what is it about the modern world that has led to millions of hikkis, grass eaters, FAs etc? This is basically unprecedented in human history.
And why does it only effect women? There is no female counterpart to millions of lonely young men despite what white knights may claim.
Some members of male species are no longer entitled to be called men.
grass eaters aren't lonely, they have other interests. that's the whole meaning of the phrase.
foreveralones are at historic lows and are simply more vocal and visible due to modern technologies
hikkis are a product of the weird overlap of low cost of living and declining real wages, so that it's shockingly common for older people to be able to support someone young easier than it is for a young person to support themselves. Blame the neoliberals and conservatives running the first world.
>And why does it only effect women?
what
>There is no female counterpart to millions of lonely young men despite what white knights may claim.
women are socialized not to endlessly blame their personal shortcomings on others while men are not. also pic related.
Because with women's liberation the top 20% of men now get 80% of women. You can either complain about it or work your way up.
>>16992955
>You can either complain about it or work your way up.
Or not deal with it and let women burn themselves up.
There's a lot of factors, honestly. The sexual revolution (which is still ongoing) decoupling sex from reproduction has had some weird effects on male-female mating dynamics and is responsible for a lot of it; technological advances contribute, the rest is a function of the effects of global capitalism on the ability of young people to have jobs, careers that allow them to afford their lives/afford houses/children.
Living in NEETdom is very cheap, and pairing that with not reproducing allows the overall human population to be more efficient and to correct for overpopulation, which is actually a good thing; NEETdom and grasseaters are both actually quite positive for society overall (even if there's a long-term problem about the attributes of people who DO reproduce - i.e. stupid, careless, cheaters, etc).
It affects women to a lesser extent because they are more valuable then men; men are disposable so we're the first to go.
>>16993003
That's what happens to women who don't suck your ugly little dick? They burn? Like in hell, or with desire for bitchy losers or what?
>>16993034
>>16992934
Kek take a chill pill already
>>16993034
They live a life unfulfilled and lack the things they want most because they ignored those guys who could give it to them, and those guys decided to 'eat grass' rather than chase women who shut them down.
The women burn themselves up because they regret the last 20 years of their life since they had choices of men and chose poorly.
If they offed themselves in depression that'd just be icing on the karma cake.
Women have choices just like men. Women are NOT objects. If you choose poor mates, and then regret your decisions 20 years down the road, you should've learned earlier rather than later how to pick a good man.
You're not an object. You make choices and your regrets will be based on those choices. Your life is your fault. Listen to women 2 generations older than you for how to pick a decent guy, or suffer the consequences of thinking you, a younger person with no experience, knows better.
Good luck in life.
>>16993055
So, you chose (b) burn with desire for whiny babies like op? I hate to break it to you, but not only is nobody is making a mistake avoiding him, nobody's grandmother, not even his own, would endorse him for any purposes but punching bag and assistant manager.
>>16992934
>eating a hot dog off the ground
>>16993089
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+cant+I+find+a+good+guy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
About 27,200,000 results
http://elitedaily.com/dating/youre-not-finding-nice-guy/969740/
>“Nice guys don't exist anymore.” We hear women scream it down the streets of Manhattan after a night of bar crawling and drunk dialing leaves them feeling lonely in a tireless pursuit of $1 pizza.
>We say it out loud, we think it to ourselves and with several nudges from our female comrades who enlist us to fall in line with the man-hating revolution they're hell-bent on plotting, we succumb to the belief that maybe, after all, nice guys no longer exist.
>I perpetuated this mindset for the better part of 2014. After a string of amazing first dates turned stale, I held firm to the idea that all of the nice guys were either in a relationship, gay or extinct.
>Never did I take a step back and consider, for a moment, that perhaps I was part of the problem. I'm not playing martyr and placing all of the blame in my lap because there were plenty of men who lived up to the assh*le standard that has become so commonplace. I've been stood up. I've been screwed over. I've had pretty lies whispered into my ear and empty promises made in the dark.
>Yes, these men were dirtbags with whom I never hope to have future communication in any type of universe. But, if I think about the steps I took after I was subjected to these various dating crimes, I'm pained to admit that more often than not, I went about it all wrong.
