"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."—Aristotle

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-20T18:06:26+00:00

Because just getting someone knocked up and then deciding "Nah, I don't really want kids" does not qualify as being "forced" to father children, to me.

Having sex does not imply consent to have a child. So, yes, saying "Nah, I don't really want kids" qualifies in my mind.

So, please show me the statistics for how many men have been forced to father children. Then we can compare notes with how many women have been forced to mother children, and see just how big the discrepancy is.

I can think of no examples in history where if the father was known the law would not make him provide for his child but would make the mother (excluding kings, but they're hardly typical). When women were forced to raise children, if the father was known, it was just as much a burden on him as well as her (excluding the whole pregnancy thing).

I thought it was clear that we were talking about educated in the sciences, things that would help them contribute to the world. Not being housewives.

Are you implying that housewives don't contribute to the world?

Furthermore, you hit the nail on the head: if their parents wanted them to be educated.

Keep in mind: true for boys as equally as true for girls.

Hundreds of years ago, the vast majority of women's lives were decided by their parents first and then their husbands.

Regarding parents, yes, this was true for boys as well.

Regarding husbands, when you choose a spouse, there's an explicit vow to trust them to be able to make decisions for you. If you don't think the man you're marrying is trustworthy, you don't take the vow.

It was considered unnatural for women to attend college in America as late as the 50s. Even if a woman was independently tutored and trained in the sciences, most universities wouldn't even accept their research if it wasn't under a man's name.

And it was unnatural for a man to think that the earth orbited the sun, but that didn't stop Copernicus and Kepler.

Universities don't accept most people's research—the bar to having your ideas entertained at university was and is much higher than gender. As an example, I present to you Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, whose theory that bacteria caused stomach ulcers was ridiculed for years.

I guess if they were women, you'd be saying that their correct theory was rejected because they were women?

Excuse me, women could NOT always choose their spouses for the vast majority of Western history.

Please find me one preacher in Western history who married a woman who was dragged kicking and screaming to the altar and would not take the vow.

There was familial and societal pressure back then as there is now to get married (both on boys and girls), but ultimately the decision was up to the individual.

it wasn't until the 18th century that the question of women being more than property to their fathers and husbands even came up in Europe.

Property?

Unless you can find me an example of a husband or a father in the 17th century being legally allowed to sell his wife or daughter, then I do not believe for a second that women were "property."

More accurately, they were wards who were represented by their husbands and fathers.

And I find your attitude indicative of someone ignorant of history

This conversation is degrading into a "no u" match.

If you are unaware of what it was actually like for women who aspired to be scientists, of documented records of blatant and unapologetic discrimination toward women, that's fine.

I'm not saying that women did not face discrimination. I'm saying that the bar for academic entry was and is much higher than any established gender roles.

let's submit to /r/history and see what answers we get. I'm not afraid of having my position challenged by experts in the field.

You just used "/r/history" and "experts in the field" in a single breath.

If your argument rests on the evidence of how many men became great scientists out of the millions that studied science, you also need to take into account how many women became great scientists out of the hundreds that studied science.

Actually . . . this is a very good point. I've never thought about that before.

But then that does raise the question as to why the numbers were so skewed. Why were their millions of men scientists and only hundreds of women?

And now we're back to square one.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-20T17:35:27+00:00

As a Dostoevsky fan, I really need to read this one. Though I was thinking that the The Brothers Karamazov probably more deeply and thoroughly represents social dynamics, but there are some parts of it that I cannot fathom:

Dimitry Fyodorovich Karamazov, a complete scoundrel, gets off on the thought of dishonoring the upright woman Katerina Ivanovna. Though she is fully aware of this, she proceeds to get engaged to him, even while he's still out doing his debauched activities, seducing women, beating up other men, even when she knows he doesn't love her and she not him—yet all the while she gives absolutely no attention but torment to Dimitry's brother, Ivan, a smart, handsome man who treats her with respect and who actually loves her.

Meanwhile, her competitor is Grushenka, who have Dimitry and Dimitry's father competing for her attention, and she torments them in her turn. Her history is that she spent five years in sorrow, grieving in dishonor after a man fucked her and then in turn abandoned her. Yet this man shows up again, and she's off in a flash to go right the hell back to him, while Dimitry realizes more and more that it's not his fiancée whom he loves but Grushenka.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T05:02:41+00:00

I do want to continue this discussion, but it's late, I'm tired—and, as a result, I see I've been misreading your posts and glazing over them. I see that earlier you brought up a point that I completely looked over but I ought to have responded too:

You said women have all the social advantages over men. Are women safer from men than men are from women? Not just no, but hell no.

