The Relational Equity Fallacy

[TonyBaloney]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...What-mother-secretly-abort-baby-week-due.html

It is truly shocking when you peel back the layers to see the fabrication that women are innocent beings, and in fact are just as prone to cheat and use reckless behaviour as men are.

I would say that this behaviour has been kept in check by society developing the way it did, and shaming women for this behaviour. Feminism has now created a free for all, where women are no longer told off and castigated for spreading thier eggs

Ultimately, as much as I disagree with this behaviour, and naturally find it abhorent, I still believe that alot of these mechanisms we see arise from the dawn of time. Going way back into a past of small select bands of hunter gatherers, and small gene pools, where your off spring (from a maternal perspective) would benefit from a quantity of sires, all with different lineages. These women created us today, so we should have respect for that. However, like everything thier are extremes, ranging from sluts to saints.

My theory is that with the case above, the woman went a little too far out of the immediate tribe, and was concerned that a mixed race child would be a little too obvious sign of infidelity.

 

[betheman]

My theory is that with the case above, the woman went a little too far out of the immediate tribe, and was concerned that a mixed race child would be a little too obvious sign of infidelity.

Im inclined to agree with you, what a despicable c unt she is, the 'lets show her understanding' comments salmost made me vomit.
If I was her hub Id also have pat tests done on the 2 kids

 

[SecondHalf]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...What-mother-secretly-abort-baby-week-due.html
It is truly shocking when you peel back the layers to see the fabrication that women are innocent beings, and in fact are just as prone to cheat and use reckless behaviour as men are.
...

My theory is that with the case above, the woman went a little too far out of the immediate tribe, and was concerned that a mixed race child would be a little too obvious sign of infidelity.

As a third person, I could forgive her infidelity (sh1t happens), but I am shocked that the huzbo would stand by that!

I'm not against abortion at all, but she flushed a living, breathing, thinking baby. That's premeditated murder to save face. The woman is a monster!

Another example in this thread exposing a man (if you can call him that) at his weakest.

Shocking!

SH

 

[Burroughs]

In short, the media is following recent trends, not creating them.

This is 100% incorrect

There are a tiny number of people 500 at most that have the power to engender prolonged media coverage on a subject David Geffen, Katzenberg, Jeff Robinov, Tina Brown..

Jerry Bruckheimer gave a specific interview in the 80s where he described how he created trends not followed them using his power to get press and advertising to fulfill his goals

Media is a controlled arm of the elite with a defined and concrete agenda...whether or not the common folk believe in this is irrelevant.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Media is a controlled arm of the elite with a defined and concrete agenda...whether or not the common folk believe in this is irrelevant.

What is their specific aim?

 

[Buddha_Mind]

What is their specific aim?

The media's aim is to keep us in things like constant wars, to build-up character portrayals of desirable politicians/candidates and smear others--to highlight non-sense to distract us while things occur "behind the scenes".

The media is like a big flashlight, they shine and it catches our attention, and but really all sorts of things are occurring in the dark.

Research Noam Chomsky and his take on Media Control.

Here's a short youtube documentary catching politicians off-camera that you might find interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4zVwxCCtc

It would be nice if the newspapers, television stations, etc were in our best interest in "just the facts", but this isn't the way of things -- sensationalism and control are more accurate words.

 

[Atom Smasher]

What is their specific aim?

The aim is twofold:

1) Power and control

2) The transfer of that dollar that is now in your pocket into theirs.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

We must be careful to look outside of our own lifetime and experiences in order to evaluate the current order of things. It just so happens that I lived prior to the fall of womankind and for an all too brief time I enjoyed a world where boys and men were valued and when a woman felt honored to be chosen by a man for a date. My, how the worm has turned.

It wasn't always this way, gents. Trust me. I was there.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

From What Lies Beneath:

Two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

and;

“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

Nor, did this behavior stop with the end of WWII, it was merely rationalized, codified, and approved by society by feminism and their Vichy males.

So much for the Greatest Generation.

Here we have some very damning statistics about an otherwise romanticized generation. Again, the scope of this essay isn’t to condemn women’s duplicity, but rather to see the method behind it. Socially we can make workarounds that will turn all of these stats into virtues, but underneath all that is the fact that women will do whatever their hard-coded psychologies necessitate to ensure their survival. Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism – in any era.

 

[Colossus]

It's hard to believe the casting is so bad on that show. Probably some of the worst acting I've ever seen. It does serve to illustrate Rollo's general point,

however...

I'm becoming more and more aware that there exists a significant, critically important void in awareness in this community among the 45 and under crowd, and that is the fact that things were much different 45-50 years ago. It seems to you that much of what is going on with women today is universal, global, and hard-wired because you were not alive and did not experience life when society was vastly different.

