening now?

You're a capable educated person, Im not going to do a whole review of womens status over the 20th century, the wikipedia article is pretty informative. Women were second class citizens that couldnt even vote until 1918. Until world war 2 they werent even able to get a real job, and they had to give those up when men returned from war. Wasnt really until the 60's and 70's that the big push towards gender equality began (nixon and equal opportunity law in 72 was a big one). And since then we have steadily seen more and more women in politics and business.



Ok, I understand your position here. But let's peel the onion another layer.

Do you think there is damage done to the perception of a man who has been labeled a rapist, whether it is provable in court or not?Certainly. And she also damages her own perception by doing it. Again I dont know of one person who has had a rape charge brought against them. The only time you generally hear about it is with celebrities or sports figures.

 

[jurry]

Comments bold

Nobody is asking for a whole review of the 20th century. I am merely asking what exactly was not "equal opportunity" 20-30 years ago which result in the fewer women CEO's and politicians today.There arent fewer women ceos and politicians today, so youre obviously not following the conversation. Reread if you need to..

It is a very easy, simple question. I do not see anything oppressing in that time-frame, but perhaps you do which I am not aware of? Like I said, read about history of women in the us on wikipedia if you want to understand (which I doubt you do), im not going to go through all the various legislation and movements that have taken place in the last several decades regarding womens equality and how that has led to more women in politics/business, its common knowledge.








Ok so we agree that sexual assault accusations have a huge negative impact on a man's life, regardless of whether it even goes to court or he is found innocent.

I have to disagree with you on your statement about it damaging the perception of the woman as well though, because as a general rule, "victims" of sexual assault almost never have their names published.

So even without a court case, men immediately have to spend a huge sum of money to defend themselves, and their name is immediately tarnished even if they are completely innocent.

Does that strike you as unfair?why would they be spending money if theres no court case? Where is this rampant outbreak of sexual assault accusations and mens lived being ruined as a result? EVIDENCE and SUPPORT! jesus christ man this is like arguing with a toddler, im about done here..

I will wait for your agreement or disagreement before we peel the onion yet another layer.

 

[jurry]

Comments bold

There are fewer than you think there should be, right? No, i never said this. You believe there will be more women CEO's and politicians in the future as a result of "equal opportunity" today right.yes very good.

So if they had equal opportunity 20-30 years ago for women......why are there not a more equal number of women CEO's and politicians today? There ARE more now than 20-30 years ago you fvcking moron, do you understand the concept of progression? First it is zero, then its 1, then its 2, and thats how its gone since womens rights began. Do you need a diagram for this?


It is a very simple question which does not require me to do research on a century.apparently it does based on the fact you cant understand the very simple logic above.




I am not discussing court cases, I am just pointing out to you the process before it ever gets to court cases. Men need lawyers to defend themselves even before cases reach a court, which costs money.

1. So we agree that sexual assault accusations damages the perception of a man.
2. We agree it does NOT damage the perception of women since their names as a general rule never get published.
3. We don't agree yet that it costs men money, because you seem to think it has to go to court before a lawyer gets involved. Can you see now how it costs a man money as well when he is accused of sexual assault, even if it does not go to trial?

Don't get angry, I am just leading you to water. It is happening slowly but we are getting there.sadly, no we are not. We'll start getting there when you produce evidence and data to support this supposed tide of sexual harassment cases being brought on men now as a result of feminism.

 

[VikingKing]

The pregnancy issue is a tricky one, I definitely feel you on that. The bottom line there I think is do not bang a girl without a condom unless you fully trust shes on the pill or are ready to accept the possibility of having a child with her.

There are definitely those girls out there who try (or succeed) to have a kid to keep a man. Thats obviously a poor quality woman and its an awful decision for them to make. Again, most girls wouldnt do this. Ive been involved in a couple pregnancy scares and looking back it was not surprising at all and I should have known better considering the girl.