>Looking back on it, “insane” is exactly how I would describe the way in which I was dating. I would meet a guy, watch the warning signs and red flags pop up, wave ignorantly as I passed them by and sit pretty until it all went to sh*t.
>I repeated the same patterns and expected the outcome to change. I sought the wrong men in all the wrong places and grew bitter when they didn't transform into the men I envisioned them to be.
>>16993116
>>16993089
So you're saying that when a male is trying to get you to wake up, its whining. Well, there's an article written by a female.
Good luck, again.
>>16993089
You can't judge OP by what he wrote. This is the only place where he can talk about these topics, because IRL you'll be seen as mysoginist/hatred/allbadthings just for "challenging" mainstream view about women.
This thread, forgive me, is fucking retarded,
>>16993123
Honestly, its either trolling or women/girls/babies who feel threatened by someone making an honest statement. Things that hit too close to home usually draw extreme anger from listeners.
As a guy, you can't say "women like fucking themselves over because they choose assholes instead of nice guys", and expect women to not say "you're being a whiner and thats why women don't like you".
I stopped being a nice guy. Now Im out just to get laid and Im a dick to women and get dick into women. From teens to early 20's, I really wanted a relationship, but I wanted sex as well as anyone does. Now I don't care about a relationship anymore and I'm getting laid. 50% success is better than 0% success.
As a guy who reformed from being nice, I can say right now that there are so many actual nice guys out there who are treated like shit because girls and women don't value them. Then they'll grow old and regret their entire life choices (or blame men for all of their problems).
Women aren't told that their choices affect their life. They are told that you can have it all, and if you don't get it all, misogyny or oppression in some subtle form is preventing you from having it.
>>16993123
Oh yes I can, this era is full of whining faggots who collected themselves into corners in a circlejerk instead of improving themselves. Fuckers are the dead-ends of evolution.
>>16993131
>Women aren't told that their choices affect their life. They are told that you can have it all, and if you don't get it all, misogyny or oppression in some subtle form is preventing you from having it.
e.g. their choices don't matter. Its like simultaneously being told you're in control of your life but you can't control it. It should be no wonder women are the way they are today, if these are the messages they hear.
I call it "elevation from agent to object status", because thats as contradictory as the messages and as women's own behaviors compared to their words.
I reckon that perhap 20% of women who see this kind of talk on the web or on 4chan will, later in life, look back and say "holy fuck, they were right all along and I was too stubborn to see it". The other 80% that see this stuff will just continue to blame men for not being available, or for lying to them about their intentions.
You pick your man/men in life ladies. They are your choice. Make smarter choices. You do have a brain.
>>16993142
>Oh yes I can, this era is full of whining faggots who collected themselves into corners in a circlejerk instead of improving themselves. Fuckers are the dead-ends of evolution.
Your talk is just a bunch of ad hom rhetoric and it solves nothing.
>>16993131
Well, let me say this..
If you're constantly getting laid, it means you're attractive, over average.
It's not about the confidence, I couldn't have the same success as you.
I want a relationship because it's easier than having one ONS, not because I'm a nice guy.
>>16993142
That can be said about feminism, too.
>>16993123
if anything I'm being charitable, OP is either trolling or exclusively bad things.
>>16993148
Look at the MGTOW sites which suspiciously sound like gay cults trying to destroy the nuclear family by calling women breeders.
>>16993121
>Well, there's an article written by a female.
pandering to a delusional audience and their clammy disposable income.
>>16993175
Feminism destroyed the nuclear family and called men breeders long before MGTOW did it.
If you've ever actually read Feminist propaganda from the 1800's to the late 1900's, they repeatedly say "men are oppressors and marriage is a prison".
>>16993148
> ad hom rhetoric
it's actually the not. An ad hominem would be to attack OP for being barely literate or posting old over compressed bullshit images while ignoring his argument, not acknowledging his argument and saying it means he's a dumb sack of shit. learn what words mean before you try to use them.
>>16993181
>pandering to a delusional audience and their clammy disposable income.
