The Direct Descendants Of The Original Humans Dont Appear To Go Bald.

[hairblues]

Certainly wasn't better in Ireland. Doubt it was better in most parts of the world, the US might be an exception but I don't really know.

I think it matters here maybe even more I don't know because you all get more from the government I think then USA women do...here there is a huge stigma for things that are assistance..like free day care, welfare or medicaid.

70 grand for a family of 4 or 5 is not a lot of money...its good money if it was double $140 for a family of 4 or 5 is very comfortable and kids probably won't have to take college loans etc.
It's a huge difference in the kind of life you will have in USA, where you will live, and your children future life and their opportunities.

sorry just noticed what you wrote---I think for men it was better in 1950s in a sense of more guaranteed to have girlfriends or wives...less pressure on being equal in partnership.
But i think these were different kinds of men generally speaking then todays men..
My Grandfather for example would shoot himself in the head as opposed to coming on a forum and venting about his 'feelings'. This would be the most bizarre thing in world to him, young men needing a support group over something like hair loss...thats just the truth and I am sure you all have grandparents (although I am older than you guys my GF was WW2 generation) this was not done.
So to compare the generations is a little hard to do because people were just different then.
but the truth is if women were truly happy--you would not have had the womans movement.
Women grinned and bared a lot...so did the men to be honest.

 

[SmoothSailing]

but the truth is if women were truly happy--you would not have had the womans movement.

Happier, not necessarily happy, and certainly not satisfied (everyone always wants more).

This would be the most bizarre thing in world to him, young men needing a support group over something like hair loss..

My parents think it's a bit worrying that I use rogaine for my hair. If they knew how much it truly affects me they'd definitely think something was wrong with me.

Way too much to respond to here. If women were truly happy with feminism we wouldn't have women in the anti-feminist movement. That argument goes both ways, dear. Frankly, I don't care if a woman works or not, and they should be treated equally where they are equally capable, but they shouldn't be bullied into thinking they need to have a career to lead a fulfilling life, and men shouldn't be discriminated against to "balance the playing field". It certainly does suck to be a white man, you have to genuinely earn everything, at least in my experience as I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. If you're a woman or minority you can do something that is subpar, and it gets lauded as the greatest thing ever because of low expectations and the desire to show minorities and women are as capable as white men. Maya Angelou is a great example, she doubly benefits from being minority and female. She wrote some pretty average poetry, yet she gets rated as the best poet ever, higher than great white men like Shakespeare, Frost, Poe, Shelley, and Kipling. If I wrote her poems, I would be a nobody, a loser, a giant failure. As a white man, I have to write something that is truly great to be recognized. Minority women truly have the world eating out of their hands, and if they are gay too, the media will anoint them the greatest person ever.

" women should be able to be whoever they want.."

I want to be a stay at home mom.

"Come on, have some ambitions"

 

[lemoncloak]

Womens tennis started to beamed successful in 1970s...it was almost over night that it started to become noticeable...I personally think it was a combination of the caliber of players (Chris Evert, Martina N) who started to come up, women taking notice was a huge factor all of a sudden you had female tennis players doing advertisement and becoming household names.
I think a combination of things played a factor--women getting more into fitness in 70s/80 before Jane Fonda aerobic craze tennis was huge with women wanting to get in shape (Farrah was a big influence in this trend), Before 70s tennis was viewed as rich people sport--now it was everyones sport.
I think the training techniques to build strength and power and speed were more elevated by this time period and womens game greatly increased with building strength via weight training so players were better conditioned.
Advertisers really made women household names in Tennis--only other women at the time were Olympic women/girls like skaters and gymnists. Probably still like that now...but before that time period you did not have household names of tennis players.

I think Tennis unlike basketball is interesting to more women in numbers--and there for advertisers.

But don't get it twisted lol female tennis players DEMANDED to be paid...no one handed it to them willingly...You should look at my above quote about Billie Jean King and the Virgina Slim Circuit.

Nothing is wrong with this and you are NOW starting to see actresses get a clue and demand their salaries go up...this is in my opinion management (Personal managers not corporate managers) who negotiate contracts fault if women in Hollywood are not getting paid what they deserve.

