female separatism

[kerrichinchilla]

Then point out what is sexist and not backed by science and social studies in that original quote you responded to.

well for one referring to women as the weaker sex that are driven by biological needs is quite the sexist remark.

historically- women could not vote, hold certain jobs ( usually skilled), could not use birth control, use pain relief while in labour, could not say no to sex (marital r*pe) once married, own their own money, property and get a loan.
If women were banned from owning anything, or buying or renting houses, then yes they would marry the best they could it was the only option they had and before that they would have their husbands chosen for them for financial gain or social gains for the father and her family, seriously look up any royal in any nation and you have your proof their, even up to the 1980s when Diana married Charles that was an arranged marriage, for Charles he had the virgin for breeding and for Diana's family money and status.
but the biggest clue would be the surname, which if you haven't noticed when women marry they change their name from their fatehrs to their husbands, this is a remnant of the old days when women were seen as property and they went from one owner ( the father) to her new owner (husband). thats a pretty good example and evidence there.

western womens history

things women couldnt do in 1918
Strong women did a lot of the heavy lifting in ancient farming societies
Hidden history of prehistoric women's work revealed
women incredibly strong and did manual labour in pre history
Early men and women were equal, say scientists
The Dynamics of Gender in Early Agricultural Societies of the Near East
female viking warrior
female revolution and the birth of agriculture
Women in the world history chapter 1.2 who invented farming

plenty of reading for you there, and non of it from a glorified blogger

 

[Lyfe]

well for one referring to women as the weaker sex that are driven by biological needs is quite the sexist remark.

historically- women could not vote, hold certain jobs ( usually skilled), could not use birth control, use pain relief while in labour, could not say no to sex (marital r*pe) once married, own their own money, property and get a loan.
If women were banned from owning anything, or buying or renting houses, then yes they would marry the best they could it was the only option they had and before that they would have their husbands chosen for them for financial gain or social gains for the father and her family, seriously look up any royal in any nation and you have your proof their, even up to the 1980s when Diana married Charles that was an arranged marriage, for Charles he had the virgin for breeding and for Diana's family money and status.
but the biggest clue would be the surname, which if you haven't noticed when women marry they change their name from their fatehrs to their husbands, this is a remnant of the old days when women were seen as property and they went from one owner ( the father) to her new owner (husband). thats a pretty good example and evidence there.

western womens history

things women couldnt do in 1918
Strong women did a lot of the heavy lifting in ancient farming societies
Hidden history of prehistoric women's work revealed
women incredibly strong and did manual labour in pre history
Early men and women were equal, say scientists
The Dynamics of Gender in Early Agricultural Societies of the Near East
female viking warrior
female revolution and the birth of agriculture
Women in the world history chapter 1.2 who invented farming

plenty of reading for you there, and non of it from a glorified blogger

Nothing you said here disproves or even addresses anything I said in that post you quoted though. You went on to reference history on a matter of biology and social studies and the findings correlated to these studies. There is also nothing remotely sexist about anything I said.

 

[kerrichinchilla]

Nothing you said here disproves or even addresses anything I said in that post you quoted though. You went on to reference history on a matter of biology and social studies and the findings correlated to these studies. There is also nothing remotely sexist about anything I said.

you literally said women are weaker and slaves to biology. thats sexist but ok live in your little bubble of male superiority. im sure it strokes your ego.

it clearly did you said the female sex was weaker i sent links to prove otherwise, i have shown you historical and scientific studies to show how women were not just gathers and relied on the alfa male

 

[Corvus Metus]

Sure it does. It is a woman's biological imperative to desire to mate and pair with males she feels are of superior status than hers. Studies show that women at large have preference to date upward in terms of men with higher status, financial income, and prestige than of their own selves and rarely ever date someone of inferior class than themselves.

Biological, or social? 'cause for centuries, women have been bargaining chips for the advancement of their fathers.

