Proof that Patriarchy Theory is in fact wrong, and Mainstream feminists are idiots

[KimGordon67]

A successful man of high status NEVER wants for a woman - and that nullifies your counterargument. The vast majority of men get to high social status by competing. Competing is in itself an act of aggression, which is not always violent. But then also how many top MMA fighters ever want for women? Tell me, how many?


And yet Donald Trump got not one wife, but THREE wives. And countless brutes just like him are quite successful with women.

http://www.worldlifestyle.com/relat...minist-can-understand-selena-reuniting-justin

If women are so fucking fed up with that shit then why is it that Charles Manson had an entire FOLLOWING of women and gang members in prison can impregnate four prison guards?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/four-female-prison-guards-impregnated-by-same-inmate/

Ever even heard of a drug dealer having problems finding women? I mean really, look at those drug dealers and biker gangs, what do they have swarming around them? You guessed it, WOMEN. How does that happen if women are so fed up with it?

For all that talk you do about how fed up women are with bad actors, those bad actors sure as fuck are at the TOP of the success-with-females pile. How do you reconcile your assertion with cold, hard reality?


Actually I hate nature specifically because it pulls this shit.


Like I said, take it up with them. They're the ones who deduced from that experiment that humanity was better off with two genders rather than asexual reproduction, they're the ones who deduced that male competition was somehow healthier for the species.

I'm the one who is saying that male competition needs to end, welfare of humanity be damned, it's high time that men stop being the disposable half of the species.

Male disposability CAUSES toxic masculinity and Patriarchy. What you missed from this article is that what happens with beetles is not just happening to beetles, it happens to almost EVERY ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH.

Almost EVERY animal species, with few exceptions, follows one of two rules:
1) Males compete over females, not vice-versa; or
2) THEY GET EATEN

Rule #1 is true for humans. THIS causes Patriarchy. THIS causes toxic masculinity. Feminism is ill prepared to talk about this because they are not at all willing to talk about the SECOND most important problem: women who glorify successfully competitive men, thus driving all the other males to try and be winners, too.

WINNERS TAKE ALL when it comes to women, because women only want the winners of the world. And guess what? Hell breaks loose because all men want to be winners. That's how competition works. That's for feminism to address, and they're too busy DENYING it instead of addressing it.

And before you start shouting about muh soggy knees, no, this doesn't mean women are inferior. It means that while men need to adopt a major attitude change... so do women. And feminism is ignoring that second half.


LOL dude I voted for and got out the vote for Clinton, unlike you. I've marched for Black Lives Matter, unlike you. I've punched Nazis up close and personal... unlike you. I'm actively at war with Trumpanzees, unlike you.

Ask yourself why Warren Farrell, the father of the men's rights movement, went all-in for Clinton and not Trump. Can you do that? No, because you don't give a shit about women, and you're a weak insincere little mitch who sits at his keyboard talking shit in hopes of getting e-pussy. You're another Hugo Schwyzer in the making, if only you could survive a minute of sunlight.


But there is something terribly wrong with being an exposed, unsuccessful phony like you.

If only you had some money and power... you'd be Harvey Weinstein.

There aren't many women with status wanting for partners either. People like status. There's no secret wimmin's agenda going on there.
The rest of your argument needs referencing.
You also failed to address my central point that the close to 1:1 gender ratio means competition isn't necessary. That's according to your logic, which you've verified with 'science'. (I would be very surprised if any actual scientist extrapolated from a lab experiment with beetles to the entirety of human gender relations - can you give me the quote where the actual scientist says thst?)

 

[Adder4321]

You also failed to address my central point that the close to 1:1 gender ratio means competition isn't necessary. That's according to your logic, which you've verified with 'science'. (I would be very surprised if any actual scientist extrapolated from a lab experiment with beetles to the entirety of human gender relations - can you give me the quote where the actual scientist says thst?)

I just want to say that just because there is a 1:1 ratio of men and women, that doesn't mean that there is no reason for competition. Because people have preferences.