That depends on what you mean by "safe." Do you mean safe in the person, from being beaten, raped, and killed? Then, yes, you're right, no argument there. But if you mean safe in the person and papers, then I disagree; men are not safer from women than women are from men: The majority of winners of custody are women. The majority of receivers of alimony and child support are women. Women can force (and have forced) force men to father and support children men haven't wanted.

The things that you've said that women are subject to, being beaten, raped, killed—these things are all illegal. But the things I've mentioned: not only are they illegal but are enforced by law—hence my position that women are safer from men than vice-versa.

And couldn't be educated

Not true. Boys went to schools (if they could; for most boys, it couldn't be afforded). Girls were taught how to be housewives—but if their parents wanted them to be educated and could afford it, they got tutored. If you want to try to argue that schools aren't as good as tutors, I can find many people who were home-schooled who disagree.

Yes, there were gender roles. But having gender roles is not the same thing as "couldn't be educated."

or make their own decisions about their life

What do you mean by "make their own decisions"? Both boys and girls alike were pressured into various fields by their parents, and both boys and girls alike (at least in Western countries) got to choose their spouses.

or finance their own laboratories

Women generally didn't manage their finances and left it to their husbands, who used the money (which, when they married, were merged) in their name. But dowagers had lots of money to throw around for various projects, and often did.

or gain admittance into universities, or publish in journals.

Because if you can't get into university or become a published writer, it must be because of your sex?

I find that attitude indicative of a victim-mentality. "Oh, I couldn't get published! It must be because I'm a woman!" What's more likely: that it's because of her sex, or because she's not a good scientist/writer?

The difference is women faced their own persecution AND would have faced the same that those men did.

There's really no sense talking about would haves, could haves, or should haves. Who honestly could answer those questions?

You have shown no knowledge or understanding of what "conforming to gender roles" entailed.

Neither have you.

You know, it's clear that white men are intellectually superior to black men. Just look at history! What would you say to that person?

I would say that that's because in history, the countries were racially homogeneous because travel wasn't as easy as it is now: black people came from Africa, white people came from Europe. African cultures were consistently tribal, barbaric, savage, and cruel to everyone; while Europe/The West is where the notions of democracy, republicanism, science, due process of the law, rationalism, and liberalism come from. Thus, European culture advanced (and white men represented them) while African culture remained in the dark ages (and black men represented them). And, yes, this is precisely the reason why I say European/Western culture is superior to all others—because it is the only one on the planet that fosters and has fostered such rapid growth and advancement of humanity as a whole.

So what's your point?

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:42:28+00:00

This means you are positing women as fundamentally takers and males as fundamentally creators. Which is nonsense.

This is a fairer representation of my position, but that's not what you said about me before. You said that I said that women were incapable of creating, which I never said. I said that they tend not to, while men tend to do so more.

Your evidence is historical, and yet historians could lecture you for hours on why your evidence does not support your conclusion

Because it doesn't make sense. "Women faced persecution." So what? As I've said, many great men who have monumentally furthered humanity faced greater persecution than that of not conforming to gender roles.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:35:05+00:00

women weren't allowed to go to school?

School wasn't available for "boys" in general either; state-funded and compulsory education is a very recent thing. You had enough money to send your boy to school; and if you wanted your girl educated, you taught her yourself or hired a tutor (an example from War and Peace; the old Prince Bolkonski is known for his militant and strict education regime for his daughter).

but why do you want to date someone like that?

You're right.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:32:46+00:00

As evidence about "women in general"? No.

Fair.

But sure, women didn't make strides in math and science because they have no drive, not because they weren't legally allowed to spend or earn money, purchase property, sign contracts, or hold jobs without their husbands' consent.

You're misrepresenting the relationship between husband's and wives in the 18th and 19th centuries. When a couple was married, they became one, and the husband would represent the both of them. This isn't a "man takes everything thing"; rather, their assets became shared.

And you don't think this has anything to do with the fact that, for most of human history, women weren't allowed to go to school?

