Leo has surface-level knowledge about modern feminism(maybe)

[Aeris]

1 hour ago, ahmad ibdah said:

What? ???

Is this a fact?

Don't walk too slowly at night

[Ibn Sina]

 I know the kind of responses that usually people say when I tell such things just because it sounds highly offensive and they cannot even refute with sound argument, and now you have to attack my own character instead of soundly refuting the arguements. 

@Odysseus

If you want we can have a long long discussions, just don't attack my character saying- I doubt you ever had a girlfriend, just because I am talking bad about girls. I have resentment and so on.   Because that is what people do, when you can't refute them with arguement you start to say- I doubt you ever had a girlfriend and so on. Why don't you say that to MGTOWs. I also talk to women every day and have a GF.

Okay, I can reply to each of your arguement but what you can do is read my answer and give a refutation to each of them point by point and I will answer them. 

You saying- I have resentment  , breaths and so on there's no need of thhat, has nothing to do with what I am saying. It's just shows you are offended, instead of logical. Just pick up all my points, point by point, and factually go on saying this is wrong because of ____

I also don't know  many things, this is what I have seen from my point of  view, if you  can please  change my view I would be happy, I also want to learn, just root it in evidence and scientifically refute  me instead of saying if you have  no girlfriend and so on.

39 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

Theres more kinds of woman out there than the ones who just want to marry a rich guy for their own survival.

Here's the problem. 

I said- Beautiful women can easily marry rich guy ,

and you read- Women are such that they only want to marry a rich guy. They are bad.

I never said that.

I said according to what I have observed - hypergamy is a thing in women. There is it's presence in an unequal degree. U and I are disagreeing only if you are  reject this.

But I agree when you say- there are women who don't do that. So don't immediately jump to that.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aeris]

@Ibn Sina 5% truth and 95% never talked to a woman ( or only at surface level ). ( I agree on the sport athlete part )

And your view is 99% bad experiences + closed at home.

But there the view on the ugly/beautiful is very very cliche and non real. Sure this is a belief from movies.

And even if I take for a sec it as true.

Do you think both part truly enjoy being together. Do you think they Can look through the eyes of each others and say : I love you ?

Or would it be more like : hey honey get the servant to give me a cocktail

Wife : AaSK him yourself you dick

Ok It's a blue-red-orange dysfunctional couple. Like most of people though.

Édit : you got a gf. But so what are you looking at

I m not féminist. 

I m selfist

Edited August 16, 2019 by Aeris

[Ibn Sina]

 "95% never talked at a woman. "

Okay, all of you guys tell me , give me the points that illustrate I haven't talked to a woman. Because I have. And I will tomorow and day after tomorrow and so on...

Let see what made you guys think that. I am curious.

Besides, I come from a  place that it is women who are thought to have disadvantage. Here people do abortion if it is a girl. So it's not  like I have resentment and think- women have it better  then men.

 

If you are saying- I have never been with an 'unprivileged' women then yes that may be right. I have only dated privelaged women, and may be that's why I am not seeing  the inequalities.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Yog]

@Shadowraix
This is also one of the reasons for the formation of MGTOW movement. Along with tons false accusations that passed in court because of bias. Resulting in people locked up, taking their kids away, bankrupting them, taking property away,deportation ect.

No one bothers to see their perspective. Its a reactionary women's hate group people would say, dismiss and continue on.
We have to look at these matters in a more serious and unbiased matter.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Its our poor understanding of statistics and that ruins the objectivity and lets these judgements happen.
We would by default consider aggressiveness distribution between man-woman types of: 80-20, maybe even 90-10,
when infarct its 60-40.

Witch means if you take a totally random sample, eg: line up a totally random woman next to a totally random man. And guess who was more aggressive. You would be right that it was the man - 6/10 times  and be right - 4/10 that it is the woman. The fact that we see that men are way more aggressive is because the most aggressive people on the planet are men, witch are about 1% of all men.

Also the ones at the most right side are the ones that will do rapes or family violence.
its not that every second person you stumble upon was raped or is a rapist.
Regular folk tend to use/see the extremes of any distribution and generalize "men are", "women are", "blacks are" and so on.




