If you’re an adult, you should be ashamed to be immature.
These videos are great, watch The Empty Life.
It’s easy to be hard on people for reaching (age) and never learning (skill) but it’s likely nobody told them because nobody knew. They’ll just ignore you if you’re too sharp about it, from pride.
I wonder if modern updates are possible, generic life advice, no punching down, all good, old-fashioned common sense.
In black and white, for kicks.
Whoever pays for it.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/maximum-freedom-maximum-responsibility.html
“Roosh’s theoretical advocation of rescinding the voting rights of unmarried parents would be equally lead-balloony as my advocation of the immediate elimination of all income transfers. Not only is the cat out of the bag (in the fact it is no longer property owners who can vote), but society is so stupid we would both likely be accused of being “bigots” and “haters,” and ran out of town. However, since this is all in “Shoulda Land” there is one more compelling reason humanity, no matter how long it is in the future, should never have their freedoms limited as opposed to their responsibilities fully enforced:
Who, precisely will determine what people are allowed what freedoms?”
People who can be bribed by corporations and bought with votes.
There are good reasons to be an unmarried parent e.g. rape.
Feasibly, anyone who’s had premarital sex would be forced to marry their ONS if it resulted in pregnancy. No slutting.
Does Roosh really want that? Really? Really really?
Finally, a man who knows it was universal suffrage. Plenty in the manosphere act like if we rolled the clock back, they could still vote. Do you own property? Then no.
Women live longer, we inherit property.
This would mean men have to support the families they sire, you see, the people advocating responsibility like Roosh think it would only apply to those Meddlin’ Feminists. When he, for example, took a useless degree and warned others off it.
Hypocrites.
I do wonder where the genetic suicides expect the tax money will come to pay for their public pensions? Children were the historical pension. And tax-funded abortion clinics for any women they get up the duff? STD clinics from their weekend of partying?
I am totally on board with shaming men in their thirties who think it’s OK to act like teenagers. Could be anime toys or using aging terms like ‘bang’.
If you look at plenty of measures of recklessness, from car accidents to divorces, men are the more stupid sex. They take the most risks. So this might end up backfiring on the men who call for it (‘cept Aaron, he seems cool).
In every time period known to man, men had more responsibilities than women.
I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It’s like a tiny grain of sand within the pearl of lies. This refreshing collection took a while to add up.
I like to think of these as Original Feminists, back when they had standards that everyone held to.
THANK YOU.
Honestly folks, it’s that simple. The person committing the crime is the criminal! The innocent person is the victim!
FINALLY.
The term comes from a guy who wanted to fuck his own mother so badly he assumed every other man in the world must too. Mummy Issues is a thing as much as Daddy Issues. Same for penis envy and womb envy, it’s two sides of the same coin. If one is valid, so is the other.
What often goes unmentioned is the reason for being gradual about it. The pure vitriol women get for putting down a gamma or lower upfront. Another aspect is how romantic relationships are not owed to anyone, and the bitchy type often lie in the beginning about their intentions (like some FWB women), amping up the friend element and leading into “we’re such good friends” and trying to segue into a girlfriend situation. As if we’re stupid.
Irony that it took a man to point this out.
It’s never ‘just a drink’. They think they’re buying you. Like a sex slave.
And they think you’re cheap.
At least whores are paid in cash, market rate, based on time and services rendered.
Hook-up culture is just hooker culture, fooling itself.
The intended purpose is to make you feel bad because they know you’re out of their league. They know they don’t have a realistic chance so it’s like long-distance negging to prop up their delusions of alpha maleness. Those aren’t men, they act like teenagers. As if feeling SMV-inferior around someone is an excuse to verbally abuse them, they don’t dare pull that on other blokes at the bar or start on women walking with men, weaklings. It came from black culture and it’s hostile there too.
On the flipside, sex attackers often start with a catcall to test the intended victim, to get her to stop, come over here out of public sight, tell him your name so he can stalk you or they get a simple thrill from making a woman fear them, however temporary. The best thing you can do is ignore them or laugh, and that’s why so many women wear headphones nowadays. You don’t give strangers compliments, ever. Women aren’t dumb enough on the whole to try but desperate men think it’s fair game to judge while they’re standing in the street like losers and in addition, they think it makes them look less desperate for any female attention (no).
Solution? If you must express appreciation, a simple, single wolf-whistle.
That’s it. No words. No words are needed and you’ll screw it up.
Literally me. Turns out they still blamed it on white men. For letting them in?
There is no continuum or scale. It’s have or have not.
Sex is consensual. Without it, that’s the crime of rape. Whatever the sex of the initiator, I might add.
There is a responsibility on men to know the difference between assertive and aggressive.
Former is romantic, latter is illegal (test: would you try those actions on a man who could physically equal you?).
They rape women in hijabs. They raped women in petticoats. That’s like saying never buy anything nice and expensive in case you get mugged or burgled, it’s no way to live. This is the First World and we all have the right to show skin (including topless men) without being stoned to death. The responsibility for self-control lies with the tempted party. Feral males need to stop blaming women for their own weaknesses. Note: women groping stranger men is also wrong, the other side of Eve Teasing.