For instance, if you have a group of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women, you won't see them all form happy relationships. You will see 70% of people competing for the attention of a few super attractive members of the opposite gender. Even when those attractive people have already formed relationships, you will still see people trying to impress them or even ruin their current relationships in order to partner with them. The remaining 30% will either have low standards or be gay.

 

[KimGordon67]

Also ... just because this whole 'nature makes it so' argument fucks me off so much ... one might point out that the beetles experiment and anything that gives evolutionary explanations for sexual behaviour fails to take into account the fact that the vast majority of human sexual activity is not intended to result in reproduction, and in fact we actively prevent that happening a lot of time.

... and if it's all about 'men competing for women', explain domestic violence. Surely once a guy was successful winning the amazing prize that is one of us (I'm being astoundingly sarcastic, in case it's not obvious), it would be bit counter-productive to start beating her up.
But of course, that's nothing to do with hegemonic masculinity. No doubt there's some evolutionary rationale for that too.

Oh - and when I say 'the majority of women dislike male aggression' and you talk about the women who date MMA fighters etc ... I have a funny feeling we're talking about different women there.

Your argument is so full of holes its fundamentally a colander.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

If you'd done any of that you'd be a feminist. Just stop lying.

No, I'm an egalitarian. And again, unlike you, I actually fight for these things. All you do is sit here and troll.

There aren't many women with status wanting for partners either. People like status. There's no secret wimmin's agenda going on there.

Not many women without status having trouble, either. That's why men still vastly outnumber women in dating sites.

The rest of your argument needs referencing.
You also failed to address my central point that the close to 1:1 gender ratio means competition isn't necessary.

Are you TRYING to cause me to die laughing? In a 1:1 ratio scenario the males with the most status will attract multiple women, which is how things are now. Women regularly quite happily choose loneliness over a low status male. This is why the Herbivore Man situation in Japan is so dangerous - it's not often, in fact it NEVER HAPPENS that you see an entire generation of men just decide that women aren't worth it anymore. Men are always more aggressive than women when it comes to chasing mates. ALWAYS. In just about every animal species ever.

That's according to your logic, which you've verified with 'science'. (I would be very surprised if any actual scientist extrapolated from a lab experiment with beetles to the entirety of human gender relations - can you give me the quote where the actual scientist says thst?)

LOL considering that they're using this to explain human nature it's more than likely that they studied a great many animal species and used beetles as the go-to example. You think the scientists this article was made from just studied beetles and came up with the conclusion that male competition is an essential element of sexual reproduction? LAWL!

You forget that male kangaroos punch and kick each other in fights over mating privilege, male peacocks strut colors, and male bucks lock horns. And that's just a few of a million similar examples of where competition occurs among males of just about all species of animals, and not among females. This is a well known fact of science and biology. You feminists, of course, do not understand this, which is why you came up with the faux science of "hegemonic masculinity" and why your Patriarchy Theory misses the issue of what caused Patriarchy. Hint: it was nature.

And you have still failed to explain how men like Donald Trump can have three wives if women are so fed up with overly aggressive males. There's a lot of married Conservatard Republicans out there that refutes your claim.

Every post you make whining about sex robots and how men like you have to compete for a mate, just shows your true colors.

You're a sad, pathetic, lonely loser.

You're full of rage, and if you could afford a gun, you'd probably go postal at some point out of frustration at your lack of ability to get laid.

Another rant that further proves that if you had any money you would be the next Harvey Weinstein, instead of groveling here for white knight pussy points. That is all.

 

[Adder4321]

Also ... just because this whole 'nature makes it so' argument fucks me off so much ... one might point out that the beetles experiment and anything that gives evolutionary explanations for sexual behaviour fails to take into account the fact that the vast majority of human sexual activity is not intended to result in reproduction, and in fact we actively prevent that happening a lot of time.

... and if it's all about 'men competing for women', explain domestic violence. Surely once a guy was successful winning the amazing prize that is one of us (I'm being astoundingly sarcastic, in case it's not obvious), it would be bit counter-productive to start beating her up.
But of course, that's nothing to do with hegemonic masculinity. No doubt there's some evolutionary rationale for that too.

