Jump to content
Captain_Colossus

the big questions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

related to the video thread, grenny and whoever else would like to participate: 

 

am i sexist? yes. i am a man. the irony is that the females are also sexist, and they know they are- it's generally the males you will find who have these egalitarian notions, often programmed into them by modern society to believe that way. men tend to be by nature much more direct, they mean what they say and say what they mean, and for that reason they tend to project onto women the same sorts of traits and characteristics, as if they were men.

 

women generally are not egalitarian, and they never were- the reason is deep in their biological programming they couldn't afford to not be sexist. as the selectors (the barriers to reproduction), females throughout history had to be careful as to which males may have impregnated them, or what males they shacked up with because those are very risky choices for a female to make- the riskiest imaginable. imagine for thousands and thousands of years in primitive societies, a weak man was dangerous to a woman. that means a weak man could not potentially provide for and take care of women against threats (other men, animals, hunger, the elements, and so on). men on the other hand did not face the threat of physically dangerous or weak women who couldn't provide for them, because women weren't as dangerous to men as men were to women in the same sense. the women were a different kind of liability (men needed to share resources with women, protect women when they were pregnant, because there is no more helpless state than the state of pregnancy, raise offspring- in a slowly maturing species such as ours, significant energy and resources must be invested in offspring to be given a chance) imagine these were the general conditions for at least 100- 200 thousand years of human development (the rough time frame scientists agree on for modern hominids). this is how our mental firmware evolved. men evolved as the hunters and providers, women, back in the cave or back in the settlement, evolved under different selection pressures. men had to have each other's backs during the hunt, trust one another to form alliances against other hostile tribes, and so on. again, women's concerns primarily was whether their men were weak, could not provide, could not protect, and whether their children would make it. therefore, male and female bodies, including their brains evolved differently. hence, when you look at men's bodies, they look much more suited for labor, battle, and work. women's bodies when looked at are best suited for bearing children- wide hips allowed for easy birthing, certain physical appendages for nursing, and so on. of course, you'll always get someone who comes along and says, "but i know a 7 ft. tall woman who plays basketball in the WNBA," or they give outliers such as the odd female scientist. so for every female marie curie, there is this tendency to use that as a complete counterweight to the hundreds or thousands of male scientists, as if the two as genders were contributing the same amount in the particular field. never fails. the irony is this- in western society, as females have gained more and more social parity, they have begun to actually surpass men, particularly their enrollment in post secondary education, or graduate study while men are falling behind. overwhelmingly, even as women outnumber men in higher education, few women still go into STEM fields- it was predicted that as barriers were lifted, it would be the opposite- more women would be going into STEM related fields. in the west, this is not happening, where this is actually happening is in more conservative countries in the middle east, where women are going into more STEM related fields- the likely answer it to break free of severe social restrictions placed on them in those societies, but in western cultures where females don't have such restrictions, they actually are avoiding STEM and you're not seeing this happen- because the females don't need to out of necessity.

 

so what happened? in first world post industrial societies, where conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated, you're seeing unintended consequences of it- mainly a pronounced gender war coming on. why would this happen? because the conditions that women used to require men for or they wouldn't survive has been taken care of a lot more by society. in other words, women don't need to find husbands to survive, they don't need a man's surplus resources, because they can get those things themselves through the state, or easy office jobs take care of the rent. and with modern medicine and food production, the basic problems are taken care of. quite frankly there is a surplus of average men who no more supply the women with resources than what the women can supply themselves. so evolution is naturally taking care of it- over the last century, society has been undergoing a female supremacy movement which is rather in plain sight. the female brain circuitry is still fundamentally the same as it always was over the eons- find men of means and resources, however, the last few centuries of modern civilization have changed the conditions, but the behavior is still the same. in other words, it was always in females to vet males for weakness and vulnerability (rather than as egalitarian entities), that is still there- basic survival and female instincts essentially are unchanged as they were in prehistoric times, however the conditions of society have changed, one where there is a perceived surplus of men, where the balance of power between the genders has shifted over to the females. the females still generally behave like females as they always have, that is, acquire resources and means from men. you don't see a very high number of female entrepreneurs starting their own companies just the same way they never were the ones to build early settlements or hunt game for food. they were doing their gender roles, which were different- cooking and raising children and so forth. sexist? you bet. but it is what it is, because the genders are in fact different. it's only in modern times where we started this nonsense that they are the same, when you even know intuitively that they are different, but nevertheless you operate on a this manufactured conceit that they are the same.

