Fempocalypse!!

Let's work part time, play online games and not marry Kinda makes you wonder what the snake promised Eve in the Garden of Eden really means! And maybe, juuust maybe why there are no aliens with a nice rack LOL!

Mod Note: Starting a new thread? ** Look here first **
Also:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

reply to post by Emeraldous


Well... I watched the video and a lot of stuff she is talking about will definitely have to be dealt with in one form or another, eventually.

There could be unexpected variables involved affecting her cause-and-effect argument, or an entirely new system could come about. One of the unexpected variables I mentioned was the presence of birth control in the water supply.

Another unexpected variable could be the unexpected cost (to the women and children) they pay for taking money from men without repayment. This cost could come, as I mentioned, unexpectedly, and could take any form - most likely loss of land, material possessions, free time, etc.

In other words, the poor will be worse off and much more prevalent.

reply to post by Emeraldous

I really hate to sound demanding, but may I ask you for a paragraph describing her thesis and perhaps one with your take on the subject?

I'm about five minutes into it, but I'd like your view as well.

Thanks.

reply to post by charles1952


That's a good idea, it is a half hour video. She says that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman - that feminists miss the fact that although a woman was earned for her sexual and reproductive capabilities, men were owned as beasts of burden.

At the moment, men are not motivated to be productive (scientific studies do show that men's production increases when they have kids), and when they are productive, their earnings are being taken to support kids they don't see...

So their motivation to be productive decreases once again. She brings forth evidence that shows that children (especially guys) who grow up in single-parent households are more likely to drop out of school at all levels, use drugs, engage in criminal behavior, etc. and especially are less likely to marry.

All of those facts, I can verify from learning about them as a psychology major.

reply to post by Emeraldous


This is interesting, I'm beginning to see why conservatives group their social issues with making money and economic prosperity while liberals group their social issues (freedom, quality of life, etc.) with less economic ability.

It is because the conservatives have evolved to do this, and the liberals have evolved to do what they do, not because of any coherent arguments.

In other words, conservatives are elected and improve the economy, and then liberals are elected and use the economic build-up in order to bring quality of life for a while, and the cycle goes back and forth.

reply to post by Emeraldous


Dear Emeraldous,

Wow. She summed it up pretty well and I see it everyday. What preceded the woman's movement was a report and a plan, here is a link to it. Rockefeller Commission - Population and the American Future. If you read it very carefully, you will understand how we got where we are, it is where they wanted us to go.

I have always found the argument over gay marriage to be silly. I am divorced and understand the difference between marriage and a government contract. What most people think of marriage as is nothing but a government contract that allows the government to force you to pay money to your ex-partner so they don't have to. Government sanctioned marriage is nothing but enforced slavery, it is not what God believed was marriage, a lifetime commitment.

There are so many things this woman said that I doubt many will watch it all the way through; but, I did. Her statistics are correct and the biggest issue is what response we should expect from men. Men under 30 no longer want to have kids in the western world and they are not. Because of automation, we don't need as many people. Look at the birth rate in Spain or Russia (where they will pay you to have kids).

I know many men in their late 20s to early 30s, they don't want to have kids. They don't imagine they will ever own homes or be truly successful. None imagine having their own home, with a wife who stays at home and raises their kids. They do not respect women because the women are so free with their bodies. I am in my 50s and have had women as young as 25 seek to have a relationship with me because I have a stable job and income and the men their age do not. I am average looking; but, was even approached by a model because she assumed I was well off (the area I was living in).

The most basic relationship in the world is the love of a husband and a wife, from that all others come. A world with no meaningful relationships is doomed to failure.

Her very initial premise seems to be fundamentally flawed as she seems to be thinking that humans are more along the lines of birds. Humans are infinitely more interactive and communal than that. In human society, it was not a single man coexisting with a single woman that would lead to that relationship of the woman tending solely to the children while the man goes off to procure food. On the contrary, humans tend to live within packs or what we would call small tribes. A closer animal corollary would be gorillas If you look at Aboriginal Australian and even South American tribal cultures, what you'll find is workload sharing amongst the community in hunter/gatherer scenarios, which would have been the state of existence for modern humans from around 250,000 years ago up til the development of agriculture around 14,000 years ago. In this hunter/gatherer type of living, the men were predominantly the hunters but the women were actually gatherers. Older men or women would be left in charge of the tribe's young and vulnerable children while older children would be accompanying the women in the gathering workload. Gathering was actually a very important activity for the community as food sources tend to grow in the same spots while wildlife wanders and it was absolutely mandatory to the survival of the tribe as an almost guaranteed source of food.