The point is that men can never be honest about this because it invokes "you have a penis, you don't understand me!" and "If you were really nice, you'd get (x)", where X is either laid (which is hilarious bullshit when women fuck assholes and whine later that they weren't nice guys, indicating they dont want to fuck nice guys) or X is find a relationship.
>>16993190
Ad Hom means "to the man", meaning insulting a person rather than arguing the merits. Since you insulted him but did not use reasonable arguments to discredit him, yes, thats ad hom.
>>16993184
Faggotry did, but since 4chan has become a base for trannys and faggots I doubt anything is going to get through to you
>1800's to the late 1900's, they repeatedly say "men are oppressors and marriage is a prison".
They were being oppressed in the 1800s and are still second class citizens in third-world countries.
There's nothing wrong with non-crazy feminism.
>>16993089
>punching bag and assistant manager
Underrated burn
>>16993184
>called men breeders long before MGTOW did it.
no, that was the gays.
>>16993201
>Faggotry did, but since 4chan has become a base for trannys and faggots I doubt anything is going to get through to you
2% of the population can't do shit.
Women are the majority of the population and hold most of the political power because a politician panders to their largest supporting bloc, e.g. women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4
Nice guys don't get laid because women whine that they cant find nice guys, but then date assholes instead.
>>16993219
>I am retarded.
And I guess that's why Trump is so popular. kek.
>>16993229
>nice guys
Are losers deluding themselves into thinking that they are nice guys?
>>16993238
Not quite, self absorbed assholes are deluding themselves into thinking that they are nice guys.
Never trust anyone that describes themselves in a positive light, they're invariably total fuckheads.
>>16993238
>Are losers deluding themselves into thinking that they are nice guys?
Right.
If a man fails with women, hes a loser.
If woman fails with men, they're all pigs, or selfish assholes, or users.
Its always the man's fault, not the woman's.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/marriage-declining-men-pigs
>In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever. But they've been forced into it by cultural mores and economic imperatives, and that's the only reason it's been nearly universal in the past.
>>16993258
>And that's why marriage is declining among all groups except the college educated. For an awful lot of women, it's just a lousy deal. They're tired of putting up with all the crap they get from men, and so they're opting out. They'll opt back in when men start to pull their own weight. There's no telling when that's going to start happening.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-women-cant-find-enough-marriageable-men/
>Overall, men are not only earning less than they used to, but they're failing to enroll in colleges at the same rate as their female counterparts. The result is that there are only 85 men for every 100 women who are 25 to 35 years old and who are college educated.
>The report may back up what single women with college degrees have been sensing for years: The pickings are slim.
No, they're slim because you're choosing to reject many men.
>"Women are now more educated than men, meaning that they will necessarily face a shortage of marriage partners with the same level of education," Sawhill and Venator wrote. "What we are likely to see in the future, then, is either women marrying 'down' educationally, or not marrying at all."
http://www.vice.com/read/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253
>We all have that friend: the beautiful, intelligent, driven woman who—like Katherine Heigl in every rom-com—can't find a decent date. Every guy she goes out with is an asshole; she consistently dates "below" her league, and she's on the verge of giving up on a committed relationship altogether.
IF you're thinking in terms of dating based on league to find love, then you've lost.
>This got Birger, a former economics writer for Fortune and Money, thinking: How could a man of that age be so cavalier about casting aside such an amazing woman? And why do we all have similar stories of incredible female friends trapped for years in dating hell? Why are there so many great single women? Where are all the great single men?
>>16993255
Also I don't they understand the difference between being nice and being passive.
>>16993267
was she REALLY so amazing? If so, how could a man ever break up with her? was she really just dating an asshole? How many other nice men did she fail to meet because of her "league" criteria that kept her from seeing them as viable partners?
You read these articles, its always the man's fault.
>As the men pair off with partners, unpartnered straight women are left with fewer and fewer options—and millions of them are eventually left with no options at all.
There's a fuckton of men out there.
>"Being unwilling to consider working-class guys affects women in ways that it doesn't affect men. It's totally unfair, and I get that."
So, you're admitting that your desire for men is about how much money he brings to the table, or how socially powerful he is, not about him as a human being?