 

here is the thing, it was likely a survival tactic of women to operate and maneuver together within social hierarchies which placed a premium on female rather than male survival if you had to pick one or the other (a single man is much more disposable, and not as great a loss as a single woman, who can reproduce- so the loss of a woman is a greater liability) ; individually a woman was rather weak, collectively they are much stronger to bargain their power, and men, largely i think ignorant as to this gender dynamic going on, have been over time steadily bargaining their power away increasingly away to women. again, women are sexist, but they are the ones to convince you that they aren't and only men are. but their behavior shows otherwise

 

https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

 

there are more articles out there if you aren't convinced, but i don't really think you even need to do a whole lot of research to see what is in plain sight. women tend to show a much more automatic and innate preference for women than they do men. and they do this openly. it is the men you will find who tend to do this thing: "you women are right. women can kick men's asses and then some. only sexist jerks think that the genders are different. not me" - basically men, as i stated earlier, try to solve the problem of reproduction by joining the women's team as a strategy to win approval from them and order to get in with their good graces. and we know why that is. men tend to see men as competitors as access to female approval, ultimately to pass on their own genes and eliminate their competitors.

 

men's brains associated with tool use activated when attracted to women (solving the 'problem' of reproduction)

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/02/bikinis-women-men-objects-science/

 

again, there are plenty more articles where that came from, but you understand why it happens when you understand the fundamental differences between the sexes, how each gender perceives the other, as well as the mating opportunities for both. ultimately, when men are playing the game by women's rules, by believing women and men to be essentially the same, even when brain scans show them to be different, men are attempting to solve the problem of reproduction by 'joining the women's team,' so to speak, in order to get access to their approval. women on the other hand do not perceive men in the same way. they see men as success symbols primarily, and they see the as instruments to get something out of (money, attention, career opportunity, strong genetic donor)

 

so whether you know it or not, by doing that virtue signal thing we do as men, i..e., accept women as the same or better than us (how many men do you hear refer to their wives as their better half), the men are basically subconsciously or as a programmed response attempting to play the mating game by a female primary order, that is, by the female's rules. you don't see women describe themselves in relation to men the same way, for reasons i've explained above- automatic female ingroup preference. only men tend to exhibit this trait. if both men and women are saying that women are as industrious and productive as men, then that is a flattering image of women, it is a rigged game at that. in this game, increasingly men are deliberately handicapping themselves and yielding to women, and the women are taking advantage of it- why wouldn't they? if you as a woman are given advantages because of an automatic preference for women even against the facts, why would you not take it?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 i want men to see the following video

 

this shows the essential difference i think most men are conditioned to operate and think about women: women are mothers, teachers, disney princesses, or essentially like one of the guys, except cuter and more benign. they are incapable of pulling a man's chain with a straight face, correct? if anything, men are the most caught off guard when it does happen, because men do not default to any sort of vetting of women. just the same way women always maintain some suspicion over men they don't know, it's not normal for most men to do the same thing to the same degree. this happless guy here is clearly projecting his own traits on to the woman. just like him, she means what she says and says what she means. because women are the same as men. no woman thinks differently. i'll tell you men now, female brains are often times more suited for reading subtle behavior cues in men rather than the other way around. men tend to see what's right in front of them- attractive, young, pretty, reminds them of mom or a sister or harmless. women, on the other hand, being a different gender, don't view men in the same light. the female perspective of men is different, as it always has been. men, conditioned to be nice and around women and to think of them as the same sort of player running a straight game often times project their own psychology onto females.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

related to the video thread, grenny and whoever else would like to participate: 

 

i am sexist? yes. i am a man. the irony is that the females are also sexist, and they know they are- it's generally the males you will find who have these egalitarian notions, often programmed into them by modern society to believe that way. men tend to be by nature much more direct, mean what they say and say what they mean, and for that reason they tend to project onto women the same sorts of traits and characteristics, as if they were men.

