Women empowerment is the downfall of society

[HardTimes]

Warning: long post but well worth the read I promise

I don't really know what the proper term is phrase for this phenomenon but in our society (at least in the US, not familiar with other countries) women have complete control over who and who doesn't get to start a relation or even who or who doesn't get dates for that matter.

What I mean that is that for the most part, it is men who are trying to convince women they are the ones worthy of their time/relationship/sex and women are the ones approving/denying men. From a biological perspective they are the ones that are now the gatekeepers on what type of genes into the species and what type of genes die out.

Oops, how in the world did we do a 180 of the biological success of our entire species? Back when humanity was in it's infancy, along with every other species that successfully evolved, it was the MEN who controlled procreation. Men had to fight with other men to get women, and weak were unsuccessful at passing on their genes and the strong were successful at passing on their genes.

The way our species has evolved socially and technologically, being physically strong is of much less value than being intelligent, creative, ambitious and motivated. Since the evolution of the modern world, these qualities are the qualities it took to become successful at passing on your genes. Men with these qualities had the choice to get the women they wanted and they didn't have to play any silly DJ games. Men still had the power and the role of TAKING women and women were out of the equation of making the choice who to be with. If a biologically successful man courted a woman, there wasn't even a question as to whether she wanted him or not, she consider herself LUCKY to be considered by him and jumped at the chance.

These days, this type of man is on DJ forums such as this one looking at any tips as to how to get women over the guy who's in and out of jail every month and can't hold a job.

Why did this happen?

Women are now the ones in control of who breeds and who doesn't

Every since feminism and the sexual revolution, women have been gaining more and more control in the mating process to the point where are now where they have complete control and are completely the gatekeepers on who successfully passes on their genes and who doesn't. Completely opposite of what nature intended in every single species that has successfully evolved. And it would seem for good reason.

What have women done with this responsibility?

At least in the US, they have ran our society into the ground. Intelligence is a dying breed, jails are overrun, fatherless homes now the majority, out of wedlock births quadruple since the 40's, gap between the rich and poor bigger than ever, all of our engineers these days are imported from China and India (anyone who works in the tech industry knows this is true).

My conclusion is that women have proven to be very irresponsible with this important role and as a society we should be working on reversing this.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Alle_Gory]

double post.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I don't really know what the proper term is phrase for this phenomenon but in our society (at least in the US, not familiar with other countries) women have complete control over who and who doesn't get to start a relation or even who or who doesn't get dates for that matter.

Welcome to society. Women do that. They're very social and often work on a 'hive mind' mentality. Her girlfriends opinion is very important.

What I mean that is that for the most part, it is men who are trying to convince women they are the ones worthy of their time/relationship/sex and women are the ones approving/denying men. From a biological perspective they are the ones that are now the gatekeepers on what type of genes into the species and what type of genes die out.

No sh*t. Its always been like that.

Back when humanity was in it's infancy, along with every other species that successfully evolved, it was the MEN who controlled procreation. Men had to fight with other men to get women, and weak were unsuccessful at passing on their genes and the strong were successful at passing on their genes.

Yes. This is how it works now. Dweebs don't get laid and DJs get all the poon.

The way our species has evolved socially and technologically, being physically strong is of much less value than being intelligent, creative, ambitious and motivated. Since the evolution of the modern world, these qualities are the qualities it took to become successful at passing on your genes. Men with these qualities had the choice to get the women they wanted and they didn't have to play any silly DJ games.

The key word in this paragraph is MEN. I don't see many of them around nowadays. I see alot of whiny drama queens. And intelligence has always been valued over strength. This is how humans work. We're a weak species and we've had to rely on our tools. We have no defensive weapons, we're soft and slow.

Men still had the power and the role of TAKING women and women were out of the equation of making the choice who to be with. If a biologically successful man courted a woman, there wasn't even a question as to whether she wanted him or not, she consider herself LUCKY to be considered by him and jumped at the chance.

Ok. Maybe. Back it up.

Every since feminism and the sexual revolution, women have been gaining more and more control in the mating process to the point where are now where they have complete control and are completely the gatekeepers on who successfully passes on their genes and who doesn't. Completely opposite of what nature intended in every single species that has successfully evolved.

Good. Maybe a few generations of ball busting b*tches can breed out the AFCs. They're not even attracted to the AFCs.

Intelligence is a dying breed, jails are overrun, fatherless homes now the majority, out of wedlock births quadruple since the 40's, gap between the rich and poor bigger than ever, all of our engineers these days are imported from China and India (anyone who works in the tech industry knows this is true).

This is a result of outsourcing. I can't belive you're blaming women for you wanting a cheaper pair of pants. If you don't want this to happen, then buy American you cheap bastard. Maybe then the jobs and education will remain in the country.