You were educated in a feminized educational system. So was I, but it was when the disease of feminism was in its absolute infancy so I saw it develop before my eyes. You have experienced nothing but the entitled, bratty behavior and hypergamy of women all your lives. And although you have seen this societal decay accelerate, you were not around when it was contained and was a small subset of the poulation at large.

Look at your grandparents and great-grandparents. These women by and large were not branch-swingers and clueless hypergamous fools (as almost all women are today, but not quite all). They met a man, married, made a life for themselves and took care of their man and their household. Am I speaking of generalities and of the best-case? Of course, but still this was the general norm for society.

As an aside, does anyone here think the sh!t first hit the fan in the 60s when it came to societal devolution and feminism? Wrong! It happened in the "roaring" 20s. In that decade, the genders started melding together, many if not most women became feminists, men were devalued, sexual permissiveness was rampant, and all the issues we see today exploded on the scene.

But then curiously, a massive reversal took place and all that went into remission. Why? Reality hit. The great depression in the 30s and the war in the 40s permitted very little societal contrivance and experimentation. It was all about survival, and the genders were restored to normal literally overnight. The 50s reveal a society where there was newfound prosperity and people seemed to be striving toward some kind of ideal, a society where even though there were many more options and much more money floating around, women took care of the nest while men went out to the business battlefield every day.

But what did that prosperity and plentitude of options breed? The Roaring 20s roared into full fruition again. I speak, of course, of the 60s. I was born in 1957, so as a child I saw the rise of feminism in its absolute infancy in the late 60s. Prior to '70 or so, there was still a significant amount of respect afforded to men although by that time it was rapidly eroding.

At any rate, your grandmother and great grandmother and great-great grandmother were statistically probably not hypergamous branch-swingers. They made a life for themselves and derived satisfaction out of fulfilling the role that nature equipped them for. However, today's future great-great grandmothers mostly will be.

In case it's not obvious, my point is that things were very, very different back in the day and it is the mass media that has poisoned the minds of women to their current state of insanity and delusion.

Whoever is reading this, your current girlfriend or wife almost certainly doesn't possess the quality of character and inner strength of your great great grandma. Stastically, she is very likely either greatly influenced by or completely ensconced in the moral decay that has taken place since the very late 60s.

It wasn't always like this, men. What we see today is not so much that which is absolutely and irrevocably hard-wired into women, but rather female base tendencies that have been given complete permission and encouragement by society to bloom and flourish.

We must be careful to look outside of our own lifetime and experiences in order to evaluate the current order of things. It just so happens that I lived prior to the fall of womankind and for an all too brief time I enjoyed a world where boys and men were valued and when a woman felt honored to be chosen by a man for a date. My, how the worm has turned.

It wasn't always this way, gents. Trust me. I was there.

Really insightful post.

For the record, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of you and Rollo's essays. I do think that on the whole, several generations ago women were more 'virtuous' and given to the type of female behavior that we associate with quality women today. However, it does get romanticized a bit.

Also worth considering is WHEN that data was pulled from---wartime. I think statistics are of limited value in "proving" a sociological point, because these questions by nature have way too many lurking variables.

I really like your take though---good stuff.

 

[backbreaker]

Interesting statistic. In 1944 they were probably usually aborted. Today they are probably prevented with the pill etc.

The question is are today's men more permissive of female deviancy than that generation's? All things being equal, which male is more likely to come home from war and knowingly raise some other dude's kid? I think we know the answer to that. We can say that hypergamy has always been there, but we can't say that nothing's changed; otherwise we wouldn't be stretching to draw parallels. Corollary: Were more WWI era men willing to enjoy overseas sex than today's fighters? I wonder.

To a man, anyway, the question is, what are YOU going to tolerate or forbid? You cannot 100% prevent hypergamy-in-action, but you can mitigate against it with your behavior and the implicit threat of your permanent withdrawal from her life.

what I do not understand is why do people think hypergamy is something that has to be prevented in the first place. Beucase it's not working in your favor? that's not a good enough reason.

hypergamy has exicted yoru entire god damn life. It was hypergamy that got the best dressed kid ion school all the cute girl's phone numbers. It was hypergamy that got the star basketball players the choice of who they wanted to date. It was hypergamy that got all the cool frat boys cute girls in college. It's the same thing that gets the most successful men the women of their chosing today.

I think what pisses.. not pisses me off, but, what irks me the most about the entire deal is that..


There are a lot of men who are less than honest with themselves. I see hypergamy with men the same way I see a 35 year old woman whose breats are sagginga nd her skin is starting to wrinkle start to damn everything that worked in her favor her entire life previously when she was hot ****.