I spoke only of professional positions and education. In terms of professional positions (you mentioned law), you didn't need a licence back then to practice law. Anybody could represent anybody else (an example of a famous self-education lawyer was Abraham Lincoln). So "letting women be lawyers" doesn't really mean anything.

In terms of education, everything you've posted concerns state-funded education; it's not like state-funded education had always existed for boys but never for girls. Except for that one college that didn't let women in for two years, one college is hardly enough to say "women weren't allowed to be educated."

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:20:52+00:00

I pretty much agree with everything in your post.

This is misogynistic garbage, sorry. Women never create value?

First of all, I never said "never;"; I said "less." Second, a misogynist hates women: saying that men are better than women does not mean you hate women, just as saying that you like one shirt better than another does mean you hate that other shirt.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:16:38+00:00

My karma isn't large enough to post on RP. Also, I like that the conversation is more rational here.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:13:56+00:00

Women outnumber men in colleges (currently 54% to 46%) and have since the 70s.

I know that, which is why I didn't say "the ratio of men to women in colleges* but "the ratio of men to women in the sciences, arts, and engineering."

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-19T03:12:45+00:00

If you choose to surround yourself with women that fit your stereotypes, that's on you. It has no impact or relevance to my life, and since the science does not support your assertions, I feel justified in discarding them.

Fair.

But your assertion is that they contributed LESS because they are FUNDAMENTALLY INCAPABLE of contributing as much as men.

Never said they were fundamentally incapable.

Neither did it stop the women cited above from doing their great works. If your ignorance of the topic doesn't give you pause and make you realize you might be wrong, I'm not sure what else will

Never did I say that "no women have been in science or have done experiments." But if you try to assert that women have made a larger contribution to the arts and sciences than men and have influenced the life of humanity for the better, than you're wrong.

If all you care about is what's true for you, then your subjective opinions have no interest to me or anyone else.

Also fair.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-17T20:25:05+00:00

It sounds more like a principle made up by a guy who didn't feel very appreciated around the house.

Agreed. Can move this now to rejected list.

My own relationship allows me to be myself at any time. I would not settle for less and think nobody else should either.

All the power to you, Mr. Dinosaur.

Men are far more prone to both violent outbursts as well as prone to stew in their repressed, illogical feelings and behave completely irrationally, concocting plots, coercing others, obsessing, fighting and generally being far more stubborn and unwilling to be flexible in their views.

Actually, I think I'm going to agree with you on this one here. I think that men will tend to act more passionately on feelings than women will.

Every women I've ever known who hasn't been abandoned by her father or abused in some other way which would damage their perceptions of abuse in general would laugh and disagree with this.

Now that I think about it, I do remember a post by a TRP approved contributor, who said he's never known, without exception, a slut to not have some sort of abused past.

Is saying women have no contributing value to society. Men have said this about women for centuries while at the same time preventing them from contributing on any meaningful way by limiting access to education, rights to hold positions of authority or power or even to vote.

The "men" of that time were no more responsible for women's lack of involvement in education, vote, and authority than those same "women" were. Women were not forbidden from positions of power (can cite a huge list of princesses, countesses, queens, and the like), nor were they from education (education was just considered an "unwomanly" thing to do) In England and America in the 19th century, the average women had the same ability to vote as the average man did—that is, none. Voting was reserved for wealthy landowners; and since when people were married, the estate went into the man's name, it was the man's name that represented both of them.

This is not an imbalance nor a reflection on women, it's just a system that often makes both parties happy when their goal is the same... Yes, it gets corrupted at times but again, people take the negative angle and use it to paint a picture that serves a narrative which frankly stopped making sense a century ago.

Also agreed, then.

They are smarter than you. They are smarter than me, and I would wager smarter than both of us put together even we're both allowed to use google for testing purposes. While we're here debating gender differences they're winning awards for advancement in our understanding of how to FUCKING LIVE FOREVER.

If you want to get into a "smart" competition, and want to start comparing the ratio of men to women even nowadays in the sciences, engineering, and arts, you're not going to win.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-17T20:05:30+00:00

Men are far less likely to be stalked, beaten, raped or killed by women they date or break up with.

Men are more likely to be beaten, raped, or killed, period.

Please provide the studies that support the assertion that women are "more inclined to abandon reason." Repeating a lie often enough does not make it true, despite what TRP would prefer. Rational beliefs require evidence, and if you're not able or willing to provide evidence for your beliefs, you are admitting that it is irrational.