My conclusion is that women have proven to be very irresponsible with this important role and as a society we should be working on reversing this.

You should be working on yourself. Its not their fault. They b*tch and complain and weak pvssy men gave them everything. Of course they want more, everyone wants more!!

And FYI the problem isn't feminism.

 

[manhattanguy35]

Well I agree that women are very much in control of deciding who they have sex with but I don't know about all your signs of society falling apart that you list.

I mean, isn't the job of the DJ to figure out how to take women back from the 'biologically successful men'? I don't think I'm any better than any other man, but when it comes to women choosing her mate, I think being a DJ will give me an advantage over all the others.

 

[hansol]

I have to disagree with the fact that women weren't (at one point) "not in control" of whom they choose to procreate with. That men had to fight, blah blah blah.

Men compete with other men for the chance to procreate. Women ALLOW the "successful" male, AKA the one she finds the most sexually attractive, to have sex. They have always wielded that power over men. Men have always tried to "convince" women, either through prowess with a battle axe, amassing shiny stones, or using negs.

I mean, yes, the guy could force himself on the lady, but there isn't much of a biological drive to take care of a rapist's baby.

As for the rest of the stuff, I don't think you can blame female empowerment as the basis for capitalist tendencies. If you dont' like outsourcing, stop shopping at walmart or target.

 

[ketostix]

I also question whether nature intended for women to select their mates. They seem to have very poor natural and native ability to select the best one. I think women having default choice to select their mates is mostly a modern social construct. I think what is really giving women the choice is that they have financial independence.

 

[Captain Harlock]

Women empowerment changed nothing except for giving them more independence. It's a good thing. If anything it made the game easier because women are now more sexually open.

Also, whining about how women choose the wrong guys = totally afc

 

[HardTimes]

No sh*t. Its always been like that.

No it hasn't. Powerful men (whatever society deemed as powerful at the time) fought each other over women and the best man standing was the one to get the woman to reproduce. This is biological/instinctual imperative.

Yes. This is how it works now. Dweebs don't get laid and DJs get all the poon.

Yes that's exactly what I said and that's exactly the problem. Low life DJs (I'm not saying all DJs are lowlifes nor am I calling you a lowlife) get way more poon than what you call "dweebs", which are smart/intelligent people who contribute to the betterment of society but are not as socially gifted as a DJ.

The key word in this paragraph is MEN. I don't see many of them around nowadays. I see alot of whiny drama queens. And intelligence has always been valued over strength. This is how humans work. We're a weak species and we've had to rely on our tools. We have no defensive weapons, we're soft and slow.

I don't even know where do begin. What do you defined as a man? I define a man who is responsible and contributing member of society who takes cares of his responsibilities and takes care of his family. Yes I agree intelligence has always won out over strength in the past but the whole thesis of my argument is that currently this is not the case now that women are in control as to who reproduces.

Ok. Maybe. Back it up.

Sure, fair enough. I plan to make another post with nothing but facts and figures that are referenced so lets table this until I do the necessary research and make the post.

Good. Maybe a few generations of ball busting b*tches can breed out the AFCs. They're not even attracted to the AFCs.

It would only be good if women were breeding out the right kind of people but the exact opposite is true and all of evidence supports this. I don't know why people on this forum sh*t on AFCs so much like they are the scum of society when infact the opposite of true. Like I said I will make another post with nothing but facts and figures but I'll leave you with this for now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html
In 1940, out of wedlock births were 3.9%. In 2007, it was 40%. How are, in your terms, "ball busting b*tches" breeding out the right kind of people? To me it looks like the exact opposite unless you think fatherless homes, high poverty, high amounts of government assistance for single mothers are a good thing.

This is a result of outsourcing. I can't belive you're blaming women for you wanting a cheaper pair of pants. If you don't want this to happen, then buy American you cheap bastard. Maybe then the jobs and education will remain in the country.

Ok I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not talking about outsourcing at all. I'm talking about college educated engineers who comes to the US for work and get jobs here because there aren't enough Americans to fill the role. Take some high level engineering classes in any American school and let me know how many white/black/Hispanic engineers you see. They are almost all Asian/Indian and almost all of them where not born in the US.

You should be working on yourself. Its not their fault. They b*tch and complain and weak pvssy men gave them everything. Of course they want more, everyone wants more!!

I do work on myself daily but that wasn't the point of my post. The point was women aren't responsible enough to make the proper decisions for mates.

 

[Unbridled_Phoenix]

Stick to your guns, HardTimes. You're right.

In the past, men would compete by trying to be BETTER than the other men to get the women. Now, as long as you're a bum who doesn't give a fvck about anything, you'll swim in it. Feminism paved the way for women to thumb their noses at the Establishment by breeding with bums instead of traditional good men who reminded them of their fathers.