It is designed in them as a survival instinct mechanism to seek out men who demonstrate dominant traits that can not only ensure her survival, but also the survival of her offspring. Even back in the tribal days women would seek out alpha males, because they demonstrated above other men they had a stronger means to acquire resources to ensure their survival.

Except the entire concept of "alphas" are flawed in the first place. One, it comes from flawed research on wolves that is outdated and incorrect. Two, we're human beings, so even if it was real (it isn't), how would research on wolves reflect humanity?

I was left not that long ago by a single mother for a guy who had a bigger house and a bigger truck than I did lol. Why? Because of her default biological imperative as the weaker sex to seek out a man who is of higher value than I am to better ensure the survival of herself and her offspring.

In the real world, very few relationships end simply because of financial issues and I don't think your ex left you just because a dude with a bigger house and bigger truck came along. I don't know anything about you or her, so I can't tell you why it ended... But I can tell you it's more complicated than you think it is. It always is; people often refuse to admit that.

Women can only be attracted to men of higher value than they are and they rarely ever date down. Women innately acknowledge they are the weaker sex, but it was more realized within them for the better part of history, because they were dependent on hunters and gatherers for their survival.

I know a lot of women who've "dated down". Also, you do know that there's some evidence that actually suggests that hunter-gather societies might have been matriarchal, correct?

Now we live in an age of industry and convenience so its not as much realized, but the same biological default setting within them still remains... It is their survival instinct. Allot of women will monkey branch and move unto someone higher on the tree once they realize they have safely secured that branch.

And so will men. Society is set up so we're all competitive, all seeking dominance over each other. That isn't natural, though. It's how those in power keep those without in chains in the modern era. Convince them that they too and sit at the high table... It's how billionaires keep their heads in a world with massive inequality; the idea that you can change your "position" in life (which is decided, not by nature, but money) by hard work.... Something that usually doesn't happen in the real world.

 

[Lyfe]

A new study has confirmed what a number of people already believe: when looking for a partner, men place much more emphasis on the physical beauty of their prospective mate while women look for someone who has high social status (which could very well be translated as money.)

Second, women bear greater costs of obligatory parental investment (i.e. pregnancy and lactation) than men do, meaning they have both a greater need for resources and reduced ability to obtain resources. Consequently, women are hypothesized to show stronger preferences for cues of the capability to invest resources in offspring when assessing men’s attractiveness as long-term partners

Women’s tendency to choose mates for their resources rather than their looks may have evolved in our hunter-gatherer past. The data from modern women’s responses tends to support the notion of evolved preferences, but the theory clashes with what we know about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Women’s mating preferences may also be a response to the social roles assigned to them in modern society. Perhaps women would go for looks over resources if they didn’t have to worry about the economic consequences of their mating choices.

Study Shows Men Prefer Looks, Women Prefer ‘Social Status’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

As I said it is biology and innate survival instinct preprogrammed within the woman to latch unto a rock, or something secure to ensure her survival i. e hypergamy.

In a segment Wednesday about men in decline and what it means for the country, Tucker Carlson pointed out "study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them.” When marriage rates drop, he adds, it causes "a spike in out-of-wedlock births and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow."

Unsurprisingly, pointing this out was considered blasphemy by high-profile feminists, such as the ladies on "The View," but Carlson is absolutely right. No matter how much women earn, they prefer to marry men who earn more than they do.

I hate to burst Moran's bubble, but the studies are manifold — and they're available for anyone who cares to find them. To start, here's one published in the Journal of Marriage and Family. Here's another published in the academic journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Despite women's gains in education and in the workforce, the traditional pattern of women marrying dominant men persists. Even when women marry men who are less educated than they are, they continue to marry "up" in income.

Women out-earning men is a bigger problem than you think - Washington Examiner

Just because something's not supposed to be said doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you're not supposed to say it. In a segment Wednesday about men in decline and what it means for the country, Tucker Carlson pointed out "study after study has shown that when men make less than women...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Numerous studies have found that women's mate preferences shift according to their menstrual cycle. During peak levels of fertility, they prefer more masculine and socially dominant men.

