Politicians with half a braincell, whose party supposedly wants to promote government transparency, don't use private email for official communication.
The MRM and the MHRM are two different entities, the former having split from the latter when it corrupted itself and diluted the message. The fundamental difference is that the former understands that the state is the primary enforcer of feminist ideology and goals and thus the 'primary aggressor' targeting men, while the latter often uses the refrain 'they're all the same, don't bring politics into it.'
Basically, the left infiltrated 'a voice for men' early on, and neutered it in the process. Those issues you listed are quite accurate, but the MHRM refuses to acknowledge that the state and current crop of politicians are the cause.
While it's hypocritical, it does make sense, because 'trans women' aren't women at all. They're men with mental problems who use hormone treatments as an escape.
Then they should put some of that desperation towards doing so instead of expecting society to hold the men back for them. Do you really want to watch women get pile driven by a hoard of male nfl players? This is like having women in elite military units that only accept the best of the best, physically. It's crazy.
So what's the answer? lower the standards for everyone to make them equal? That just waters down the point of making an effort at all.
Most women don't give a fuck about the things men are into, and most men don't give a fuck about the things women are into. There's no evil male conspiracy out to get them.
Well of course, the feminist critics always give mad props to feminist laced media. Just like pravda always gave the state's 'collective' effort praise whether it was worthy or not.
Yes.. What's on TV these days and turning thor into a woman are far greater 'offenses' than anything that's in fury road. Clarey isn't really an MRA either, he's a PUA.
Well, you could optimize for current arches, too, if you wanted to squeeze all you can out of them. New arches become old rather quickly. Why not do some optimization if it reaps decent benefits? Just keep a C fallback for each so your code remains portable into the future. When such a future arch comes along, then it's a matter of re-porting the still relevant optimizations and looking for new ones the differing arch exposes. An example of this would be a math library. Compilers are pretty good but they don't replace an unoptimized math library, or compensate for shitty design.
Still doesn't align well with the 'transparent government' push. Come on, as a public official you shouldn't be using private servers for official communications.
That's correct. So why are more and more men choosing this lifestyle instead of having families? Perhaps it's because feminists have convinced marriage age women to fill their pots with vinegar instead of honey. If marriage is supposed to be symbiotic, then we can't limit ourselves to what men are doing. Women's behavior and what they're offering the table these days needs to be discussed as well.
None of that changes the social and legal realities we live in now. Just remember that all of your interactions with her are based on the knowledge that if she decides to leave, your financial and social life is over, especially if her lawyer convinces her to accuse you of abuse. It may seem unimaginable to you, now, and it's great you've got a situation that's working out, but that doesn't change the fact you are still playing the lottery every day as a social and legal second class citizen.
Second, if the girl is pretty great but the relationships are all going wrong, look at your behavior. Yes, the girl may be doing things wrong too, but remember YOU CANNOT CHANGE OTHERS. Are YOU behaving the same way as listed above? You may be. You may be expecting the perfect girl to accommodate you.
If you said this to a feminist in reference to women, you'd be labeled a 'victim blamer.' The issue isn't how close to perfection (whatever that means) the guy's or girl's behavior is, it' the double standards imposed by the social engineers. Blaming women? not ok. Blaming men? Hell yeah! Fuck those shitlords! They need to step it up and accept their new second class status! That is the combined message men receive from society today. It's no wonder that the smarter ones (the nerds/geeks you refer to) are seeing the numbers for what they are and dropping out. About the only true component of your statement is that it is true that you can only alter your own behavior. Unfortunately for men, it almost doesn't matter what they alter. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't since she's got the legal and social trump card.
"All women are like that" to some degree, just like "all men are like that." That's the definition of stereotypes. All men and all women are partially defined by biological imperatives that don't just go away due to insecurity about them or political inconvenience. If you set a particular stage for interaction (like what current socjus laws and policies do), you will see a majority of women behave in certain ways, and a majority of men behave in others. This is especially apparent on college campuses.