And look at where we are.

 

[ready123]

ita no coincidence to me that the guys in life who insist women have all the control also happen to be ones who suck with women

self-fulfilling prophecy, expectation theory at work

and I'm wondering why you ever expected women to make decisions for you in the first place. is your masculinity not important to you?

I'm an engineer btw

 

[HardTimes]

Well I agree that women are very much in control of deciding who they have sex with but I don't know about all your signs of society falling apart that you list.

I mean, isn't the job of the DJ to figure out how to take women back from the 'biologically successful men'? I don't think I'm any better than any other man, but when it comes to women choosing her mate, I think being a DJ will give me an advantage over all the others.

Society hasn't quite fell apart yet and I'm not claiming we are on the verge of falling apart (yet). What I'm claiming is now that women have the choice, they are choosing to mate with loser DJs over successful AFCs.

 

[Vypros]

Society hasn't quite fell apart yet and I'm not claiming we are on the verge of falling apart (yet). What I'm claiming is now that women have the choice, they are choosing to mate with loser DJs over successful AFCs.

But what you don't understand is that it's not THEIR FAULT. it's the fact that men aren't being men anymore (the rise in single parent homes where the father isn't around to help raise the child has something to do with this).

You are blaming women for the fact that men aren't being men. Go read the book of Pook again, man.

A real man choose the women he is with. Not the other way around.

The biggest reason why women choose "loser DJs" over "successful AFCs" is because the "loser DJs" tend to have those qualities that attract women (confidence, charisma, and they are REAL). The successful AFC's are fake and lack self-confidence. They try to put on this image of perfection, and that's not what ANYBODY wants. People want REAL people. People who think for themselves and don't worry about the judgements that others cast on them. And the "loser DJs" have those exact qualities.

 

[DonJuan11]

At least in the US, they have ran our society into the ground. Intelligence is a dying breed, jails are overrun, fatherless homes now the majority, out of wedlock births quadruple since the 40's, gap between the rich and poor bigger than ever, all of our engineers these days are imported from China and India (anyone who works in the tech industry knows this is true).

My conclusion is that women have proven to be very irresponsible with this important role and as a society we should be working on reversing this.

We can understand your frustration, but a rant like this does make you look good, it makes you look weak and as if you have no game.You are using women as a scapegoat for your own shortcomings. If hot girls got sexual with you at your whim, or if you were married to a hot girl, you wouldn't care about "women empowerment" or the "downfall of society", you would focus on your life and making her happy.

 

[manhattanguy35]

I feel where you are coming from HardTimes. I've worked really hard my entire life, and lately I feel like all of that is for nothing. Some moron with smooth techniques could tear me apart when it comes to women.

 

[Warrior74]

Weak, frightened, cowed men are the downfall of society.

 

[Igetit!]

But what you don't understand is that it's not THEIR FAULT. it's the fact that men aren't being men anymore (the rise in single parent homes where the father isn't around to help raise the child has something to do with this).

You are blaming women for the fact that men aren't being men.

+1 rep point.

Exactly. Women are attracted to MEN. They're attracted to strength,boldness,dominance,agressiveness. Today,you have men who get botox,who are weak,passive,who willingly allow women to be in control in all interactions.

As far as sex and sexual attraction,nothing has changed. I believe that what women found sexually attractive thousands of years ago,they still find attractive today. Attraction hasn't changed,we(us men) have. If we're no longer demonstrating the qualities that women from the beginning of time have been attracted to,then that's our fault.

You say that women are attracted to "loser DJs" instead of successful "afcs".

Ok,let's say that's true. You know what I say to that? So. So what?
What's that got to do with you?

You're the same guy who made those threads titled," Why not just turn gay?,and "Can we finally admit that women are evil?".

I'm getting the impression that if you had a better understanding of women and dating,and you were more sucessful,you wouldn't be making these threads.

Instead of calling women evil,considering turning gay,and blaming women for the so-called "downfall" of society,why don't you stop looking outward at everybody else,and look in the mirror. If you aren't having the kind of dating life you desire,it's not society's or women's fault,it's yours.
Stop blaming people for your lack of understanding women.
Some guys are natural,others have to learn. You have to learn...just like I did,and am still doing.

There's nothing you can do about society. All you can do is change your own world.

 

[CatB]

My opinion is that it's an economic thing. 100 years ago, families stuck together because economically they had to. Men worked during the day and needed the prestige of having a tidy home and a wife to take care of it. Women were so socially reliant on men that they wouldn't leave a relationship if they wanted to.