By contrast, during less fertile phases women are drawn to more feminine and compassionate men. These men are referred to as “dads.” They tend to be more reliable, warm, and faithful than their caddish counterparts. They also offer greater prospects for a long-term relationship.

What Women Want in Men

A recent study reveals the qualities women look for in a partner

www.psychologytoday.com

Dads i.e sources of secure provision. Women carry and birth children and it is biologically wired in them to reproduce, but to also have filters that determine who they reproduce with to ensure the survival of her and her offspring. Dominant men display traits such as strength and ability to allocate resources and women are biologically hardwired to mate with these men and latch unto them out of their innate survival instinct as the weaker sex. There will be objections to this by feminist at heart, but most women are feminine that seek out a spouse who displays they can ensure their survival. There is feminine energy and masculine energy and both compliment eachother. Feminine energy is drawn to masculine energy.

 

[justjess]

You just destroyed the whole Christian argument that men and women are different but equal by repeatedly calling women “weaker” - thanks I’ve been trying to debunk that particular Christian talking point for ages for entirely different reasons.

I prefer men who make less then me. That way they don’t think they own me. They don’t. It’s a partnership. Oh, and I married “beneath my class” and never regretted it. Still don’t twenty years later.

instead of arguing women should be more shallow and focus on looks maybe you should argue all people should focus on compatible morals values goals and work ethics. You know, compatibility.

this is why some women want their own damn island.

 

[Lyfe]

I would also point out that a man who is more financially secure and has greater resources is enough for a single mother with kids to leave an individual with far less resources, it is known as monkey branching. A woman is going to choose whats best for the survival of her kids and will leave a man who has few resources for another man who can put her kids through college i.e hypergamy.

 

[justjess]

I would also point out that a man who is more financially secure and has greater resources is enough for a single mother with kids to leave an individual with far less resources, it is known as monkey branching. A woman is going to choose whats best for the survival of her kids and will leave a man who has few resources for another man who can put her kids through college i.e hypergamy.

Has it ever occurred to you that she left you because she just wasn’t that into you? Or would that require too much self reflection?

 

[Lyfe]

You just destroyed the whole Christian argument that men and women are different but equal by repeatedly calling women “weaker” - thanks I’ve been trying to debunk that particular Christian talking point for ages for entirely different reasons.

I prefer men who make less then me. That way they don’t think they own me. They don’t. It’s a partnership. Oh, and I married “beneath my class” and never regretted it. Still don’t twenty years later.

instead of arguing women should be more shallow and focus on looks maybe you should argue all people should focus on compatible morals values goals and work ethics. You know, compatibility.

this is why some women want their own damn island.

There are exceptions, but you cant argue with the majority preference illustrated within the findings.

 

[Lyfe]

Has it ever occurred to you that she left you because she just wasn’t that into you? Or would that require too much self reflection?

She got a bran new free car after she left me. =)

 

[Lyfe]

Her kid got a miniature motorized atv too!

 

[Aero]

Seeing Tucker Carlson quoted twice here in 2 days is a bit too much. But it's not surprising coming from the pro-cop evidence suppressor crowd.

 

[Lyfe]

I own this guys book. Nothing but science and compiled social studies.

 

[Corvus Metus]

She got a bran new free car after she left me. =)

I'd actually recommend you do some soul searching and think over the relationship... 'cause I guarantee you, she didn't leave you just over money. It might have been a contributing factor, but it most certainly wasn't the cost and every single relationship I've seen end over the years... Well, it was the fault of both parties the vast majority of the time, outside of a couple cases where there was abuse.

It's never as simple as "she left me for a guy that makes more money" or "he left me for a younger, prettier woman". There's always more to the story since relationships are a clusterfuck of emotions.

 

[Tidal]

Yeah stoning, r*pe, torture, domestic violence and burning never happened to women by Christian men, and the Bible totally doesn't have any of the above things in it....oh wait.