And women call men shallow..
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates
>It isn’t really that surprising that we like to form long-term relationships with someone like ourselves, and assortative mating – the term sociologists use to describe this tendency – has been rising. “I suppose it’s horrible to say, but I guess if someone is more intelligent or better-qualified, I feel less that I have to be wooed by them,” says Holly, 27, who has an MA and works in post-production for television.
Its really like women are almost seeing the truth; that they are responsible for their own life choices, but then they keep blaming men for not making enough money, for not having enough education, or for not being smart enough. Apparently all women are genius level (despite IQ numbers showing that women aggregate around midrange intelligence while men far outpace them in both above and below average intelligence), who must date a man with money.
But if a man must date a woman who is thin and attractive, only that is shallow.
Right.....
>>16993278
>being passive
Ehhhh, this is only a concern most of the time because men are the ones who are burdened with taking the proactive approach and asking women out first.
Most of the time when I hear women call a guy "passive" it means he's hesitating to ask her out. What I don't think gets considered often enough is that not all men who don't ask out women right away are passive, weak, shy. Sometimes men are also afraid of being hurt, especially if they've been hurt in the past. When you think about it, a man who's a little shy or nervous at first is not the end of the world, and certainly is not as bad for a relationship as people seem to think. He could just be one of those people who needs to take his time to warm up to somebody, did you ever think of that?
I sometimes will meet a girl and we seem to click but I don't do something right away, then the next time I see her she acts very cold/uninterested in me, which is very confusing. Like, are you really just going to negate a potentially worthwhile relationship because I didn't ask you out right away? Is there some biological/evolutionary reason for women being so turned off by a guy who doesn't take all these risks and shit ASAP even if he's got a good reason not to, or are these women just being butthurt and entitled?
>>16993302
>He could just be one of those people who needs to take his time to warm up to somebody, did you ever think of that?
Thinking or fairness are not strong suits of the female of the species.
They seem to be embroiled in countless efforts to prove this as well.
>>16993302
>Is there some biological/evolutionary reason for women being so turned off by a guy who doesn't take all these risks and shit ASAP even if he's got a good reason not to, or are these women just being butthurt and entitled?
OR were you imagining it in the first place and the further contact disabused you of your delusion?
>>16993219
money is more important to a politician than population demographics.
>>16993302
Men are supposed to be risk takers. If rejection does happen a real confident man will just see it as her loss.
>>16993343
>money is more important to a politician than population demographics.
and 2% of the population (in gays) is not any money at all.
>>16993379
and women are much less important to politicians than men because they are much less wealthy.
>>16993337
Nah I know the difference. Women do not approach you and start hitting on you unless they saw something they liked.
>inb4 "they were just being friendly"
Said every girl who approached a guy and failed to attract him right away
>>16993219
>Women are the majority of the population and hold most of the political power
AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>16993431
This is nonsense, obviously, but I can't help but suspect that historically women have wielded more influence through men than their actual political power suggested. Reading history it seems I'm always running into accounts of men who did this and that at the behest of their wives and/or mistresses, and looking around today women do often seem to try to manipulate men, so am I just crazy or is there something to this notion?
>>16993439
Traditionally in ancient western culture, men would fight over women as a symbol for fighting over territory. Upper class women symbolized potential family ties (marrying to unite powerful families) while also symbolizing the greatest prize a lord/king/whatever could hold. If you stole the queen you humiliated the king and destroyed his credibility.
Now I'm sure there were many times a woman or women ran thinfs from behind the scenes, but by definition we will never know how many.
The traditional power of a woman is the power of the household. Raising children and instilling proper values, being a mediator between issues, etc. It's honestly an honor to accept that role and a lot of women today still feel that way.
>>16993354
Nah. Men are now entitled shitheads for even remotely implying that a woman who turned him down made a mistake.
>>16993439
Look man, dont worry about who has power over what.
You got power over what you do and what you think and thats enough power for anyone to do anything.
>>16993454
>The traditional power of a woman is the power of the household
But that's exactly my point. Women often seem to 'rule' the household once a relationship is well established at that stage. Men openly act like the king of the castle, but often seem to cowtow to their wives in private.