Happened a lot during those days. Happens to this day when people have the excuse of alcohol (in studies, people act drunk with placebo drinks). They retain responsibility for their actions (including drinking within their limits) if they’re sober enough to enact them in the first place. Sober enough to do it? Sober enough to know better. Grabbing and kissing someone who isn’t interested ain’t right. Being in a club isn’t an excuse either, you wouldn’t be able to behave like that in a brothel ffs.
Men can handle rejection as time saved. Boys take it personally.
Men have more experience of interpersonal rejection than women, usually. However, they also have more interpersonal opportunities as the approaching party.
I’ve heard some lower status men dispute the existence of leagues.
The veiled term men use for a woman out of their league is ‘high maintenance’, among others.
Includes all belief, including political.
from the “You can’t call her Bruce!” pronoun people
Men say they’d be totally fine about male objectification until it happens.
Then they point and shriek like banshees because it makes them feel insecure…..
….. and how do you think we feel?
Get over it, like we do. Woman up. Stop taking it so personally. We probably aren’t comparing you to underwear models, because let’s face it, you’d lose.
Another stellar example of “You’re proving our point for us.”
We predict you’ll do XYZ when we use the male trigger word ‘misogyny’ in any context.
*XYZ happens*
Told ya so.
Quit being so bloody predictable, if you didn’t feed them with instances of trolling or insults, they’d fizzle out and get real jobs.
Misogyny has recently made otherwise sensible men a laughing stock in the public eye, it practically makes them foam at the mouth whatever the bones of the argument being discussed. They lose it. Aren’t they meant to be the rational ones, as they claim?
I’ve mentioned before that mental illness is somewhat differentiated from regular medicine in that responsibility isn’t absolved and this is reflected in the treatment plans (therapy and the decision to work and change). This hints that a person could feasibly give themselves depressive symptoms by their rumination habits (I’ve linked to at least one study on rumination and far poorer clinical outcomes before but go nuts on Google) or make their pre-existing depression worse – by choice. We all know people who make a neutral situation bad or who love to wallow in self-pity. Wallowing is pretty close an analogue to rumination. Those people want an excuse not to try.
I think this is about status. If you’re an omega male, is it a wise strategy to confront the alpha of a group? Or would it be wiser to ruminate on your low status, get depressed (in metabolic/energy level) and feel no need to get caught a fight, prolonging your lifespan – possibly long enough to successfully mate?
On the flipside, it comes down to potential, as a TED talk called Can Depression Be Good For You? elucidates;
tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMaribor-Neel-Burton-The-Ana
The way I would explain it is this: if you had no potential, you’d be a happy idiot. Those people are self-actualized doing regular things. We all know the stereotype and anecdotes we’ve met. The stereotype of an unhappy smart person would be the reverse, a person who is low status with the potential to be higher. The depression is compelling them to ruminate on the circumstances which led to this ranking and possibly problem-solve some solutions without the anger that would lead to stupidity or almost certain death in the state of nature.
Et Voila!
“Depression has long been seen as nothing but a problem,” says Paul Andrews, an assistant professor of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour at McMaster. “We are asking whether it may actually be a natural adaptation that the brain uses to tackle certain problems. We are seeing more evidence that depression can be a necessary and beneficial adaptation to dealing with major, complex issues that defy easy understanding.”
It is easy to say the modern legal system is unfair, unjust and the various issues with it are causing the social breakdown we know too well. Here are some of the laws which kept the sexes in line, and marriage thereafter. Their loss has caused recognisable problems.
To avoid players or lying cads promising marriage to good women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_promise
To prevent gossip by competition, especially where truthful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence
To prevent bitter rivals (possibly male) or spinsters dissolving a union once made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections
To promote emotional intimacy and the ‘dependency paradox’ vital for a permanent relationship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
The spouse should become the centre but not the whole Universe. Family business and home matters don’t leak to outsiders who twist the knife while things are down (natural ups and downs) and never let a good time go without passive-aggression.
Includes land law in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage
For an obligation of honesty going into marriage – “freely offered” – they know what they’re getting into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
Prenuptial agreements should be legally binding I really don’t see the point otherwise. It misrepresents the litigant as not a gold-digger and then they can turn around and say “it doesn’t count, I didn’t mean it”?
This is widely applicable from many parties and SJWs do this for monstering, bring it back with criminal libel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
Most vital of all, this ensures sexual fidelity in BOTH parties as agreed in their vows, reduces cuckoldry to nil and guarantees financial support between parties (not paid out to mistresses or bastard children).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation
The tort of criminal conversation seeks damages for the act of sexual intercourse outside marriage, between the spouse and a third party. Each act of adultery can give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation.
This values the commitment. Dollar value. Bring it back.
It’s a matter of time until the feminists bring back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort)
for men who lie to get sex (like, all 99.999% of them).
Protection from adultery is the crucial means of safeguarding marriage for future generations. Without this, what is the point? Nobody forces you to make a commitment in this century, the choice should have legal weight on both sides. The K-types care about marriage and must protect their mating strategy from predatory r-types, either as their spouse or the cheating third party. Marriage must be inoculated from the ravishes of the sexual marketplace.
Feminists avoiding duty and responsibility.
Lack of female agency lie.
Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.
paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;
“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]
“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]
“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]
Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”
Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar 