When women speak it's because it's now also starting to hinder women in some way. Like a woman may have a son and see his issue. Or a woman got back into dating at an older age.
She's not speaking up for men. She's speaking up for her own self interest as a woman, against other women.
Yup. To me it sounds like she's into men who are borderline to full spectrum antisocial and shes angry that men aren't aspiring to be "bad boys" anymore
>Why does it always take a woman's voice to be taken seriously when it comes to men's issues?
Because it speaks to bias; if a problem is so bad that people who aren't directly affected by it notice, it's a serious problem.
I will say among the people I follow (like my circle of people I know) it’s only ever the women that say anything about men’s issues at all. The men are all silent on men’s and women’s issues, while the women speak out about both.
Any thoughts on why this may be the case? My position is that men get ridiculed and scorned at every corner, unless said men are desirable. It’s like that old joke “black women can say anything, black men can say anything, white women can say the next level and straight white dudes can’t say anything”
I think there’s so many factors that are likely at play- one possibly being fear of ridicule. I do also think women do tend to care about social issues more in general, which I do think has to do with compassion levels. I think the issues women speak about when speaking about men’s issues may be quite different to what many men would consider their primary issues to be.
Not just america, lol.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/world-news/spain-court-orders-man-to-pay-ex-wife-this-much-for-25-years-of-housework-3842741/amp/1
Ok, that’s great that you have a stable marriage. But if or when you get divorced, your screwed. We aren’t hating women, we are hating the system that makes it only advantageous for women to be in a marriage and then only to not want that and get half of everything the man owns. It’s a win win for women, and lose lose for males
Who the hell was arguing against that? Quit moving the goalpost. You're over here bragging about your good relationship while shaming others who haven't been so lucky. This wasn't even so much about individual relationships but about the overall state of things in the West in relation to female/male dynamics. If you don't think there are any issues with that you're either slow or being purposely obtuse.
They vilify masculinity in men, they vilify the lack of masculinity in men, they vilify femininity in men, and they vilify anything that women don't find attractive or convenient in men too. There's just really no winning as a man.
100%. They objectify us, plain and simple. Rather than seeing us as individuals they see us an objects meant to fulfill their desires.
In her case, she wants men to be **"manly"** (her version of manly) and judging by her comment on **"not being afraid to punch someone in the face"** (by someone she means another man, never a woman) what she actually means is she likes big dominant, prone to violence, brutes who are intimidating to other men.
>what she actually means is she likes big dominant, prone to violence, brutes
I'd say she, like most women, likes men who have the *capacity* for violence. That doesn't mean women like men who are wantonly violent.
Question, how do you demonstrate your capacity for violence?
Women’s attraction to dark triad traits
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245
Competition for sex increases the likelihood of experiencing violence in men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/
Women’s attraction to more violent men for short term mating
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5
Interesting reads
Also, I realize this is a JP talking point. A point of his I’ve long disagreed with not because I don’t believe what he is saying is true, but because rather than critiquing the sexual desire for violence in men, he applauds it. I also don’t believe it has the benevolent origins he claims.
Something else to consider, out of curiosity, what personality traits do you think optimize for violence or the capacity for violence?
>consider, out of curiosity, what personality traits do you think optimize for violence or the capacity for violence?
You cannot ensure your own freedom without the capacity for violence. I usually refer to it as "never being too afraid to get punched in the face" because there are generally several levels of disagreement that happen before I am willing to punch someone else. But I don't think anyone can live a free life without good people willing to be violent. otherwise its always the worst people around who are enforcing their view through their violence.
No real discussion can happen unless there are people willing to be violent to be heard.
Your point isn't exactly relevant to the conversation of female attraction but nonetheless I'll discuss this point you made.
**"No real discussion can happen unless there are people willing to be violent to be heard."**
We are attempting to reduce violence, not increase it. If as a society you need increasing levels of violence to be heard there's a problem. If you don't believe that violence can be virtually non-existent in a society then maybe this will help you see this matter differently.
Currently, for the most part in the USA there is a required level of violence to be heard for some conversations. This violence might be, protests, riots or worse. For the most part, the violence is pretty minimal. Now let's imagine the level of violence required between organized crime. In these worlds, there is significantly more violence required to enforce your values and wishes. Obviously, the difference in violence between typical USA politics and organized crime are vastly different. So why is that? Well, it's because of our legal and institutional frameworks that America is built on. Act violently and there are repurcussions, i.e. go to prison. The point is to deincentivize violence without using violence. Without the legal framework that punishes those who behave violently you end up with something similar to organized crime. This is not an ideal world.