Oh - and when I say 'the majority of women dislike male aggression' and you talk about the women who date MMA fighters etc ... I have a funny feeling we're talking about different women there.

Your argument is so full of holes its fundamentally a colander.

Like I said, rules and exceptions. Evolutionary explanations will work between 70-80% of the time, but there will always be things that defy it. For instance, gay people. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, gay people shouldn't exist, because they don't in any way help with the survival of the species. But they do, so of course there is no way that our evolutionary instincts are absolute.

As for domestic violence, I would say that that is men being unable to control their competitive nature. Some men have such an inferiority complex that they simply refuse to be seen as less than superior. And they are willing to do anything to make people see them that way, even make their partners fear them. Some domestic violence is just a matter of people losing their temper, too.

Like the time when I had to drag my drunk mother off my dad because she was trying to stab him because she was convinced that he was having an affair. Despite knowing that he hadn't left our farm on over three months. She just got drunk, lost her temper and almost killed him.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, I'm an egalitarian. And again, unlike you, I actually fight for these things. All you do is sit here and troll.


Not many women without status having trouble, either. That's why men still vastly outnumber women in dating sites.


Are you TRYING to cause me to die laughing? In a 1:1 ratio scenario the males with the most status will attract multiple women, which is how things are now. Women regularly quite happily choose loneliness over a low status male. This is why the Herbivore Man situation in Japan is so dangerous - it's not often, in fact it NEVER HAPPENS that you see an entire generation of men just decide that women aren't worth it anymore. Men are always more aggressive than women when it comes to chasing mates. ALWAYS. In just about every animal species ever.


LOL considering that they're using this to explain human nature it's more than likely that they studied a great many animal species and used beetles as the go-to example. You think the scientists this article was made from just studied beetles and came up with the conclusion that male competition is an essential element of sexual reproduction? LAWL!

You forget that male kangaroos punch and kick each other in fights over mating privilege, male peacocks strut colors, and male bucks lock horns. And that's just a few of a million similar examples of where competition occurs among males of just about all species of animals, and not among females. This is a well known fact of science and biology. You feminists, of course, do not understand this, which is why you came up with the faux science of "hegemonic masculinity" and why your Patriarchy Theory misses the issue of what caused Patriarchy. Hint: it was nature.

And you have still failed to explain how men like Donald Trump can have three wives if women are so fed up with overly aggressive males. There's a lot of married Conservatard Republicans out there that refutes your claim.


Another rant that further proves that if you had any money you would be the next Harvey Weinstein, instead of groveling here for white knight pussy points. That is all.

Human behaviour and (most) animal behaviour is vastly different. You're just using other animals to back up your claim about beetles. (Also, did you actually read the Nature article? Because the researchers don't actually make any claims about human behaviour at all - they're very general conclusions about 'species' and genetics. You need to realise that mainstream media loves to latch onto research and draw completely unsubstantiated conclusions that makes the researchers themselves want to bang their heads against a wall.)

And again (because apparently you missed it the first time), the women who marry Trump and whoever else are not 'all women' ... and certainly aren't the feminists you're constantly banging on about. I just come back to my original argument - people are attracted to status. The reason more women don't have that status is ... well, basically, patriarchy.

 

[KimGordon67]

Like I said, rules and exceptions. Evolutionary explanations will work between 70-80% of the time, but there will always be things that defy it. For instance, gay people. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, gay people shouldn't exist, because they don't in any way help with the survival of the species. But they do, so of course there is no way that our evolutionary instincts are absolute.

As for domestic violence, I would say that that is men being unable to control their competitive nature. Some men have such an inferiority complex that they simply refuse to be seen as less than superior. And they are willing to do anything to make people see them that way, even make their partners fear them. Some domestic violence is just a matter of people losing their temper, too.

Like the time when I had to drag my drunk mother off my dad because she was trying to stab him because she was convinced that he was having an affair. Despite knowing that he hadn't left our farm on over three months. She just got drunk, lost her temper and almost killed him.