Anyway that is my long winded speech to say in the end you are at least partially right.
Tennis is good quality entertainment and people watch it more therefore money follows.
but those women demanded what they got financially so keep that in mind.

Nothing wrong with pushing for a better salary, I'm all for women standing up for themselves as long as they're competing and not whining. Thanks for the little flashback

 

[hairblues]

Way too much to respond to here. If women were truly happy with feminism we wouldn't have women in the anti-feminist movement. That argument goes both ways, dear. Frankly, I don't care if a woman works or not, and they should be treated equally where they are equally capable, but they shouldn't be bullied into thinking they need to have a career to lead a fulfilling life, and men shouldn't be discriminated against to "balance the playing field". It certainly does suck to be a white man, you have to genuinely earn everything, at least in my experience as I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. If you're a woman or minority you can do something that is subpar, and it gets lauded as the greatest thing ever because of low expectations and the desire to show minorities and women are as capable as white men. Maya Angelou is a great example, she doubly benefits from being minority and female. She wrote some pretty average poetry, yet she gets rated as the best poet ever, higher than great white men like Shakespeare, Frost, Poe, Shelley, and Kipling. If I wrote her poems, I would be a nobody, a loser, a giant failure. As a white man, I have to write something that is truly great to be recognized. Minority women truly have the world eating out of their hands, and if they are gay too, the media will anoint them the greatest person ever.

Feminism is about choosing what you want.
Women before feminism did not have much choice.
You are naive if you think so or you need to go talk to some women who are in their 60 and 70s and 80s about choice they had and did not have back then.
And the consequences they faced if they made bold, unusual for time choices which men did NOT face at those times.

If modern versions of feminism are morphing into something to shame women that is not what it started as so if a movement is morphing over time--that is a very different debate...does not make the original movement something to regret...the regret can arguably come from it moving too far left in modern times to be a female version of mysogeny (don't think there is a word for it).

You are now morphing your statement slightly to make it seem as if you don't care if women work or not--this is not how powerful and absolute you made statements about 1950s to start with.

as for the rest of your statement I disagree strongly but I am not going to debate you on everything as it is both a waste of my time and not of interest to me.
To be frank, the 'stupidity of a lot of your remarks on both race and gender speaks for its self in my opinion. You will have some guys here agree with you and back you up and validate you for sure. But most who think its stupid are just going to roll their eyes and not bother commenting on such a view point.

You must have voted Trump. God I actually feel sorry for you since you are probably wasting your youth feeling sorry for yourself and wishing to have been young in the good old golden days.

 

[hairblues]

Happier, not necessarily happy, and certainly not satisfied (everyone always wants more).
ms"

This is part of life though--moments of discontentment, dissatisfaction etc equals movement, progress.
I doubt any time period people were truly happy like Utopian.

But its better now than 1950s--we would have had to stop technological changes, a lot of changes to still be content with 1950s...thats not just about feminism.

 

[Min0]

You just literally described men's objectification of a woman (nothing wrong with this within reason) but then you are criticizing women for objectifying men.
You just don't agree with what females are objectifying.
and your kind of judgey about it too.

nope, in this case the woman and the object are the same thing, while the man and his money (object of attraction) are two different things.
men need women that objectify their looks and loving it. this is the only way a woman can love a man the way a man loves a woman.

so getting in a relationship because of your wealth or because you look like you can fight is accepting to be with somegirl that's going to be with you just because of what you can do for her. and this means that she doesn't love you as an object, she loves your utility.

this means men will stop loving women when they grow up and their looks fade. (it's true).
and this means that women will replace you with someone who's more useful for her (hypergamy).

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

nope, in this case the woman and the object are the same thing, while the man and his money (object of attraction) are two different things.
men need women that objectify their looks. this is the only way a woman can love a man the way a man loves a woman.

so getting in a relationship because of your wealth or because you look like you can fight is accepting to be with somegirl
that's going to be with you just because of what you can do for her. and this means that she doesn't love you as an object, she loves your utility.


this means men will stop loving women when they grow up and their looks fade. (it's true).
and this means that women will replace you with someone who's more useful for her (hypergamy).

I agree with you that a woman being attracted to a man due to his money is an awful outcome for a man.

 

[Roberto_72]

she works for the CIA,

Of course. Why keep that a secret?