In other words, i have always been an AFC before i came here. But beucase i am good looking and always had a sense of style and played sports and hung out with all the popular kids, I never had a problem having women attracted tom e growing up. But what got me laid then, is exactly what did not get me laid once i left high school. You can't get mad at it when it doesn't work in your favor when yo have used it to your benefit. that is what irks me about this whole deal.

the way I see it, you have a bunch of guys who didn't get any play in school, and they long for the days that when they get older and women will mature and see them for them and they sale themselves on this idea of how they are going to be hot **** all they have to do is wait it out and they do that and then they come to find out it's not just that easy. the momentum is not going to switch just beucase you are now older. it's just a new machine to rage against. and instead of actually, working to get at the top of the food chain or at last carve a nice niche out for you in the food chain, you ahve men who spend their adult lives arguing that something does not exist or is wrong when they have benefited form it at times throughout their entire life.

people want what's best for them. i want to have sex with the leggiest fittest woman i can find. i wanted to and did fvck the cheerleaders in high school. you wanted to as well. women are no different.

 

[betheman]

The problem with hypergamy is when women practice it after marriage.

It hurts the children and the husband.

She gets out via the misandric court system with cash and prizes.


Aside from that, before she commits, take full advantage of it.

and this is why marriage today, like never before, is such a risk for men

 

[Atom Smasher]

Really insightful post.

For the record, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of you and Rollo's essays. I do think that on the whole, several generations ago women were more 'virtuous' and given to the type of female behavior that we associate with quality women today. However, it does get romanticized a bit.

Also worth considering is WHEN that data was pulled from---wartime. I think statistics are of limited value in "proving" a sociological point, because these questions by nature have way too many lurking variables.

I really like your take though---good stuff.

I absolutely agree. The truth does lie between Rollo's and my somewhat extreme stances. Of course it is skewed a bit more toward mine.

But seriously, I understand his point of view and he raises some good points. I just think it is less global and absolute than he does, that there have been throughout history very significant moderating factors which are all but gone now. The finger has been removed from the dyke (you guys are going to have a field day with that one!!)

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The problem with hypergamy is when women practice it after marriage.

It hurts the children and the husband.

A man's value plummets after he's sired some kids and they're grown a little. A man has little value to the woman he's married to.

Whether or not a woman practices hypergamy is based on her ability to more than anything else. If she can, and she doesn't perceive a risk, then it's game on.

Whether or not it hurts the kids is another matter. I don't think that's been clearly demonstrated, but I could be wrong. Most long term studies have shown that the most PARENTS contribute to their kids is their DNA. Everything else they pick up from their non-family peer group.

The only reason marriage as an institution lasted as long as it did was external pressure by the Church.

Despite what he's been lead to believe, men have a very short shelf life after they get married.

Expecting your wife to value you as much as she did before you got married is like thinking you can sell your 2005 Suburban for original sticker price.

That's the way the world works. Ignorance won't keep you from getting F'd in the A.

But knowledge, and consistent effort (of constantly gaming your wife) can keep a marriage going. It's just not automatic like most people are led to believe.

 

[disgustipated]

Holy fuvk nice post Danger.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

• A man's value only plummets after children due to the misandric extraction of his resources towards the woman post-marriage.

• 
  
  Precisely. That is how women are wired. Men have enormous potential before they are married, and little potential after they are married. All transactions are made based on perceived future value. After kids are a few years old, and a woman's got her meat hooks into her husband, he has little future value, as she already owns it.
  
  

  [*]I believe there is an enormous emount of evidence that children without fathers is very damaging.

  This is extremely hard to measure and very easy to cherry pick to support either conclusion.
  
  But it does raise a question. Are women really interested in their children's best interests?
  
  

  [*]If you don't expect your wife to value as much post-children, then I assume you don't believe that men increase in value as they age?

  Men do indeed get more valuable as they age to the general pool of unmarried women. But to the woman he's married to? His value plummets.
  
  

  [*]Even if men did decrease in value (and I don't believe it is), it is not the value that concerns me, it is the mandated State misandry that feeds the hypergamic beast via divorce and wealth extraction.

  I agree. This chickens have truly come home to roost. Pre agricultural evolution, alphas ruled society. Post agricultural revolution, society was increasingly ruled collectively by betas. And in recent decades this has become more so. All the judges, congressmen, lawyers that make and support these wealth extracting laws are basically betas whose power rests on their collective bargaining power. And as we all know, betas let women get away with murder, literally.
  
  
  

  [*]Expecting the State to not artificially demean the man's value by reducing him to an easily robbed wallet is not the same as thinking you will sell an old car at sticker price.

  my sticker price example was based on the single relationship between a single man and his wife after his wife had kids. Taking the wealth out of the equation, it's common knowledge that in most couples, sex decreases significantly after marriage. Both partners lose value in each others eyes.
  