I read an interesting thread a while back regarding the phenomenon of women making their husbands dispose of hobby objects, and how common variants on the phrase 'The wife says it has to go' crop up on auction/sale websites and the like. The interesting thing being that this phenomenon seemed to occur for pretty much any hobby ranging from cars to modelkits, with even the most seemingly disingenuous hobbies receiving the spousal ire. There was speculation (including by a few more introspective women) that it was a means of exerting or testing control, and this leads me to wonder just how much power a man actually has in a relationship.
>>16993489
It was largely a point of historical interest regarding the political influence of women.
On a personal note, I wish I could share your sunny disposition, but the thread I just mentioned has made me really wonder about whether or not a woman might actually be doing this. Hell of it is, I don't even think it's deliberate. It just seems like breaking in their spouse is just something some women are subsconsciously driven to, and that thought scares me. No matter what you're capable of, it's still very much within your partners power to leave you cold and alone at any time.
Maybe that's why men are so possessive and full of machismo.
>>16993302
>Most of the time when I hear women call a guy "passive" it means he's hesitating to ask her out.
Only most of the time?
>What I don't think gets considered often enough is that not all men who don't ask out women right away are passive, weak, shy.
Yes, yes, they are. We can argue histories and reasons, some of which are more understandable than others. But the end result is the same.
>Sometimes men are also afraid of being hurt, especially if they've been hurt in the past.
And if they take their fear this far, then they aren't ready (either because they never have been or because they're not done recovering). All men are afraid of being hurt: that is, in fact, literally what fear is for. The difference is in who has the courage to ask even though they are scared.
>When you think about it, a man who's a little shy or nervous at first is not the end of the world, and certainly is not as bad for a relationship as people seem to think.
Yes it is. He's not ready. You don't put a brick in a wall that hasn't finished drying. You don't sew cloth into a shirt that is only half-woven. And you don't get into a relationship with a guy who isn't stable and mature. All of these things end in further damage.
>He could just be one of those people who needs to take his time to warm up to somebody, did you ever think of that?
I thought of it. That's not ready. Grow beyond it.
>>16993431
>>16993439
Women demand things and politicians change it.
Who do you think raised the age of consent to 18?
Women.
They control far more than either of you idiots think.
Best answer:
Pffft, fuck it, who cares?
You do you... Guys don't wanna bother they don't have too, bitches gonna bitch, let 'em. So long as no one bothers you what's the problem?
Personally, I'm FA/grass eater because I just don't see the point in it any more.
One girls "OMG so romantic" is another girls "creepy", holding a door can either be "romantic and chivalrous" or "OMG sexist patriarch, DIE!", and just asking a girl out can either be "brave and manly" or "Ewww fuck off creep".
The one constant is that it is us men expected to make the move. We're expected to read minds and know with absolute certainty which kind of girl they are and know everything about them and how they think before we've ever gotten close to them.
If that doesn't sound like a rigged game, I don't know what does.
I don't see the point in it anymore, it's a lost cause.
And that's okay because I'm okay with it. I won't try to force anyone else into my lifestyle - so they better not try stopping me from living how I want.
>>16993491
>But that's exactly my point. Women often seem to 'rule' the household once a relationship is well established at that stage. Men openly act like the king of the castle, but often seem to cowtow to their wives in private.
>I read an interesting thread a while back regarding the phenomenon of women making their husbands dispose of hobby objects, and how common variants on the phrase 'The wife says it has to go' crop up on auction/sale websites and the like. The interesting thing being that this phenomenon seemed to occur for pretty much any hobby ranging from cars to modelkits, with even the most seemingly disingenuous hobbies receiving the spousal ire. There was speculation (including by a few more introspective women) that it was a means of exerting or testing control, and this leads me to wonder just how much power a man actually has in a relationship.
Controlling others' attitudes and how they treat you is power.
A man walks into a bar/social event. People see him and assume he must be wealthy, and change their whole demeanor to be friendly to this person who seems like he has power. The ability to change people's minds by entering a room is power.
A woman who walks in and has everyone checking her out has power. As women get older, this power fades, and women constantly whine about it. First they whine about too much attention, then whine about no attention.