 

[Min0]

I agree with you that a woman being attracted to a man due to his money is an awful outcome for a man.

and it's also sad and dangerous, at least with prostitution the girl is frank about what she wants, and she can't divorce you and take half of your sh*t.
if you're not attractive and the girl you're with has less money than you, then you're living a lie.

more turth bombs here from the god himself :

 

[hairblues]

nope, in this case the woman and the object are the same thing, while the man and his money (object of attraction) are two different things.
men need women that objectify their looks and loving it. this is the only way a woman can love a man the way a man loves a woman.

so getting in a relationship because of your wealth or because you look like you can fight is accepting to be with somegirl that's going to be with you just because of what you can do for her. and this means that she doesn't love you as an object, she loves your utility.

this means men will stop loving women when they grow up and their looks fade. (it's true).
and this means that women will replace you with someone who's more useful for her (hypergamy).

I agree women like to be objected to a degree by men they are into (not so much random men on street) this is variable though..and some take it to extremes.

But men who have achieved success either via fitness level, social status and/or wealth also like to be objectified for those those things by women they are attracted too.

Successful men often lead with what they do to impress people like a peacock sticking out their chest. Same way a woman with a big chest and banging body will do.

 

[That Guy]

Here's a hint, when you go through dozens of examples and you have an excuse for every single one, as in a plethora of separate and independent excuses, you have a pattern of excuses. One excuse is ok, but when all you have is excuses (ten years old ! franchise ! marvel ! titanic ! disney ! ), you're not looking at exceptions you're looking at a pattern of excuses, and thus you should re-think things..

Man, I'm going to discontinue the argument for the sake of our general getting along and agreeance on most subjects on these forums, but I leave you with some closing thoughts:

You demonstrated with each post you respond to that you don't want equality of opportunity; you want equality of outcome and I'm sorry, but no fair society works that way and franky you can get out of my face with the "You've been handed things you just don't realize it!" Like you know me and my life. Your mythical "white privilege" is so blatantly a result of your ideological lense, that you have to resort to rationalizing the lack of benefits for a supposed beneficiary by saying "it's there! You just don't realize it!". Get real. Drive around the trailer parks loaded with poor white people or come up here and tell the homeless white people to their faces that they're "privileged".

Most movies will always have more of "X" than "Y" in a leading role and there will always be more of "X" than "Y" in politics etc. it's how statistics work. It can be for any number of factors combined with a healthy dose of luck of the draw. But again, your complaints that there is a lack of the same number of millionaires based on whatever trait demonstrate that you want equal outcome; you keep downplaying that women, some of the highest paid in their craft, occupy traditionally macho roles in most original IP (let's not forget those all-girl remakes we're seeing now) over the last 15 years because this fact flies in the face of your ideology. You need to ask yourself if you would also be outraged, based on these statistics, if the numbers were flipped and more women than men were in most leading roles. If not, you need to rethink your position because accepting the inverse is hypocrisy while accepting only a 50/50 split is communism.

You also bring up crimes against blacks, but conveniently ignore that despite making up just 13% of the US population, they account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, mostly against each other. This stems from high poverty rates, single-parent families, etc among the black community.

I'm sorry David, but you're living a Marxist lie; there is nothing mandated in "the system/state/etc." to keep people without a penis or without excessively light skin tones down; there is a free market and unfortunately, within that market, some bigots will wind up in positions power. But statistics in the free market can never be equal, especially not when arbitrary characteristics used to categorize people are not found in anywhere near equal numbers to begin with. As such, not enough black presidents or rich black actors or not enough (by whose authority?) women in leading roles is NOT evidence of the system being rigged against these people in a society where women can work any job a man can and it is illegal to pay based on sex.

At my last job, I was the only guy who worked there and my boss a muslim woman; job before that I worked with sudanese guys who didn't even know how old they were and could barely speak english, but it didn't stop them from getting hired and moving up the ranks provided they were good employees. It's not in my best interest to keep these people down and there is no shadowy cabal of white guys meeting every month to plan how can keep this system going.

How terrible it must be to live your life blaming other "groups" of people for when you didn't get that job, didn't get picked to answer a question in class, didn't get the role in the movie, etc.

