Shylar,

I think the problem that we're having rests on the different defitions of equal to which we appear to subscribe. I don't believe that all people are equally capable of all things--some people are more intelligent than others, some are more athletic than others, some are more empathetic than others, ect. I futher will never argue that, with additional tranining, everyone can achieve the same amount. I'm never going to be an Olympic-quality shotputter, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. When I was dealing with heavy luggage on the tube, I also had no problem with asking nearby guys to help me with it, recognizing that they were stronger than I was. That doesn't negate my arguments about equality. I'm simply arguing that, despite their fundamental differences, all people should be afforded the same liberties and rights. How can anyone argue against that?

No one argues that it's a sign of discrimination that there are no Amish doctors or lawyers; it is possible that innate tendencies and differences between the sexes predispose them to favour certain skills or positions over others. That said, however, it gets complicated when one factors in the ongoing effects of gender discrimination and gender stereotyping. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883) At some point, the effects of stereotypes tend to be intrnalized. They've done numerous studies indiciating that a person's response to a sterotype threat affects their performance of certain tasks. If the stereotype says that a person or type of people (gender, ect.) is bad at something, they often become bad at is as a result. That's what the feminist movement is supposed to be trying to combat.

I disagree about your individualist/collectivist conclusions, but don't think that's it's relevant here to discuss it further. If you wish, I can do so later.

I also disagree with your assertion that women love to be dominated by men. I certainly don't--if any guy ever starts trying to control me, he gets an unaccompanied one-way ticket out of my life.

K-loc, isn't this the point where you're supposed to accuse me of being male?

I didn't agree, actually. The trauma of rape is more emotional than physical in most cases, but I don't necessarily think that that has a bearing on whether or not it is reported.

My problem with your argument is that you haven't offered anything to back it up. I haven't either, to be fair, but the embarrasingly low rate of rape convictions versus complaints is something that I consider to be common knowledge. (http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/li ... e_0109.pdf, http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=84909, http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf)

I think you're allowing your own experiences to bias your opinions. We all do it to some extent--heaven knows that there are certain beliefs no one will ever be able to dissuade me from because I have lived them.

Are there times when a woman cries rape and it was consensual sex? Absolutely. Most crimes have been faked at some point (witness the woman who splashed acid on her own face and then claimed that she had been assualted). Only with rape, however, is that argument typically given for why our statistics, reporting, and understanding of rape are wrong.

Most rapes aren't perpetuated by strangers--they're perpetuated by people that the woman knows and trusts. That doesn't lessen the severity of the offense, or mean that the woman is either lying or wrong.

Oh, Sklyar, I forgot to add. Our brains are far more malluable than is popularly believed. Differences in brain scans don't necessarily indicate that those differences are innate. Some could have developed as a result of conditoning and use. I'm not asserting that brain scans aren't useful sources of information, but that they must be taken with a grain of salt.

I dont remember saying women cant make money, I said it is more important for men to drive to the top. Im disregarding the rest of that post about it, bc I am lost in where I would have said something like women dont need education.
And mellisa I do not think you are understanding the word dominance in the same way. Its not to control a woman its just to be the alpha guy.

and good to know that I sound like psychologist, got another year till I get my degree in it.

This is way way off topic tho

_________________
Inner game is the core, outer game is just an expression of it

Jelly, you never said that women shouldn't be educated or shouldn't be able to make your own money. You argument, however, implied that attractive women were attracted to rich men because they weren't able to make similiar amonts of money on their own.

I still fail to see why being the alpha guy is a good thing. I certainly don't want to date a doormat, but I don't want to date someone that I'll always be butting heads against either.