The solution you offer puts all the power with the man though, and men are certainly just as capable of exploiting that (i.e. you were banging other girls and told her she was your gf or something, and now want to walk away). Even if we say were not going to pay her for her bad decision, one way or another society will have to. I cant think of a good solution to it other than making sure you really trust a girl and wearing a condom if you dont.

Regarding the marriages/divorces, I would think that you guys would support women working more and making money since that means they wouldnt have anything to take from you in divorce. Personally, it would take one hell of a woman to get me to consider marriage, and I dont really care much about money, many girls ive dated make more than I do. Quality men are just as capable of getting a girl to pay for him as women are to do the opposite.

If youre loaded, you should be very careful and if you dont trust her sign a pre nup.

The bottom line its up to a woman to choose to get pregnant or not. What I proposed does not put all the power in the hands of the man, the woman has the power to choose and not get pregnant, so really all of the power is in her hands.

If she has the right to abort or keep the baby fully, she should be 100% responsible, unless both parties intended to have a child.

 

[jurry]

The bottom line its up to a woman to choose to get pregnant or not. What I proposed does not put all the power in the hands of the man, the woman has the power to choose and not get pregnant, so really all of the power is in her hands.

If she has the right to abort or keep the baby fully, she should be 100% responsible, unless both parties intended to have a child.

Yes but the man also has the power to wear a condom or not. Having an abortion isnt like throwing out old milk from the fridge, it is a very tough experience for a woman who is basically killing a life inside of her. They have a bit more sensitivity for that kind of thing, and one way or another society is going to end up helping her if she cant afford to raise the baby.

Like I said though very tough issue, hopefully one we can all avoid.

 

[jurry]

Jurry,

I took the below quotes of yours as an implication that we were not close enough to achieved "equal outcome" as you felt we should be at. Was I wrong?
Im saying i think we will get closer to equal outcomes AS A RESULT of equal opportunity. Personally i think equality as a general rule is a good thing, so that you dont go too far in one direction and people get taken advantage of.

I worded that poorly. My question was based on the interpretation that you felt we needed to achieve even more gender equality in the future, and that we would see more because of the equality now. These thoughts of mine stemmed from your other two quotes above.

here is a better question for you.....So if they had equal opportunity 20-30 years ago for women......why is there not currently an equal number of women CEO's and politicians today? Is this a serious question? I just explained the concept of progress to you. The womens movement didnt seriously get off the ground until the 70's, it is still going on. As more opportunities were available women took them and continue to do so, which is why you see more women in business and politics each year. I threw the 20-30 year time horizon out as a ballpark, its obviously not meant to be an absolute number as there is no absolute point at which equal opportunity became a reality, it is a progression.

Based on the premise that we are not yet talking about court cases.....do we agree on the following?

1. So we agree that sexual assault accusations damages the perception of a man.
2. We agree it does NOT damage the perception of women since their names as a general rule never get published.which is the same for a victim in any case
3. We don't agree yet that it costs men money, because you seem to think it has to go to court before a lawyer gets involved. Can you see now how it costs a man money as well when he is accused of sexual assault, even if it does not go to trial?it would cost you money to consult a lawyer for me suing you for wasting my fvcking time with trivial bvll****. EVERYTHING in law costs money, if I told a female boss i was accusing her of sexual assault there would be lawyers involved and her reputation would be questioned, that is the world we live in. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?! Show me the evidence that says men are being extorted by women in a systematic way for sexual assault, until then, as Pacino says in heat, "DONT WASTE MY MOTHERFVCKING TIME".

But seriously these arguments are garbage and youre just trolling at this point as ive literally had to repeat the same thing for 3-4 posts in a row now, have a good weekend enjoy your boxster.

 

[Soolaimon]

Because you missed it, again. This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men.

Her: I don't like the idea of you dipping your schlong into other girls.
You: What do you mean?
Her: I want to be exclusive.

You: I can't take you seriously when you have these other men in your life.

Now you completely contradicted your whole boundary theory you keep repeating. Amazing!