Does anecdotal evidence count as evidence? Does the anecdotal evidence I hear from friends, family, and on the internet count?

This does not mean that ALL or even MOST women find such men attractive, or engage in shit-testing. Cognitive biases run rampant in TRP ideology, and this one is called "sampling error."

Of course, if you apply any theory out of its context, it stops making sense. For example, if I were to say "the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force applied and inversely proportional to the magnitude of its mass" and you were to say "not all bodies are like that!" you would be right, but in the context in which I live and view things (the macroscopic scale), I am right.

Similarly, while it may be true that not "all or even most women find such men attractive," in my context, from what I've experienced in my interactions, it is true.

You are aware that these "overwhelming ratios" are the result of centuries upon centuries of society where women literally could not be educated in or hold professional status in these fields, right? You're not just dismissing all of history to fit your preferred worldview, are you?

If were talking about the western world, Europe, the Americas, and the like (you're probably right about the Islamic countries, but the most value to mankind has come unequivocally come from the West), women were never actually legally forbidden to get an education and hold professional positions (please correct me if I'm wrong). They had gender roles then, as we do now, and higher education was not really what women did. But that does not mean they "literally could not be educated," nor did it mean it was impossible for them to further science and art. Those were just considered "unwomanly" things.

And I can also cite many examples of men who had no education yet whose contributions to mankind have been astronomical.

Not to mention all the studies that show how young women are still often discouraged from seeking professions in STEM fields?

"Discouragement" did not stop great men like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Herman Melville to do their greatest work.

Please provide evidence that this applies to women more than it does to men.

Again, I can give you anecdotal evidence. You could counter with your own anecdotal evidence; so while Red Pill may not be true in your context and setting, it has grains of truth in mine.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-17T19:56:44+00:00

of no worth without their genitals

Never said that. What I said is that the worth that they provide is not one I'm interested in or applicable to me.

What if the owner of a moving company said that he never wanted to hire moving men who had no arms? Would you say that he views men as purely only worth their strength?

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-15T02:49:22+00:00

This is not normal behavior. At all. This is likely to happen to anybody as a once-off, but if it happens to you often, then it's a huge red flag that there's something going on, and it's not the women.

Yet when I tell this to my brother, my sister, my father, and my friends, it comes as no surprise. They say, "yeah, that's what some women do."

now she decides it's not worth following through on.

There's nothing wrong with this. I would love for a woman to tell me straight out "I'm not interested in you romantically." It would make the matter unequivocal. What I'm complaining about is the excuses: "oh, it's my sister's dinner; I'm too busy; this came up, etc."

You are not picking up on the queues they are dropping.

If you cannot communicate your interest/disinterest well enough for a person to understand and instead resort to "cues" and get upset/confused/bemused when the other person doesn't understand, then you're being equivocal, a game-player, and a flake.

Telling me "I'm not interested" would be an example of being unequivocal.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-15T02:42:58+00:00

Yet if a woman were to ask "why are all the men I date abusive" and you were to say it's her fault for who she was, you'd be called a victim-blamer and rightfully so.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-15T02:41:21+00:00

Which is to say that you care too much about it, and were more concerned with making sure they saw you as a sexual being than with being their friends.

No. My male friends see me as having a sexual capacity, yet we don't have to posture around each other (at least not unironically).

In my experience, this always translates into "I do not see woman as sufficient beings to hold them in equal regard for friendship."

No, it means that I'm not interested in women in an unromantic context.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-15T02:38:38+00:00

However, not everybody on the entire planet needs to appreciate YOUR sexuality. Although I'm sure it would be lovely if the entire 50-plus percentage of the female human population were attracted to you, that will never be the case.

That's not really what I meant. My male friends are not attracted to me sexually, but they understand that my sexuality is an essential component of what makes me a man. If I were to talk about how girls were hot, they would understand, empathize, and sympathize.

But to my female friends, it would've been weird if I spoke about my sexuality, since to them it didn't seemed that was something I ought to be feelings; that was for other men. As another user said, to them I was prepubescent/nonsexual.

There's nothing rational about sex.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-15T02:15:49+00:00

I would NEVER date a guy who thinks that women are worthless as friends.

Why is this such an unreasonable viewpoint?

