That is just depressing...

Someone would have to be a gluten for punishment to do that.

Yes, it did take me that long to complete a poor representation of a BDSM-leaning slice of bread.

You have to go back to when the laws were passed, what party passed them.  The idea that men don't vote and pass laws based on gender is inconceivable for people whose entire identity revolves around gender.

and what politician is going to repeal laws that saved women from, and I am quoting the arfcom ladies here (not tumbler), "literal slavery"

Men projected a sense of duty and obligation to a spouse onto women.

they were wrong to do so.

but the genders are totally the same

again.  when men had all the advantages (back to "literal slavery") what was the divorce rate?

what is the divorce rate now?

what changed?

Yup, same here.

There's that weaseling, again.

That's true for some, but I've read enough of you here to know you're not one of them.  The family law obsession remains something of a mystery.  It's driven by some grudge though, and you'll eventually let it slip out as you have with other aspects of your life.  

Always with the sexist slurs and fabrication.  I don't think the women here are confused by these threads.  They're always the same: techniques by which losers can manipulate other losers.  This one's a little different, though. I don't recall ever seeing one get this much blowback from the other men here, some pretty well respected folks, too.

Only worse example she could have picked would have been Anthony Weiner ....

You don't call out the many men here (you included) who say that men today are literal slaves to women and the family courts system.

The only difference is back then one gender held all the cards.  Now the other does.  

It seems as though all of the women are saying both systems are/were messed up and need to be fixed.  You're only taking issue with one.  

It's all well and good to focus solely on divorce statistics as the yardstick to measure societal function but completely disingenuous not addressing the core disparities and you know it.

The advice works on all women. Unless you don't like well groomed, well dressed, physically fit, charming, playful, outgoing men with careers, stable living situations and a passion for life. Because those are the goals of red pill.

This whole market value thing is just pure barter.

Is this what it has come down to? Treating each other like commodities?

Again? You think red pill is a "trick" men fooling women into buying a bill of goods. Red pill is men learning how to be more attractive to women. Women should celebrate it. The things you love about your husband, Red Pill teaches men to do those things.

All i can figure is some women think anyone who isn't a natural, and learns how to attract women from a life coach, book or the internet, must be faking it?

I don't like people who play games and pretend to be something they're not for gain.  If you're naturally that and just living your life, that's one thing.  If you're following a manual and ticking off the check marks in order to make yourself appealing, I ain't buying the façade you're trying to create.


ETA  Cross-posted with you and yes, fake is exactly it.

gold

Is all self improvement fake? At some point doesn't it become genuine? I quit using tobacco, got my teeth fixed and put on 40 pounds of muscle? Am i faking self improvement or am i actually improved?

is a woman faking it when she wears makeup, loses weight or color her hair? When she wears a padded bra or really any bra? When she gets an education is she faking it them?

It seems you are saying you would feel fooled by a guy who improves himself to the point you find yourself attracted to him, simply because he was not born that way.

other shit I don't understand:

coconut oil
shitty hand-thrown pottery from street fairs
that trail-mix-looking shit with the fucking old orange peel and cinnamon sticks and bark and shit
decorative shit, like gourds and flower vases full of river rocks and colored water or beads or random shit
bitch, you don't can... what the fuck is with all the mason jars?
random produce in water bottles.
kale
shitty DIY
why do they all start at-home photography businesses as soon as they buy a digital SLR?
amber teething beads
anything used for decorating from Hobby Lobby, David's Bridal, Pottery Barn, or Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft
charity awareness walks
fucked up baby names
why the fuck do you care how I pronounce "quinoa"?
fat: constantly wears kinesio tape
organic everything
fairy houses
arm sleeves.  no shirt, just the sleeves.

This is what you said:  Unless you don't like well groomed, well dressed, physically fit, charming, playful, outgoing men with careers, stable living situations and a passion for life. Because those are the goals of red pill.

Yeah, I'm not interested in a man who had to *learn* how to not be a dirty, sloppy, out of shape, boorish, pessimistic introvert with no job and eviction notices who wants to sit in the dark and scratch his balls all day.  

If simply being a decent human being with a modicum of self respect is so difficult that someone has to join a freaking movement in order to *see the light* then I'll pass, thanks.  

That seems a very emotional reaction to male self improvement.

Clear as mud?  

I guess I'm one of those weirdos but admit to being socially inept. What about the "nice" girl I've been hanging out with that's been married/divorced four times? Is she more normal than I?

Because it's insane.  Seriously.  

I could walk into a ghetto and show the women how to act like ladies who will appeal to men outside the ghetto but would you add those women to your list of prospective mates?  

You set the baseline so far back with your description that if someone has to learn and work and change to improve themselves to simply be on the level of a normal human being, why should that be appealing to other normal human beings?