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/interpersonal-power
Merriam-Webster's first definition of "power" is the "ability to act or produce an effect." OK, but I'm particularly interested in interpersonal power. Can we get a little more specific?
Kai Sassenberg, et al's Why Some Groups Just Feel Better: The Regulatory Fit of Group Power* includes this definition of "relative power differences between groups":
One group has a higher capacity to modify the other group's state than vice versa.
>>16993502
You seem a bit confused on what I said. I'm not talking about guys who never make a move. I'm talking about guys who take their time and get to know somebody first.
>he's not ready
Sure he is. He's just not going the speed you want him too.
>you don't get in a relationship with a guy who's not stable and mature
While this is possible, it's not always the case. When a girl approaches me and throws "signals" I read them loud and clear - the difference is I don't always dance to the beat of their drum. Lambast me for that all you want, but I don't have much interest in a girl who can't even at least try a little harder to make things happen. Especially when I barely know her and have no reason to pursue her...yet.
>>16993516
So its all womens fault for everything wrong in the world.
What arr you doing to fix it then? Raging on 4chan? If you want to change something that "women" have mad worse, then why not actually get out there and do something about it.
Oh thats right, you only care about whether people agree with you or not, you dont want to put actual effort in to change somethibg, because that would actually take hard work.
TL;DR - stop complaining and start doing something about what you want.
>>16993521
One group has a higher capacity to modify the other group's state than vice versa.
Dacher Keltner, Deborah Gruenfeld and Cameron Anderson take a similar approach in Power, Approach and Inhibition (PDF version):
We define power as an individual's relative capacity to modify others' states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments.
So a simple definition of "interpersonal power" might be the ability to modify another person's state.
But this definition poses a problem: It identifies a subject--i.e. another person--and a relationship between ourselves and that subject--i.e. the capacity to modify--but it says nothing about us and our internal state. And yet our level of comfort with power (and our ability to wield it effectively) varies so widely in different circumstances that it seems essential to include ourselves in the equation more explicitly.
I notice this all the time. People feel themselves powerful. Imagine going to a bar and having two women treating you like you're the most important guy there for a night? You feel powerful, but that power is coming from their power to influence you. And vice versa. Maybe you said some honeyed words that made them enamored to you, so they feel like you're powerful, and in their response made you feel powerful.
Inter or intrapersonal power is all smoke and mirrors, and yet its also pretty solid in its effects. If a leader said "do this for me", and everyone disagreed with his decision and turned against him, his assumed power counts for nothing. (1)
>>16993527
Same with teachers or adults and those under their care. If an adult wants their child to do something, and that child stops giving a shit about all the consecutive accumulating punishments (grounding, no longer allowed to talk to friends?) that occur, that parent is rapidly losing power to affect their child's behavior, even with the threat or actual use of force (since grounding is force, as imprisonment is force, e.g. detaining a person against their will, which is equal to violence, but on a much smaller scale and over a longer period of time). True, they still have the power to ground, but they've lost the power to affect the child's decisions.
That's why power is both illusion and real at the same time. Power can only be given to individuals by those who choose to subvert themselves to that individual. Power cannot be taken. (2) A person who must use force to achieve something with others can't be said to be that powerful interpersonally. Maybe physically, but not interpersonally.
People have some mental concept of what power is, that it is immutable, and exists solely within a person's control or something. But that isn't the true nature of power. You can't have power without being given it by those around you, which is the root of BDSM play. It is the same as victims of a crime or victims of a relationship and when it ends. If you mope all day, there is a saying that say you're allowing the criminal or the guy/girl who dumped you have all the power in the relationship by controlling how you feel about yourself now.
Anyone who says "men/women have all the power" are both right and wrong, depending on the context.
Reality is that women now have more power in men than relationships and they know it, yet are blind to their privilege.
>>16992911
> Don't be too fat
Hmn, yeah...you forgot:
> Don't be too skinny
> Be in perfect shape
> Don't be too muscle-y
> Have perfect hair and skin w/o make-up
> Wear your goddamn make-up, do your fucking hair, you hideous beast
> Show some skin, you fucking prude
> Cover up, you fucking slut
> Keep to yourself, you stuck-up bitch
> Be open and friendly because you're obviously a huge whore who fucks everyone
Yeah, no problem.