 

women generally are not egalitarian, and they never were- the reason is deep in their biological programming they couldn't afford to be not sexist. as the selectors (the barriers to reproduction) females throughout history had to be careful as to what males may have impregnated them, or what males they shacked up with because those are very risky choices for a female to make- the riskiest imaginable. imagine for thousands and thousands of years in primitive societies, a weak man was dangerous to a woman. that means a weak man could not potentially provide and take care of women against threats (other men, animals, hunger, the elements, and so on). men on the other hand did not face this threat. because women weren't as dangerous to men as men were to women in the same sense. the women were a different kind of liability (men needed to share resources with women, protect women when they are pregnant, because there is no more helpless state than the state of pregnancy, raise offpring- in a slowly maturing species such as ours, significant energy and resources must be invested in offspring to be given a chance) imagine these were the general conditions for at least 100- 200 thousand years of human development (the rough time frame scientists agree on for modern hominids). this is how our mental firmware evolved. men evolved as the hunters and providers, women, back in the cave or back in the settlement, evolved under different selection pressures. men had to have each other's backs during the hunt, form alliances against other hostile tribes, and so on. again, women's concerns primarily was whether their men were weak, could not provide, could not protect, and whether their children would make it. therefore, male and female bodies, including their brains evolved differently. hence, when you look at men's bodies, they look much more suited for labor, battle, and work. women's bodies when looked at are best suited for bearing children- wide hips, certain physical appendages for nursing, and so on. of course, you'll always get someone who comes along and says, "but i know a 7 ft. tall woman who plays basketball in the WNBA. or they give outliers such as the odd female scientist. so for every female marie curie, there is this tendency to use that as a complete counterweight to the hundreds or thousands of male scientists as if the two, as genders were contributing the same amount in the particular field. never fails. the irony is this- in western society, as females have gained more and more social parity, they have begin to actually surpass men, particularly their enrollment in post secondary education, or graduate study while men are falling behind. the irony is however that overwhelmingly, even as women outnumber men in higher education, few women still go into STEM fields, it was predicted that as barriers were lifted, it would be the opposite- more women would be going into STEM related fields. in the west, this is not happening, where this is actually happening is in more conservative countries in the middle east, where women are going into more STEM related fields- the likely answer it to break free of social restrictions placed on them in those societies, but in western cultures where females don't have such restrictions, they actually are avoiding STEM and you're not seeing this happen- because the females don't need to out of necessity.

 

so what happened? in first world post industrial societies, where conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated, you're seeing unintended consequences of it- mainly a pronounced gender war coming on. why would this happen? because the conditions that women used to require men for or they wouldn't survive has been taken care of a lot more by society. in other words, women don't need to find husbands to survive, they don't need a man's surplus resources, because they can get those things themselves through the state, or easy office jobs take care of the rent. quite frankly there is a surplus of average men who no more supply the women with resources than what the women can  supply themselves. so evolution is naturally taking care of it- over the last century society has been undergoing a female supremacy movement which rather in plain sight. the female brain circuitry is still fundamentally the same as it always was over the eons- find men of means and resources, however, the last few centuries of modern civilization have changed the conditions, but the behavior is still the same. in other words, it was always in females to vet males for weakness and vulnerability, that is still there- basic survival and female instincts essentially are unchanged as they were in prehistoric times, however the conditions of society have changed, one where there is a perceived surplus of men, where the balance of power between the genders has shifted over to the females. the females still generally behave like females as they always have, that is, acquire resources and means from men. you don't see a very high number of female entrepreneurs starting their own companies just the same way they never were the ones to build early settlements or hunt game for food. they were doing their gender roles, which were different- cooking, and so forth. sexist? you bet. but it is what it is, because the genders are in fact different. it's only in modern times where we started this nonsense that they are the same, when you even know intuitively know that they are different,

 

here is thing, it was likely a survival tactic of women to operate and maneuver together within social hierarchies, individually a woman was rather weak, collectively they are much stronger to bargain their power, and men, largely i think ignorant as to this gender dynamic going on, have been over time steadily bargaining their power away increasingly away to women. again, women are sexist, but they are the ones to convince you that they aren't and only men are. but their behavior shows otherwise

 

https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

 

there are more articles out there if you aren't convinced, but i don't really think you even need to really do a whole lot of research to see what is in plain sight. women tend to show a much more automatic and innate preference for women than they do men. and they do this openly. it is the men you will find who tend to do this thing: "you women are right. women can kick men's asses and then some. only sexist jerks think that the genders aren't different. not me" - basically men, as i stated earlier, try to solve the problem of reproduction by joining the women's team as a strategy to win approval from them and order to get in with their good graces. and we know why that is. men tend to see men as competitors as access to female approval, ultimately to pass on their own genes and eliminate their competitors.

