Where Is The Female Red Pill Movement?

[yetti]

"Women = nurturing"
"Men = risky, violent, competitive"

The cringe is real.

LOL, dude... the words are from this thread, but they aren't mine... are you still "cringing"?

redpilled: Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone.

pjhair: I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent.

White Polar Bear: men don't make good natural primary caregivers

 

[yetti]

so why do you guys think men commit more violence? is it because we have to prove ourselves? because we are socialized to be more aggressive? testosterone? combination of all these things and others?

Maybe, as redpilled mentioned, testosterone? I'd guess a combination of things. What makes boys want to blow away enemies all day playing counterstrike?

 

[yetti]

I didn't say that. Here is what I said:

"Men have often been at the top due to patriarchal nature of religion/society. That's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if men were leaders when atrocities were committed and women were merely followers because followers are equally morally culpable."

Anyway, my main argument is that sex of the individual at the top has far less impact on the policies that a group/state follows than the ideology. Bad ideas are the main drivers of violence committed by nation states in the modern world.

Maybe the patriarchy is a big part of the problem, not an incidental, irrelevant thing. I agree with you that bad ideas drive countries and groups to commit violence. Where did those ideas come from, and who uses them to harness groups into commiting violence? It's hard to say, definitively, the sex of the individual at the top has no impact when you could fill a book with groups that are maiming and suicide bombing and commiting genocide etc that are led by men. Plenty of countries and groups are, and have been, led by women. How many would be in that book?

 

[redpilled]

Giving you a dislike yeti because you don't understand how statistics work. You think outliers define the entire group. Your error is so simple, yet you do not see it.

 

[redpilled]

It's a bit depressing that a thread that started out asking a question regarding female "red pill" issues...has devolved into a debate about how violent men are....and so it goes.

 

[JeanLucBB]

LOL, dude... the words are from this thread, but they aren't mine... are you still "cringing"?

redpilled: Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone.

pjhair: I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent.

White Polar Bear: men don't make good natural primary caregivers

"All the wars men have started due to their competitive nature and desire to take risks"

"competitive, risky, cruel male leadership."

"So I personally think the world would be better off with a little more "nurturing" in top positions,"


Lying about what you said on the same f*****g thread. Why didn't you just edit your posts or something?

 

[yetti]

Giving you a dislike yeti because you don't understand how statistics work. You think outliers define the entire group.

I don't think outliers define the entire group. What I think is what you think: "Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone."

 

[yetti]

Lying!! That's a big word. Learn to read. I was quoting people, that's why I chose those words. I took them from other people's posts, deliberately.

 

[pjhair]

It's hard to say, definitively, the sex of the individual at the top has no impact when you could fill a book with groups that are maiming and suicide bombing and commiting genocide etc that are led by men. Plenty of countries and groups are, and have been, led by women. How many would be in that book?

Again, sex of leaders doesn't matters. Men may lead in many of those countries but as women also hold the same beliefs, they would do the same when in power. For example, Khaleda Zia, ex prime minister of Bangladesh, strengthened Islamist group in her regime because of her beliefs. She did not act any different than men of similar belief system. Whereas the current prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, is hard on Islamist groups as she belongs to a more tolerant belief system. You are grossly underestimating impact of ideologies over the policies and grossly exaggerating the importance of gender of politicians.

 

[redpilled]

I don't think outliers define the entire group. What I think is what you think: "Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone."

Stop trying to evade my point. Yes, men and women are different. Yes, that means there are differences in behaviour, such as at the very extreme end of the violence chart, there are more men than women represented there. You reached an inaccurate conclusion - you said that men are more violent than women in general by looking at outlier cases. I've repeatedly compared that to saying men are more intelligent than women because there are more male geniuses than female. You can't extrapolate outlier data across the entire dataset which is what you are doing.

 

[yetti]

Again, sex of leaders doesn't matters. Men may lead in many of those countries but as women also hold the same beliefs, they would do the same when in power.

Maybe, but it's speculation. I too am speculating, based on what I know of men, and sentiments like these, that I agree with:

redpilled: Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone.
pjhair: I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent.
White Polar Bear: men don't make good natural primary caregivers

that the world would be in better shape with more female leadership. Obviously people are free to disagree.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Lying!! That's a big word. Learn to read. I was quoting people, that's why I chose those words. I took them from other people's posts, deliberately.

You weren't quoting anyone, you literally said that. Here's what you said:

"It is true. And oh how we suffer for it! All the wars men have started due to their competitive nature and desire to take risks, and the foolish and cruel decisions that have killed hundreds of millions. Personally I'd like to see women running every country and religious organization in the world."

 

[yetti]

Stop trying to evade my point. Yes, men and women are different. Yes, that means there are differences in behaviour, such as at the very extreme end of the violence chart, there are more men than women represented there. You reached an inaccurate conclusion - you said that men are more violent than women in general by looking at outlier cases. I've repeatedly compared that to saying men are more intelligent than women because there are more male geniuses than female. You can't extrapolate outlier data across the entire dataset which is what you are doing.

No I am not. I think that the vast majority of murders are committed by men. That doesn't mean I think the vast majority of men are murderers.

 

[Medina]

Maybe, but it's speculation. I too am speculating, based on what I know of men, and sentiments like these, that I agree with:

redpilled: Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone.
pjhair: I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent.
White Polar Bear: men don't make good natural primary caregivers

that the world would be in better shape with more female leadership. Obviously people are free to disagree.