>>16993522
Also, women get with immature and unstable guys all the time. Just because a guy has "game" doesn't make him more fit for a relationship than a more reserved man with less experience or problems opening up. The only reason most women insist on the confident guy who "knows what he wants" is because he makes her feel wanted - something the other men wont do.
>>16993521
You just prove in this post that there are different types of power.
That actually makes sense. Consider gaming - one person in the team has power (usually) if he has the highest record - people want to follow him to become better themselves.
Its just being human really, why would you deliberately choose people/things which disempower you - if you hang around power, you are more likely to learn from them yourself how to accquire power and mabye be given power yourself. No big deal.
>>16993529
>A person who must use force to achieve something with others can't be said to be that powerful interpersonally. Maybe physically, but not interpersonally.
Are you retarded?
Please God sink this thread.
>>16993548
I don't like power. It's scary and burdensome, and people that seek it look like supervillains to me.
>>16993534
Even then it's entirely about looks which is within your control. There is no equivalent to the female criteria of things men have no control over: height, race, income, hairline, penis size
>>16993567
>bitch you need to learn how to read.
>>16993521
Bruh you should write your dissertation on this. Oh wait, neet...sorey I forgot.
>>16993491
Yes they do have a lot of power. On average (we're speaking in generalizations so semantics beware!) The power is usually even or close to it. Some guys will prefer the woman make the tough choices and sometimes the woman will prefer the man. As long as things aren't completely one sided it's usually fine. Plus, each party should have some amount of self respect.
The attitude that you will remain true to yourself and won't budge on things important to you is gone in most people. You can just bully most people into taking your side. It's rare to find a woman who, as most do, will prefer you take charge and make all the decisions but still remain true to themselves. It's a rare trait nowadays and a great one at that.
>>16993555
>Are you retarded?
Power to get someone to do something without force is actual interpersonal power.
You are retarded.
>>16993558
Power can be used in many ways.
Most people with power dont use it against others contrary to what the media would have you believe.
Forget about having power over people and things, just focus on having power over yourself (also called self-discipline).
If people like you and follow you in things, that is 100% their own decision and its not your fault.
All of us have some type of power and you can either use it destructively or constuctively.
It doesnt seem to me that you are a person who would use power for evil if you worry about this - usuallu the people who use power for evil arent concerned with how they use their power.
>>16993548
>Its just being human really, why would you deliberately choose people/things which disempower you - if you hang around power, you are more likely to learn from them yourself how to accquire power and mabye be given power yourself. No big deal.
But people have to give you that power. You can't take power without support (e.g. power of yourself is vested in others' belief in your power).
>>16993604
and power to get someone to drive where you want is traffic cop power. we can invent all kinds of arbitrary sub-types of power, does not mean that there is any real difference between them.
>>16993103
>ranier wolfcastle doing standup.jpg
>>16993608
>All of us have some type of power and you can either use it destructively or constructively.
>>16993619
And you can run that traffic cop over. Wheres all his power then?
This is the point. Hitler didnt automatically have power, which is why he was able to take control of Germany. He was GRANTED power by people who chose to believe in his power.
Power of individuals doesn't come from inside. It comes from others choosing to grant them power. Hitler was a failed art student. What power did he have? He had people start believing his message.
If no one believed his message, he would've just been a powerless hobo.
Power is granted by others.
>>16993648
I like where this thread is going. Hope its still up in a couple of hours so I can reply back (have to go back to work now)
>>16993534
Women actually believe this
>>16993665
The upshot is that power is an illusion which is granted substance by others.
If I go into a bar, and I've become well liked, and that makes girls more interested in me, I have power to get things I want from them. Yet I am made by others. It is THEIR opinions, their judgement, which makes me powerful in this situation, and grants me the ability to exert said 'power' for my own wishes.
This whole fucking thread, omg. I love sitting through these adv shitfests because it's a window into a world I have no understanding of. It's almost hilarious how much you westerners suck.