 

men's brains associated with tool use activated when attracted to women (solving the 'problem' of reproduction)

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/02/bikinis-women-men-objects-science/

 

again, there are plenty more articles where that came from, but you understand why it happens when you understand the fundamental differences between the sexes, how each gender perceives the other, as well as the mating opportunities for both. ultimately, when men are playing the game by women's rules, by believing women and men to be essentially the same, even when brain scans show them to be different, men are attempting to solve the problem of reproduction by 'joining the women's team,' so to speak, in order to get access to their approval. women on the other hand do not perceive men in the same way. they see men as success symbols primarily, and they see the as instruments to get something out of (money, attention, career opportunity, strong genetic donor)

 

so whether you know it or not, by doing that virtue signal thing we do as men, i..e., accept women as the same or better than us (how many men do you hear refer to their wives as their better half), the men are basically subconsciously or as a programmed response attempting to play the mating game by a female primary order, that is, by the female's rules. you don't see women describe themselves in relation to men the same way, for reasons i've explained above- automatic female ingroup preference. only men tend to exhibit this trait. if both men and women are saying that women are as industrious and productive as men, then that is a flattering image of women, it is a rigged game at that. in this game, increasingly men are deliberately handicapping themselves and yielding to women, and the women are taking advantage of it- why wouldn't they? if you are given advantages because of an automatic preference for women even against the facts, why would you not take it?

 

 

 

 

You are not discussing.

I answered your questions. (altough they where hard to find under layers of rants....I men are more direct as you generalize, then you are the counter example.)

You just argue against claim that noone here made.

 

So, do you want to discuss, or do you want to go on attakcing the strawmen you build, or do you want to discuss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've laid out a general roadmap. so you know where i come from. no confusion. i';ve provided links to articles as i said i would.

 

ask a question, then i'll ask a question. go- ask me a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of my thoughts on (and off) the subject:

 

  1. I do think men and women are different - and I'm glad about that. I wouldn't want women to be just like men. There are those who do ... but I think they swing another way. ;) (Which is fine, if that's your bag, baby.)
  2. I think the sexes compliment each other. And I don't think this is a coincidence.
  3. As you say, there are "outliers" - and I don't think women should be held back from achieving anything based on the mere fact that they are women. But I don't believe we should think of men and women as "the same".
  4. If a woman feigns interest in something I like - just to get more of my attention - well, I'll give it to her. (Especially if she looks like the woman in the video which started this.)
  5. The woman in said video vaguely reminds me of my wife. She showed an interest in SB for a while - and genuine or not, it resulted in more quality time together.
  6. My wife is prettier and smarter than the woman in said video. (If you're reading this - I love you, baby!) 😅
  7. There are a shedload of new smileys since the forum update.
  8. Men think with their "gun" far too often and that gets them into trouble. But hey - that's how we evolved.
  9. I'm glad I'm married (to a woman who truly makes me happy) - because I don't have to worry about most of this anymore.
  10. I've been drinking.
  11. I like tanks. And I like people who like tanks.
  12. Life is good.
  13. 'Merica!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

i've laid out a general roadmap. so you know where i come from. no confusion. i';ve provided links to articles as i said i would.

 

ask a question, then i'll ask a question. go- ask me a question.

You think that there should be a "protected space" for males?

You think that if the males get distracted, its the females fault?

And for that reason females should stay off certain topics?

If someone is able and interested in a job, why on earth should anyone allowed deny this person a try at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2019 at 10:24 PM, Lt DeFault said:

A few of my thoughts on (and off) the subject:

 

  1. I do think men and women are different - and I'm glad about that. I wouldn't want women to be just like men. There are those who do ... but I think they swing another way. ;) (Which is fine, if that's your bag, baby.)
  2. I think the sexes compliment each other. And I don't think this is a coincidence.
  3. As you say, there are "outliers" - and I don't think women should be held back from achieving anything based on the mere fact that they are women. But I don't believe we should think of men and women as "the same".
  4. If a woman feigns interest in something I like - just to get more of my attention - well, I'll give it to her. (Especially if she looks like the woman in the video which started this.)
  5. The woman in said video vaguely reminds me of my wife. She showed an interest in SB for a while - and genuine or not, it resulted in more quality time together.
  6. My wife is prettier and smarter than the woman in said video. (If you're reading this - I love you, baby!) 😅
  7. There are a shedload of new smileys since the forum update.
  8. Men think with their "gun" far too often and that gets them into trouble. But hey - that's how we evolved.
  9. I'm glad I'm married (to a woman who truly makes me happy) - because I don't have to worry about most of this anymore.
  10. I've been drinking.
  11. I like tanks. And I like people who like tanks.
  12. Life is good.
  13. 'Merica!