Whoa whoa whoa, back up the horse.  Who the shit needs to understand having no shirt and just sleeves on a woman making them practically nekkid?  I don't to understand that, I just need to see it

Joking aside, wasn't that style from the 80's?

OK.

You are being fairer than I deserve so I owe you a no-shit explanation.  
Buckle up, its going to be bumpy.

What comprises a successful society?  Well, first, it needs people.  Which means children.  Which means sex.  Easy day.  Women are weaker, they are going to have sex one way or the other.  Prior to the advent of civilization women were commodities to kill for.  You wanted women, you took them.  And you protected the ones you had from the predations of others.  You might even protect the children.  You don't know exactly why, but you will.  But you can't get past the familial cave dwelling clan on this model.

You needed to break past loyalty simply by family.  because the larger the group, the stronger it was.  The stronger it was, the more it had (women, prime real estate, etc).  So how do you get a man to die for someone he isn't related to?  An all powerful creature that could see all and do all and would punish you for failing to do as he commands (or, his self designated representative commands)

Religion built societies.  Take that off to the side for a moment.  

So lets focus on western society.  What are the unique attributes of the west that made it specifically successful.  arguably built upon the 10 commandments.  Remember those?

Here is a refresher.

Lets look at 5, 7 and 10.  Under penalty of the lord our god, children MUST look after their parents.  And not only can you not fuck other people's wives and husbands you can't even DESIRE them.

Penalty for disobedience of any one of these was death.  Of course, what is in your heart is known but to god, but he is one vengeful dude in the old testament.  so, tread carefully.

so, 30% of the commandments deal specifically with children, relationships and marriage.  (never mind how many of the 613 other jewish commandments do so as well)

whats the point?  Society is built on a foundation of trust.  The most important relationship is between man and god.  (without god, none of this shit works).  The second most important relationship is between man and woman.  

Now, back to biological imperative to reproduce.  Women do not run the risk of accidentally dedicating a decade or more of their lives (or their very life in the case of childbirth) to raising another woman's child.  Men do.  

In order for a society to work, men must be prepared to give their lives for their wives and, by association, their children. At least what they think are their children.  If a society fails to protect a men from being cuckolded, then men lose the motivation to protect and provide for their wives.  That society will crumble.  we are not bonobos (who only exist because the niger river separates them from the more aggressive chimpanzee(but I digress))

So this is basic society 101.  All societies up until the modern era operated on basically this model.  All punished infidelity.  Some societies still punish infidelity with death.  

men in this model were disposable (hence polygamy being the norm).  historically speaking approximately 70% of every woman who lived to puberty reproduced.  less than 35% of men reproduced.  

A hypothetical society with 100 fertile women and 1 fertile man would have 100 children in 2 years.  reverse this ratio and the opposite society would have 1 child (and probably 90 dead men).  (if they lived next to each other, the 1 dude with 100 women would be dead within 30 seconds)

So, in the pre-historic societal age you have women as a pure commodity.  the most important commodity.  the foundation of all other requirements for civilization.  

And woman didn't get too much say in this.  The strongest took what he wanted.  Which, conveniently enough, generally coincided with the biological requirements of the woman.

I lecture you on this basic of human prehistory simply because it shaped our psychological foundations.  

women not only are attracted to strong men, they are repulsed by weak ones.  because a weak one will be conquered, their children smashed against a rock and then the weaker man's wife raped until they produce the victors children (re-read your homer if confused on this point)

Fast forward to the industrial age.  
War is less a measurement of physical strength and numbers but rather a measurement of industrial output.  

Societies that work harder and smarter will outproduce the requisite war material than other societies.  And they will be most successful.

By the time the industrial age came about, monogamous relationships were the norm in western civilization.   And western civilizations were, by all measurement, the most successful.

Why is monogamy important?  First and foremost because the children have the opportunity to be raised by both a male and female role model.  But, only slightly behind, is because a married man with children he assumes to be his own, is the most motivated to work harder, longer and smarter to provide for his family.  In polygamy, you have 3 men who don't have kids, won't have kids, and don't really give a fuck.  You can enslave them (as was the norm for most of history) but a slave will only produce the minimum to avoid punishment.  Slavery is not efficient or effective.  But its more useful than killing these excess worthless men which is why it was, and still is, practiced.

Brief pit stop. Men don't need much to be "happy".  Sex, toys and the first 3 levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  And the toys need not be necessarily expensive IF the man has no desire to attract a mate.  But a woman and children provide a motivation to do more, to produce more (both in the micro and macro scale).  Raising children well is expensive.  And the more you have, the better chance of success for your children (and, back to the 5th commandment, better off for you when you get old).  So you have a bunch of men working hard to produce liberty ships and a nice paycheck raising both themselves and their society to the highest levels in the industrial age.

the woman's requirement was faithfulness (or the façade of it).  Make the man think the child or children is his, and he will work harder.  Of course society honored those who took on the burden of another man's child (the widow being particularly honored for her faithfulness till death to her husband) provided the man was dead.   A man who lost his wife (common until modern era in childbirth) was a natural match for a woman who had lost her husband.  