So basically your argument is 'evolution explains everything ... except when it doesn't - then it's other stuff'. That seems a trifle problematic to me. Maybe we should go with 'actually, evolution explains barely any of this shit'.

Re: your second para - so men are competing with other men for women until they 'win' a woman, and then they're competing with that woman? What's the evolutionary value in THAT?

And the third para - research in which n=1. Always my favourite.

 

[Adder4321]

So basically your argument is 'evolution explains everything ... except when it doesn't - then it's other stuff'. That seems a trifle problematic to me. Maybe we should go with 'actually, evolution explains barely any of this shit'.

Re: your second para - so men are competing with other men for women until they 'win' a woman, and then they're competing with that woman? What's the evolutionary value in THAT?

And the third para - research in which n=1. Always my favourite.

My first point was survival instincts explain a majority of human behaviour, but because we have free will and aren't robots, we do things that don't make any sense at all.

My second paragraph was saying that after a some men 'win' a woman, they become afraid of being seen as inferior by the woman, so they use violence and fear to try and make the woman too scared to leave and control her. From an evolutionary standpoint, they have therefore found and kept a mate, thus continuing their bloodline. The men who think like this are monsters and should be treated as such, but they do exists.

I'm not entirely sure what n=1 means, but if it's anything like the mathematical meaning, then you're implying that I'm trying to say "One case is like this, so all cases are like this." That's not what I'm trying to say, I just wanted to say that some are. There are probably a multitude of different reasons behind domestic violence, and I would never claim to understand and know all of them.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Also ... just because this whole 'nature makes it so' argument fucks me off so much ... one might point out that the beetles experiment and anything that gives evolutionary explanations for sexual behaviour fails to take into account the fact that the vast majority of human sexual activity is not intended to result in reproduction, and in fact we actively prevent that happening a lot of time.

Sorry but your feelings don't matter. Facts and science matter. Those scientists certainly discovered the same dynamics in the vast majority of animal species. I listed three for you, but I could have listed millions if I had the time to type it out across 2000 posts, not that you'd get the point that you're overwhelmingly wrong. Most hilariously you fail to understand that human sexual activity is rooted in reproduction even if the intent at the time of fucking is not reproduction. The lizard brain still rules. The neo cortex is still fighting an uphill battle for the soul of humanity and it hasn't even fully left base camp.

... and if it's all about 'men competing for women', explain domestic violence.

You want me to explain how nature-programmed aggression gets out of control? News flash: understanding that mate competition corrupts people and drives them insane and causes incidents of domestic violence is not rocket science. You can figure that out instinctively and deductively in the same breath. You might as well say "Explain how 1+1=2 ergo multiplication tables." The explanation you're looking for here is: power dynamics, or the desire to have control.

And this also affects women - which is why domestic violence is so freakishly high among lesbian relationships and why rape is reported in 1/3 of lesbian relationships. (See this feminist factual source for proof.)

Surely once a guy was successful winning the amazing prize that is one of us (I'm being astoundingly sarcastic, in case it's not obvious), it would be bit counter-productive to start beating her up.

Wow, for such a hard core feminist you sure don't read much when it comes to actual feminist theory. I got one easy answer for you: power dynamics. Feminist texts quite often explain to you in vivid detail how power dynamics leads to domestic violence. And guess what power dynamics comes from? Mate competition, the one thing that feminist texts have zero understanding of.

But of course, that's nothing to do with hegemonic masculinity. No doubt there's some evolutionary rationale for that too.

Without mate competition there would be no talk of that fraudulent doctrine that you call hegemonic masculinity. It wouldn't even exist in your imagination much less reality. No mate competition means no Patriarchy, either. Why? Because without mate competition there is no power dynamics (which underlies every trait that you call "hegemonic masculinity").

The truth is "hegemonic masculinity" has nothing to do with reality. Come on, run down your points about hegemonic masculinity theory. Power dynamics better explains every point - as well as violence by women upon women - than hegemonic masculinity. And power dynamics is further explained by mate competition.