Ultimately, I think the idea you are attempting to tap into is not one of violence but instead of punishment. You can punish people without violence.
The problem is that psychopathic individuals have no qualms about enacting violence on others to get ahead.
The only way to keep them from using it on you is the believed threat of violent retribution. Whether that violence is financial, mental, emotional or physical, you must be willing to harm others to protect society from such people.
Until such a time as all individuals with psychopathic tendencies can be removed from society, we cannot live completely free of violence.
Whether that violence is enacted by the state on our behalf doesn't change what it is. If the entire rest of the world was pacifistic, all it would take is one bad actor to destroy it.
Designating others to perform violence on your behalf does not clear you of your culpability for the violence enacted. And that includes any secondary violence caused by mistake or to the designated individual.
Every drop of blood of every innocent in every war is on the hands each of us who benefited from a society at war. Every indignity wraught from failures in our justice system are all of our fault, because we choose others to do that violence to protect us, and enforce our non-violent methods of punishment.
Reducing violence is a noble goal that should be strived for, but trying to ignore our own culpability, and necessity for such violence only gives strength to those who would twist it to their own ends.
We cannot be completely free of violence without fundamentally changing our biology. Closing our eyes to the violence we each visit through our own existence frees us of the guilt of our percentage of that violence no more than closing our eyes before shooting into a crowd would.
Thought experiment, do you think sexual selection for people with predispositions for violence is better than sexual selection for people without violent predispositions?
I see this as being analogous to what we are seeing in the USA regarding gun laws. Everyone wants guns to protect themselves from bad people with guns which is only helping put guns in the hands of dangerous and violent people resulting in more danger than would have been if there were less access to guns.
At some point we have to realize that the claimed solution is in reality, making the problem worse, not better.
Also, did you read the studies I had posted in the first comment you replied to?
**Women’s attraction to dark triad traits** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245)
**Competition for sex increases the likelihood of experiencing violence in men** [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/)
**Women’s attraction to more violent men for short term mating** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5)
Here they are again in case you missed them
I had read two of them already, I've read the abstract of the third and will finish it later as most of the findings are similar to other studies I've read. I definitely appreciated your links as they are useful studies that more people should read. The dark triad one, is what finally made sense of the world to me when I was younger, when all the best women seemed to get caught in abusive situations with asshole men.
Before reading that It never made sense that they couldn't see that the man was an asshole, but afterwards I likened it in my mind to the bias I experience in favor of highly physically attractive women even when the situation is illogical for me to intervene in.
Eventually it lead to me being more open to allowing my slightly aggressive tendencies to be seen as long as I kept my actions under control, and it was very effective in attracting women who had previously not noticed me.
I think that evolutionarily it makes sense that women would feel attraction to violent males, both for the likelihood of increased resources for their children, and for their own self interest, as there is no need to take by force that which is freely given. I don't know if you've noticed, but many women feel more sexual motivation when scared, even if the fear has no bearing on their sexual selection. Rollercoasters and horror movies have both helped me in building excitement on dates. choosing a mate that is willing to mete violence on anyone who stands against them, means that its unlikely that other men will be willing to try and take advantage from them, unless they are even more violent than the selected mate.
Men with non-violent traits, are fine for long term engagements, because ultimately their inability to protect their mate from violent men is what human's will focus on socially, if the woman acquiesces to sexual activity with the the violent man after the non-violent man is defeated.
With the creation of large society, with systems to manage overtly violent behavior, this is no longer as advantageous, but we've only had these systems for a short time evolutionarily. We're less than 10,000 years from a hunter gatherer lifestyle, and our in-built social behavior evolved over millions of years. in addition our population had significantly fewer breeding pairs in our recent past. in the last 70,000 years we've gone from somewhere under 10,000 breeding pairs, to billions. The genes that helped our ancestors survive that period are still very prevalent in our current population, as we all come from that same small population.
Even within society, those willing to harm others do see significant benefit to themselves. whether that harm is giving away baby formula in developing nations for just long enough to stop milk production, forcing people who cannot afford it, chose between either starving themselves or their babies, or feeding inmates substandard food to legally pocket the difference.