Divorce, the deliberate abandonment of your spouse, was a societally shunned rarity.  

So things hummed along.  

The nuclear family unit providing the basis for a society with the requisite number of offspring and maximizing the output of the father in support of his family.  

Then the 50s came.  And western society became the enemy.  And the engine of that successful western society, likewise becoming the enemy.

Enter the Betty Friedans and various other useful idiots in the communist cause.

The happy mother and wife being transformed the greatest mass enslavement in history.

“...women who 'adjust' as housewives, who grow up wanting to be 'just a housewife,' are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps...they ate suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.”

and her great question, that is, only now being answered

“Who knows what women can be when they are finally free to become themselves? Who knows what women's intelligence will contribute when it can be nourished without denying love?”

Women are completely, utterly and totally free at this point to do whatever they want.

and what have they chosen?

30-40% bastard rate?   A new Acura and shitty daycare?  Are we still to believe women are slaves to the patriarchy?  That seems to be the position of the great feminist hero, Hillary Rodham.  What more must men sacrifice to the alter of women's insatiable demands?

men should they chose to even have sex can face the accusation of rape on the mere whims of the woman.
no woman will be punished for a false accusation
should she conceive a child while with a man (it may not be the man's child), he now owes 18 years of payments.  Or, the death of the child is the woman deems it inconvenient at the time.

men, should they choose to marry, became the virtual slaves to the woman's demands and should they not meet them, will become the literal slaves.  Working for a master who if not pleased will have them jailed for failing to provide as demanded even in the absence of the means to do so.

Men are left with one choice to avoid being entrapped; avoidance of women altogether.  Which they have chosen.

Do you think these men continue to work hard?  to spend extra hours to earn more money?

their increased wages being taken from them to support other mens bastard children in the innumerable forms of public assistance for women, infants and children (women are tragic victims when convenient and strong powerful equals at other times)

So, TLDR

Women have all the choices.  And they increasingly choose to be selfish at best, vindictive at worse, but increasingly childish regardless

and men, having lost most of their choices, have taken the one choice that remains theirs and theirs alone.  to drop out.  Not just with women, but with society.

You bemoan a binary choice between Trump and Hillary while applauding the system that deliberately created the circumstances creating it.

dat male priviledge tho

The normal (average) human being isn't very appealing.  I just don't get the contempt. Have you ever given a male relative advise on an outfit or a haircut? Should the women in his life feel cheated or tricked because he had to learn such knowledge and didn't know it naturally?

Yes it was. And it was sexy as hell.

Not as sexy as today's yoga pants though.

back to the hobbes/rousseau debate.

imagine a pair of long, multi-colored, wool knit socks with the toes cut off.  

now imagine a fully-clothed woman who happens to be wearing a tank-top.  

then combine the mental image of tank-top woman with the sock on her arms.

We're discussing marital arrangements and divorce.  Always moving the goal posts.

Im not familiar with that...

Oh.

We were, that's right.

what was the illegitimacy rate and divorce rate prior to 1960 when men had all the advantages?

I think you missed the joke, of using your statement literally; "no shirt"

Are people invariably selfless (noble savage, rousseau) and civilization and laws make them bad or are people inherently selfish (nasty brutish and short, Hobbes) and civilization and laws make them good.

It is the foundational assumption of all political systems.

Feminism, like all progressive ideologies, is Rousseaun and assumes that the thousands of years of western society existed to enslave and belittle women and only when we remove all constraints will women evolve to their perfect natural state.

It only illustrates reality, it does not create reality.  The phenomenon exists with or without someone trying to quantify it.

I disagree.  The average human being isn't very appealing if they roll out of bed, slip on stained sweat pants and leave the house with greasy hair and dirty teeth.  Simply taking the time for a shower, NORMAL everyday grooming and putting on clean clothes that fit is, quite literally, the bare basics of what should be done before leaving the house and will make most people perfectly presentable.  

I'm sure I have offered an opinion at some point if asked but I can't recall specifics.  There's also a difference in, "Should I keep the sideburns or shave them off?" and "Turn me into someone completely different----someone you think I should be-----so that other people will like me."

So basically the only parameters that matter are the numbers and the actual non-freedoms of the women those numbers are correlated to don't need to factor in at all in order to judge everything as good.

what statistics would you prefer?

what measurement of an era neither of us lived in would you like?

bastards, rampant divorce and STDs?