However, she is referring to what would be a more modern view of the relationship between a man and woman as one that has existed for perhaps the last several thousand years. Patriarchal societies were not necessarily the mainstay arrangement for the sum of humanity either. Many cultures, to this day, are still matriarchal. Additionally, studies have shown repeatedly that women are more communal based in their thinking and ability to work together than men. Why this is probably has to do with the hunter/gatherer aspect and a greater need for women to work together to provide for all of their young. Hunting was a dangerous activity and they had to be able to sustain themselves should one or more of the men within their tribe perish. While I give her props for trying to look at the issues in a rather historical way, she's disregarding about 240,000+ years of the development of human society in the process. Bit of a fallacy as she's cherry picking. Ironic, eh?

One more thing. The experiment with money and monkeys that she discusses isn't quite presented as it was published originally. From the originating source:

During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

www.nytimes.com...

If you note, there is no reference to the genders of either of the monkeys for this "out of the corner of his eye" reference by Chen. Cherry picking to suit a specific ideology.

The socio-economic apocalypse resultant from feminism has been predicted, known about, and fully understood for quite some time now in what has become known as the Manosphere. Those familiar with the teaching found therein will know that it is considered that things have already gone way too far for any effective change to take place.

In essence in the Manosphere men are encouraged to:

Go for sex without commitment, (aim for the highest possible notch count)

Live life's free of social responsibility, (described as being 'Poolside')

Stay unmarried, and never have children (because even if she cheats on you it will be your fault and you will be financially butt raped by the feminazi, biased, divorce/theft industry, and she will get custody of the children, the house, and most of your earnings for up to eighteen years).

Advise on how to achieve and maintain the PUA/Alpha lifestyle is offered in the Manosphere and the reasoning behind the thinking is exactly what is being said in the video.

She goes into it deeper on her other videos. I'm not good at summarizing and I am sorry for that. My opinion is that what is going on is too well orchestrated to comprehend. It seems we have been figured out too keenly by something or someone for all of this to fall in place culminating at this very moment as it were. I don't mind not having children but according to her it will strongly effect women and children as they need the surplus productivity that men have and trade it for their ability to procreate. In no small terms the male is disposable and the female will always be upheld.
I just made a joke about the aliens being non sexed because this is probably how they fixed their gender problems in their past. Probably why the stories of angels mating with our women happened. I hope our species doesn't go its separate ways by gender.

ooops

People like opposites, the more visible it is the more real it becomes and this is what makes everybody happy. Why do people like opposites and choose to see eachother this way? Because they can pretend they are half and when together they are whole and no longer alone.

Men took up the hard physical work in society and developed muscles because of it which attracts women, women took up hard psychological work and developed brains because of it which attracts men. I don't see any problem there, they can completement eachother if they accept their roles and learn how to have fun with it instead of bringing up the issue of males oppressing women or women oppressing males. And in today's society women who develop muscles have the freedom to do so, just as males have the freedom to 'get in touch with their feminine side'. But really, having half is more fun otherwise if someone would master both sides such a person might as well be on a deserted island since he or she wouldn't have need for anyone else and everyone wants to feel needed by another to make sense of it all.

reply to post by Dragonfly79

All the available evidence suggets that your statement that men are attracted to women's brains is wildly inaccurate, womens attractiveness to men is based almost entirely on looks. You say that women developed brains and men devolved muscles, seriously? If you look at the history of the civilised world you will see that it was men who were behind the vast majority of all of societies achievements. I will instantly loose all respect for you if you say that it is because of ten thousand years of oppressive patriarchy. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, you are not however entitled to your own facts.

Kind regards.

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by Dragonfly79

 

All the available evidence suggets that your statement that men are attracted to women's brains is wildly inaccurate, womens attractiveness to men is based almost entirely on looks. You say that women developed brains and men devolved muscles, seriously?