The ease of access to guns in the US is a problem, but mostly because in some states it takes very little effort to get a gun, and there are no educational/training requirements to get one. Here in Canada, we have much stricter laws, and although we don't have as many mass shooting incidents, (because those are usually done by people who feel completely isolated from society, with nothing to lose, and not usually by criminals who are plugged into the underground.) we do have gun violence, and most of it is committed with guns obtained illegally. It isn't hard to make a functioning gun, and organized crime groups will even manufacture guns in places like Europe where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult.
Also as someone who has been robbed at knifepoint on a few occasions, the inability to buy a gun doesn't stop violent crime. generally someone needs to be pretty close to you to rob you, and at that range, a gun is not much more dangerous than a knife. 3 people have been stabbed to death in public in my 1 million person city and surrounding suburbs in the past 4 days. (which is much higher than usual mind you, but two of them was an 11 year old girl and her mother, in front of dozens of other parents and children, by someone unknown to them. the attacker was shot and hospitalized by police around 45 minutes later, but survived the shooting.)
What needs to stop is the drug war that makes criminals rich from the suffering of others. In a properly regulated market, there is we can effectively punish bad actors, while in a black market, all bad actors are able to effectively hide their misdeeds, While driving up the profit margin of the product due to the risk of punishment. Increased margin increases motivation to protect the margin, and since the vendors have to break laws to sell their product at all, the market is saturated with sellers that are willing to break the law to stay in business. The fact that an addict can steal your watch and trade it for meth is something that wouldn't happen in a normal business.
It is sad that we have managed to develop our society so much without being able to shirk our evolved proclivity for and attraction to violence. but short of some Extreme Evil, like some sort of worldwide eugenics program, its going take a very long time for an effective justice system to remove these traits from our gene pool. And as long as rich folks get different treatment by these systems than the poor, we will never be able to completely remove them.
I think the key takeaway for me is that there needs to be much more discussion on the dark side of female sexual selection which encourages bad and unhealthy behaviours in men.
Up to this point women have managed to convince society that it is kind and good men that they want which couldn’t be further from the truth. In a way it makes sense that this deceit is occurring as it appears as if female sexual selection opts to find good fathers and providers but to ultimately cheat and produce offspring of men with dark triad traits (dual mating strategy hypothesis). As we can imagine, this is horrible mating strategy that leads to severe short and long term consequences for individuals and society at large.
Our culture has been quick to pick up the ways in which men can be toxic, but they completely and utterly fail at acknowledging the dark side of women and the incentive systems they put in place that encourage the worst of men.
Egotistical, narcissistic and psychopathic men and women need to be stomped out of our evolutionary tree, especially as we unlock technologies that if misused can lead to the end of human kind (think Putin). A cultural change that encourages men to become aware and ultimately ignore some of female sexual selection criteria could help this evolutionary shitshow we find ourselves in.
In conclusion, female sexual selection is helping these parasitic men pass their genes along.
Every man has the capacity for violence, some just have more imperatives or discipline than others. Women want men who are willing to be violent on their behalf.
Not worth your time giving any of them a second thought. Billions of people in the world, those few haters shouldn't be missed or wasted a second of your time on.
This only works if you are willing and have the conviction to be single forever and be written out of the gene pool. This is not a realistic expectation to impose on most men.
Stop participating.
Make women do the shit jobs that they expect men to do. Once feminists realize that they have to REALLY be self-sufficient things will start to change.
That's the funny part about all these girl boss role models, isn't it? Being a narcissistic asshole with a superiority complex who aggressively forces everyone to respect them is only a woman's privilege to be "empowering".
Because feminism indoctrinated several generations of women to think of themselves as belonging to an insiders club. For some, It is borderline sociopathic.
The same types who have a melt down when you explain that men have feelings the sane as them.
OOoh interesting. I mean that franchise is tanking because of its Millennial douchebag writers. I wonder if she's just the first to feel the sting of that idiocy because it's affecting her job directly?
I don't know. Something's ~~not right~~ ~~fishy~~ strange here.
I can be wrong but isn't it maybe because she now 43, has been divorced once, has two young kids and is definitely done with a certain phase of her life?
A "newborn traditionalist" of some sort?
I don't know. I'm always suspicious of everything coming from Hollywood...
'Why do we feel the need to vilify a man wearing s\*\*\*-kicker boots, driving a pick-up truck **who's not afraid to punch someone in the face**, but if they were a woman, they would be the epitome of cool?'