This is just in the aggressiveness dimension, one that is linked to family violence and rape. There are ofc many other factors.

So this explains your statistics perfectly well.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Yog

[Shadowraix]

@Ibn Sina Of course hypergamy is a thing. But this is a result of survival based mechanism and stage orange mentality. Lumping this with feminism is contributing to the distorted societal perception that I mentioned. 

Nobody is attacking your character. But they are pointing out how character and arguments are linked together. 

Like I said what you are lacking is nuance in degree of such occurrences but your statements are broad labels. 

People ask if you've ever talked to a woman because there are many woman even beautiful ones who do not have access to the opportunities you think they have, which is again lacking in degree. 

Oh and as far as woman not serving in the military, thank stage blue role mentality for that, not feminism. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Aeris]

Maybe the way the post is written without counter nuance then.

If I talk about A vs B. I'll take both sides of the debate and not put all my weight on one side. Everyone will think I m fully A if I only argue that A is truth ( from a surface perspective ).

More I'll not identify myself with ideas or trying to make them look truer

and people + myself are easily bias and projection etc etc..

[Ibn Sina]

9 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

People ask if you've ever talked to a woman because there are many woman even beautiful ones who do not have access to the opportunities you think they have, which is again lacking in degree. 

Then they are judgmental.

Me saying-  Beautiful women can get rich husbands is not a reliable indicator of my failure with women,

Where I am from there are many poor beautiful women, who have suffered a lot. 

But may be , this is my perspective of the 'hot western women'. If you are saying 'hot western women' lack oppurtunities then, I guess that is my experience gap.

I always used to think that, in the western context, beautiful women always have it easy. Am I wrong? In my 3rd world country, that absolutely not true. But is it not the case in western country? You can teach me.

"Of course hypergamy is a thing. But this is a result of survival based mechanism and stage orange mentality. Lumping this with feminism is contributing to the distorted societal perception that I mentioned. "
Okay, you might be right here. This is a debatable issue whether hypergamy has connection with feminism or not.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aeris]

3 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Then they are judgmental and stupid.

Where I am from there are many poor beautiful women, who have suffered a lot. 

But may be , this is my perspective of the 'hot western women'. If you are saying 'hot western women' lack oppurtunities then, I guess that is my experience gap.

And ugly man sometimes then outplay everyone by being more smart because no girl want them. They got time to be way smarter than everyone and get a better life by reading and having time to work

 That makes them having more monney and fuck more girls than poor guys.

Anyway equality is a myth at a planetary level. Life work in scale. There is no equality between animals or between atoms.

I m not sayin you're wrong. Hold the view that sounds the best. But Is it really the best one ? Is it the truer one ? Only you Can find that

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Aeris said:

 That makes them having more monney and fuck more girls than poor guys.

Anyway equality is a myth at a planetary level. Life work in scale. There is no equality between animals or between atoms.

Of course it is a myth. So why feminism. That is why  I said, nature should take it's course. Laws and ideas shouldn't be made that artificially try to push one over the other. Feminism doesn't create equality but inequality. It's basically the administration cutting off oppurtunities for men, giving space for women, so that they can come there, instead of fighting by tooth and nail like men do.

 

7 minutes ago, Aeris said:

And ugly man sometimes then outplay everyone by being more smart because no girl want them. They got time to be way smarter than everyone and get a better life by reading and having time to work

 That makes them having more monney and fuck more girls than poor guys.

So you are saying I never talked to a girl because I never heard about - ugly guys getting poor girls? Really? Basically you translated me saying0 Beautiful women have higher chances of getting a rich guy to- an ugly guy can't get a beautiful women. Really? Okay you can believe whatever you want about me , may be you feel better that way ,but that doesn't change a thing. All I can say is, you being judgemental does not scientifically push forward my arguements. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Surfingthewave]

Think about it when you say "hot western woman" you sound like Leo six years ago before he had his various awakenings. 

Where have you studied feminism? 

I think its about understanding a woman's perceptions and experiences first in all countries throughout history (not just your own) and studying this critically rather than just basing your views on what you observe will help. 