The woman you definied exclusivity for was "worth it" when she had other men still in her life.

But you lie and contradict yourself saying Bob's woman is "not worth it" when Bob's woman still had other men in her life.

How can that be when your woman had other men in her life?

Another contradiction!

She IS having other men in her life when you say: "I can't take you seriously when you have these other men in your life."

You tell men to say that to the women they are defining exclusivity for. That means the women still have other men she is hanging out with in her life.

You are setting your boundary defining your terms teaching her what exclusivity means.

Your example is the same exact example with Bob.

Both women have other men in their life cause they don't know what is acceptable for a relationship. You say women do not know what exclusivity means. You say you are teaching her what exclusivity means.

LMAO!

Your contradictions and boundary theory is a joke!

You don't even know what you are saying.

Hilarious!

Because you missed it, again. This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

You are saying women will not cut off other men because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

That means she will still hang out with other men unless you teach her what is acceptable.

That contradicts your new claim of "This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men."

You just contradicted everything you argued about with your boundary theory.

Your boundary theory is worthless.

That was proven in your own words.

Keep trying to grasp for straws trying to defend your crap theory that you can't answer for.

Because you missed it, again. This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

She must be reminded of this because a large number of women think they can date other men while being committed.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

It is your job as a MAN to teach her what is respectful for a relationship.

In a world bombarded by media creating AFC's and masculine women, what on earth makes you think she will automatically know what is expected of her?

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship.

This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

Anybody that reads this can see through all your contradictions.

Your boundary theory is total crap through all your contradictions you have made.

That was proven by you in your own words.

 

[zekko]

I think the point is that if she INSISTS on hanging out with other men, then she is out of contention. If she`s open to the idea of other philosophies, she may not be a lost cause.

 

[guru1000]

I think the point is that if she INSISTS on hanging out with other men, then she is out of contention. If she`s open to the idea of other philosophies, she may not be a lost cause.

Now, herein is a good discussion. Actually a dichotomy. On one hand, women have been beta-conditioned, in many instances, which renders male orbiters the accepted norm for exclusivity. Under these pretenses, how can you fault women's conditioned predilections?

And yes, a high-value DJ in most contexts could re-condition contender's behaviors successfully, as quite frankly if a high-value DJ says jump, contenders will readily respond "how high?" However, I've have been successful in finding higher-quality contenders that, quite frankly, don't give a f*ck to entertain male orbiters in the first place.

Of course as relations are mercurial, there are no guarantees either way for a successful LTR even under the auspices of a high-value, seasoned DJ, but securing contenders with identical non-negotiable values while shaping the incidental behaviors via boundaries is a more prudent choice than making the concession of re-conditioning male orbiter predilections. I include the "no male orbiter proclivities" under my non-negotiables.

 

[jurry]

Comments in bold

Yes it is a serious question. If they had full "equal opportunity" for over 40 years now, why does it have to go in a "progression"? Because these kinds of changes dont happen overnight you fvcking idiot, the changes took place gradually over time, how many different ways can i possibly say this?? I never said we got equal opportunity 40 years ago u just pulled that out of your àss, its been a continual process. Rather than admit you have no idea what youre talking about you just want to try and drag this on as long as possible bringing up nonsense a 1st grader could understand betterNobody stopped them from running for Government. Nobody stopped them from choosing a career instead of a home life.

What logical reasoning is there for it to "have to be a progression"?Because that is the nature of change, this is literally the dumbest question anyone has ever asked me. Anything on a large socio-politico-economic scale takes time. Gay marriage, marijuana legalization, minimum wage, name any political issue you can think of for that matter and it will be true.


Let me ask a more direct, simple question. What outcome percentage-wise and gender-wise would you expect to see for CEOs or Politicians before you "equal outcome" was achieved?i dont care about equal outcome, theres no point to your discussion. Make the same opportunities available to all and let the chips fall where they may. That is what we are seeing now, each year it changes, are you startingf to wrap your head around this absurdly simple concept?