What evidence? You almost make it sound like a fact without citing any sources. I'm just posting my opinion.

Women stayed at the tribe while men went out hunting. Did the men talk with eachother? No, because it would scare away the prey. Did they cuddle while hunting? No, because they were out hunting and you can't cuddle and hunt at the same time. Did they look around at everybody and took the time to understand them? No, because you don't need all that to kill an animal for food.

Women specialized in social skills, washing together, preparing food, making clothes, taking care of eachother. Men specialized in hunting, killing things, gathering the heavy weight stuff to make shelters. Men later specialized in trading, going out to hunt money, women specialized in family matters, creating things like recipes, how to raise children etc.

Many men look to women for expressing their feelings which women are better at recognizing and verbalizing. Women together talk, men don't - they drink and eat. Men want women to take care of them on an emotional level, women want men to take care of them on a material level. At the end of the journey they both learned from eachother, if all went well.

If you look at the history of the civilised world you will see that it was men who were behind the vast majority of all of societies achievements.

Yes, because women allowed themselves to be used as muses. And those men all had mothers who nurtured them so they could achieve all those things you see as great. Beside almost every great male there was a female influencing the male.

I will instantly loose all respect for you if you say that it is because of ten thousand years of oppressive patriarchy. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, you are not however entitled to your own facts.

Why do you assume I am waiting for respect from someone who interprets my words in a negative manner. Besides, everyone should have some respect just for being human. You are expressing an idle threat imho, if you said I would lose some points on your abacus of respect it might have some effect. I can pretty damn well think whatever I want about this world I see fit and make my own mind about it and there's nothing no one who can do anything about that unless the rebuttal is good enough for me I couldn't deny it and then I would have no shame in seeing the error of my ways as I would only benefit.

For example in how one can make anything a fact, people who are into the same gender are entitled to consider the love they have for the same gender as equal in quality to the love male-female can have for eachother as if it were fact, just as I as a straight male can say it is not a fact and they are fooling themselves. Were I to say it [love between same genders is of the same quality as love between opposite genders] were a fact I would probably make myself bi and I don't want that because I know being with the same gender isn't going to make me as happy as being with the opposite.

A Christian is entitled to see Jesus as his or her savior and consider it all as facts, just as another from another religion can see it completely otherwise. Really, it's true people can disagree and accepting this makes the world a much happier place for everyone. Don't like it, then don't read it anymore, don't respond and just move on, only you can wield that power of ignoring.

reply to post by Dragonfly79


Agreed. There's actually a really fascinating case that occurred in India that really illustrated the difference between men and women in terms of competition and cooperation as reported by Dr. Rukmini Rao. The Deccan Development Society was formed by members of the international business community with the intention of assisting the lowest sub-castes (Dalit) within India. Initially, the DDS gave the funds to improve development in Dalit communities to the Dalit men to utilize as they saw fit. Unfortunately, the Dalit men ended up serving their own personal self interests over the good of the community so that the results were unequal. The DDS tried again and had the same outcome. Eventually, the DDS realized that the problem was that, despite the Dalit men being the landowners, the innate competitiveness within men was actually causing a problem in equality. So, the DDS chose to give the funds to the Dalit women instead with some really surprising outcomes. Not only did the women use the funds in an equitable manner to improve their communities as a whole but they also, through cooperation, used their power to protect each other from domestic abuse. The prevailing feature of the studies has been noting that women are more likely to cooperate and receive compensation as a team versus individual based compensation than men and are much more verbal/social overall.

Some various research on the subject of gender differences and cooperation:
www.econ.ucsb.edu...&Teams.pdf
www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk... (This one is interesting as it also found that men will be more cooperative when working within a team if they feel that there are external threats to the group--makes sense and could explain the willingness of some men to paint their faces in team colors and get in fights at sports games ).