  The value shifts from "future potential" to "avoiding loss of current gains."
  
  Even absent the intervention of the State, countless men have lost value in the eyes of their wives, after marriage and kids.
  
  You are correct in pointing out that the wealth distribution tendencies of the meddling fat-fingered STATE vastly exacerbates this effect.

 

[backbreaker]

When i first came back after my absense, there were some people here who were questioning what I did for a living or whatn ot and I provided a lot of our work and i showed one particular situtation how the client was not only telling the BBB one thing and telling me another, he just flat out lied, he lead us on for about a month and once we were done with thep roject disappeared and not noly that, held another job over our head and got us to do that and used the payment for the job we fnished as bait, and even though I knew what he was up to I did it anyway and he didnt' pay for either. A total peice of ****. and not only did he not pay he had the nerve to tell the BBB that it was all our fault.

I say all that to say that, yesterday I found out that despite me being as metdilous as i am, depsite me providing them with about 1 month of email records, despite me clearly pointing out where he said time and time again he would pay the bill and he did not, the BBB determined he made a resonable effort to pay the bill, and thus closed the complaint.


why do I tell you this... if running my own business has taught me anything at all, it's this.


life is not fair. A lot of you are stuck on this issue. it's not "fair". this is not "fair" that women can do this and men can't do that.

the world, does not give 2 ****s what you think is fair or not. at all. Despite me paying my employees out of my pocket, despite me doing everything he asked I won't get a dime for that project. The only thing I can do is be more cautious about the clients I take. I had a bad feeling about him from the get go but was talked into taking the job by my assistant because the site would look good in our portfolio.

you are wasting your time fighting a losing battle if you are hung up on making **** "fair". the world, hypergamy, women, **** men, don't care. the only thing people care about is what is in their best interest. the sooner you can accept that, the more at peace you will be.

 

[backbreaker]

BB,

Sometimes you surprise me, especially as a Business Owner who has this kind of attitude. Business owners deal with problems all of the time. They identify and solve them over and over again. It is just what they do.


There are two types of men in this world.

Those who accept how things are......and those who do not.

Recognizing the problem of state mandated misandry (to feed hypergamy) is what allows people to change things. To solve any problem, you must do the following.....

1. Recognize it.
2. Define it.

Only once you have completed those two actions, can you start the process of solving it.

You seem to take issue with people who are trying to get others to recognize the problem. Why not just leave them be?

Recognizing misandry or trying to address it does not necessarily mean you are a misogynist or that you are not getting laid. I honestly think you are still stuck in the "matrix" to a degree where you are channeling the shaming language used by feminists over the last 20 years.

\

Because as a business owner I don't get to deal in a world of wants, wishes, hard line between black and white, this person is right this group is wrong.

I don't get to deal with fair, equality, or anything resembling such.

To survive as a business owner, the only thing that you can deal with and be successful is what is and what isn't. that's the point i am trying to hard to convey.

If I spent all my time fighting battles, fighting ****ty clients for money that is owed, fighting ****ty laws that don't make sense in the industry that i work in, I would no longer have the time, nor energy to move forward and run the business the way it needs to be ran.

You only have a finite amount of time and energy. If you wish to spend it fighting laws, courts, media, by all means knock yourself out. But i'm not going to sit here and let this website become a fvck women we want rights abolished website and let everyone get swept in the frenzy that is becoming the mature man forum, I am ehre to make sure that the guy that sees the site and he's in his first 2-3 months here to keep his eye on the ball


I can already tell there is a facet of this webiste that is breaking into it's own sub group that is more concerned about fighting the media and laws and the justice system and I don't like it. I don't believe that was the original intention of this site.


actually if i may suggest i think what would be even better for this forum since the married forum pretty much sucks ass, if you changed the marriage forum into a men's issues/media/rights forum and kept all tht in it's own sub group.

 

[Boilermaker]

you are wasting your time fighting a losing battle if you are hung up on making **** "fair". the world, hypergamy, women, **** men, don't care. the only thing people care about is what is in their best interest. the sooner you can accept that, the more at peace you will be.

BB,

you stated that you are not interested in discussing the political and sociological aspects of hypergamy in your thread, specifically to Danger. But now you are coming back to Danger's thread, which is of great importance and interest to many of us, and you are derailing his discussion by making another "get over it" post while talking about your clients.

But what you should remember is, nobody is b!tching or moaning in this thread, it is an informative discussion and honestly the only pollution here is how people talked behind your back and how some random guy commented about your business in BBB.

Although I know you are mature enough to know how people work, I have to remind you: We do not give two sh!ts about your business or life insights when it's not relevant.

Maybe you should step aside this time and let this evolve, because I, for one, am getting lot of information on this. And if you are not interested, please don't bother.

Thanks bro.