Jurry,

Your response to number 2 is....



This is actually not true. We often publish accusers for nearly everything. It is only in a sexual assault case where we protect the woman's identity


The difference is, you are referencing a civil suit.no, we arent. Were talking about sexual assault you just dont have a brain Which costs both the plaintiff and the defendant. We are talking about a criminal case, where only the defendant must pay money.

So, I reiterate my points....

1. So we agree that sexual assault accusations damages the perception of a man.just as it would the woman if the roles were reversed
2. We agree it does NOT damage the perception of women since their names as a general rule never get published.no, false.
3. We don't agree yet that it costs men money, because you seem to think it has to go to court before a lawyer gets involved. Can you see now how it costs a man money as well when he is accused of sexual assault, even if it does not go to trial?i answered in the last post stop repeating yourself and learn how to read

Do we agree yet on these concepts? This is not a "waste of time" as you say, because we are coming to terms on each of these items.no were farther apart then ever because youd rather be right then read and use your brain

I have said three times now that we are not talking about court cases. Right now we are only talking about the process.

You tried to refute the first and second one, but you now know that "victims" of sexual assault do not get their names published, only the alleged perpetrator.no i dont u just wrote that and decided its true

You tried to refute the third item, but you now know only the defendant must pay for a lawyer since it is a criminal matter, and the accuser pays nothing.no stop telling me what i know fàggot.either they are going to court or they arent, if the charges arent being brought then theres no need for lawyer. Im being completely honest right now when i tell you ive never encountered a bigger idiot than you. You have not brought one legitimate piece of evidence to show how men are being mistreated in the court system. You cant even put together coherent arguments of any kind and have taken to arguing in circles about nonsense because you know you have no points.

Are you ready for the next step yet? Do we agree on these three items now?





They are not arguments, they are facts. Clear and undeniable facts. I do not know why you are getting so angry at them, or me for that matter. I only want to make sure we are clear on the process of sexual assault. So far it seems you have some misperceptions on who pays and who gets their faces published all over. I am glad we have settled that now. So again, are we ready for the next step?no were not. You arent using your brain u just want to sound right even though we both know you have no idea what youre talking about. This is why i am angry because i am arguing with a rock. Go post more pics of your car to make yourself feel better fàggot.

 

[:-)]

Jurry, sexual assault is a criminal matter. It costs the defendant money, but costs the "victim" nothing.

.

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or whether you actually, truly believe that being sexually assaulted costs a victim 'nothing'.

I wonder at what age you sold your soul at?

 

[synergy1]

So when did this forum stop talking about how to date beautiful women?

 

[( . )( . )]

So when did this forum stop talking about how to date beautiful women?

When ugly women and mauve pill popping manginas started telling us how to date beautiful women.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or whether you actually, truly believe that being sexually assaulted costs a victim 'nothing'.

I wonder at what age you sold your soul at?

He wrote "victim" instead of victim because most of this so called "victims" are simply dumb cvnt which want to use an unfair law system to take revenge over a guy wheter he didnt call them the following day or if the following day they had some buyer remorse and believe that jailing the guy would remove a notch from their c0ck total count.
Same with girls which needs a promotion at work or are mad cause they didnt get the promotion they believed they deserved, there are many cases on how a woman can use an unfair law as a weapon.

And lets not forget the huge amount of "victims" during divorces, I mean they try it, if they are believed they get the bonus if their lie is found out they risk almost nothing...whats to lose.

 

[jurry]

Danger you just want to waste pages of back and forth arguing over nonsense. All the claims you are making about a man being accused by a woman are exactly the same if the roles are reversed. There is nothing discriminatory about it.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you cannot produce ANY evidence of a large scale shift in sexual assault cases, divorce cases, child support cases that supports your thesis of this misandric court system coming about as a result of feminism. My entire point since the beginning is to stop whining about a changing society because it benefits a high value man. And here you are grasping at straws with no evidence, desperately searching for a way to justify a bunch of whiny "red-pillers" not getting laid because of how evil society is.