This definitely ties in with what you're trying to say in terms of women defaulting towards communal benefit as a group as opposed to seeking individual compensation or, as you put it, allowed themselves to act as muses. We're basically geared to see community benefit and it makes sense even in terms of reproduction. That was the other thing that I found absolutely baffling by the woman in the video. If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), she mentioned that men had a shortage of sexuality and women had a surplus. That's not even physiologically true. Men are capable of spreading their seed all over the planet (see Genghis Khan lol). Although there is a slightly increased number of women v. number of men, this is most likely an evolutionary response to the high risk of death from child bearing. Whereas women release only one egg per month, men actually release millions of sperm in comparison and that's an evolutionary safeguard to basically try to guarantee that the male's genetic information has the greatest chance of being reproduced. So it's actually quite the opposite of what the video purports.

One thing I'll disagree on is that it isn't purely the woman's mind that attracts a male. Compassionate and cooperative behavior are most definitely factors in attractiveness but size of the hips (capable of birthing with less of an issue), breast size (perceived as being more capable of producing milk), and lips (rosy lips = arousal, health and fecundity) are all also major factors that can attract a male. It's not all brains but a lack of the qualities that you mention can actually kill arousal. Just ask most men after 20 years of marriage.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I'm trying to look at the subject male/female first without all of the cultural stuff, what trillions of people made of it. I'm not going to say much about Indian/hindu culture as the caste system is a very complicated and unique subject.

As for everything else I like to view it all black & white, when mixed it all becomes shades of grey which become colors when the opposites merge and the magic happens.

I still believe women are innately better at receiving or listening due to their physiology while men are better at initiating, so women are more likely to listen to society while men make up their minds and decide not to listen but to initiate change the way they see fit. Not that it has to be anything sexual or one gender cannot perform a task the other can, it's just legacy stuff builtin which could be changed but I believe should be used as strenght instead as it's something difficult to change. Which means in the end no male would/could be on the same wavelenght as another male, just as females can't with other females. And for one gender to be able to dominate another one must be on the same wavelenght first otherwise one would just be dominating one's own wavelenght. Which is ok in a "..in his own mind he's the.." kind of way lol

Ideally I believe for example in business life women should be the ones taking notes of everything the males said about individual plans during a meeting, then translating it all for all members so everyone gets eachothers' point of view and deals can be made for everyone's interest. Instead of current prevalent business life where the alpha male at the top rules all wavelenghts below and all have to pretend that's true while they make fun of the boss behind his back.

Ofcourse this varies a lot, it's a world of differences and opinions what is best for oneself, a group or groups or everyone. So does everyone has their own preference for fat or thin, blonde or darkhaired, short or tall, intelligent & eloquent or blunt and straightforward, there isn't anything universal about it, sometimes opposites attract, sometimes kindred spirits attract, it's all part of the magic when two people fall for eachother and maybe find true love.

Men are capable of spreading their seed all over the planet (see Genghis Khan lol).

Women are equally capable of travelling around and getting knocked up by different men and producing offspring with which they could rule all.

Although there is a slightly increased number of women v. number of men, this is most likely an evolutionary response to the high risk of death from child bearing.

It's because of culture and people killing/abandoning female babies for all kinds of (cultural) reasons imho. Also males doing more physical labor, all the running from chasing prey or running from predators, being outside in nature means a better overall immune system than women inside damp dark caves in a more confined area with less physical intensive activities. It's all one big random generator and it's never certain if a male or female pops out, everytime 50-50 chance without any reason whatsoever. There are so many different ways to die from, it's all chance.

Whereas women release only one egg per month, men actually release millions of sperm in comparison and that's an evolutionary safeguard to basically try to guarantee that the male's genetic information has the greatest chance of being reproduced.

But if it were evolutionary you'd expect women to release several eggs, for a better chance the females genetic information is passed as it would be more logical to me several sperm cells could merge with several egg cells which ofcourse happens with twins. I don't see why evolution would want males to have a good chance to pass on information than women could pass on. In fact, the egg has slightly more genetic information so what you say doesn't make much sense to me. But I'm not that 'scientific', I believe in things like women able to control their ovulation through meditation just as a learning how to use a muscle as claimed by some religions out there which I will not go into.

reply to post by Emeraldous

Fempocalypse!

Due to the broad stroke of this OP, I will offer the same in return by way of the following...