outliers are precisely that- there is a tendency however where people do this thing, they commit to this mistake: i say that rich people don't live in the ghetto. the reply is this: well i know of such and such whozat who is rich and lives in the ghetto.

what they are doing is taking the outlier and negating all the rest of the data. in other words, the rare exception to the rule disproves the entire rule, therefore nothing can be said at all. so if we presume a reasonable 85 percent of all rich people don't live in the ghetto and 15 percent of rich people live in the ghetto (and i could be making a rather generous concession here to my opponents), it always happens- someone and comes along and says all the data that says that rich people don't live in the ghetto except for a few make the remark you cannot generalize. of course you can generalize, the world works on generalizations. in general, it is the dutch who have the tallest population, that is an accepted generalization. it's not really disputed because it's not controversial. but it is a generalization.

 

a few years ago an interesting thing happened: a dating site called okcupid released analytics to the public, interesting what its data points were revealing. it showed that females really didn't believe in equality in terms of which gender should ask which gender out- even females who self identified as feminists reverted to the traditional arrangement that men should make the approach. equality indeed. in fact this tends to correlate with what most men experience from women generally- even women who believe in equality, only do so when it is to their advantage, but revert to 'traditional' gender discrimination when it doesn't. i.e., men should be the ones to pay for dates, take the risks of rejection and so on. this is very similar to how women don't tend to fight for equality in low status jobs, only for executive positions. in other words you will still see the majority of males working on offshore oil rigs, mining or other dangerous work, while women complain of the wage gap when it concerns higher paid or higher status positions. then it gets even more interesting:

 

then okcupid compiled data on message and reply rate, and other ratings, because they tracked that stuff, fairly predictably men tended to rate women according to a curve, most women occupied the middle, and then there were the outliers on either extreme. women did not view men the same way. rather, women's preference rather strikingly followed the pareto principle, that is, the 80/20 rule. meaning most women regarding most men as unnattractive, save for very few. you have to understand this would even indicate that even unattractive women still regarded most men as rather unfit. this site compiled all the data into easy to understand graphs. but as you can see the sexes clearly view each other differently according to their most basic relationship to one another- attracting and mating. assuming okcupid's data is correct, men and women do not view each other the same. men tend to view women in a more favorable light. and this squares with the other articles i posted above:

 

https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2014/10/16/how-do-men-rate-women-on-dating-websites-part-2/#prettyPhoto

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grenny said:

You think that there should be a "protected space" for males?

yes, if they wanted a protected space. that would be equality, right? if you asking this question sarcastically or rhetorically, it seems to show you don't believe in equality for men, confirming that men tend to not have an own gender bias the way women do.

12 minutes ago, Grenny said:

You think that if the males get distracted, its the females fault?

 

You mean if the males find the women attractive, then it's male's fault for finding them attractive? I think women play the attraction game from both angles. having it both ways. In other words, put on makeup or make themselves look attractive. now what they do is this: when the 'right'  guys take the bait, that is, a hot happening rich guy approaches i don't think women have a problem with it all. it's when the 'wrong' guy, the guy who is not as attractive looking to her standards does it, then it's harrasment or what have you.

 

 

And for that reason females should stay off certain topics?

no, you didn't understand at all my point. my point was this: someone seemed to be asking where are the girls he wasn't dating interested in tanks are like in this video. my reply was this: you won't find any, and this female is no exception. i explained the reasons why: she's not interested in the tanks. the medium is the message. do you see women all over this site hankering to participate? doesn't happen. the proof is in the pudding- you'd see them here if it was.

 

12 minutes ago, Grenny said:

If someone is able and interested in a job, why on earth should anyone allowed deny this person a try at it?

