It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women on the view imply we are bigots if we discuss certain facts on marriage

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'm discussing why women tend to want a man with more resources.

Like it or not we still have our monkey brains and all the impulses they give us. Culture changes which is why we aren't still having arranged marriages for the most part in modern society, but evolution, the mechanism that has primed women to look for a strong provider in a male, simply doesn't work the same way that culture does. It takes thousands, tens of thousands of years or more in order to change those embarrassing little facts.




posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh no, totally get that. Wasn't a shot at you, more just questioning how it's even brought up in the first place as some sort of argument in a debate. Any kind of debate.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Many women are attracted to men who are weaker than they are, who won't leave them and who they can dominate.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm discussing why women tend to want a man with more resources.

Like it or not we still have our monkey brains and all the impulses they give us. Culture changes which is why we aren't still having arranged marriages for the most part in modern society, but evolution, the mechanism that has primed women to look for a strong provider in a male, simply doesn't work the same way that culture does. It takes thousands, tens of thousands of years or more in order to change those embarrassing little facts.


The #1 desire for most women is security driven much by the bio reasons you have suggested...Today that security may be self created by her own career without the need for a man in her life. I see the term used by more and more women "friends with benefits" when talking about men in their lives... All good until the kid thing rears its ugly head..lol



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Oh there are a host of things that are contributing to the breakdown of marriage once you have it, but I think Tucker was addressing even starting the march to the alter. If she won't give him the time of day because he doesn't meet her standards, you have a problem.

Women want to overturn the patriarchy to the point where they are the new rulers of society, but this becomes an issue. They have to become the providers and the bearers at the same time, and what role do men play? If women thoroughly neuter men to a sub-dominant role, then women are not only providing for their kids but their husbands too ... biology sets women up to not be comfortable with this.

It doesn't mean it can't happen, but it's not going to be an easy thing.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Your problem, OP, if you care about it and you're not just harvesting the ATS echo chamber star agree system, is in the statement that it's a 'well known fact' that women don't like marrying men who make less than them.

Just because Tucker Carlson claims something is a 'well known fact', doesn't actually make it true that it is a well known fact.

Nor does it make it a 'well known fact' when other alt-right echo chamber opinion websites start repeating it. Although, of course, the old adage about how once a rumour gets repeated three times it becomes a 'fact' is at play h ere.


What is true is that increasingly more and more women don't want to marry deadbeat blokes who laze about and live off their women. And sure enough these deadbeat blokes take to the internet and start crying about Red Pills and becoming Men's Rights Activists because it no fair, they can't get mummy-girlfriend-wife to look after them anymore.

And this phenomena, I suspect, is what lies at the heart of all this.


But hey, ATS, home of raging misogyny, probably doesn't want to think about that, and just wants to rage about how unfair women are.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

It is incredible they come up with these kind of ideas. Their plans are always Step 1 -> ?? -> Step 3 sunshine and rainbows

Whether something makes sense or is objectively practical is immaterial to them, they simply go with whatever path best signals their virtuous virtues to the rest of us little people.

Of course, none of that has stopped them for calling for tax raises and repeal of tax cuts either, so mileage may vary



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Don't you think this momentum and direction is unstoppable at this point? There are more females in college now than men. More and more going into management positions and leadership roles. I just wonder when they are going to get into the trades like supporting our physical infrastructure and construction needs. Their numbers are still massively lacking there. Maybe we should get gender quotas for the construction industry so it is not so sexists. : )

I kind of hope it continues just to see the results. If what they say, that females are the more kind and nurturing sex, it should be good for humanity. I say let this thing ride to its full conclusion and not try to stop it. I am curious to see the result. One thing for sure, the future humans will have learned nothing good or bad from this.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

the thing is though, women have learned that the time will come when they may have to be the providers for that family, either the sole provider or in partnership with their spouse. so, the idea of a career becomes more of a necessity in their minds. they aren't trying to overthrow patriarchy, they have learned that it doesn't really work out too well for them!!

and well, if one finds it difficult to make ends meet that includes kids, why get married? especially if the guy who is courting you seems to be just a overgrown kid who's gonna be needing just as much time and attention as a child would?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Strike a nerve did it Painterz?