I don't see red pill as turning people into something completely different. its just self improvement of a specific focus. But i appreciate your input. its confirmed some of what I expected about the negative reaction some women have to the entire concept.

the estrogen posse is predictable and passionate.

Sure.  If you can factor in how many of the bastards were produced by men who were married to other women, the number of women who would have divorced their husband because of his abuse/infidelity/addiction but couldn't because the laws/society were against her and the number of STDs that floated around the military units and how many of those afflicted were married at the time.  We can start there.

I agree with your point and it is possible to do that, but in order to do so people likely need to overcome their natural tendencies that are ingrained in their behavior through centuries of evolutionary psychology.  Most people don't.

Interesting article, 80% correct.

It really isn't any different than some mens' aversion to Cosmo, (and like you said) makeup, push up bras, etc.  *Real* appeals to almost everyone universally and *fake* does not.  There are pockets of both men and women who are more into the window dressing and think little of anything other than what's on the surface.  

That said, I don't leave the house without makeup, clothes I think are flattering, etc. in spite of the men who don't dig that sort of thing.  Technically, in spite of those who are attracted to it as well since I'm married .  So keep on keeping on.  Not doing something you believe is good for you because of what people think is just as fake as the red pill stuff.

So a wife should abandon a husband with an addiction?

wait, that's right.  She should.  And he will still pay.

So, lets go.  Show me your statistics.  

what % of husbands were abusive?
what % of husbands cheated (oh, and please list the % of wives who cheated, too.  Or are you saying that women don't cheat?  Obviously)
What % of married service members had STDs.

come on.  Give me something to work with here!

But lets look at today's feminist utopia, shall we?



2014 numbers



Divorce rates are dropping.
But that is because people aren't getting married as much.




your turn.

Sylvan, geez dude. Make like a Disney princess and Let it go.

We get it, you wish you lived in the days of yore, where manly men held all the cards.

Something tells me you'd find a way to complain about that too.

what the fuck does coconut oil do?

well, attractive Dr Axe says:

"Some of the top coconut oil benefits include:
Balances Hormones
Kills Candida
Improves Digestion
Moisturizes Skin
Reduces Cellulite
Decreases Wrinkles and Age Spots
Balances Blood Sugar and Improve Energy
Improves Alzheimer’s (how do you improve Alheimer's?)
Increases HDL and Lower LDL Cholesterol
Burns Fat"


I've seen women pull a jar of that shit out of their purse and put it into coffee.

They also put it on toast, bagels, I even saw one lady smear it all over (no shit here) a Pop-Tart.


This is like some Tony Robbins bullshit, only tailored to bored holistic suburban housewives

I should also make a daily smoothie of: lavender essential oil, turmeric, cilantro, bone broth, milk thistle, ginger, cannabis, garlic, myrrh, frankincense, echinacea, holy basil, garlic, citrus peel, licorice, astragalus, ashwagandha, sage, cinnamon, thyme, cayenne pepper, and vitex.  I don't even know what vitex is actually.

I don't have time for that, so I'll just sleep in a big garbage bag full of all that stuff blended with coconut oil

I have full faith that I will stay perfectly healthy and never die if I maintain this regimen

Dat feminism tho

My husband drinks it in his coffee.  It's loaded with medium-chain triglycerides which do good things for your cholesterol numbers.  It's a really healthy form of fat and is yummy.  It's also excellent for sunburns and makeup removal.  

Quick and dirty explanation for Alzheimers:  Ketone bodies are an alternative fuel for brain cells when glucose availability is insufficient. For example, the neuro-protective potential of ketone bodies has been demonstrated by the practice of ketogenic diets in the treatment of epilepsy. Our body can produce ketones from stored fat during fasting or in starvation, but they can also be produced from medium chain fatty acids.  As previously mentioned, coconut oil is rich in medium chain fatty acid and is converted into the ketone body called betahydroxybutyrate (beta-OHB) by the liver. This means that coconut oil is able to provide the brain with an alternate energy source in the form of ketones. As the brain ages, it becomes less efficient at utilizing glucose and requires alternative energy sources such as ketones, this is particularly the case in Alzheimer’s disease. A study found that administering coconut oil to Alzheimer’s patients resulted in an increase in beta-OHB and improvement on memory recall tests.17 In a mouse model for Alzheimer’s disease, feeding beta-OHB improved anxiety, learning and memory. In addition, the beta-OHB fed mice had significantly less amyloid beta (the toxic plaques found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients) deposition in various regions of the brain.18

That's from Dr. Rhonda Patrick, one of the leading experts on aging and epigenetics.  In case you want her creds to ensure she's not just a misguided housewife :  https://www.foundmyfitness.com/about-dr-rhonda-patrick

You could have just as easily posted a photo of a beautiful conservative woman too, but you chose that. Not cool!

That's the last straw, I'm never coming out of my coconut oil-and-herb sleeping bag