Females... aka: women, have lived in the shadow of their male counterparts for thousands of years. For the most part, it was nature's choice because as physical creatures in primitive settings/environments, it just made sense to let the big brutes cover the job of hunting, building, battling/defending, etc. The females were at home caring for children, turning out clothing, cooking meals...

It made sense then but surprisingly, the notion of being a mother and someone the male depends upon for things like a nice home and a decent meal... as well as someone who keeps him on the straight and narrow, has been turned into a sin today.

But now... today doesn't require the males to plow the fields and hunt the meat and stack the stones and lumber and fight off rampaging barbarians. Today doesn't demand that females stay home to see that children are raised in a decent environment or that there is a good meal on the table or that the house looks like someone actually gives a flying rat's bo-honkus.

Today, men and women can do most of the same work, pay the same taxes, fight the same wars, die in the same battles...

... it's called equality but there are times when one cannot help but wonder whether such a definition of a level playing space was what was needed or deserved by our sisters. I may be old fashioned but... the idea of women in combat just makes me ill. War and violence on this level is undoubtedly a male invention.

Maybe someday... the girls will come up with a better way to pass time. maybe... if they survive this modern, im[proved version of equality.

Originally posted by Dragonfly79

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by Dragonfly79

 

All the available evidence suggets that your statement that men are attracted to women's brains is wildly inaccurate, womens attractiveness to men is based almost entirely on looks. You say that women developed brains and men devolved muscles, seriously?

What evidence? You almost make it sound like a fact without citing any sources. I'm just posting my opinion.

Women stayed at the tribe while men went out hunting. Did the men talk with eachother? No, because it would scare away the prey. Did they cuddle while hunting? No, because they were out hunting and you can't cuddle and hunt at the same time. Did they look around at everybody and took the time to understand them? No, because you don't need all that to kill an animal for food.

Women specialized in social skills, washing together, preparing food, making clothes, taking care of eachother. Men specialized in hunting, killing things, gathering the heavy weight stuff to make shelters. Men later specialized in trading, going out to hunt money, women specialized in family matters, creating things like recipes, how to raise children etc.

Many men look to women for expressing their feelings which women are better at recognizing and verbalizing. Women together talk, men don't - they drink and eat. Men want women to take care of them on an emotional level, women want men to take care of them on a material level. At the end of the journey they both learned from eachother, if all went well.

If you look at the history of the civilised world you will see that it was men who were behind the vast majority of all of societies achievements.

Yes, because women allowed themselves to be used as muses. And those men all had mothers who nurtured them so they could achieve all those things you see as great. Beside almost every great male there was a female influencing the male.

I will instantly loose all respect for you if you say that it is because of ten thousand years of oppressive patriarchy. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, you are not however entitled to your own facts.

Why do you assume I am waiting for respect from someone who interprets my words in a negative manner. Besides, everyone should have some respect just for being human. You are expressing an idle threat imho, if you said I would lose some points on your abacus of respect it might have some effect. I can pretty damn well think whatever I want about this world I see fit and make my own mind about it and there's nothing no one who can do anything about that unless the rebuttal is good enough for me I couldn't deny it and then I would have no shame in seeing the error of my ways as I would only benefit.

For example in how one can make anything a fact, people who are into the same gender are entitled to consider the love they have for the same gender as equal in quality to the love male-female can have for eachother as if it were fact, just as I as a straight male can say it is not a fact and they are fooling themselves. Were I to say it [love between same genders is of the same quality as love between opposite genders] were a fact I would probably make myself bi and I don't want that because I know being with the same gender isn't going to make me as happy as being with the opposite.

A Christian is entitled to see Jesus as his or her savior and consider it all as facts, just as another from another religion can see it completely otherwise. Really, it's true people can disagree and accepting this makes the world a much happier place for everyone. Don't like it, then don't read it anymore, don't respond and just move on, only you can wield that power of ignoring.

edit on 5/6/2013 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)

It was not my intention to offend you, I am sorry if the truth about human nature hurts your feelings.

reply to post by Emeraldous


Your attitude is refreshing. Beyond the negative implications of the feminist movement, you may agree that more generally any system based on self interest is bound to fail. In our new high-tech society the attitude of competition wins out over that of mutual support. But it has always been so. The future will be like the past. Greed and self-interest rule the land.