 

[Min0]

But men who have achieved success either via fitness level, social status and/or wealth also like to be objectified for those those things by women they are attracted too.

and they are clueless. and want to live a dangerous lie.
here is how i see men
the handsome, the provider and the aggressive.
women can be with the provider and the aggressive just for their utility, but she will only be with the handsome because of who he is.

a peacock sticking out their chest.

so we can say in this context that female peacocks really love male peacocks.
if they were similar to human females they would chose the peacock with the most grains (provider), and others would chose the aggressive peacock instead of the one with the beautiful chest.

our reproduction system imposes on women to not love men for what they are(their physical traits that indicates health), but for what they can do for her.
because she is vunerable when pregnant. she needs someone who takes care of her with his wealth or aggressivity.

 

[hairblues]

and they are clueless. and want to live a dangerous lie.
here is how i see men
the handsome, the provider and the aggressive.
women can be with the provider and the aggressive just for their utility, but she will only be with the handsome because of who he is.

so we can say in this context that female peacocks really love male peacocks.
if they were similar to human females they would chose the peacock with the most grains (provider), and others would chose the aggressive peacock instead of the one with the beautiful chest.

our reproduction system imposes on women to not love men for what they are(their physical traits that indicates health), but for what they can do for her.
because she is vunerable when pregnant. she needs someone who takes care of her with his wealth or aggressivity.

Okay so then why are you all judgey about it earlier?
You seem to sing praises of men yet put down women..we are both shallow just not about same things necessarily.

Female body is a utility to men, how we look is utility and what we can do for them...so i don't get the difference.

both sexes objectify one another to varying degrees.

 

[Min0]

Okay so then why are you all judgey about it earlier?

because i dislike dishonest b****s who marry a dude for his providing/protecting utility.

You seem to sing praises of men yet put down women..we are both shallow just not about same things necessarily.

i don't praise men, most of them are brainless retards who think with their dicks and who are happy to be disposable slaves for women and society.

Female body is a utility to men, how we look is utility and what we can do for them...so i don't get the difference.
both sexes objectify one another to varying degrees.

the thing is, there is a huge difference, men objectify the body of the women, and like i said, the woman and her body are the same thing, so he will love her no matter what (unless she gets old and her looks fade).
but a man and his money are separable, everyone can go broke. and she'll stop "loving" him.

i think i can't be more clear than this.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Man, I'm going to discontinue the argument for the sake of our general getting along and agreeance on most subjects on these forums, but I leave you with some closing thoughts:

You demonstrated with each post you respond to that you don't want equality of opportunity; you want equality of outcome and I'm sorry, but no fair society works that way and franky you can get out of my face with the "You've been handed things you just don't realize it!" Like you know me and my life. Your mythical "white privilege" is so blatantly a result of your ideological lense, that you have to resort to rationalizing the lack of benefits for a supposed beneficiary by saying "it's there! You just don't realize it!". Get real. Drive around the trailer parks loaded with poor white people or come up here and tell the homeless white people to their faces that they're "privileged".

Most movies will always have more of "X" than "Y" in a leading role and there will always be more of "X" than "Y" in politics etc. it's how statistics work. It can be for any number of factors combined with a healthy dose of luck of the draw. But again, your complaints that there is a lack of the same number of millionaires based on whatever trait demonstrate that you want equal outcome; you keep downplaying that women, some of the highest paid in their craft, occupy traditionally macho roles in most original IP (let's not forget those all-girl remakes we're seeing now) over the last 15 years because this fact flies in the face of your ideology. You need to ask yourself if you would also be outraged, based on these statistics, if the numbers were flipped and more women than men were in most leading roles. If not, you need to rethink your position because accepting the inverse is hypocrisy while accepting only a 50/50 split is communism.

You also bring up crimes against blacks, but conveniently ignore that despite making up just 13% of the US population, they account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, mostly against each other. This stems from high poverty rates, single-parent families, etc among the black community.

I'm sorry David, but you're living a Marxist lie; there is nothing mandated in "the system/state/etc." to keep people without a penis or without excessively light skin tones down; there is a free market and unfortunately, within that market, some bigots will wind up in positions power. But statistics in the free market can never be equal, especially not when arbitrary characteristics used to categorize people are not found in anywhere near equal numbers to begin with. As such, not enough black presidents or rich black actors or not enough (by whose authority?) women in leading roles is NOT evidence of the system being rigged against these people in a society where women can work any job a man can and it is illegal to pay based on sex.