Even women are affected by that, because mate competition is literally written into our lizard brain and when men aren't around its evil child aka power dynamics still manages the shop.

It's not at all hard to figure out.

Oh - and when I say 'the majority of women dislike male aggression' and you talk about the women who date MMA fighters etc ... I have a funny feeling we're talking about different women there.

Ah, the age old story of what people say versus what they do.

Nah, we're talking about the same group here.
A feminist but still dating bad boys

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys

What did Carter and his colleagues find? Women found the Dark Triad personality more attractive than the control. This result is in keeping with previous studies in which Dark Triad men reported their increased level of sexual success.

https://jezebel.com/5063855/the-don-draper-effect-why-do-feminists-still-love-assholes

The Don Draper Effect: Why Do Feminists Still Love Assholes?

The truth is, bad boys and jerks get women in their youth, nice guys get the single mothers. Just ask Donald Trump if you think I'm wrong. More than half of white women out there seem to think he's cool, including this woman, whom I am quite sure your feminist theory cannot explain if you believe women are so fucking fed up with bad acting men:
https://i.imgur.com/eHQsljg.jpg

You have still failed to explain how your argument coexists with the demonstrated fact that MMA fighters, gangsters, and rich and powerful men are the quickest to get women to want them, and practically every other class of male has to hope someone decides to like them.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Human behaviour and (most) animal behaviour is vastly different. You're just using other animals to back up your claim about beetles. (Also, did you actually read the Nature article? Because the researchers don't actually make any claims about human behaviour at all - they're very general conclusions about 'species' and genetics. You need to realise that mainstream media loves to latch onto research and draw completely unsubstantiated conclusions that makes the researchers themselves want to bang their heads against a wall.)

Like I said, mate competition is clearly visible across countless animal species. I gave you examples. Please address this.

Also: humans are animals. We are still largely governed by our ANIMAL brain. Otherwise we would be Vulcans. Which we're not. Because we're still largely ANIMALS, through and through.

And please show me which researcher is banging their head against the wall over that article because while I can show you countless MORE examples of male animals and not female animals engaging in mate competition, you are only speculating on how researchers feel about this article.

The researchers said "Our research shows that competition among males for reproduction provides a really important benefit, because it improves the genetic health of populations." Please show where they excluded humans from this conclusion.

And again (because apparently you missed it the first time), the women who marry Trump and whoever else are not 'all women' ... and certainly aren't the feminists you're constantly banging on about.

Methinks you rely more on what feminists say than what they actually do.

I just come back to my original argument - people are attracted to status. The reason more women don't have that status is ... well, basically, patriarchy.

Women have plenty of status, especially white women. What they don't have yet is half of all the power and wealth part of status. And if women had that wealth, that would result in a severe depopulation because, loud and heavily publicized exceptions aside, rich women don't tend to mate with not-rich men the way rich men mate with not-rich women. They would be unmarried and largely childless like Oprah Winfrey, except the ones who could find rich and powerful men.

The fundamental truth is that men don't mind dating women who are of lower status, but most women do not like men of lower status than themselves. Take for instance unemployment: 75% of women will not date a jobless man, but over 60% of men will date a jobless woman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/27/75-percent-wont-date-unemployed-man_n_1631942.html

But, and you probably forgot this (and I know people like Richard Faily cannot comprehend this at all), I oppose the solution of keeping women down so men can have power over them. It's a morally bankrupt solution that does not address the foundation of the real problem: mate competition, and a more superficial but also fundamental problem: the majority of women still love a man's value, and do not value a man's love. THIS problem is why Patriarchy is also a pragmatical failure as well as morally bankrupt.

I much prefer sex robots, artificial wombs and perhaps accepting that a severe depopulation event is necessary while nature sorts out the hypergamic women and the economy deprives women of the high-status men that they desire. I think it is time to put an end to relying on women for reproduction and companionship, technology can deliver us another path to these things. Women already have sperm banks, men need their own solution.

Enable access (for both men and women) to reproduction and companionship without the power dynamics and mate competition bullshit and you ensure peace on Earth. The end.