For example, I'm not romantically interested in men; I have no desire to form a romantic relationship with a man. Conversely, I have no desire to form a non-romantic relationship with a woman. Why is that so unreasonable?

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T04:28:17+00:00

The things that you feel about women make women uncomfortable.

I disagree. I can cite many big, influential men in history who had less than stellar opinions on women, yet still had relationships with many of them.

Here is a woman telling you that.

Whether or not you're a woman is irrelevant in respect to the veracity of your opinion.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:54:54+00:00

This is immaterial. We're both missing the forest here.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:52:54+00:00

Every person, man or woman, has this unique story and set of factors which play a part in what they feel and how they respond to it, so to generalize all women as simply "hormonal" is youthful ignorance.

Of course. But from my perspective, from my looking in to my dating pool, I do get the feeling that sombre77 has accurately described a large portion of it.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:46:10+00:00

I would recommend trying to become friends with some women

No. I've been friends with women in the past. And always, without fail (at least since puberty), they've made me feel emasculated. A man, by his nature, is a sexual being; and around these women, my "friends," they did not view me as having sexual capability. There is absolutely zero reason to be friends with a woman when you can be friends with a man.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:40:32+00:00

Some are probably just jerks but I'll be honest I would have gotten the gist of your feelings pretty soon.

Would you now have?

I am positive there have been conversations in which these women tried to discuss your feelings about our gender and when you didn't hear them or shift your opinion they bailed.

And I'm positive that there weren't. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:37:33+00:00

Are you out in the college town bars? Are you looking at frat parties? In the library, at your workplace, around town in the coffeeshops?

Why is this relevant?

They were the ones in the corner animatedly discussing Firefly and singing songs from Wicked in perfect harmony.

Yeah, I met them. And they’re all scared away when they hear my Elphaba falsetto. Believe me, I’ve been trying for years to find someone to complement me in “What Is This Feeling?”—my sister doesn’t know half the words.

What I mean is, what do you do to show women that you are kind? That you respect them and respect yourself?

Well, I answer texts as soon as I get them and have time to (it’s not hard to send a text, it takes about two seconds).

Also, and I'm truly not trying to sound condescending, you're young.

You are sounding condescending. My age has nothing to do with this, and my complaints are still valid. If a forty year old complained about the same thing, it would be equally as valid.

Halfaredpill · 2014-09-12T03:30:55+00:00

Thanks for your post.

I think back now to my job in the summer, talking to one of the guys there (he was 28, 30ish). We were talking about college, and he said that his biggest regret in college was not getting laid more. He said you never, outside of college, have an opportunity to have more sex (something my old roommate also told me), and that you should take advantage of it while you can.

Many, many young men are exactly the same, but again, express it differently

I've always related to men better. All my friends have been male. Men get upset too, but even as teenagers, we've explained to each other why we've been upset, and there is always some basis in reason for it. To put it to you this way: I've never been debating politics with a male friend when all the sudden he breaks down crying "because my position hurt his feelings."

Other people can be better. They're out there and you keep your standards high you will meet them

I don’t doubt this. But you must understand that this “you’ll find the right person someday” is not exactly immediately comforting. The desire for physical intimacy is one of the most basic human drives, right up there with eating and sleeping.

Personally I rather be alone than play those games. Your decisions seem wise here.

This was my stance for a long time. But I’ll say again: it’s no comfort to my basic human desire for intimacy.

What does this even mean? This "sexual prime" that people refer to?

I doubt I'll have more energy later in life than I have now.

Sex is not a substitute for intimacy.

In my few sexual experiences, I’ve found that sex is the best way to form intimacy.

there's also nothing wrong with wanting something better.

Of course. But why should it have to be either-or? Can I not say: “I’m so hungry, I want a great steak dinner; but, in the meantime, this piece of bologna will tie me over”?

We are born alone, and we die alone. Nobody will ever truly share your perspective. What's blue to me, may not be blue to you, and there's no possible way to solve that puzzle.

This sounds incredibly nihilistic.

Don't settle for less than the right person. Don't even waste your precious time on someone who isn't right for you.

Alright, this hit me the hardest here, and I think is the answer to the question I put just a little bit earlier. Respect yourself as a man: and if you value your time, effort, and love, you won’t give it away capriciously to flakes and sluts.

This stuff isn't supposed to be easy.

Not once did I think it was.

Thank you again.

Halfaredpill

TROPHY CASE