They should have a try at it, sure. Any idea how many women fight to get a job cleaning sewers in the name of equality? What about other 'undesirable male occupations you virtually never see women in- and you know what i'm taking about. and i'm not talking about immigrated women from abroad to clean hotel bathrooms or pick fruit and vegetables. the funny thing is this- in sweden, probably the country most likely to be egalitarian, you're not seeing women actually pursue STEM careers in huge amounts. not because they are being prevented, it's because they simply don't want to; in western cultures, the more gender equality, the less women are participating in STEM:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question, grenny:

 

i'm sure i don't need to post statistics for you to agree that across the board: that given the overwhelming majority of workplace accidents and deaths are overwhelmingly men (not even including combat casualties- in other words, the average

civilian casualty), do you think that it if it were turned around, and it was happening to women on a much larger scale, and men much less, there would be different response, and there would be immediate reaction to save women from this obvious sexist imbalance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

You mean if the males find the women attractive, then it's male's fault for finding them attractive?

No, findig someone attractive is not the issue. Lack of selfcontrol and (over)acting on this attracktion is an issue.

 

9 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

They should have a try at it, sure.

Then why do you get triggered.

 

9 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

Any idea how many women fight to get a job cleaning sewers in the name of equality?

Hmmm, do you select your job out of any idiology? Or because you like doing that job? (Ok, some do get into the shitty job because they do not qualify for anything else)

Why on earth should someone apply for a job they don't want to do when there are other options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. I'm old fashioned. I long for the days when men were men and women were women. Some may find that "offensive" - but, frankly, I don't care.

 

And for the most part, I see the same opinion from those around me. That might be because I live in a relatively rural area. Or any one of a thousand other factors. Who knows?

 

But I think that one of the main problems we face is the growing influence of media in our lives. There seems [to me] to be a disparity between what the media would have you believe and what is actually going on. The problem is that more and more people seem to be falling for it. It's as if a problem is being "manufactured" where none actually exists. There may be one or two incidents per month of some kind of perceived discrimination against an individual. And that "problem" seems amplified when a dozen news agencies make it their top headline. But contrast that with the fact that there are well over seven BILLION people on this planet.

 

The fact is: most of us get along just fine. So - my advice is to lessen your contact with social media (and the internet/media in general), and increase your contact with your community - locally and globally.

 

I think you'll find the two are vastly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

question, grenny:

 

i'm sure i don't need to post statistics for you to agree that across the board: that given the overwhelming majority of workplace accidents and deaths are overwhelmingly men (not even including combat casualties- in other words, the average

civilian casualty), do you think that it if it were turned around, and it was happening to women on a much larger scale, and men much less, there would be different response, and there would be immediate reaction to save women from this obvious sexist imbalance?

Again, stop attacking strawmen.

I never said there should be any quotas for men/women in any field.

 

And, this is not a question, it is a speculation...

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

grenny  i show you an article refuting the gender bias in STEM, that women willfully don't go into it. their gender does behave in specific ways and it's not this narrative that it's only because they are being oppressed. you're doing that thing that most guys are doing these days, it's not unusual. in my experience, this is very common. it's the 'im with her', for the same reason i've met more males who would likely pull over to help a stranded female than a stranded male motorist. men display a preference for women rather than men of their own gender. again i refer you to the articles i've explained previously. men simply do not like other men and women do not like men all that much each other, unless it's the top percenters like in the pareto distribution

 

this is how the modern gender dynamic works in general: the game is rigged. you have been likely raised, and it's not unusual at all, to basically have a feminine primary mindset. anything counter to that is utterly alien. the game is this: the females have always been the lagging indicator. men have always throughout history been the more industrious the more inventive, the more whatever- the females less so. generally the females got the benefit of the males who went out hunting, building, and so on and so forth. in modern times, this has changed, which initself not a problem except for the way the men are unwittingly duped themselves into playing the female game, which is this- very similar to when you were kids and teachers and parents or whatever told you to give girls a head start or let them win or give them a chance to win and handicap yourselves. i went through it, i know a lot of guys who did, but this isn't stopping. in the name of 'equality' which is anything but about equality, it's more of a rigged game where even if the females are to participate in society with the so called gender barriers removed, it's still never enough and the game is rigged so that females 'win' - and you see the pareto principle exploading, as men have made themselves obsolete except for the very cream of the crop

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Again, stop attacking strawmen.

I never said there should be any quotas for men/women in any field.

 

And, this is not a question, it is a speculation...

not a speculation, so i thought i would presume you knew this, apparently 1) you either don't know this (ignorance can be excused) 2) or you do and for some reason you are doubling down on the 'lie' that overwhelmingly more men than women are victims in workplace accidents (which is not excusable if you do it deliberately- and it doesn't stop there- more men are victims of violent crime, more men die by suicide, more men are homeless, and so on and so forth).