Now, neither side has these outside forces pressuring them to stay together. As a result, people are less tolerant of poor relationships, divorce sky-rocketed, and women are more selective of men. There are multiple reasons for this, and I don't think men's manliness is the dominant reason.

 

[handle]

Correct me if I'm wrong...
You're arguing this model:

"proper" or "natural" selection of mate results in...
-less children out of wedlock
-stable couples, less "fatherless homes"

And the "proper" or "natural" selection is rooted in a biological, 'back-in-the-day' basis. The physically strong/smart males win out over the weaklings. So the issue of who gets to mate is resolved purely by the males. The way nature intended. You say we've come to a point that is "completely opposite of what nature intended in every single species that has successfully evolved. And it would seem for good reason."

So you're saying our societal constructs are messing up the "natural way" all other species are governed by.

Now, I'm not saying your argument doesn't have some sort of weight to it, but here's two problems I see:

1. A huge amount of 'successful evolved species' have courting rituals. A lot of them have some sort of song-and-dance to perform for the female before mating. Some give gifts. Some build nests. Some show off how healthy they are. Fighting off the other males is only a part of it. Females make selections based on things like these in nature -- they will compare their options and select the best ones. So the 'independent woman' making her own selection is actually present in a lot of species.

2. Returning to this whole issue of the family unit and whether or not children are born in wedlock... Very few species actually stick around with their mate. In fact, the males of many species leave the mother and go find another female! "Fatherless homes" are a reality for countless species.

The "natural" way is a lot more complicated and varied than males determining who they get to mate with. And I'd say it's almost certain we aren't hard-wired for marriage. I think the downfall you're seeing is a shift from one set of societal norms to another. To bring genetics or "what's natural" into this is troubling.

I realize this might be a bit long and only focused on one part of your post, but it irks me when people try to turn nature into a idealized standard of "how it should be."

PS, HardTimes is your name from the ****ens novel? I just finished reading it the other day, loved it.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Yes that's exactly what I said and that's exactly the problem. Low life DJs (I'm not saying all DJs are lowlifes nor am I calling you a lowlife) get way more poon than what you call "dweebs", which are smart/intelligent people who contribute to the betterment of society but are not as socially gifted as a DJ.

Not necessarily. There's lots of DJs that contribute to society. How dare you put us down like that. If anything we contribute more. We set a new standard. Most "DJs" are leaders.

I don't even know where do begin. What do you defined as a man? I define a man who is responsible and contributing member of society who takes cares of his responsibilities and takes care of his family. Yes I agree intelligence has always won out over strength in the past but the whole thesis of my argument is that currently this is not the case now that women are in control as to who reproduces.

Well no sh*t. Its their freaking vagina. Of course they have control over what to put in it.

And FYI, AFCs don't contribute much to society. They're a plague. Weak men don't contribute, they suck the energy out of everyone else and make the world a bleak, inefficient, and uninteresting place.

It would only be good if women were breeding out the right kind of people but the exact opposite is true and all of evidence supports this. I don't know why people on this forum sh*t on AFCs so much like they are the scum of society when infact the opposite of true. Like I said I will make another post with nothing but facts and figures but I'll leave you with this for now.

How does a person with no self respect, no inner strenghts, no motivations, and a desire to bow down and obey a woman to no end contribute? How is that a good thing?

I do work on myself daily but that wasn't the point of my post. The point was women aren't responsible enough to make the proper decisions for mates.

But you can make the proper decision for them. Lets face it, you're just peeved because you're not getting any. If you want a nice, strong, responsible woman you'll find her.

 

[ready123]

I feel where you are coming from HardTimes. I've worked really hard my entire life, and lately I feel like all of that is for nothing. Some moron with smooth techniques could tear me apart when it comes to women.

It's funny when you say that hard work is all for nothing, because that means you did all that hard work just for pvssy, as opposed for the things it did get you (which is what a well-adjusted guy would acknowledge) - like a comfortable lifestyle, a paycheck during these unstable times, etc. That lack of perspective says a lot about your character - that you're cynical, unappreciative of what you do have, and will torture yourself for YEARS in hopes of getting pvssy. And girls will pick up on all of this right away when they meet you and run away from you

I was out in Vegas and my homegirl was getting macked on by an I-banker in his early 30's who made almost a million a year. He was doing good, until he started trying to compensate for his lack of confidence by offering to buy her Laker tickets and a hotel suit next to his. When will you guys ever learn?

Hardtimes, you got an elementary worldview of how the world works, thinking that only guys with nothing going for them get pvssy and guys who have made something of themselves don't get any. Reality is some losers get laid, some don't because they suck with women. Some winners get laid, some don't because they suck with women. Yet the guys that have made something out of themselves are in a position to get more passive attraction because they've gone the harder road, but only if they did it for the right reasons