Your descriptions of men being "just better" that is why they are CEOs needs picking apart, as this is rubbish.  

Your statements about women having sex while men go out to war again where have you got these opinions from? 

Your statements about women being prettier, again very offensive to men. 

Please go and study this, talk and listen to your girlfriend, your friends who are girls, your family members who are women, do some study and work on this then come back and enlighten us once more. 

 

 

[Space]

@Robi Steel I think you over estimate the effect that feminism is having on people and society as a whole. Yes, there is a toxic feminism, but this is like a minuscule percentage of society that really has very little effect on things and it is a obvious and inevitable byproduct of the patriarchy. Toxic feminism isn't going to take over the world lol. There are much much bigger problems that are causing significantly more harm and damage to society (i.e. toxic materialism and corporate greed). 

What's actually happening is a natural evolutionary development to more equality and oneness, which is not being caused by this small group of toxic feminists that your imagining to be out there somewhere. 

Traditional values and the traditional nuclear family isn't going anywhere any time soon. And if it did, this would be part of a natural evolution and growing/waking up for humanity. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Space

[Shadowraix]

29 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Then they are judgmental.

Me saying-  Beautiful women can get rich husbands is not a reliable indicator of my failure with women,

Where I am from there are many poor beautiful women, who have suffered a lot. 

But may be , this is my perspective of the 'hot western women'. If you are saying 'hot western women' lack oppurtunities then, I guess that is my experience gap.

I always used to think that, in the western context, beautiful women always have it easy. Am I wrong? In my 3rd world country, that absolutely not true. But is it not the case in western country? You can teach me.

"Of course hypergamy is a thing. But this is a result of survival based mechanism and stage orange mentality. Lumping this with feminism is contributing to the distorted societal perception that I mentioned. "
Okay, you might be right here. This is a debatable issue whether hypergamy has connection with feminism or not.

It's not as binary as attractive western women having it easy or not. Some do some don't. Of course the US is a pinnacle of orange materialism and is only starting to slowly move out of that. It will largely depend on who, what, and where you surround yourself. 

In my town, woman around here range from blue to green and really just want a successful relationship over a rich guy. They go to finding love to satisfy their need for intimate connection and aiding in their survival needs. Usually someone in their own class rather than higher class. 

Go to somewhere like Vegas and you'll probably find way more gold diggers. The western world is really varied but I think perceptions often of the US often derive from the major cities where all the rich people hang out. Go to San Francisco and half of the cars you see will be Teslas. Go to Tennessee and you might find a really exotic sports car if you know the right person but most will be older beaten up cars. Of course that varies a bit if you are in the country or cities but there is a huge disparity in overall wealth. Same goes for values. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Ibn Sina]

2 hours ago, Surfingthewave said:

Your statements about women being prettier, again very offensive to men. 

HHHAHAHHA, Yes, very offensive to men. So what? I am also a man. But I have read many many many psychology papers, have had hours of experiences observing people, have read many posts in quora, and this is the educated opinion that I have formed. It's not like I wrote this just  because I wanted to. I am also a truth lover. And my observations have shown this, so even if you think this is wrong, then it's your own opinion if that makes you happy.

 

2 hours ago, Surfingthewave said:

Your statements about women having sex while men go out to war again where have you got these opinions from? 

Good question. This is just experience gap. I have read many news papers, have read many such news (meaning the newspapers that I get). You haven't. That's why you don't have this opinion, I have. From my experiences this is what I have seen, you didn't have these experience. Ofcourse it's bit exagerrated, all I am saying is women cheat , when men are abroad and have heard hundreds of news like that.

 

"Your descriptions of men being "just better" that is why they are CEOs needs picking apart, as this is rubbish. "

"This is rubbish" is no arguement. I can also say that to you, whatever you say I say this is rubbish. You should say, this is rubbish because____. I have good reasons why most CEOs are males.

 

2 hours ago, Surfingthewave said:

Please go and study this, talk and listen to your girlfriend, your friends who are girls, your family members who are women, do some study and work on this then come back and enlighten us once more. 

Okay, ask them about what? Give me the questions and I will ask them. 

 Just give me the questions dude, and I will tell you word by word what you they told.