At my last job, I was the only guy who worked there and my boss a muslim woman; job before that I worked with sudanese guys who didn't even know how old they were and could barely speak english, but it didn't stop them from getting hired and moving up the ranks provided they were good employees. It's not in my best interest to keep these people down and there is no shadowy cabal of white guys meeting every month to plan how can keep this system going.

How terrible it must be to live your life blaming other "groups" of people for when you didn't get that job, didn't get picked to answer a question in class, didn't get the role in the movie, etc.

I sounded much like yourself when I was your age. I only skimmed your screed, but I recognize the attitude of angry entitlement common to north american men in their early 20s. You even had a confused critique of marxism put in there for good measure.

As you age, you will learn that yes, there is indeed tremendous discrimination and privilege in the world. The idea that you've earned everything you've ever gotten is immature, but common. On some level you realize this as your responses are very dependent on shifting of the goalposts and strawmen.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

and they are clueless. and want to live a dangerous lie.
here is how i see men
the handsome, the provider and the aggressive.
women can be with the provider and the aggressive just for their utility, but she will only be with the handsome because of who he is.

so we can say in this context that female peacocks really love male peacocks.
if they were similar to human females they would chose the peacock with the most grains (provider), and others would chose the aggressive peacock instead of the one with the beautiful chest.

our reproduction system imposes on women to not love men for what they are(their physical traits that indicates health), but for what they can do for her.
because she is vunerable when pregnant. she needs someone who takes care of her with his wealth or aggressivity.

I'm reading your posts here and I find myself wishing your writings had been available to me when I was 17 or so, when it would helped more.

The common discussion in society is that attraction based on looks is shallow and immature, and that a real bond is based on personality. That's what we're all told, and we all hear, certainly a thousand times at least. What you're arguing is that attraction based on the physical is actually more fundamental, and to be honest it makes a lot of sense. We think of ourselves as rational beings, but really we're animals. Humans are animals.

Men are animals, women too. Sex on this planet goes back 1.3 billion years, so instincts related to sex are deep and probably not founded in the more recent neurological regions. So a bond based on looks, smell, voice, touch, etc taps into brain regions that go back much further.

 

[Min0]

I'm reading your posts here and I find myself wishing your writings had been available to me when I was 17 or so, when it would helped more.

The common discussion in society is that attraction based on looks is shallow and immature, and that a real bond is based on personality. That's what we're all told, and we all hear, certainly a thousand times at least. What you're arguing is that attraction based on the physical is actually more fundamental, and to be honest it makes a lot of sense. We think of ourselves as rational beings, but really we're animals. Humans are animals.

Men are animals, women too. Sex on this planet goes back 1.3 billion years, so instincts related to sex are deep and probably not founded in the more recent neurological regions. So a bond based on looks, smell, voice, touch, etc taps into brain regions that go back much further.

you can predict everything with natural selection rules.
for example, it would be good for a tribe if a woman pair bonds with a provider but gets impregnated with other attractive men.
guess what ? women cheat the most when they are fertile lol.

 

[Min0]

That's a really sad view to have. I know a lot of women these days are like that, but love has always existed, and always will.

you sound disappointed and in denial like i was when i knew the truth. yes it's a sad truth.
i agree that some women love men, like those women who earn more and marry someone attractive with less money. or the man she cheats with. that's true love.

 

[hairblues]

because i dislike dishonest b****s who marry a dude for his providing/protecting utility.


i don't praise men, most of them are brainless retards who think with their dicks and who are happy to be disposable slaves for women and society.



the thing is, there is a huge difference, men objectify the body of the women, and like i said, the woman and her body are the same thing, so he will love her no matter what (unless she gets old and her looks fade).
but a man and his money are separable, everyone can go broke. and she'll stop "loving" him.

i think i can't be more clear than this.

You are justifying the shallowness of one sex over the shallowness of the other.

You are also really judgmental and angry.

 

[hairblues]

Ugly guy stares at girl, he's creepy. Hot guy stares at girl, she gets excited.

Hot guys can be really creepy.