Why is punching someone in the face ever a good thing? And lets cut the bullshit, she doesn't mean anyone, she means **any man**, cause we all know she really just wants a man who can dominate other men (even with violence) and would never lay hands on a woman.
Given the choice she would likely cast judgement on men who did not fit this description. She's mad men aren't as "manly" as she wants them to be.
I think most of us always knew women have no idea what they want and what they think they want changes minute to minute. Insane Mel Gibson actually thought he knew and look how that turned out.
There is no such thing as "gender", there are only sexes and only two of them, these are not man-made "roles" like theater roles but innate qualities, and they are not "traditional" as if invented by a culture with some "tradition" - they are natural, formed by nature in the course of evolution and imprinted into every cell of men's and women's bodies. So the above statement only capitulates to the very same false assumptions she is trying to object to. Say: Evangeline Lilly slams contempt for ***natural***, ***sexes***, ***qualities***. Not "traditional" "gender" "roles".
You can't object to a falsehood while accepting as true all it's false premises.
>she was forced into an apology after comparing the deadly virus to a 'respiratory flu'
Was she apologizing to the covid virus or to the respiratory flu?
Why does it always take a woman's voice to be taken seriously when it comes to men's issues?
Because nobody gives a shit about what men have to say, especially if they're having a problem.
When women speak it's because it's now also starting to hinder women in some way. Like a woman may have a son and see his issue. Or a woman got back into dating at an older age. She's not speaking up for men. She's speaking up for her own self interest as a woman, against other women.
Way I see it
Men are shit, women most affected.
Feminists create more bad men than any other group in western society, feminists most affected
It's an ideology that believe; power resides in social construction. Perhaps SOME biology matters?
This guy gets it.
Damn! I had never thought about it with that lens
Trickle down equality.
Yup. To me it sounds like she's into men who are borderline to full spectrum antisocial and shes angry that men aren't aspiring to be "bad boys" anymore
or maybe some women just genuinely see issue with it? even when women defend y’all, you’re still mad?
If we speak ,they think we are trying to manipulate them
>Why does it always take a woman's voice to be taken seriously when it comes to men's issues? Because it speaks to bias; if a problem is so bad that people who aren't directly affected by it notice, it's a serious problem.
I will say among the people I follow (like my circle of people I know) it’s only ever the women that say anything about men’s issues at all. The men are all silent on men’s and women’s issues, while the women speak out about both.
Any thoughts on why this may be the case? My position is that men get ridiculed and scorned at every corner, unless said men are desirable. It’s like that old joke “black women can say anything, black men can say anything, white women can say the next level and straight white dudes can’t say anything”
I think there’s so many factors that are likely at play- one possibly being fear of ridicule. I do also think women do tend to care about social issues more in general, which I do think has to do with compassion levels. I think the issues women speak about when speaking about men’s issues may be quite different to what many men would consider their primary issues to be.
1. F\*\*\* gender roles, I'm done doing work only to give my money to women. 2. She is right, society is villainizing men.
[удалено]
If you're American just wait until the divorce
Not just america, lol. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/world-news/spain-court-orders-man-to-pay-ex-wife-this-much-for-25-years-of-housework-3842741/amp/1
Well shit. I should really be thankful I'm still on good terms with my ex and it took 30 min. for us to split all our stuff.
Ok, that’s great that you have a stable marriage. But if or when you get divorced, your screwed. We aren’t hating women, we are hating the system that makes it only advantageous for women to be in a marriage and then only to not want that and get half of everything the man owns. It’s a win win for women, and lose lose for males
[удалено]
Who the hell was arguing against that? Quit moving the goalpost. You're over here bragging about your good relationship while shaming others who haven't been so lucky. This wasn't even so much about individual relationships but about the overall state of things in the West in relation to female/male dynamics. If you don't think there are any issues with that you're either slow or being purposely obtuse.
>and haven’t had to give any money to women. Because you didn't have any?
They vilify masculinity in men, they vilify the lack of masculinity in men, they vilify femininity in men, and they vilify anything that women don't find attractive or convenient in men too. There's just really no winning as a man.
100%. They objectify us, plain and simple. Rather than seeing us as individuals they see us an objects meant to fulfill their desires. In her case, she wants men to be **"manly"** (her version of manly) and judging by her comment on **"not being afraid to punch someone in the face"** (by someone she means another man, never a woman) what she actually means is she likes big dominant, prone to violence, brutes who are intimidating to other men.