Basically, your post blames men for the whole situation, which is a typical refrain these days. The irony is that by doing so you're implying that women have zero agency in relationships. All you're really doing is pointing the finger and shaming instead of looking at both sides of the interaction.
Sorry but it's not that simple. Men's behavior is an adaptation to changes in social structure. In the past, rejection was about the only thing a guy had to face. Today, it's fraudulent, career destroying sexual abuse/rape charges, financial ruin from extremist 'family' court judges in divorce, and, really, indifference from the now hyper gynocentric/effeminate culture. Hell, even coming on to a woman in what most would consider appropriate circumstances (at a bar/club lets say) carries a real risk of being carted off to jail because she 'felt uncomfortable'. A lot of guys are doing the math and realizing the dwindling rewards of pursuing women no longer offset the increasing risks. These threats are not simply anxiety that can be willed away. They are very real and increasing with every socjus type law that is passed.
The bottom line is that feminism removed almost all the incentives for men to marry and commit, leaving only the responsibilities for cleaning up any 'mess' that might occur for choosing to interact with women at any level, from casual/professional interaction to sex/marriage (why did she choose to have the baby? because she knew she could get the state to bilk it out of him). You can thank affirmative action for that. Women are now a privileged caste, and in caste societies, the lowers often avoided interaction with the uppers just to minimize the probability of trouble. Thus, the only guys left at the table are the desperate sorts who will take any beating for any sort of female attention, even if negative, and the player sorts you mentioned. The whole situation is degenerate.
Slashdot Mirror
The mythos around thor goes back long before there was a marvel comics..
Politicians with half a braincell, whose party supposedly wants to promote government transparency, don't use private email for official communication.
The MRM and the MHRM are two different entities, the former having split from the latter when it corrupted itself and diluted the message. The fundamental difference is that the former understands that the state is the primary enforcer of feminist ideology and goals and thus the 'primary aggressor' targeting men, while the latter often uses the refrain 'they're all the same, don't bring politics into it.'
Basically, the left infiltrated 'a voice for men' early on, and neutered it in the process. Those issues you listed are quite accurate, but the MHRM refuses to acknowledge that the state and current crop of politicians are the cause.
While it's hypocritical, it does make sense, because 'trans women' aren't women at all. They're men with mental problems who use hormone treatments as an escape.
Then they should put some of that desperation towards doing so instead of expecting society to hold the men back for them. Do you really want to watch women get pile driven by a hoard of male nfl players? This is like having women in elite military units that only accept the best of the best, physically. It's crazy.
So what's the answer? lower the standards for everyone to make them equal? That just waters down the point of making an effort at all.
Most women don't give a fuck about the things men are into, and most men don't give a fuck about the things women are into. There's no evil male conspiracy out to get them.
Well of course, the feminist critics always give mad props to feminist laced media. Just like pravda always gave the state's 'collective' effort praise whether it was worthy or not.
So your fetish is watching women get annihilated by 250-300lb jacked guys?
Yes.. What's on TV these days and turning thor into a woman are far greater 'offenses' than anything that's in fury road. Clarey isn't really an MRA either, he's a PUA.
No, something closer to a soviet-era showtrial would be 'diversity officers' and 'discrimination tribunals' in the ivy league.
Well, you could optimize for current arches, too, if you wanted to squeeze all you can out of them. New arches become old rather quickly. Why not do some optimization if it reaps decent benefits? Just keep a C fallback for each so your code remains portable into the future. When such a future arch comes along, then it's a matter of re-porting the still relevant optimizations and looking for new ones the differing arch exposes. An example of this would be a math library. Compilers are pretty good but they don't replace an unoptimized math library, or compensate for shitty design.
Hey buddy, ever wait around near the nurses station at a hospital? Women can and do tell dirty jokes all the time.
Still doesn't align well with the 'transparent government' push. Come on, as a public official you shouldn't be using private servers for official communications.