You have a problem with Mens rights advocates now? Do you believe Men aren't entitled to the same rights or advocacy as other individuals?

You can see the problem with treating people as groups vs. individuals.


But hey, ATS, home of raging misogyny, probably doesn't want to think about that, and just wants to rage about how unfair women are.


Only certain ones. Plenty of good women out there, too. Although the prospects dwindle vastly as the DOB gets more recent. At least from what I see nowadays. But the only one raging about anything is you. I can see the twitching eye, bulging veins and 200 BP through the screen.

No need for anyone to peck their head around like a chicken or spit out words at 100MPH over an Internet post.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

YES YES YES....let the anger and angst flow. Maybe we need to finally let this out so we can honestly talk about our differences. Just make sure you toss out some incel and misogyny labels to show how superior your are to us lowlife menfolk.

As I will probably not be allowed to comment with the same hostility and have the post remain. Carry on, carry on.




posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Women have helped create that problem too.

We geared society to get girls ahead and to be hostile to boys and this is where we are. We have boys who are increasingly checking out because society is hostile to them in every way for simply being who and what they are. We have broken families which hurt boys even more then they do girls although girls are hurt pretty badly by it too.

You want a whole, well-adjusted adult male? You need a whole, well-adjusted family and a system that believes a boy should be raised to be unapologetically male.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

I mean.....there's sort of been a few studies about the biological preference women have for men they see as better providers.

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't mean that it's not well known.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Imo, the problem is conflict between traditional gender roles. Men have been providing services/resources for women for 10s of thousands of years. We still do only subliminally (think about the power grid, internet, sewage, oil drills/refineries & other infrastructures functioning properly without men who risk their lives every day on the job).

Woman are genetically hardwired to want to be with a man who's more resourceful than they are, as well as, a man with high levels of confidence (con-artists). Women are predisposed to want to have an alpha-male as a partner but an alpha-male will not be 2nd fiddle to a rich woman. Men are genetically predisposed to want to have sex with as many young women as possible. Women are stuck having to choose between a fathful beta-male who they are unattracted to or an alpha-Male con-artist who will cheat on them with multiple younger women.

In today's society there's no need for a rich woman to have a man in her life. She can use the infrastructure which men below her created and maintain for her benefit to advance in both higher education & business worlds. She can decide to put off having kids until she's over 45 if she wants through IV technology with frozen eggs & sperm banks. Meanwhile, the alpha-male she so desires is having sex with multiple sexy fertile 23 year old women, some of who may have to decide if they should follow their higher education/career goals & have an abortion or not. If she decides to have a child, there is a system put in place so she also does not need a man in her life. She has govemnemt as the father figure & resource provider. She also has a court system put in place by men to support her which will give her half of whatever her husband has earned if she chooses to get a divorce and/or provide her child support. Its a win/win for women regardless of age or career path.

On to incels. Incels are beta-males who can't afford to have sex with attractive women & who refuse to have sex with ugly women. Many very sexy women will have sex for as little as $100, even cheaper for ugly/old ones. In Germany its only $50 for an attractive one & in Venezuela its $10. If that's not one's thing, there are always mail order brides from everywhere around the world. The mail order bride process starts @ $30K.

Back to the subject at hand regarding facts being thrown out in the name of social justice. Biologically, in humans, there are only 2 sexes, male/female, unless there's a mutation of genetics. Children of single parents tend to have more mental disorders. Also, African people generally have a lower IQ compared to Asian & Jewish people. I'm sure there are exceptions but these are the facts.
edit on 6-1-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not saying this is a statistical majority, but I would say that society exists because females domesticated males. Taking the inferior position in society was an early tradeoff.


Why women prefer weaker men

Early humans became monogomous because women evolved to prefer reliable providers over macho alpha males, a study has found.

While physically imposing men hold a certain appeal, women long ago evolved to value qualities like loyalty and generosity over bulging muscles and a strong jawline.

This is because men who lacked the ability to compete physically with their peers compensated by providing better for their spouses in order to buy their affection, researchers said.

The rise of the Beta male began at an early stage of human evolution when our ancestors lived in large social groups where the most dominant men had access to the most women.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
edit on 6-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Painterz

I mean.....there's sort of been a few studies about the biological preference women have for men they see as better providers.

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't mean that it's not well known.