>what she actually means is she likes big dominant, prone to violence, brutes I'd say she, like most women, likes men who have the *capacity* for violence. That doesn't mean women like men who are wantonly violent.
Question, how do you demonstrate your capacity for violence? Women’s attraction to dark triad traits https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245 Competition for sex increases the likelihood of experiencing violence in men https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/ Women’s attraction to more violent men for short term mating https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5 Interesting reads Also, I realize this is a JP talking point. A point of his I’ve long disagreed with not because I don’t believe what he is saying is true, but because rather than critiquing the sexual desire for violence in men, he applauds it. I also don’t believe it has the benevolent origins he claims. Something else to consider, out of curiosity, what personality traits do you think optimize for violence or the capacity for violence?
>consider, out of curiosity, what personality traits do you think optimize for violence or the capacity for violence? You cannot ensure your own freedom without the capacity for violence. I usually refer to it as "never being too afraid to get punched in the face" because there are generally several levels of disagreement that happen before I am willing to punch someone else. But I don't think anyone can live a free life without good people willing to be violent. otherwise its always the worst people around who are enforcing their view through their violence. No real discussion can happen unless there are people willing to be violent to be heard.
Your point isn't exactly relevant to the conversation of female attraction but nonetheless I'll discuss this point you made. **"No real discussion can happen unless there are people willing to be violent to be heard."** We are attempting to reduce violence, not increase it. If as a society you need increasing levels of violence to be heard there's a problem. If you don't believe that violence can be virtually non-existent in a society then maybe this will help you see this matter differently. Currently, for the most part in the USA there is a required level of violence to be heard for some conversations. This violence might be, protests, riots or worse. For the most part, the violence is pretty minimal. Now let's imagine the level of violence required between organized crime. In these worlds, there is significantly more violence required to enforce your values and wishes. Obviously, the difference in violence between typical USA politics and organized crime are vastly different. So why is that? Well, it's because of our legal and institutional frameworks that America is built on. Act violently and there are repurcussions, i.e. go to prison. The point is to deincentivize violence without using violence. Without the legal framework that punishes those who behave violently you end up with something similar to organized crime. This is not an ideal world. Ultimately, I think the idea you are attempting to tap into is not one of violence but instead of punishment. You can punish people without violence.
The problem is that psychopathic individuals have no qualms about enacting violence on others to get ahead. The only way to keep them from using it on you is the believed threat of violent retribution. Whether that violence is financial, mental, emotional or physical, you must be willing to harm others to protect society from such people. Until such a time as all individuals with psychopathic tendencies can be removed from society, we cannot live completely free of violence. Whether that violence is enacted by the state on our behalf doesn't change what it is. If the entire rest of the world was pacifistic, all it would take is one bad actor to destroy it. Designating others to perform violence on your behalf does not clear you of your culpability for the violence enacted. And that includes any secondary violence caused by mistake or to the designated individual. Every drop of blood of every innocent in every war is on the hands each of us who benefited from a society at war. Every indignity wraught from failures in our justice system are all of our fault, because we choose others to do that violence to protect us, and enforce our non-violent methods of punishment. Reducing violence is a noble goal that should be strived for, but trying to ignore our own culpability, and necessity for such violence only gives strength to those who would twist it to their own ends. We cannot be completely free of violence without fundamentally changing our biology. Closing our eyes to the violence we each visit through our own existence frees us of the guilt of our percentage of that violence no more than closing our eyes before shooting into a crowd would.