 

so it's not a speculation- you can look this up yourself, it's rather easy

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/

 

are you going to deny it? if you don't like the source or consider it biased, there are plenty others confirming the same thing

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lt DeFault said:

Look. I'm old fashioned. I long for the days when men were men and women were women. Some may find that "offensive" - but, frankly, I don't care.

 

And for the most part, I see the same opinion from those around me. That might be because I live in a relatively rural area. Or any one of a thousand other factors. Who knows?

 

But I think that one of the main problems we face is the growing influence of media in our lives. There seems [to me] to be a disparity between what the media would have you believe and what is actually going on. The problem is that more and more people seem to be falling for it. It's as if a problem is being "manufactured" where none actually exists. There may be one or two incidents per month of some kind of perceived discrimination against an individual. And that "problem" seems amplified when a dozen news agencies make it their top headline. But contrast that with the fact that there are well over seven BILLION people on this planet.

 

The fact is: most of us get along just fine. So - my advice is to lessen your contact with social media (and the internet/media in general), and increase your contact with your community - locally and globally.

 

I think you'll find the two are vastly different.

 

well do you raise a point, and i agree that social media has been exacerbating things. but it can studied for certain cues and trends (which is afterall why facebook collects analytics for marketing purposes and so on) but because social media contributes and compounds problems doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm out of here.

You just keep ranting past the point I made and arguing against thing I'v never claimed and keep insisting on generalizations.

 

4 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

. in modern times, this has changed, which initself not a problem except for the way the men are unwittingly duped themselves into playing the female game, which is this- very similar to when you were kids and teachers and parents or whatever told you to give girls a head start or let them win or give them a chance to win and handicap yourselves. i went through it, i know a lot of guys who did, but this isn't stopping. in the name 'equality' which is anything but, it's more of a rigged game where even if the females are to participate in society with the so called gender barriers removed, it's still never enough and the game is rigged so that females 'win' - and you're the pareto principle exploading, as men have made themselves obsolete except for the very cream of the crop

 

Last point....

Nope, never happened to me. Why should anyone give a girl a headstart when competing on and equal footing?

And I for one have women in my team not because of their gender, but because they are good at what they do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you certainly do ignore links i've been posting, which aren't my wild speculations, these are data points which can be crossed references i suppose that is the real reason you're out- you can't refute them. i'd rather you stay,  but it's up to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire discuission is so out of the left field, are we sure that SteelBeasts.com is the right place for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

This entire discuission is so out of the left field, are we sure that SteelBeasts.com is the right place for it?

Aleluya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I regret having had a part in starting this.

I thought it was fun to see someone who I can only describe as "very enthusiastic, but totally clueless" climb around an M1...

 

 

In response to@Lt DeFault:

On 4/5/2019 at 12:24 AM, Lt DeFault said:
  • If a woman feigns interest in something I like - just to get more of my attention - well, I'll give it to her. (Especially if she looks like the woman in the video which started this.) 
  • The woman in said video vaguely reminds me of my wife. She showed an interest in SB for a while - and genuine or not, it resulted in more quality time together. 

 

I don't know if she's feigning interest or genuinely interested, and I don't really care.  She does, however, remind me of an ex-girlfriend or two of mine, from the hair right down to the clothes and the whole 'showing interest in guy things'.  It's all fun and games until you say "later babe I'm going to the shooting range with the boys!" and then she wants to tag along.

 

Like I joked about when I first posted this, I think she's kinda weird.  Very cute.  But still weird.  By female standards anyway...

 

@Captain_Colossus

On 4/4/2019 at 5:49 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

so what happened? in first world post industrial societies, where conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated, you're seeing unintended consequences of it- mainly a pronounced gender war coming on. why would this happen?

Pardon me while I shift the gears here a little bit...But, what's funny is that I tend to see this, "conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated", not resulting in a pronounced gender war, but rather resulting in many more stupid people surviving and breeding.

 

We live in a world where firearms are manufactured with a warning engraved into their parts to let you know that guns are dangerous and they can kill you.

Well...No S***?!

 

Just saying, but OSHA and lots of other places have done more than just eliminate unnecessary risks and hazards, they've created workplaces where stupid people can not only escape death but can do quite good at their jobs, and go on to procreate with other stupid people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...