See I'm Muslim, raised in the US, never dated or had any part of this sexual liberation crap.
>all women are whores!
>stop choosing bad women!
>good girls don't exist!
>all men are pigs
>stop choosing bad men!
>good men don't exist!
That's all this is, round and round.
What the hell do you even want from each other? What do you honestly expect? Because all I see are directionless people who are vaguely angry at the opposite sex about... something.
Seriously, I'm courting a few women for marriage right now. I see guys every day upset that they're still virgins at my age, and I'm proud of it because it means I have the right to a virgin wife. You think I even bring up what my hobbies are or ask about her interests? I don't give a shit. I don't care what she looks like, she doesn't eat American poison so she's not fat so that's good enough. Is she moderately religious and does she want to raise kids the same way I think kids should be raised? That's all that matters. The point of marriage is to have kids, raising kids is a hard fucking job, and I'm looking for a quality coworker not some hot slut that gives me butterflies in my stomach. Trust and love comes when we swap virginities.
All I can do is laugh while the west falls apart, you idiots did this to yourselves, both men and women.
>>16993680
It's easy to believe true things. Not that you'd know anything about that...
>>16993573
what?
>>16993693
I honestly wanting to argue with this but couldn't.
You have made some valid points, and the west will now fix itself all thanks to you. You have corrected our mistakes and we will no longer fall.
Thank you.
PS, read the art of war sometimes - there is talk of "never interrupting your enemy when they make a mistake".
>>16993697
Women who believe they were raped after regretting sex hold onto that as truth despite it just being deranged mentality.
A quick look through any mental ward will show that truth alone does not make the world.
>>16993693
>I have the right to a virgin wife
kik
I'm a wizard and I'm beyond giving a shit about 'virginity'
>>16993693
>the point of marriage is to have kids, raising kids is a hard fucking job, and I'm looking for a quality coworker not some hot slut that gives me butterflies in my stomach.
As much as I don't want to agree, I do
bad parents.
The first generation where the majority of people were raised by divorced parents, the first generation to have adhd meds instead of playing football with dad, the first generation to have therapy instead of a spanking.
With no fathers to teach them how to be men and absentee mothers who let them do whatever they want (instead of learning to compromise) of course men have no idea what to do by the time they reach 20.
>>16992911
what is an FA?
>>16993697
Don't forget every woman is raped six billion times every day boyim
>>16994725
>The first generation where the majority of people were raised by divorced parents, the first generation to have adhd meds instead of playing football with dad, the first generation to have therapy instead of a spanking.
White boy problems.
>>16994740
Forever alone
I feel like if you can't get laid by 21, you should get neutered. That way you won't have the desires that you can't act upon and be happy instead of turning into a bitter misogynist.
>>16995227
>Implying that a lack of sex is what fuels 100% of misogynists.
Yeah, nothin' to do with how they are treated by the opposite sex.
Shit, half of the MRA and MGTOW movements are men who have gotten laid and ended up screwed unfairly in divorce courts.
I mean shit, just look at how women treat men these days, it's like we're not even people to them.
But yeah, we're the hateful ones.
Asshat.
Oh, and by the way, assholes like you blaming it all on "can't get laid" are the ones who perpetuate the sexist bullshit about men "just wanting one thing". Asshole.
Lastly, neutering people because they are undesirable is kinda fascist man... Shit makes you come off like a nazi or some shit.
>>16995236
Look at how aggressive you are. Would you be as aggressive if it wasn't for the testosterone? Neutering would help you my friend. There is a better way of living.
>>16995244
I'll admit, sometimes aggression is caused by testosterone.
Other times it's because someone else is an asshole.
To wholly blame any aggression on testosterone is stupid. Look at how aggressive some women can be.
A lack of balls would not prevent me from getting pissed off about people wanting a force some fascist eugenic plot.
Sometimes an asshole is an asshole, testosterone or not they're gonna make people aggressive
>>16995255
What's the number one reason why FAs and such hate their life? They don't have sex and gfs. Neutering them would eliminate those desires and therefore make their life better.
Think about them, instead of yourself.