I don't think you'll find Jesus doing any of that stuff..
Here he is in action again, rescuing a woman from a stone-throwing mob-

"On yer bikes, she's with me!..Hold your head up baby"
"Thanks JC , shall we go for a pizza?"

 

[Lyfe]

I'd actually recommend you do some soul searching and think over the relationship... 'cause I guarantee you, she didn't leave you just over money. It might have been a contributing factor, but it most certainly wasn't the cost and every single relationship I've seen end over the years... Well, it was the fault of both parties the vast majority of the time, outside of a couple cases where there was abuse.

It's never as simple as "she left me for a guy that makes more money" or "he left me for a younger, prettier woman". There's always more to the story since relationships are a clusterfuck of emotions.

I suppose if your genuinely interested in my former love life you can PM me... I dont blame the woman though if I had kids and loved them then I suppose its justified for her to leave me for a man who partially owns his own farm and can put her kids through college. Its really not even that immoral in a sense as one may find it to be. Her kids would come first, hence hypergamy.

 

[Lyfe]

Most women look to start a family, biologically they are hardwired to seek to reproduce and with baring this in mind of course she is going to filter choices off of the innate survival instinct present within her to not only protect herself, but also her future offspring. Of course she is going to look for and choose someone who is better able to acquire resources than someone who cannot. That is hypergamy in a nutshell. Its quite simple.

 

[Lyfe]

Not to mention that many women are attracted to bad boys while nice guys finish last and that is, because of this biological filtering process. Nice guys display qualities such as kindness, responsiveness, attentiveness, and nurturing and understanding caretaker traits which actually sub communicates to the female mind weakness through a built in biological screening process(though she is not aware of this on a conscious level) to ensure her and her offspring survival through seeking out strong genetics. These qualities are associated with feminine traits. People who are often perceived as bad boys just exhibit more qualities and traits that are more masculine in nature and feminine energy is attracted to masculine energy, the female mind filters qualities associated with bad boys as strength and she becomes attracted on the basis that this same strength is what her biology dictates she is attracted to to ensure the survival of her and her offspring. So many women dont even know why and cant even voice why they are attracted to the bad boys. The programming tells them they should be attracted to the nice guy, but yet she is finding herself confused and attracted to chad or tyrome..

Its not really so much that they are bad boys that makes them attractive, it is just that they arent the nice guy and dont exhibit these qualities that the female mind subconsciously filters as weakness. This is why nice guys finish last, but you have the great paradox of 90s rnb music and boys to men conditioning men to act a certain way toward women and be attentive, kind, nurting and responsive and then they wonder why they are being left for the bad boy. This is all psychology and biological science.

 

[morita]

Not to mention that many women are attracted to bad boys while nice guys finish last and that is, because of this biological filtering process. Nice guys display qualities such as kindness, responsiveness, attentiveness, and nurturing and understanding caretaker traits which actually sub communicates to the female mind weakness through a built in biological screening process(though she is not aware of this on a conscious level) to ensure her and her offspring survival through seeking out strong genetics. These qualities are associated with feminine traits. People who are often perceived as bad boys just exhibit more qualities and traits that are more masculine in nature and feminine energy is attracted to masculine energy, the female mind filters qualities associated with bad boys as strength and she becomes attracted on the basis that this same strength is what her biology dictates she is attracted to to ensure the survival of her and her offspring. So many women dont even know why and cant even voice why they are attracted to the bad boys. The programming tells them they should be attracted to the nice guy, but yet she is finding herself confused and attracted to chad or tyrome..

Its not really so much that they are bad boys that makes them attractive, it is just that they arent the nice guy and dont exhibit these qualities that the female mind subconsciously filters as weakness. This is why nice guys finish last, but you have the great paradox of 90s rnb music and boys to men conditioning men to act a certain way toward women and be attentive and responsive and then they wonder why they are being left for the bad boy. This is all psychology and biological science.

yep...an incel.

 

[Lyfe]

yep...an incel.

Yeah people resort to name calling and shaming when they dont like what they hear.