Thought experiment, do you think sexual selection for people with predispositions for violence is better than sexual selection for people without violent predispositions? I see this as being analogous to what we are seeing in the USA regarding gun laws. Everyone wants guns to protect themselves from bad people with guns which is only helping put guns in the hands of dangerous and violent people resulting in more danger than would have been if there were less access to guns. At some point we have to realize that the claimed solution is in reality, making the problem worse, not better. Also, did you read the studies I had posted in the first comment you replied to? **Women’s attraction to dark triad traits** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245) **Competition for sex increases the likelihood of experiencing violence in men** [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922783/) **Women’s attraction to more violent men for short term mating** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0262-5) Here they are again in case you missed them
I had read two of them already, I've read the abstract of the third and will finish it later as most of the findings are similar to other studies I've read. I definitely appreciated your links as they are useful studies that more people should read. The dark triad one, is what finally made sense of the world to me when I was younger, when all the best women seemed to get caught in abusive situations with asshole men. Before reading that It never made sense that they couldn't see that the man was an asshole, but afterwards I likened it in my mind to the bias I experience in favor of highly physically attractive women even when the situation is illogical for me to intervene in. Eventually it lead to me being more open to allowing my slightly aggressive tendencies to be seen as long as I kept my actions under control, and it was very effective in attracting women who had previously not noticed me. I think that evolutionarily it makes sense that women would feel attraction to violent males, both for the likelihood of increased resources for their children, and for their own self interest, as there is no need to take by force that which is freely given. I don't know if you've noticed, but many women feel more sexual motivation when scared, even if the fear has no bearing on their sexual selection. Rollercoasters and horror movies have both helped me in building excitement on dates. choosing a mate that is willing to mete violence on anyone who stands against them, means that its unlikely that other men will be willing to try and take advantage from them, unless they are even more violent than the selected mate. Men with non-violent traits, are fine for long term engagements, because ultimately their inability to protect their mate from violent men is what human's will focus on socially, if the woman acquiesces to sexual activity with the the violent man after the non-violent man is defeated. With the creation of large society, with systems to manage overtly violent behavior, this is no longer as advantageous, but we've only had these systems for a short time evolutionarily. We're less than 10,000 years from a hunter gatherer lifestyle, and our in-built social behavior evolved over millions of years. in addition our population had significantly fewer breeding pairs in our recent past. in the last 70,000 years we've gone from somewhere under 10,000 breeding pairs, to billions. The genes that helped our ancestors survive that period are still very prevalent in our current population, as we all come from that same small population. Even within society, those willing to harm others do see significant benefit to themselves. whether that harm is giving away baby formula in developing nations for just long enough to stop milk production, forcing people who cannot afford it, chose between either starving themselves or their babies, or feeding inmates substandard food to legally pocket the difference. The ease of access to guns in the US is a problem, but mostly because in some states it takes very little effort to get a gun, and there are no educational/training requirements to get one. Here in Canada, we have much stricter laws, and although we don't have as many mass shooting incidents, (because those are usually done by people who feel completely isolated from society, with nothing to lose, and not usually by criminals who are plugged into the underground.) we do have gun violence, and most of it is committed with guns obtained illegally. It isn't hard to make a functioning gun, and organized crime groups will even manufacture guns in places like Europe where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult. Also as someone who has been robbed at knifepoint on a few occasions, the inability to buy a gun doesn't stop violent crime. generally someone needs to be pretty close to you to rob you, and at that range, a gun is not much more dangerous than a knife. 3 people have been stabbed to death in public in my 1 million person city and surrounding suburbs in the past 4 days. (which is much higher than usual mind you, but two of them was an 11 year old girl and her mother, in front of dozens of other parents and children, by someone unknown to them. the attacker was shot and hospitalized by police around 45 minutes later, but survived the shooting.) What needs to stop is the drug war that makes criminals rich from the suffering of others. In a properly regulated market, there is we can effectively punish bad actors, while in a black market, all bad actors are able to effectively hide their misdeeds, While driving up the profit margin of the product due to the risk of punishment. Increased margin increases motivation to protect the margin, and since the vendors have to break laws to sell their product at all, the market is saturated with sellers that are willing to break the law to stay in business. The fact that an addict can steal your watch and trade it for meth is something that wouldn't happen in a normal business. It is sad that we have managed to develop our society so much without being able to shirk our evolved proclivity for and attraction to violence. but short of some Extreme Evil, like some sort of worldwide eugenics program, its going take a very long time for an effective justice system to remove these traits from our gene pool. And as long as rich folks get different treatment by these systems than the poor, we will never be able to completely remove them.