Are there some unfair cases for men who got screwed over, of course! But for everyone you have there is one about a woman who got screwed over too. This doesnt have anything to do with feminism or liberal vs conservative, the point is stop fvcking whining and accept the world.

For the reasons I illustrated before, a DJ should be embracing these changes because it is great for him, and for the AFC it should motivate him to work on himself. A woman is more independent and doesnt need your financial security anymore and if thats all you had to offer in the first place you're better off figuring this out sooner than later.

 

[americangirl_234]

Yes but the man also has the power to wear a condom or not. Having an abortion isnt like throwing out old milk from the fridge, it is a very tough experience for a woman who is basically killing a life inside of her. They have a bit more sensitivity for that kind of thing, and one way or another society is going to end up helping her if she cant afford to raise the baby.

Like I said though very tough issue, hopefully one we can all avoid.

How about not having sex before getting married? These stupid and selfish women have sex just for pleasure. But what if they get pregnant? It's a lose-lose situation for the child because either the mother will have an abortion, or he/she is going to have a fatherless life (most guys leave girls who are pregnant out of wedlock)

Those selfish girls need to keep their legs closed.

 

[( . )( . )]

A woman is more independent and doesnt need your financial security anymore

Bollocks. The creation of all these gubmint make work cubicle "careers" to accommodate the other half of non-productive working age Westerners so the ruling elite could double their tax base is not "independence" you fugly b!tch. The only thing that has changed is she relies on many men who are taxed even more now so we can keep the charade going instead of just one.

"Doesn't need your financial security anymore" :crackup: Yeah that 193 billion dollars a year in wealth redistribution is being used to set up space colonies as we speak.

stfu you silly woman.

 

[dasein]

Guys, anyone who carefully read the OP post and doesn't realize this forum is being trolled for either some feminist blog article or women's studies paper fodder needs to stay away from poker tables and the stock market. Seriously.

 

[zekko]

Here's an example of a woman using the current legal climate as a weapon (and a shield):

This woman where I work had gotten herself into trouble and knew she was probably going to get fired. So she seduced and slept with a male supervisor (the guy was an easy mark, desperate sort), then claimed he harassed her.

The place didn't want the lawsuit so they fired the supervisor, and she got to keep her job.

 

[Soolaimon]

Woman thinking: I think I want to be exclusive with Bob but I still want other men to chill with.

Conversation begins.

Woman: Bob I want to be exclusive with you.

Bob sets his boundary with the woman.

Bob: You can't chill with other men in an exclusive relationship.

Woman: That means exclusive? You mean I can't chill with my guy friends anymore?

Bob defines his terms of exclusivity teaching his woman what is acceptable for an exclusive relationship.

Bob: That isn't what an exclusive relationship means. It means you can't hang out with other men. You can only hang out with me. I won't tolerate it if you hang out with other men. You will be dumped if I find out.

Woman: Ok Bob I won't chill with them anymore. I agree to yours terms of an exclusive relationship.

A little while later the woman loses interest in Bob and hangs out with Dlck. Bob finds out but doesn't know she had Dlck's Dlck inside her. Bob felt his boundary would stick even with low interest from his woman.

Bob: Why are you hanging out with Dlck when I told you my terms of exclusivity?

Woman: Dlck is my friend and wanted to hang out with me. Is that a problem Bob?

Bob:You knew my terms I set.

Woman: I didn't know I couldn't hang out with my friends.

Solly,

You are a complete idiot.

In your example, she stated she wanted to hang out with other men. If she says this, then she is no longer a contender. I stated this below.

Woman thinking: I think I want to be exclusive with Bob but I still want other men to chill with.

You are the idiot. Can you not read and understand your own boundary theory?

The woman NEVER stated she wanted to hang out with other men.

it says "Woman Thinking" she never directly told Bob that she wanted to hang out with other men.

Do you know why she is thinking that?