The reason there hasn't been a female Hitler is very simple; the vast majority of women have no interest in a political career. Even today with all the help and incentive and playing the woman card, they are still outnumbered. This doesn't make them less evil. It makes them less ambitious.

 

[pjhair]

Careful: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

I believe men and women are more or less equal when it comes to violent tendencies.

http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

And you only need to read the newspapers to realize this.

Here in Belgium, we have a notorious story where a woman killed her 5 children, Magda Goeubbels style. And you know how some of our media spinned it? "It must have been the husband's fault, he was never around and he was a bit weird!" Please.

There's a great movie about this event if you want to check it out: A perdre la raison. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1660302/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Edit: I haven't seen the movie, but apparently, from reading the first review titled "A subtle portrait of abuse", the movie's portraying this female murderer as a poor victim. Ah well...

You and many people believe this assertion because there is this myth that women are little angels who can do no wrong and they need to be protected from violent testosterone-filled men.

Reality says otherwise.

I must admit, i didn't think very deeply when I said men are often more violent. I just spoke from the general impression of men I have. Also, I remember reading a story back in India where a 16 years old Muslim girl colluded with her boyfriend and had both of her parents and five of her siblings murdered because her parents were trying to stop her from dating the guy. There were other similar stories of women harming their families for a guy. So yeah, I know women are capable of incredible violence.

 

[pjhair]

Maybe, but it's speculation. I too am speculating, based on what I know of men, and sentiments like these, that I agree with:

It's not merely a speculation. I gave you real life examples of women leaders who acted precisely according to their ideology. I can give you other examples if you like. It's obvious really.

 

[yetti]

You weren't quoting anyone, you literally said that. Here's what you said:

"It is true. And oh how we suffer for it! All the wars men have started due to their competitive nature and desire to take risks, and the foolish and cruel decisions that have killed hundreds of millions. Personally I'd like to see women running every country and religious organization in the world."

Right. Other posters said that men are more competitive and take risks, and not as nurturing as women. Then I used those points, which I agree with, to say that in my opinion we suffer for it... and I think we do. The last line, I've already said I wasn't serious, no I don't women should run EVERYTHING lol. But I would like to see women with more power and I think the world would be better for it. Clearly not many here agree, that's OK.

 

[redpilled]

No I am not. I think that the vast majority of murders are committed by men. That doesn't mean I think the vast majority of men are murderers.

Then you have made no point at all, just wasted everybody's time (hence my dislike). Saying that a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the population who commit a specific crime are more likely to be male than female - for the sole purpose of making a derogatory point about that sex - is statistically meaningless. There are more male genius inventors than female. So what?

If you are calling Stalin, Pol Pol etc mass murderers, then you are wrong - they are leaders. The followers of any leader are just as culpable as the leader (as has been pointed out in this thread already).

 

[yetti]

Then you have made no point at all, just wasted everybody's time (hence my dislike). Saying that a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the population who commit a specific crime are more likely to be male than female - for the sole purpose of making a derogatory point about that sex - is statistically meaningless. There are more male genius inventors than female. So what?

If you are calling Stalin, Pol Pol etc mass murderers, then you are wrong - they are leaders. The followers of any leader as just as culpable as the leader (as has been pointed out in this thread already).

Men are far more prone to violence in society, very much including the worst, most cruel crime, murder. The statistics show this, and I provided a list of other crimes, with statistics, including rape and assault that men are far more likely to commit - yes, when it is committed. This is not to say that most men commit these crimes, but when they are committed, they are much more likely to be committed by men. I believe that the very same testosterone that you yourself brought into this thread, when you said "Seriously though, let me state the obvious: women are biologically different to men. They take less risks and are less competitive due to lower testosterone." also, obviously, makes men more aggressive, and a certain subset, outlier, of men, extremely dangerous and aggressive. I think these men, given a position of leadership over an army or smaller org. that wants to cause havoc, can be extraordinarily destructive and dangerous. So, simply, I'd like to see more female leadership in the world, I think they are more likely to be better "caregivers", to use Polar Bear's word. I think the world could use a little more of the caregiving impulse and a little less of the risk, competitive impulse. There's no point in going around in circles forever on it. You obviously disagree, that's fine.

 

[Exodus2011]

Careful: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

I believe men and women are more or less equal when it comes to violent tendencies.

http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

And you only need to read the newspapers to realize this.

Here in Belgium, we have a notorious story where a woman killed her 5 children, Magda Goeubbels style. And you know how some of our media spinned it? "It must have been the husband's fault, he was never around and he was a bit weird!" Please.

There's a great movie about this event if you want to check it out: A perdre la raison. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1660302/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Edit: I haven't seen the movie, but apparently, from reading the first review titled "A subtle portrait of abuse", the movie's portraying this female murderer as a poor victim. Ah well...

You and many people believe this assertion because there is this myth that women are little angels who can do no wrong and they need to be protected from violent testosterone-filled men.

Reality says otherwise.

most violence in men i bet is fights in the context of conflict and competition. a good percentage of murderers have antisocial personality disorder, which has a gender ratio of 3 men for every 1 woman. taking away those with APD and how men are socialized to externalize their issues (you're a pussy if you don't do anything about that bully!) you get rid of most "male violence".

also just male society in general, where we f*****g eat each other alive to get on top, and its resulting effect of mens lives being much more difficult makes me excuse male violence a lot more.