Exactly

I was not saying this based off of only right wing pundits, I have seen the studies

Heck, even the women at the end of the view segment admit yes, they know women who won’t marry poorer men

Yet somehow people claim it is misogynistic to cite these studies



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Sexual harrassment was a problem...the fix resulted in a situation where 2 men could say same thing or touch the same way (to a woman) but the "crime" was not determined by the actions of the men. First time in US history. " Victim" decided crime not action. 1 guilty, 1 not guilty, same action by each. Unamerican.

Wife abuse was a problem...the fix resulted in retro actve penalties for men convicted of domestic violence, regarding owning/carrying firearm. First time in US history. Guy might have fought the charges of domestic abuse 10 years ago if he knew it would be used to block employment or 2nd Amd rights later. Retro active punishment=un-American.

These are marxist solutions inserted into US problem solving political process. Deep subversion.

Same as obamacare being the first time in US history that you are forced to buy something. Even car insurance cant be mandated, cuz you arent forced to drive. Forced to buy something. un-American. Thats property theft...redistribution of wealth underguise of improving health care. Marxist.

Fixing discrimination of black people resulted not in treating blacks the same but in a situation whereby telling the black kid not to block the store entrance is racist. Encourages fake acceptance of the solution and hidden bigotry. Divide & conquer. What kind of fix to racist discrimination is that?? White kid blocks door = asshole, black kid...well.

Homo discrim fix...same same.

Its all evidence of serious traitors to the constitutional protections and basic values.

Examples abound, the View show just facilitates the plan vis a vis womens issues...diana cult #t.




a reply to: Grambler


edit on 1/6/2019 by FrostyFlakes because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/6/2019 by FrostyFlakes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Because men are not allowed to point out flaws of women...thats now misogynist...changing the definitions of words is a masterful trick being used all day long to corrupt the USA.

Same way only white folks (power structure) can be racist not blacks (abused group), you will face the same scorn if you point out flaws of black folk.

Once you accept the enemy doctrine that non whites and women do not have flaws, they have behaviors forced on them by the white man's long world wide historical abuse of them, it makes sense.


a reply to: Grambler


edit on 1/6/2019 by FrostyFlakes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That video was merely showing the 3 main hosts bias.
There were 2 reasonable responses but some of them clearly stuck to their "feminism" guns even while admitting (begrudgingly) they personally knew women who wouldn't marry lesser income men.

My take is that Tucker was only describing the studies his writers produced for a story that wasn't much of an opinion-piece. So he gets ridiculed and then the View slightly agrees with him?

This is strange.
There isn't even an argument.
The hosts on the View literally concocted this.

Who needs studies to show that some women prefer dependable, resourceful, and providing men? Not all women, but clearly some do.


I don't get all the hype.





posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Oh, for crying out loud, people!

The View is nothing more than a bunch of dissatisfied, bigoted whiners whining about anything and everything they can imagine (likely with some help from writers, since rational thought doesn't seem to be one of their strong points). Whoopi needs to go back to comedy and stop trying to be the demonic version of Oprah; Joy Behar needs to just shut her ignorant pie-hole and go away before she strains something between her ears trying to get two functioning neurons to cooperate. I don't know much about the other two (I don't watch anything that ever thought making Rosie O'Donnell a major part was a good idea), but I'm sure they just aren't quite as insanely insane as those two.

Tucker Carlson is a political hack who makes his money bringing on the most ridiculous fools he can find to spout utter nonsense while he sits there with that goofy confused look on his face to get his viewers to see how nonsensical they are (It's really funny when he gets his butt handed to him... seen that a few times). He is the result of Bill O'Reilly's retirement... remember all the celebration when poor ol' Bill was run out of Fox and forced to retire (a couple of months) early? Well, Bill is sitting somewhere tropical right now, probably sucking down a Mai-Tai, relaxing in the lap of luxury with all that severance and retirement pay, and occasionally writing a book whenever he needs a new yacht. Congratulations! You guys now get Tucker Carlson! Be careful what you ask for...

And now, we have people fighting tooth and nail over which is right, a bunch of ignorant femi-Nazi activist hacks, or a Fox News political hack with a funny look on his face. This is politics in 2019. Yay...


TheRedneck




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join