Cause according to your mantra "Women do not know what is acceptable in a exclusive relationship".

This woman doesn't know any better according to you so she will still have other men in her life until Bob defines exclusivity and teaches her what is acceptable.

According to you women will still have other men and won't cut them out until you define and teach them.

There will always be other men according to you. That is your contradiction in the example with Bob.

You now claim she wasn't worth it when your boundary theory claims she is worth it cause she doesn't know any better.

$hit I know your crappy theory better than you do.

Hilarious!

In your example, she stated she wanted to hang out with other men. If she says this, then she is no longer a contender. I stated this below.

but I can still see there may be exceptions

Bob can be an exception since you now believe in exceptions can't he?

This is your worst contradiction yet! LMFAO!

If there are exceptions according to you then Bob can be the exception even though you contradicted the example.

That means the boundary example I listed disproves your boundary theory since you say there are exceptions (even though it wasn't an exception) cause everything I listed goes with your boundary theory you repeat.

Do you have any clue what you are saying?

This is beyond pitiful now.

Having said that, over time I have evolved my position where I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters, but I can still see there may be exceptions

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

You just keep contradicting yourself really badly here don't you? Hilarious!

With your latest contradiction you claim you won't commit to a girl who already has male orbiters.

But the mantra of your boundary theory claims all women have male orbiters and won't automatically cut them out.

You say it is false that women will automatically cut out men for a high value man.

That means you are unable to commit to any woman since you say all women have orbiters.

How can you say you won't likely commit to a girl who already has male orbiters when your claim is that women will have orbiters because she doesn't understand the term?

Above you say that is competently false. You contradicted yourself again!

You say women won't cut off all men because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

That means you can't commit to a girl with no orbiters according to you when women have them in your last statement.

How do you answer that contradiction?


Your mantra contradiction

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.


women do not know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship.

This is why you must give your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you

The primary purpose of a boundary is to inform her of your expectations and the definition of exclusivity.


She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship

Because nobody had the discussion with them on what exclusivity means.


It is your job as a MAN to teach her what is respectful for a relationship.

A discussion must take place on your definition of exclusivity when she asks it of you.

So YES, these need to take place because she simply does not know any better.

In a world bombarded by media creating AFC's and masculine women, what on earth makes you think she will automatically know what is expected of her?

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

Women need to what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship

You must tell her what is and isn't acceptable.

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false, because she does not understand the term.

According to you women won't cut off men automatically. Therefore she will hang out with other men regardless until you teach her what is acceptable. She is not being removed from contender status cause according to you women do not understand the term and needs to be taught.



Bob has done everything you claim men should do with women according to your boundary theory. This example shows that.

Why do you betas have problem with it?

Bob's contender did not understand the term of exclusivity cause she doesn't know what is acceptable for a committed relationship according to you.

Bob's contender requested exclusivity.

Bob gave his definition of exclusivity to his contender when she requested it as you told him to do.

Bob set his terms of his relationship and gave his contender his definition of exclusivity like you told him to do.

According to you women do not understand the definition of exclusivity in a committed in a relationship.

Bob's contender doesn't know any better cause she was conditioned by beta men and media creating AFC's according to you so a discussion needs to take place.

Bob had a discussion with his contender teaching her what is acceptable and what isn't for an exclusive relationship.

That isn't an argument like you tried to claim cause Bob needs to discuss his terms and definitions defining what exclusivity means to a woman doesn't know any better. That is what a discussion is by the way.

After the discussion Bob's contender understood the terms and agreed to them.

They became exclusive.

Later on she started losing interest in Bob and fvked her friend Dlck.

Bob had no idea that she still could camouflage her cheating behavior even with his boundary.

Bob found out that his woman was with Dlck even with the boundary.

Bob confronted her about breaking his terms and dumped her.

The boundary was useless and did nothing for Bob.

Just like everything I've been saying to you betas in 4 threads now.

Boundaries are useless and you can't even argue your own position through all your lies and contradictions.

Hilarious!