Because the radical left on campuses would say that's racist and 'anti-social.'
We put more in than most if all countries of the world. The problem isn't money.
What about the left wing authoritarians who are currently in power?
http://www.debate.org/photos/a...
It isn't, but that's not what's actually being discussed here.
Yes. Because boys are not girls.
That's correct. So why are more and more men choosing this lifestyle instead of having families? Perhaps it's because feminists have convinced marriage age women to fill their pots with vinegar instead of honey. If marriage is supposed to be symbiotic, then we can't limit ourselves to what men are doing. Women's behavior and what they're offering the table these days needs to be discussed as well.
Yes, but you should ask yourself why the media portrays men and women this way. It's due to pressure from feminist political correctness.
None of that changes the social and legal realities we live in now. Just remember that all of your interactions with her are based on the knowledge that if she decides to leave, your financial and social life is over, especially if her lawyer convinces her to accuse you of abuse. It may seem unimaginable to you, now, and it's great you've got a situation that's working out, but that doesn't change the fact you are still playing the lottery every day as a social and legal second class citizen.
Translation: I'm too needy to acknowledge the reality of today's relationships so I shame men who opt out.
Second, if the girl is pretty great but the relationships are all going wrong, look at your behavior. Yes, the girl may be doing things wrong too, but remember YOU CANNOT CHANGE OTHERS. Are YOU behaving the same way as listed above? You may be. You may be expecting the perfect girl to accommodate you.
If you said this to a feminist in reference to women, you'd be labeled a 'victim blamer.' The issue isn't how close to perfection (whatever that means) the guy's or girl's behavior is, it' the double standards imposed by the social engineers. Blaming women? not ok. Blaming men? Hell yeah! Fuck those shitlords! They need to step it up and accept their new second class status! That is the combined message men receive from society today. It's no wonder that the smarter ones (the nerds/geeks you refer to) are seeing the numbers for what they are and dropping out. About the only true component of your statement is that it is true that you can only alter your own behavior. Unfortunately for men, it almost doesn't matter what they alter. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't since she's got the legal and social trump card.
"All women are like that" to some degree, just like "all men are like that." That's the definition of stereotypes. All men and all women are partially defined by biological imperatives that don't just go away due to insecurity about them or political inconvenience. If you set a particular stage for interaction (like what current socjus laws and policies do), you will see a majority of women behave in certain ways, and a majority of men behave in others. This is especially apparent on college campuses.
Basically, your post blames men for the whole situation, which is a typical refrain these days. The irony is that by doing so you're implying that women have zero agency in relationships. All you're really doing is pointing the finger and shaming instead of looking at both sides of the interaction.
Sorry but it's not that simple. Men's behavior is an adaptation to changes in social structure. In the past, rejection was about the only thing a guy had to face. Today, it's fraudulent, career destroying sexual abuse/rape charges, financial ruin from extremist 'family' court judges in divorce, and, really, indifference from the now hyper gynocentric/effeminate culture. Hell, even coming on to a woman in what most would consider appropriate circumstances (at a bar/club lets say) carries a real risk of being carted off to jail because she 'felt uncomfortable'. A lot of guys are doing the math and realizing the dwindling rewards of pursuing women no longer offset the increasing risks. These threats are not simply anxiety that can be willed away. They are very real and increasing with every socjus type law that is passed.
The bottom line is that feminism removed almost all the incentives for men to marry and commit, leaving only the responsibilities for cleaning up any 'mess' that might occur for choosing to interact with women at any level, from casual/professional interaction to sex/marriage (why did she choose to have the baby? because she knew she could get the state to bilk it out of him). You can thank affirmative action for that. Women are now a privileged caste, and in caste societies, the lowers often avoided interaction with the uppers just to minimize the probability of trouble. Thus, the only guys left at the table are the desperate sorts who will take any beating for any sort of female attention, even if negative, and the player sorts you mentioned. The whole situation is degenerate.
I am not a republican.
So what is the answer then?