I said that instead of having to work their asses off an attractive women could instead be pretty and pick up a guy with high assets/power.
Also it is much more rare for a women to marry a guy who she makes more than even when the market of men becomes sparse at the $200K+

Its much more than the money though. Guys with money has a much higher chance of having high value bc guys will respect him for his money.
Guys look up to him his value goes up, Girls see this and want that value guy over the guys who are giving up their value to the high value guy.
Being a high value women does not have the same benefits, People may look up to the women but that does not may her a more viable partner, Hence her reproductive benefits from achieving a high value are not as significant as a mans.
In a group highest value man pulls hottest girl, highest value girl=will pull not pull much better.

Heres the classic example, rock concerts: These looked up to 2 stars have women flocking to get backstage trying desperatly. Men at a womens concert though is like banging her would be cool but hey look at that hot piece of ass right there Ill get me some of that[/list]

_________________
Inner game is the core, outer game is just an expression of it

Wow, 1 day and this thread exploded!

Cool!

Anyways, I would like to comment on what Melissa said about a woman being able to be polyamourous and a feminist at the same time! Hell yeah! She is riht! I believe that she is extremely feministic! Awesome!

Anyways, I think that feminism is nice when used as it should be! Then of course there are people who abuse it, as always. I mean, where I come from one of our politicians suggested that men should pay more taxes because they cause more problems in society. Thats unfair in the other direction.

I dont wanna label myself as a feminist but others would. I wanna label myself as standing for equal rights.

Nobody should be treated like an inferior based on, sex, race, nationality, sexual preference... Nothing. A person should be judged by its skills and actions.

Of course we are biologically different, no doubt about it. But we still have the same value and should be treated thereafter.

_________________
I'm not trying to be a dick Ezo, but you're being a Pick Up Snob in my opinion.

bbardot: you just reminded me about porn

Jelly, returning to your origional post, I think I've located what I objected to.

(Since I'm having trouble with the quote function) Jelly: "It seems forgotten here that it is value that men need, they need to make more money they need to get to the top, why do they need to get to the top? for more value. why more value? so they can get a hot girl more easily."

Here you seem to be implying that the only reason people want to make money or become a leader in their field is to increase their success rate with the opposte sex. That simply isn't true. I admit that, for men, it may be one of the factors contributing to it, but it cannot be the only reason. A book came out during the past year or so--forgive me, I don't recall the title--arguing that some things in life are best obtained if pursued indirectly. I didn't read the book, but that argument makes a lot of sense to me, particularly when one is discussing is wealth. Do you want to know a surefire way to be miserable? Throw yourself heart and soul into a demanding job that you hate because it pays a large amount of money. Miserable people, in addition to being unhappy, are not particularly attractive. I'm not arguing that there aren't some people--or women, in particular, given what we are discussing--who won't go after the miserable guy who happens to have a lot of money, but it is a foolish choice to make. Beyond a certain level of wealth $50,000, I believe, although I don't remember if that's for an individual or a family, greater wealth does not produce greater happiness.

The goal of life is not to work one's way up the value chain in terms of appealling to potential partners. I have nothing but pity, disdain and contempt--the particular combination depending on the person in question--for those who believe that everything in life boils down to increasing one's value so that one can get more attractive romatic partners. That's such a limiting view.

In terms of equality, it depends on how you define equal. There are some things that men are better-suited to than women, and vice versa. As I said earlier, I have no problem asking for help with heavy suitcases from guys because they tend to be stronger than I am. I don't believe that women should have a seperate fitness test for the armed forces--I believe that there should be one standard for all. Equal, for me, does not translate into equally capable at all things. We can be different, and still equal in terms of rights and liberties. For more information on this topic, please refer to my earlier posts about the effects of stereotypes.

Oh, and if you could post links to some of these studies that you're discussing, that would be great.

I'd like to thank all the posters for giving their input-exploding the post as Ezo said.

So alpha thanks to:Ezo,Jelly the psychologist(eventhough we had issues),Meslissa(championing the female's cause),Spexxx and Shyler.

Drinks on me fellaz and lady(Melissa).