But it shouldn't be stupid questions like-

Is it hard to live as a woman?

Is it true that you are easily able to attract rich men, then men would if they were in your place?

I know what they will say. But all my conclusions are derived from my observations and my life experiences. So it's should be a better question that can really teach me something that I don't know.

 A woman saying "Yes it is hard, it is hard to get a job, it's hard because we have to get child birth, " and doing the researches , and having the life experiences  are 2 different things.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

10 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

It's not as binary as attractive western women having it easy or not. Some do some don't. Of course the US is a pinnacle of orange materialism and is only starting to slowly move out of that. It will largely depend on who, what, and where you surround yourself. 

In my town, woman around here range from blue to green and really just want a successful relationship over a rich guy. They go to finding love to satisfy their need for intimate connection and aiding in their survival needs. Usually someone in their own class rather than higher class. 

Go to somewhere like Vegas and you'll probably find way more gold diggers. The western world is really varied but I think perceptions often of the US often derive from the major cities where all the rich people hang out. Go to San Francisco and half of the cars you see will be Teslas. Go to Tennessee and you might find a really exotic sports car if you know the right person but most will be older beaten up cars. Of course that varies a bit if you are in the country or cities but there is a huge disparity in overall wealth. Same goes for values. 

Thanks for the information.

[Forestluv]

@Robi Steel

You give a long narrative from a a particular male-centric perspective. An essay pretty much explaining “This is how it is” from this male-centric perspective. I find it interesting that once this male-centric perspective seems grounded, concern about the welfare of women arises and solutions for how women can improve their well-being is offered.

8 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

I know many women who have a good heart and dont intent to supress a positive male image but they just dont know any better. 

This is a form of concern trolling used to control a narrative. 

8 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

If nothing is done, women and men will drift further apart which is bad because we want to aim towards unity, especially masculine and feminine need to come together because they are by nature intended to be complimentary and two sides of the same coin. Gender politics should not drive men and women further apart and should solely focus and bringing stuff together and working out differences which have to be accepted beforehand. 

More “concern” from a male-centric perspective. You just wrote an essay about “this is how it is” from a male-centric perspective and now ask for male and female to come together. Yet can’t you see you are asking male and female to come together based on your rules for how things are and how things should be?  You would likely be happy with women “coming together” if they play by your rules for gender roles. This is classic male bias and privilege. Notice how you are unwilling to give up 50% of your narrative and allow space for a female narrative to have influence and power. 

8 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

I hope this doesnt come about as too anti-feminist. I want to be a feminist, it just that many people who call themselves feminists at the moment often miss the mark in how they could actually help women become stronger, actually independent, actually grounded in themselves, actually knowledgeable and equal to men. 

It comes across as extremely male-centric and male-biased. If you want to expand in this area, let go of your narrative and learn about the female perspective. Really learn about it. Not through demonized caricatures of toxic feminists that feel threatening to you. Let go of fear of being emasculated. Learn about female experiences. Make some female friends and ask about their experiences and their perspectives. Get their perspective on toxic masculinity, sexual harassment, sexism and misogyny. What it feels like to live as a females. Speak with men that have expanded beyond contracted male-centric views. Read books on gender from female perspectives, go to seminars, take a college-level course, volunteer in female-centric areas. This is the type of stuff that expands consciousness. 

I’m not saying that the perspective you offer does not have value. It is a perspective that should be brought to the discussion table. The problem is believing that this perspective is correct and “how it is”. If we had a committee to establish a consensus on gender, etiquette and public policy, you would likely be in that meeting wanting 100% influence because you know “how it is”. You likely would not be ok if your perspective only carried 20% weight in this meeting, because you would feel like you were losing control of the narrative and would need to make concessions you find uncomfortable and threatening. This makes it very difficult to see other POVs.

 

[Shadowraix]

13 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

I can understand the desire for equality, but I would call that egalitarianism rather than feminism.
True egalitarianism would mean removing the huge privileges women are given in law and family court. Otherwise it would imply that women are somehow disadvantaged and deserve special treatment.

For some reason I don't think we'll ever see feminists protesting this. And any man who acknowledges that there's a problem is told to spend more time talking to women (lol).