I think the key takeaway for me is that there needs to be much more discussion on the dark side of female sexual selection which encourages bad and unhealthy behaviours in men. Up to this point women have managed to convince society that it is kind and good men that they want which couldn’t be further from the truth. In a way it makes sense that this deceit is occurring as it appears as if female sexual selection opts to find good fathers and providers but to ultimately cheat and produce offspring of men with dark triad traits (dual mating strategy hypothesis). As we can imagine, this is horrible mating strategy that leads to severe short and long term consequences for individuals and society at large. Our culture has been quick to pick up the ways in which men can be toxic, but they completely and utterly fail at acknowledging the dark side of women and the incentive systems they put in place that encourage the worst of men. Egotistical, narcissistic and psychopathic men and women need to be stomped out of our evolutionary tree, especially as we unlock technologies that if misused can lead to the end of human kind (think Putin). A cultural change that encourages men to become aware and ultimately ignore some of female sexual selection criteria could help this evolutionary shitshow we find ourselves in. In conclusion, female sexual selection is helping these parasitic men pass their genes along.
Every man has the capacity for violence, some just have more imperatives or discipline than others. Women want men who are willing to be violent on their behalf.
They only vilify if you let their lame vision of men play a role in your life. They have no bearing if you give them no attention.
The issue is when their rhetoric colors others perceptions of you. Ignoring them wont protect you from that.
Not worth your time giving any of them a second thought. Billions of people in the world, those few haters shouldn't be missed or wasted a second of your time on.
This only works if you are willing and have the conviction to be single forever and be written out of the gene pool. This is not a realistic expectation to impose on most men.
Stop participating. Make women do the shit jobs that they expect men to do. Once feminists realize that they have to REALLY be self-sufficient things will start to change.
[удалено]
What are you talking about?
That's the funny part about all these girl boss role models, isn't it? Being a narcissistic asshole with a superiority complex who aggressively forces everyone to respect them is only a woman's privilege to be "empowering".
Because feminism indoctrinated several generations of women to think of themselves as belonging to an insiders club. For some, It is borderline sociopathic. The same types who have a melt down when you explain that men have feelings the sane as them.
Guess she won't be playing the wasp anymore.
OOoh interesting. I mean that franchise is tanking because of its Millennial douchebag writers. I wonder if she's just the first to feel the sting of that idiocy because it's affecting her job directly?
Brea Larson said some dumb stuff before, I don’t remember the details tho
I'm 95% sure the movie was written by ChatGPT.
is it tanking? I thought the first two movies sucked and the worst of the Marvel franchise. The 3rd movie I just watched was much much better.
😂😂
Based?
Not really. The way I see it, she's just unhappy that men aren't aspiring to be big bad brutes she wants them to be
This isn't a natural.occurance chosen by men. This is Hollywood decision making.
Misandry. Sorry but true.
[удалено]
I don't know. Something's ~~not right~~ ~~fishy~~ strange here. I can be wrong but isn't it maybe because she now 43, has been divorced once, has two young kids and is definitely done with a certain phase of her life? A "newborn traditionalist" of some sort? I don't know. I'm always suspicious of everything coming from Hollywood...
'Why do we feel the need to vilify a man wearing s\*\*\*-kicker boots, driving a pick-up truck **who's not afraid to punch someone in the face**, but if they were a woman, they would be the epitome of cool?' Why is punching someone in the face ever a good thing? And lets cut the bullshit, she doesn't mean anyone, she means **any man**, cause we all know she really just wants a man who can dominate other men (even with violence) and would never lay hands on a woman. Given the choice she would likely cast judgement on men who did not fit this description. She's mad men aren't as "manly" as she wants them to be.
I think most of us always knew women have no idea what they want and what they think they want changes minute to minute. Insane Mel Gibson actually thought he knew and look how that turned out.
Feminism has become what it once fought against.
I loved her in Lost
Whenever I see "slams" in a headline, it literally means absolutely nothing to me at this point. She made a statement, that's all
God bless u.
The headline and the lead say diametrically opposite things
Girl, preach.
Wow did she ever hit the wall hard, she used to be so hot. That haircut isn't helping either.
There is no such thing as "gender", there are only sexes and only two of them, these are not man-made "roles" like theater roles but innate qualities, and they are not "traditional" as if invented by a culture with some "tradition" - they are natural, formed by nature in the course of evolution and imprinted into every cell of men's and women's bodies. So the above statement only capitulates to the very same false assumptions she is trying to object to. Say: Evangeline Lilly slams contempt for ***natural***, ***sexes***, ***qualities***. Not "traditional" "gender" "roles". You can't object to a falsehood while accepting as true all it's false premises.
[удалено]
must suck her co-star can still pass for late 20s
Yes
>she was forced into an apology after comparing the deadly virus to a 'respiratory flu' Was she apologizing to the covid virus or to the respiratory flu?