_________________
Most active PUA blog in the community since 2009.
https://kennyspuathoughts.wordpress.com ... arly-2022/

Now active on YT again with PUA, Red Pill, Manosphere content:
https://youtu.be/tj5rnL_qKfM

I believe in equal pay for equal work. If a women can not or does not work as hard as person B(could be another women or could be a man) than she does not deserve equal pay. If a women can't endure the physical labor required to get the job done in the same amount of time than she doesn't deserve the same pay. I have worked construction and have seen some women who could tear it up, but I have also met some who expect them to be treated like a women on the job site. I do not believe that you shouldn't be able to do the same work, if I have to lift that heavy thing you do. NO EXCEPTIONS! You can never convince me that you can work less and get paid just as much, I will never agree. I feel the same of men who can't work as hard as other men or women. They don't deserve the pay. My sister works with a guy that doesn't earn his pay, they make the same amount but I think that he should have a cut in pay. Equal pay for equal work.

I do not believe in feminism, it is illogical to balance things out with people who are overwhelmingly biased. I believe in equality. To me classifying yourself as a feminist is a bad thing. You Melissa to me are not a feminist, you believe in true equality, that is entirely different. Equalist/Equalism would be a much better title. I won't lie I got it from a movie but it was a great concept. Screw pro-male or pro-female, I am all about equality.

I believe in holding both sides responsible for their behavior with no exceptions. I congratulate a girl when she has game(I actually have even told a girl You are my hero) or gets some whoopie. I think that women give words value that they don't need to. Why should being a ho, whore, prostitute, slut, etc. be a bad thing? Why do you have to consider these words a negative? That is more the problem than the out look, control what you can and that is your value of the word.

I consider being a slut, whore, ho, prostitute, etc. all asexual terms, I consider them good on either side. Sweet be a hedonist, enjoy your life, you never know when it ends. Don't give a word value. Don't allow a word to be bad. I have heard all sorts of racial terms, they can only offend you if you give them value. I get uptight here and there, but it is when I feel physically threatened that I get offended.

If you are allowing them to get to you than they are winning, just dismiss their opinion and move on. Educating people is always a good thing, but some people are stubborn and a waste of time, why should you let that effect you?

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com

I never said these things in themselves where right. But more in the grand scheme of things they balance things out. I am not saying two wrongs make a right here either. You complain about how men make more than women, but they would have to do if they loose the custody case to the mom. As the courts will take child support out of the guy's pay check. See what I am getting at. I know it doesn't always work this way but its how it works never the less.
This is like saying women are less likely to at fault for a moving car accident then men. And yet women commit way more non moving accidents than men (ie hitting parked cars and what have you). And yet men have to pay more for insurance than women do. Oh by the way women are going to jail way more than guys are today even tho they commit less violent crimes. My point on these was not just on violent crimes but all crimes.
Not saying what was done was a failure. But more that we are no closer to our goal than when we started. As you said people's views of whats just differs and just because of this we are never going to have just world. This is not even taken in on how one problem is fix another pops up either due to fixing that one problem or not.
I am not saying stereotypes don't play into the work force as they do. I also think a lot of these same stereotypes play in part in how a person does their job. Female boss may be viewed as bitchy because they may be trying to play in the same ball park as their male counter parts. I don't think it has to do with males thinking a female boss is bitchy but more the female her self actually being bitchy. Tho the simple fix there is better communication skills and management skills that are more suited for females. As males and females do manage people differently. And the work force is more use to male boss and the mangement style they tend to use.
There are jobs where men are going to have more value than a women will. Saying that single women in their 20's with no child DO make more than their male counter parts. Has do with them more likely having a college degree. Kinda mess up your argument on how just being male means you make more. Like I said your background plays a lot bigger part than your sex most of the time.

There was something else I wanted to bring up. That is a female bosses. Women who are managers are more often than not not good bosses. That isn't a stereo type for me, it is a fact. Women rule with too much emotion and "maturity". They don't interact with the crew, they separate themselves from the people.