I go by egalitarian too. Feminism is an egalitarian movement so by being egalitarian, you also are feminist, feminist just doesn't paint the entire picture. Its probably a context sensitive thing which term you use, although I do like how egalitarian can curve the negative societal perception of feminism getting bunched up with the extremists.

@Serotoninluv Very insightful read. Good material for me to reflect on myself. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Ibn Sina]

Here's my another question to all of you.

Is there feminism in animal kingdom? Like Gorilla,  Lions, Tigers, Bees. 

There is gender ineqaulity in all species. And everything works well.

But we humans are too cerebral. We form laws to change the natural course of things itself.

What's wrong with , just removing all meninisms and femininisms and do what we have to do? Why think- rights of men, rights of women?

It's all because of our mind. It's similar to the aritificial stuffs that man has created that is destroying earth.

[Shadowraix]

3 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Here's my another question to all of you.

Is there feminism in animal kingdom? Like Gorilla,  Lions, Tigers, Bees. 

There is gender ineqaulity in all species. And everything works well.

But we humans are too cerebral. We form laws to change the natural course of things itself.

What's wrong with , just removing all meninisms and femininisms and do what we have to do? Why think- rights of men, rights of women?

It's all because of our mind. It's similar to the aritificial stuffs that man has created that is destroying earth.

Depends on your goals. Yes it "works" but animals are purely survival driven. This kind of work is often transcending the pure focus of the survival of the self and to care about all life. We didn't change any natural course, we ARE the natural course. We are doing exactly as nature designed us to do. The men vs woman divide is largely because most of humanity is still stuck in such identity complexes. Being male or female is a very deep identity. The mind is a tool, one that can certainly be used for a variety of cases. A hammer can kill a man, but it can also build a house for him to thrive.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Yog said:

This is also one of the reasons for the formation of MGTOW movement. Along with tons false accusations that passed in court because of bias. Resulting in people locked up, taking their kids away, bankrupting them, taking property away,deportation ect.

No one bothers to see their perspective. Its a reactionary women's hate group people would say, dismiss and continue on.
We have to look at these matters in a more serious and unbiased manner

This conflates the individual and population levels. It is one of the most common tactics for a privileged group to maintain disproportionate influence and control of the narrative. At it’s root is equating true equivalencies at the individual to create false equivalencies at the population level. The fundamental drive here is trying to preserve individual interests at the population level.

For example an oppressive act against a male can be considered equivalent to an oppressive act against a female - at the individual level. This cannot be extrapolated to the population level. This is a different level of analysis. At the population level, more oppressive acts are against females. Thus, to reach gender equality at the population level, more effort needs to go to give females more input and influence. This is the core feature that some men will deny and obscure in an effort to maintain control of the narrative and disproportionate influence. One common way is to equalize the problem at the population level (or try to reduce the degree of disproportion). 

For example, if a dominant group bears 10% oppression and the non-dominant group bears 90% oppression, the dominant group will try to exaggerate and/or reduce the disparity for there own gain. For example, they may exaggerate the disparity by saying “Women say they are the only ones who face sexism. Males face sexism too! Reverse-sexism”. This obscures the situation because it turns it into a binary model of two poles in which neither poles are true. Women do not receive 100% of sexism. So this construct can be used by men to discredit a more nuanced construct. Advocates for gender equality are not saying women receive 100% of sexism. They are saying that women receive a disproportionate amount of sexism. . . . Another tactic the dominant group other use is to reduce the disproportion or create a false equivalency at the population level. They may say “both men and women are subjected to racism, we should take both of them seriously and in an unbiased manner”. This is an effort to create a false equivalency at the population level. If women are subjected to 90% of sexism and men only 10%, it should not be viewed equally at the population level. To attain equality, 90% of effort should go into reducing sexism toward females and 10% of effort into reducing sexism toward males. This will be very difficult to see and accept for someone that identifies as male and wants to maintain disproportionate influence as a male.

And this isn’t just relevant to gender equality. These dynamics arises in all sorts of inequalities between a dominant group and a non-dominate group - for example the same tactics are seen with racism inequality.