I have worked with a total of 2 good female managers in my five years as a manager. And it took a while for one of them to be good. I have all sorts of good theories about management, but they won't necessarily work with everyone. Everybody's personality is different what I say doesn't necessarily work with the next manager.

I rarely come across good leaders anyways(guy or girl). A good leader motivates people by making them feel good. I have made multiple female managers cry, it wasn't on purpose it was always to help them become better managers. They didn't like my concepts. They were so frustrated with the fact that no one liked them, I tried to help them and they didn't agree with what they should do. People want to be treated like people, and that wasn't happening. I started out as a terrible manager and developed into a good one. Managing people is a skill, some people have natural leadership, but they are not necessarily good managers(this was me).

In my personal experiences women do a few things over all that are not acceptable.
-They feel because they are women that they have to be tougher, they have to show their masculinity so in a lot of cases they are very stern. Their body language shows it as well, they have a puffed out chest, knuckles clinched and out, etc.
-They also separate themselves from people they see being a part of the people as a bad thing, a weakness.
-Charisma is not derived from separating yourself from the people, that is not how you become liked, you need to be one of them. The fact that you have a "superior" title means nothing in the grand scheme of things as your value as a human being. Women tend to value it far to much, men that do this are considered dictators, elitist, etc.
-They feel apologizing is a form of weakness and is bad, I see weakness as a good thing, it exposes to them that you are human. I know a lot of female managers who don't apologize. That is not acceptable.
-They tend to gossip more often, the female manager I work with now gossips so much. I know she talks crap on me to at least 5 different people almost every shift.
-They take the "high road" by being mature, well some times you have to joke with them so they feel like you are a part of them. There is a fine line between being middle school mature and joking with your co-workers(not your minions who work under you).
-They tend to refer to their co-workers as inferior. When I am introduced by co-workers who are friends I do not let them say this is my boss. I make sure I am referred to as co-worker.
-They tend to be jealous more often, they rule with emotion. This is a general human problem, but women are more in touch with their emotions, sometimes that is great and sometimes it is bad.
-Maternity with one of my female bosses she talks to me like I am her kid when she is upset, she does this with everyone not just me. They tend to talk to people like they are their mother and that is not acceptable.

These concepts don't just apply to women, they also apply to men. However, these are things that have been problems with most female managers that haven't been good.

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com

Well, I must admit that women communicate emotionally rather than logically.


I have had 1 good female boss and 2 terrible ones.

On the other hand, the terrible ones were pretty young and it was their first years of bosshood. I think that is the explanation rather than that they were women.

_________________
I'm not trying to be a dick Ezo, but you're being a Pick Up Snob in my opinion.

bbardot: you just reminded me about porn

Poeticlyskuac,

You may call me whatever label you like. I, however, identify as a Feminist. I think you might be confusing the new type of militant, 'we hate men' Feminism with more traditional notions of the word. The issue here is that women were excluded for so long that pushing for equality alone isn't enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that women should be coddled and given special perks because of their gender--that would be both demeaning and counterproductive. What is worth noting, however, is that as women start competeing in the workplace, they are typically forced to adopt masculine standards and modes of behaviour in order to suceed, as exemplifed by Hillary Clinton. A less trodden, although no less problematic, route is the one utilized by Sarah Palin--rather than embracing masculine standards, she displays a modified form of 'typical' female behaviour--the winks, the slightly flirty hehaviours, the overt feminity, ect. Both are problematic, as they indicate that women have yet to be accepted unless they modify their behaviours in order to fit within one of two conventional stereotypes.

"There was something else I wanted to bring up. That is a female bosses. Women who are managers are more often than not not good bosses. That isn't a stereo type for me, it is a fact. Women rule with too much emotion and "maturity". They don't interact with the crew, they separate themselves from the people."

No, it is not a "fact" that women do not make good bosses. Regardless of how much experience you may have had with the topic, your opinions are not fact.

There will be good manages and bad ones, regardless of their gender. You don't take your experiences with bad male managers as gospel proof that all men make bad managers, so why should it be any different with women?